Ustavom protiv homofobije

ustavnatuzbaMi, podnositelji/ce PRIJEDLOGA ocjene ustavnosti, Zagreb Pride, CroL i Centar za građansku hrabrost, ovim smo činom preuzeli svoju građansku odgovornost za očuvanje temeljnih vrijednosti naše republike, budući da se vlast, prije svega saborska većina, ponaša izvan ustavnog okvira.

Sabor je imao ustavnu, moralnu i svaku drugu odgovornost da se konzultira s Ustavnim sudom u trenutku kada je ugrožen ustavni poredak i temeljne vrednote ustava.

Ustavnom sudu predlažemo da:

1) Proglasi Odluku Sabora o raspisivanju državnog referenduma izglasane na 9. sjednici Hrvatskog sabora dana 8. studenog 2013. godine (Narodne novine 134/2013) neustavnom, a stoga i ništavnom;

2) Proglasi dosadašnju provedbu referendumskog postupka od strane inicijatora suprotnu Ustavu Republike Hrvatske;

3) Naloži Saboru da u što hitnijem roku ispuni svoju ustavnu obvezu iz čl. 87. st. 3 i st. 6. Ustava i donese provedbeni zakonski propis kojim će osigurati da je vršenje državne vlasti putem referendumskog odlučivanja sukladno temeljnim postavkama ustavnog poretka Republike.

Pet argumenata za zaustavljanje referenduma

Budući da je Hrvatski sabor izigrao svoju obvezu zaštite ustavnog poretka, njegovih temeljnih načela i vrijednosti te dopustio referendum koji na kocku stavlja temeljne vrednote na kojima počiva demokracija u Hrvatskoj, odlučili smo zaštitu zatražiti od Ustavnoga suda’, objasnili su predstavnici triju udruga svoju odluku da zatraže ocjenu Ustavnog suda o referendumu koji je pokrenula inicijativa U ime obitelji. Zagreb Pride, Crol i Centar za građansku hrabrost zajednički su potpisali 35 stranica tužbe Ustavnom sudu, koja je jučer predana na Markovu trgu.

Udruge ističu kako imaju pet ključnih argumenata zbog kojih tvrde da je Odluka Hrvatskog sabora o raspisivanju referenduma povodom zahtjeva udruge građana U ime obitelji protuustavna:

1. Ustav RH već sada zabranjuje raspisivanje ovakvog referenduma, i to temeljem članka 1 (RH vlast pripada narodu kao zajednici slobodnih i RAVNOPRAVNIH državljana), članka 3 (temeljene vrednote: rodna ravnopravnost i poštivanje prava čovjeka) i članka 14 (svatko u RH ima prava i slobode, neovisno o bilo kakvoj osobni).

2. Navedena temeljna prava čovjeka i ravnopravnost, jamči Ustav kao ustrojstvene osnove hrvatske demokracije i stoga ga nijedna vlast, kako predstavnička tako ni narodna inicijativa ne može opozvati. Naročito ne na ovaj način. Neizravno. Uvođenjem predložene odredbe u Ustav Republike izravno se negiraju njegova temeljna načela vrijednosti na kojima počiva. Samo izravnom promjenom temeljnog načela ravnopravnosti iz čl. 3. i čl. 14 Ustava, a time i promjenom same prirode ustavnog poretka RH, mogu se u Ustav uvoditi isključive odredbe ove vrste.

3. Hrvatski sabor nije ispunio svoju ustavnu obvezu iz čl. 87. i Ustavnog zakona o provedeni Ustava te donio provedbeni akt (Zakon o referendumu) unatoč upozorenjima – Ustavnoga suda i civilnoga društva. Naš prijedlog ukazuje na to da je na taj način Sabor prekršio ustavno načelo podjele odnosno uzajamne kontrole vlasti. Ustav obvezuje Sabor (čl. 4. Ustava) da kontrolira druge oblike državne vlasti – a referendum je oblik vršenja vlasti – kako ne bi izašle izvan ustavnih okvira.

