ZAGREB, April 23 (Hina) - Three Constitutional Court judges on Wednesday explained why they had voted against a ruling passed by the court annulling a decision by a former defence minister, Jozo Rados, to prohibit active military
personnel from publicly voicing their opinions. In an explanation of the opposing votes, published in Wednesday's National Gazette, judges Jasna Omejec, Agata Racan and Smiljko Sokol say that "there was no legal foundation for the annulment of (Rados's) decision".
ZAGREB, April 23 (Hina) - Three Constitutional Court judges on
Wednesday explained why they had voted against a ruling passed by
the court annulling a decision by a former defence minister, Jozo
Rados, to prohibit active military personnel from publicly voicing
their opinions. In an explanation of the opposing votes, published
in Wednesday's National Gazette, judges Jasna Omejec, Agata Racan
and Smiljko Sokol say that "there was no legal foundation for the
annulment of (Rados's) decision". #L#
On April 9 the Constitutional Court made a ruling quashing Rados's
decision with a majority vote, i.e. 10 for and three against.
Most judges at the time backed the view of rapporteur judge Emilija
Rajic that Rados's decision to disallow active military personnel
from giving statements to the media without the defence minister's
consent should be removed from the legal order. It was the general
opinion that the decision was not founded on the law and that it
violated the basic human right to freedom of public speech.
The three judges who voted against the ruling believe that the court
should first have determined whether Rados's decision was at all in
effect, and if not, the court should have decided to suspend Rados's
motion pending an assessment on its constitutionality.
Criticising the legal procedure, Omejec, Racan and Sokol believe
that the contentious decision was injected into a provision of the
Law on Defence, according to which civil servants are prohibited
from any political activity, the holding of political rallies and
public addresses regarding relations and the situation in the
ministry inside military facilities and those of the Defence
Ministry, without the ministry's consent.
The provision restricts certain constitutional rights, but the
Constitution does allow their limitations only on the basis of the
law.
This provision is executed directly and subordinate legislation
for its implementation is neither envisaged, nor possible.
The three judges, thus, explain that the Constitutional Court
ruling to annul the former defence ministry's decision has no
effect, "because it requires no interventions in the positive
Croatian legislation".
(hina) lml sb