Porodični zakon u očima Ustavnog suda

Abstract

Ustavni sud Srbije bio je pozvan da u razdoblju od devet godina (2007– 2016) oceni ustavnost pet odredaba Porodičnog zakona i ni u jednom slučaju nije utvrdio njihovu neustavnost. Najpre, Ustavni sud je odbio predlog za utvrđivanje neustavnosti odredbe Porodičnog zakona koja vanbračnu zajednicu definiše kao trajniju zajednicu života žene i muškarca. Imajući u vidu da je ustavnom odredbom vanbračna zajednica izjednačena sa brakom – koji je Ustavom upravo definisan kao zajednica života muškarca i žene – Ustavni sud je ocenio da je osporena odredba Porodičnog zakona saglasna sa navedenom odredbom Ustava. Potom, Ustavni sud je potvrdio ustavnost odredbe Porodičnog zakona o obavezi roditelja da izdržavaju svoju punoletnu decu koja su nesposobna za rad i nemaju dovoljno sredstava za izdržavanje. Veoma važnu odluku doneo je Ustavni sud i u vezi sa zaštitom od nasilja u porodici. Naime, inicijativa za ocenu ustavnosti odredbe Porodičnog zakona o određivanju mere iseljenja nasilnika iz stana bila je odbačena. Ustavni sud je potvrdio da se u ovom slučaju ne radi o ograničenju prava svojine, već o privremenom ograničavanju načina korišćenja imovine, koje je Ustavom dozvoljeno, a radi zaštite fizičkog i psihičkog integriteta žrtve porodičnog nasilja, a time i radi zaštite javnog interesa. Najzad, Ustavni sud je ocenio da dve osporene prelazne odredbe Porodičnog zakona nemaju retroaktivno dejstvo, budući da ne nameću primenu Porodičnog zakona na one pravne odnose koji su nastali i okončani su pre početka njegove primene, već samo na one koji su nastali ranije i još uvek traju.

The Constitutional Court of Serbia was called upon to assess the constitutionality of five provisions of the Family Act in the period of nine years (2007–2016) and, in no case, determined their unconstitutionality. Firstly, the Constitutional Court rejected the proposal to establish the unconstitutionality of the Family Act provision that defines the unmarried cohabitation as a lasting community of life of a man and a woman. Bearing in mind that by the constitutional provision itself the unmarried cohabitation shall be equal with marriage – which the Constitution has just defined as the community of life of a man and a woman – the Constitutional Court assessed that the disputed provision of the Family Act was in conformity with the aforementioned provision of the Serbian Constitution. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutionality of the provision of the Family Act on the obligation of parents to support their adult children who are incapable of work and do not have sufficient means of subsistence. The next very important decision made by the Constitutional Court was in relation to the protection against domestic violence. Namely, the initiative for assessment of the constitutionality of the provision of the Family Act on determining the measure for temporary eviction of the perpetrator from family apartment was dismissed. The Constitutional Court confirmed that in this case it was not a restriction of the property rights, but a temporary restriction of the manner of using the property which is permitted by the Constitution in order to protect the physical and psychological integrity of the victim of domestic violence, and thus also for the public interest protection. Finally, the Constitutional Court assessed that the two disputed transitional provisions of the Family Act do not have a retroactive effect, since they do not impose the Family Act application to those legal relationships that arose and were completed before the beginning of its implementation, but only to those that were created earlier and still last.