An assessment of constitutionality and legality of general acts, or so-called normative review, is the basic competence of the Constitutional Court. When normative control is in question, it most often concerns subsequent review of constitutionality of laws, i.e. constitutionality and legality of all other regulation and general legal acts. Almost all general legal acts existing within the legal order are subject to review of their constitutionality and legality (except for the acts with the force of a constitution), and by way of exception, also those which are out of force may be subject to this review, but only on the condition that the procedure for an assessment of constitutionality is instituted within six months from the date they ceased to be in force.
Proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality of a general act are instituted on a proposal of an authorised proposer. Also, proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality may be instituted by the Constitutional Court, of its own motion, based on a decision reached by two-thirds of votes of all judges. The right to institute proceedings belongs only to the constitutionality designated subjects (authorised proposers), while the right to initiative belongs to any legal or natural person.
The Law on the Constitutional Court specifies also the obligatory elements of the proposal, i.e. the initiative for an assessment of constitutionality or legality of a general act, so that it has to include: name of the general act, designation of the provision, name and number of the official paper in which it has been published, grounds of the proposal, proposal or request concerning the outcome of the decision-making process, as well as other data of relevance for the assessment of constitutionality or legality. Absence of some of the stated elements renders the proposal incomplete and therefore inadequate for the Court's proceeding, and in case the proposer has not removed the deficiencies within a specified time, the proposal is dismissed. In case that the general act the constitutionality of which is disputed has not been published in the official gazette, a verified copy of this act is submitted with the proposal. Proceedings are considered instituted the moment the proposal is submitted to the Court, i.e. on the day when the ruling on the institution of the proceedings is made.
When an initiative is in question, and the Constitutional Court makes an assessment that there are grounds for instituting the proceedings, a ruling on the institution of proceedings is issued. The Constitutional Court may diverge from the rule of issuing a ruling on the institution of proceedings on the previously stated condition, but only in cases when constitutionality and legality of a general act are disputed by an initiative, except for the law and statute of an autonomous province or a local self-government unit, i.e. individual provisions of these acts which regulate a question on which the Constitutional Court had already taken its position or when, in the course of preliminary proceedings, the legal circumstances have been thoroughly established and the gathered data offer reliable grounds for its deciding; in this case, the Constitutional Court makes a decision without issuing a ruling on the institution of proceedings. If it finds that there are no grounds for the institution of proceedings, the Constitutional Court will not accept the initiative.
In proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality, the Constitutional Court is not limited to the request of an authorised proposer, i.e. initiator. This means that the Constitutional Court, also in cases when an authorised proposer, i.e. initiator has given up its proposal, i.e. initiative, may continue the proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality, if it finds that there are grounds for a continuation of proceedings.
In the course of proceedings, and at a request of the framer of the disputed general act, the Constitutional Court may, before the decision on its constitutionality and legality is made, suspend the proceedings and give an opportunity to the framer of the disputed general act to remove, within a specified time, the noticed unconstitutional or illegal elements. If within the specified time the unconstitutionality and illegality are not removed, the Constitutional Court will continue the proceedings.
If the framer of the disputed act adopts an act which changes or puts out of force the act disputed before the Constitutional Court, the Court shall request the authorised proposer, i.e. the initiator to, within a specified time, declare its position concerning whether its proposal, i.e. the initiative, still stands. If the proposer declares that its proposal will be withdrawn, i.e. that it gives up the initiative, or it does not declare its position within the specified time-frame, the Constitutional Court shall terminate the proceedings, unless it has found the grounds to continue the proceedings on its own.
In the course of proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality of general acts, the Constitutional Court may, until the final decision is reached, suspend enforcement of an individual act or action based on the general act the constitutionality or legality of which is being assessed, if this enforcement could cause irreparably detrimental consequences. This measure can last until the proceedings are finished at the longest, and can be shorter, if during the proceedings, the Constitutional Court makes an assessment that the reasons for its application (suspension), due to the changed circumstances, have ceased to exist; in that case, the Constitutional Court shall cancel the measure of suspension of enforcement of the individual act, i.e. action. The request for suspension of enforcement of an individual act, i.e. action shall be dismissed by the Constitutional Court when making the final decision.
