ZAGREB, Aug 10 (Hina) - The Croatian Constitutional Court has quashed a decision by the Bar Association (HOK) refusing to enrol in the Bar Register a lawyer from Osijek as well as a ruling by the Supreme Court confirming the HOK's
decision.
ZAGREB, Aug 10 (Hina) - The Croatian Constitutional Court has
quashed a decision by the Bar Association (HOK) refusing to enrol in
the Bar Register a lawyer from Osijek as well as a ruling by the
Supreme Court confirming the HOK's decision. #L#
The Constitutional Court's six-member panel in charge of
constitutional complaints has adopted the ruling unanimously. This
is the first ruling quashing a decision by the HOK.
The constitutional complaint against the HOK's 2001 decision and
the 2003 Supreme Court ruling confirming it was filed by a lawyer
from Osijek who requested to be enrolled in the Bar Register after
being removed from it in 1992.
The HOK rejected the request stating that the lawyer was unworthy of
practising law as during the aggression on Croatia he was absent
from Osijek for a longer period of time without a justified reason,
which was why he was removed from the Bar Register. This decision
was confirmed by the Supreme Court.
However, the Constitutional Court established that the HOK's
decision and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling violated a number
of constitutional rights guaranteeing the equality of all before
law, courts and bodies of state authorities and bodies with state
authorities, as well as the right to court evaluation of the
lawfulness of those bodies' acts, the right to work and freedom of
work, and the availability of every job to everyone under equal
conditions.
The Constitutional Court believes the fact that the lawyer had been
removed justifiably from the Bar Register already once cannot
justify his being considered unworthy of re-enrolment 11 years
later.
Under the Law on the Legal Profession, a person lacks the dignity to
practice law if he or she has been sentenced for a criminal act
against the Republic of Croatia, for a criminal act in violation of
his or her official office, for a criminal act committed for
personal gain or for any other criminal act committed out of a
dishonest motive or one that makes the person morally unworthy of
practising law. Such a person shall not have the right to be
enrolled in the list of attorneys for ten years after the served,
pardoned or expired punishment, and if the person has been fined,
five years from the day of the finality of the judgement. A person
put on probation shall not have the right to be enrolled during the
period of probation by virtue of a final decision.
The Constitutional Court has returned the case to the HOK to
reconsider it.
(hina) rml