4. Građani nisu imali ni dana prilike sveobuhvatno i objektivno se informirati o dalekosežnim posljedicama koje referendum ima za demokraciju i ravnopravnost građana u Hrvatskoj. Kao što je poznato, nije bilo nikakve javne rasprave o tim posljedicama. Zamislite parlamentarne izbore bez da se svim strankama pruži prilika da predstave svoje argumente tj. da samo jedna stranka ima priliku i novac širiti svoju propagandu. Bismo li tada mogli govoriti o demokraciji iako bismo imali glasovanje? U tom smislu Sabor je prije raspisivanja referenduma imao dužnost donijeti provedbeni zakonski akt kojim bi osigurao poštivanje ustavnog načela demokratskog vršenja vlasti putem referenduma po uzoru na parlamentarne izbore koji također predstavljaju vrstu izravnog vršenja vlasti građana i građanki.

Državnim referendumom ne mogu se mijenjati ustrojstvena načela ustavnog poretka, opozivati temeljne vrednote ili ograničavati zajamčena ljudska prava. ‘Premještanjem’ postojećih odredbi iz nižih pravnih akata u Ustav moguće je isključivo pod gore navedenim uvjetima.

5. Mi smo činom traženja mišljenja o ustavnosti Odluke Sabora o raspisivanju referenduma i samog referendumskog pitanja preuzeli građansku odgovornost za očuvanje temeljnih vrijednosti Republike budući da se vlast, prije svega saborska većina, podnijela neodgovorno i prestupila ustavnom postavljene okvira’, konstatiraju Zagreb Pride, Crol i Centar za građansku hrabrost.

“Naime, s obzirom na to da nije ispunio ustavnu obvezu i donio provedbeni zakonski akt, odnosno da nije preuzeo odgovornost i odbio raspisati referendum prije donošenja takvog akta, Hrvatski sabor imao je ustavnu, moralnu i svaku drugu odgovornost barem konzultirati se Ustavnim sudom u trenutku kada je referendumom u pitanje doveden ustrojstvena načela i temeljne vrednote Ustava koje Republiku ustrojavaju kao građansku demokratsku državu u kojoj vlast proizlazi i služi narodu kao zajednici slobodnih i ravnopravnih građana (čl. 1. Ustava)”, kažu podnositelji tužbe te apeliraju na Ustavni sud da “što prije donese privremenu mjeru kojom bi odgodio Odluku Sabora o raspisivanju državnog referenduma”, s obzirom na ‘financijski trošak i dalekosežne društvene posljedice’ referenduma.

SuS-1-2013 – PRIOPĆENJE SUDA

ustavni sud


NGOs question constitutionality of marriage referendum call

ustavnatuzbaThree nongovernmental organisations, Zagreb Pride, CroL and the Center of Civil Courage submitted on Tuesday a request to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the Croatian Parliament’s decision to call a referendum on the constitutional definition of marriage for December 1 and they also urged the court to suspend that decision.

We demand protection of the Constitution and consider that the Sabor has breached a number of constitutional provisions, a spokesman for the NGOs Zeljko Peratovic said, pointing out that the Sabor had not consulted with the Constitutional Court prior to calling the referendum.

“We have proposed that the Constitutional Court temporarily suspend the Sabor decision on the referendum until the court makes a decision and in the end we manage to save around 50 million kuna,” he said.

The NGOs propose that the national legislature’s decision to call the referendum on marriage be proclaimed unconstitutional and void and that procedures so far taken in relation to the civil initiative ‘In the Name of the Family’ be proclaimed in contradiction to the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court on Thursday adopted a joint statement on a referendum on the definition of marriage, saying that any possible amendment of the Constitution with a provision stipulating that marriage is a heterosexual union must not impact the development of legislative solutions for common law marriage and same-sex unions in line with the constitutional demand that everyone in Croatia is entitled to respect and the legal protection of their private and family lives as well as their human dignity.