The Constitutional Court shall suspend proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality of general acts in the following instances: 1) when, in the course of proceedings, the general acts have been brought into conformity with the Constitution or law, and the Constitutional Court has not made an assessment that due to the consequences of unconstitutionality or illegality a decision should be made because the consequences of unconstitutionality or illegality have not been removed; 2) when, in the course of proceedings, procedural presuppositions for conducting the proceedings have ceased to exist.
After the Constitutional Court has made a decision on the matter of constitutional dispute, the decision (obligatorily), i.e. ruling (only in certain instances) is published in „RS Official Gazette“, and the decision’s legal consequences take effect the moment it is published. Namely, when the Constitutional Court finds that a law, statute of an autonomous province or a local self-government unit, other general act or a collective contract is not compatible with the Constitution, generally recognized rules of international law and ratified international contracts, this law, statute of an autonomous province or a local self-government unit, other legal act or collective contract ceases to be in force with the date of publication of the Constitutional Court's decision in „RS Official Gazette“. The stated rule refers also to any other general act or collective contract which has been found incompatible with law, with an exception referring to a ratified international contract. A confirming decision may refer both to a general act as a whole and to its individual provisions. A Constitutional Court decision has the character of res iudicata and produces legal consequences in relation to all. Also, a confirming decision is not retroactive, but is applicable from its publication on.
When an assessment of constitutionality of individual provisions of a ratified international contract is in question, the Law confirms the rule according to which the provisions of a ratified international contract, which have been, by a Constitutional Court decision, found unconstitutional, cease to exist in the manner envisaged by said international contract and generally recognized rules of international law.
Laws and other general acts which have been found, by a Constitutional Court decision, not to be in conformity with the Constitution, generally recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law, may not be applied to the relationships that had come to exist before the date the Constitutional Court's decision is published, if before that date they have not been resolved by a final decision. Further, general acts adopted for the purpose of law-enforcement and other general acts which have been found, by a Constitutional Court decision, not to be in conformity with the Constitution, generally recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law, shall not be implemented from the date the Constitutional Court's decision is published, if it follows from the decision that these general acts are incompatible with the Constitution, generally recognized rules of international law, recognized international contracts or law.
Everyone whose right has been violated by a final individual act, adopted based on law or other general act, which has been found in a Constitutional Court’s decision not to be compatible with the Constitution, recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law, is entitled to request the competent body to change this individual act. A proposal for change may be submitted within six months from the date of the decision's publication in „RS Official Gazette“, if from the service of the individual act to the submission of the proposal for institution of proceedings no longer than two years passed. The stated deadlines are objective in nature and established for the purpose of securing the principle of legal certainty.
If it is found that by changing an individual act it is not possible to remove the consequences that have arisen due to the application of a general act which has been, in a Constitutional Court's decision, found not to be in conformity with the Constitution, recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law, the Constitutional Court may order that these consequences be removed by reverting to the previous situation, by compensating damage, or in another way. Here it should be mentioned that the Constitutional Court determines only the manner of the removal of consequences, without concretizing it.
In a situation in which, in proceedings before a court of general or special jurisdiction, the question of conformity with the Constitution of a law or other general act, recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law is raised, the court will suspend the proceedings and, as an authorised proposer, institute proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality or legality of this act before the Constitutional Court.
When in the course of proceedings a general act has ceased to be in force or has been brought in conformity with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court shall, as a rule, discontinue the proceedings. However, if it finds that the consequences of unconstitutionality and illegality of the general act made invalid have not been removed, the Constitutional Court may establish, in its decision, that the general act was not in conformity with the Constitution, recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law; this decision of the Constitutional Court has the same legal force as the decision which confirms that a general legal act (therefore, one which is in force, which exists within the legal order) is not in conformity with the Constitution, recognized rules of international law, ratified international contracts or law.
The previously stated rules of proceedings for an assessment of constitutionality and legal effect of Constitutional Court decisions, shall apply in proceedings for deciding in respect of conformity of laws and other general acts with generally recognized rules of international law and ratified international contracts.