Joomla 3.2 Template by Justhost Complaints
When law doesn’t rule
State capture of the judiciary, prosecution, police in Serbia
Political influence
on public enterprises and media
ALAC
Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres - ALAC
LTI
Local transparency index - LTI
Analysis of the risk of corruption in public - private partnership rules

Judgment on missing pensions and comment of the President of State

cekicAt the end of 2018, the Basic Court in Bačka Palanka made the first instance judgment ordering the Pension and Invalidity Fund to pay 478.556 dinars to a pensioner, as the difference between the corresponding and reduced amount of monthly pension for the period from 9.12.2015. until 31.12.2017.

As stated in this judgment, "according to the court's opinion, the defendant was obliged to issue a decision to reduce the pension with a remedy to all users whose pensions are reduced."

It is about one user whose pensions were not paid in full amount at the time of validity of the "Law on the temporary provisions for the administration of pension payments".

As Transparency Serbia warned at the time of the passing of this law, this special law which passed without a public debate, did not reduce the pensions in a legally valid way, but it stipulated that some of these incomes will not be paid.

This way, the Government, as the proposer and the National Assembly who adopted this law, temporarily secured fiscal stability, but at the same time created the basis for fiscal destabilization in the future, when pensioners whose incomes are not reduced in a legally valid way will realize their claims.

The Basic Court in BačkaPalankastood at this point. The decision determining the amount of the pension was not changed, the pensioner did not receive such an amended decision, and he was not given the opportunity to appeal against such a decision.

In the New Year's interview for the Espresso Portal, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić said, concerning this judgment: "... I'm waiting for something to happen. I'm waiting for something to be completed, then you'll be surprised who, how and why brought such a judgment. "

This statement is not "commenting on court decisions", which is forbidden by the codex adopted in the EU integration process for representatives of the executive and legislative authorities.

In fact, President did not comment on court decision, but insinuated that the decision was made by someone else, not by acting judges, and that the judgment was not issued on the grounds and based on the regulations that were stated in it, but from some other motive.

The only relevant "waiting for something to happen",could only be waitingfor criminal proceeding against the judge or someone under whose order he acted, for the crime "violation of the law by a judge", because of the abuse of his position to inflict damage on the PIO Fund or to bring benefitsto pensioners. And if there were such doubts, evidences or investigation, nobody outside of the competent Public Prosecutor’s office and investigative bodies should not have the right to know about that, until the indictment was filed. In the meantime, President’s statement can justifiably be considered as a kind of pressure on the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to decide on the appeal of the PIO Fund against the judgment of the Basic Court in Bačka Palanka and on other judges who deal with similar cases, but the High Judicial Council has not yet reacted about that.

News