The statement was forwarded to the State Election Commission and will be published in the National Gazette.

The Constitutional Court concluded that the holding of the marriage referendum revealed the many problems in Croatia’s referendum law and raised numerous legal questions that demanded answers, asking the legislator to ensure as soon as possible a stable normative framework for the referendum procedure that conformed with the standards of a democratic society.

Despite that, the Court starts from the fact that parliament adopted a decision on the referendum with a majority of 104 votes and that this decision must be honoured because it was adopted with more votes than the majority required to change the Constitution.

In such a situation, assessing if the referendum question and the requirements for holding it comply with the Constitution is unnecessary nor is it necessary to take any actions that would delay or ban the marriage referendum, the statement said.

Croatia legally recognises marriage, common law marriage and same-sex unions and Croatian legislation is aligned with European standards on marriage and family life, the statement said, adding that the Court had never received a motion to assess the conformity with the Constitution of Family Act provisions which regulate marriage as a heterosexual union or motions which brought into question the law on same-sex unions.

The Court therefore believes that the marriage referendum is not a referendum on the right to the respect for family life, which the Constitution guarantees to everyone, independently of sex or gender, and which is protected by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, the statement said.

It added that if the Court were to find that the referendum question – if people want the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman – did not comply with the Constitution, the Court would actually find that an article of the Family Act did not comply with the Constitution.

Nonetheless, the incorporation of legal institutes into the Constitution must not become systemic and exceptions must be justified by being, for example, deeply rooted in social and cultural traditions, as the European Court of Human Rights says about the institute of marriage, the statement said.

The Constitutional Court concluded today that there are no obstacles to holding the marriage referendum on December 1, rejecting three motions by individuals and associations that it rule if the referendum question complies with the Constitution or stop the referendum.

 

Marriage initiative welcomes referendum, NGOs disappointed

The “In the Name of the Family” initiative welcomed the Constitutional Court’s decision on Thursday that a marriage referendum can be held, while non-governmental organisations, whose request for the assessment of the constitutionality of the referendum’s question the Court said was unauthorised, said the decision opened the door to a clerical campaign.

Initiative representative Zeljka Markic congratulated the judges, saying they had resisted political and other pressure and confirmed that Croatian voters, when abiding by the law and the Constitution, had the right to decide how to organise their country. Speaking to Hina, she said the Court’s decision confirmed that everything related to the initiative was in line with the Constitution and that “it doesn’t violate human rights and that there is no discrimination here.” The initiative collected 740,000 signatures for a referendum whereby the Constitution would define marriage as a heterosexual union. The Kontra lesbian association said the Constitutional Court had failed to protect the human rights of a minority and that state institutions were hiding behind procedure, refusing to take a position on the referendum’s question as a human rights issue. Kontra representative Sanja Juras said LGBT persons in Croatia were already disenfranchised and treated as second class citizens and that the Constitutional Court should be a guardian of equality and human rights. She said the referendum represented the harassment of a minority and that it was aimed at permanently stopping progress in the protection of its human rights. Kontra called on citizens who cared about equality and human rights to go to the referendum and vote against, and do what state institutions had failed to do – defend human rights. The association called on citizens to take part in the “I vote against!” march on November 30, a day before the referendum. Zeljko Peratovic of the Center for Civil Courage said the Constitutional Court had acted illegally, just like parliament and the Administration Ministry, with regard to the referendum. “This procedure opens the door to a broad clerical campaign that will result in other demands for the restriction and prevention of the secular state,” he said. The GONG association said the Constitutional Court’s decision was expected but disappointing. However, its executive director Dragan Zelic said it was good that the Court had stated that marriage and family were not synonyms, that the referendum’s decision must not impact the development of the rights of common marriage and same-sex unions, and that everyone was entitled to the protection of their private and family lives and human dignity.

 

source: Gong

 
 

POVEZANI ČLANCI


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *