1. Prof. dr Petar Teofilović: Main Elements of the Concept of Autonomy

2. Autonomy = Self-governance - independent decision making in, organization and management of certain affairs; highest level of decentralization after federal states. Vertical division of powers between different state levels; often a way to provide mechanisms for the protection of identity and participation in public affairs to minority groups Classical theory: key difference between state and autonomous units: the latter have no sovereignty (as a necessary element of a statehood) – Issue: what are sovereign functions? (defence; int’l trade, int’l relations; - What about taxes, legislation/normative powers, judiciary, internal affairs, symbols...?)

3. May relate to certain part of state territory, groups, or functions – variations in respect of the way the autonomous units are incorporated in the state, the scope and type of their authorities, relations to central state... There is no autonomy without defined territory, some original authorities (including certain (limited) independent regulatory powers/ legislation), administrative functions (independent execution by autonomous units), property and finances. (Serbia: Constitution of 2006 formally declares autonomy of provinces, but the contents of such autonomy is not defined – thus, in today Serbia autonomy is a facade autonomy - indeterminate, unsettled and subject to interpretations)

4. Some important elements of autonomy: 1. Right of the citizens to autonomy 2. Unified, or different types of autonomy? 3. Way of creating autonomous units 4. Possibility to abolish or merge autonomous units 5. Territory 6. Authorities 7. Legal acts of autonomous units, and their status 8. Organs/Bodies of autonomous units 9. Financial autonomy and the property of autonomous units

5. 1. Is there a right of citizens to autonomy May be explicitly proclaimed by the constitution - not a human right, but as a constitutional right it must enjoy special protection. May be contained in a statute – must be protected by legal mechanisms, too. Open issue: If the constitution provides that existing autonomous units may be abolished, it essentially may be deemed a violation of a constitutional right to autonomy (case of Serbia)

6. 2. One or several types of autonomy? Normally, all APs of the same kind have the same status and same set of basic competences. However, generally no obstacles to establish different types of autonomy in one state (Spain, Russia).

7. Serbia – 1. wording of the constitution declares “substantial /essential autonomy” of Kosovo (with no further explication what such autonomy comprises) which is to be defined by a separate statute, and only “autonomy” to Vojvodina Main issue: If not substantial, is it autonomy at all? (it exists, or not) Besides, it implicitly states that Vojvodina, the only AP currently existing in Serbia, does not enjoy “substantial” but some kind of “unsubstantial”, defficient and formal autonomy (same shall apply to any new autonomous unit, if created) Creation of different types of autonomy, of which only one unit has unclear and vague guarantees of “substantial” autonomy

8. 2. Constitution contains a provision that relates only to the budget of AP of Vojvodina (The budget of Vojvodina is min. 7% of the total budget of Serbia ( Vojvodina contributes to the state budget between 32-40% annually) ; limits on its use: 3/7 of the provincial budget must be used to finance “capital costs” – no explanation what those costs are); No other AP (if created) may have such guarantee (unless the constitution is amended), so this provision establishes a unique status of one AP among all in Serbia in this respect. (In reality, this provision was violated each year since the adoption of the constitution (only futile political attempts to address the issue) – consequence: constant obstacle to the performance of provincial authorities by the central state; indirect informal limitation of the autonomy; impowerishment of Vojvodina

9. 3. If new autonomous units were created, a new separate law should be adopted for each of them According to Serbian constitution, there are currently 2 completely differently defined autonomous units ( “essential” autonomy reserved for one unit, and “non-essential” for the other), whereas potential new autonomous units would be unique in comparison to those two – each autonomous unit in Serbia is and will be a sui generis unit in respect of the scope and contents of autonomy

10. 3. Creation of autonomous units Important for their status; usually by the constitution (if created for the first time), or the constitution confirms their status if they existed earlier (continuity). Continuity important - without it the path to abolish autonomous units becomes easier. If created by an act of lower legal force the contents of autonomy is fragile and changeable, its status may be easily changed and restricted in every possible area (statutes may be amended or abolished much easier than constitution). Besides creation of autonomous units the constitution should also, at least in general terms, introduce mechanisms for the protection of autonomy.

11. Serbian constitution: “Autonomous provinces are autonomous territorial units created by the constitution.” This provision defines provinces as territorial units, but sais nothing about what is autonomy. This article states an untrue fact in respect of AP of Vojvodina: it had autonomous status even before it was included into Serbia in 1918., and also in Yugoslavia since 1945. Its highest level was in the period 1974-1989, and although reduced after 1989 it has never been abolished formally, so it existed in continuity until 2006; so, it may not be created again in 2006 by a new constitution (something that already exists cannot be created)

12. Such a fiction in the constitution enabled inserting another provision according to which the existing APs may be abolished, or merged with each other (first time in history – no previous constitution, not even the notorious Milosevic constitution of 1990 which formally reduced the previous high level of autonomy to mere declaration, allowed abolishment of APs!) This way the status of AP is additionally weakened - there is even no basic guarantee for the existence of AP (even if it has existed before) - Vojvodina is currently the only existing AP in Serbia, but although the constitution guarantees the right of citizens to autonomy there are no guarantees that the autonomy shall survive.

13. 5. Territory of AP Basic precondition to territorial autonomy: defined territory where autonomous powers apply. Generally, territory of an autonomous unit is defined by the constitution, as well as rules and procedures for any kind of change of territory. If the territory is defined by a statute, it undermines one of the foundations of autonomy – statutes may be changed easier than constitutions, and so the territory of an autonomous unit may be reduced. Serbia: Territory of Vojvodina unspecified and changeable – not defined by the constitution, but it states that the territory of AP shall be regulated by statute. Current Serbian Law on Territorial organization states that the territory of Vojvodina consists of territories of 45 local units enumerated in the Law. It is possible to change (reduce) the territory of AP by simple amendments to this law (by adding or removing territories of certain local communities from the list of those that make the AP, e.g. adding local units from Vojvodina to the city of Belgrade, which is not a part of Vojvodina but a territorial unit with a special status – so those parts of the AP no longer make its territory).

14. 6. Competences of autonomous units One of the key elements of autonomy Criteria for the distribution of competences between autonomous units and central state vary. One possible criterion: principle of subsidiarity (each level of state power should have competences that are best exercised by that level) Original (exclusive) or delegated (may be removed) Competences or at least some of them (original ones) should be enumerated by the constitution; if defined by a statute, no guarantees – easy to change/abolish them

15. Competences may be defined by constitution as: - Exclusive ones of the central state, and exclusive ones of autonomous units - Exclusive competences of autonomous units, all the rest are central state competences - Exclusive central competences, some exclusive autonomous c. in certain areas; others to be enumerated by statute(s) – less certainty - Exclusive central c., no autonomous (only areas, to be defined by statute(s) – case of Serbia (formal) - Units may choose to perform autonomously some competences in certain areas, or to leave their execution to the central state (Spain - high level) Possibility of concurrent competences / mechanisms to distribute them

16. Serbia: In general terms, APs have competences which may be fully exercised within the AP (issues of provincial importance), which are not explicitly vested to the central state. The constitution does not state any issue of provincial importance - issues of state i.e. provincial importance are defined by statutes. Constitution only enumerates the areas of social life in which AP may have competences under those circumstances; practically, competences of APs must be defined by each concrete statute that regulates the areas in which AP may have competences under the constitution. Thus the scope of provincial competences may be altered (reduced) with every amendment to any of those statutes

17. Even if an issue is of provincial importance, AP may have competences only if it is not explicitly enumerated as an issue of exclusive state competence in some other article of the constitution (this norm enables further reduction of APs competences by amendments to the article of the constitution which defines exclusive state competences.) The constitution does not enumerate even one original competence of APs. Consequently, the scope of provincial competences may be changed even with every new statute or amendments to existing ones that regulate any of the areas where APs may have competences. APs competences must always be explicitly enumerated in a statute, (in practice the state parliament regularly „forgets” to include provincial competences in new statutes related to those areas)

18. Even those competences of autonomous units that are explicitly enumerated are either restricted by some other constitutional norm(s), or no mechanisms for their efficient and effective exercise is foreseen in the constitution (right of autonomous units to autonomously regulate their organs, institutions and symbols; the duty to take care of the exercise of human rights on its territory is not supported by any concrete competence necessary for that task (APs have no police, prosecutors, judiciary...) Conclusion: In Serbia APs have almost no predefined competences, while those that may be given to APs by a statute may be easily taken away – thus, the status of APs in this respect is indetermined, subject to arbitrary interpretations, and there are no guarantees that even the issues of provincial importance shall be within APs competences.

19. 7. Legal acts of APs and their status The highest ranking provincial act (its Statute), which defines the organization of the AP, its symbols, organs and their competences has only the status of a by-law even though it regulates important constitutional matter. Because of its importance it should have a higher rank in the hierarchy of legal acts (e.g. the rank of a constitutional law which is above “simple” laws, or at least a rank of a regular law). APs assemblies may not adopt statutes, but only by- laws, even in matters that under the law have the status of an issue of provincial importance – in practice it means that state statutes (which are of higher rank in the hierarchy) may indirectly completely regulate the issues that should be regulated by APs by-laws, or limit the APs competences in this respect

20. 8. Organs of autonomous units Autonomous units must have their own bodies for the execution of their competences, and should independently regulate the distribution of competences among them, their election, organization and procedures. Serbia: the constitution states that assembly is the highest ranking organ of autonomous units, thus limiting the scope of another provision which states that APs autonomously regulate their organs and their competences.

21. AP has no judiciary or constitutional court, the executive is limited to undefined issues in areas enumerated by the constitution (relative), while provincial ombudsman’s competences were severaly restricted by an article of a state statute on the Protector of Citizens. The (political) decision of the Constitutional court (2014) reduced even the scope of constitutional provisions related to APs competences in this respect (government of AP was found to be unconstitutional). Conclusion: Constitutional provision about AP’s autonomy in regulating their own organs and institutions and their competences is derogated by some other constitutional provisions or their interpretations – these matters are in most parts already indirectly regulated by the constitution or by state statutes.

22. 9. Financial autonomy and property of APs Autonomous units as an independent level and holder of certain state powers must have their own property (buildings, furniture, equipment, vehicles), and their own incomes (certain original resources to collect their own financial means, or apportionments in the state budget) in order to be able to exercise their competences. Without original incomes and financial independence, and some exclusive property APs remain only deconcentrated (not decentralized) branches of the state. Serbia: APs manage their property in accordance with state statutes. They finance their competences partly from original incomes the type and amount of which are set by statutes, and partly from the incomes of the state which are also set by statutes.

23. In respect of the AP of Vojvodina, the constitution explicitly states that its budget shall be at least 7% of the total state budget, providing that the AP has to use at least 3/7 of that amoung to finance the (undefined) „capital costs” Therefore, APs are restricted even in respect of the distribution and use of property and original incomes that are at its disposal. Therefore, APs are restricted even in respect of the distribution and use of property and original incomes that are at its disposal.

24. Conclusive remarks on the concept of autonomy in Serbia: The constitution of Serbia does not establish some particular type of autonomy for all APs that may emerge– each autonomous unit is a separate case. The constitution contains no guarantees of any fundamental element of autonomy (it does not recognize the continuity of existing AP; APs may be abolished; they do not have a defined territory, and have almost no original competences; they may adopt only by-laws, and have no autonomy in issues related to their property of incomes.

25. Thus, Serbian constitution only formally declares autonomy to its provinces, but in fact it restricts the autonomy in all important respects, or reduces it to a mere formality. There is practically no autonomy under the current constitution of Serbia – its scope and contents are undefined, they may be easily altered and reduced (by statutes), and there are no guarantees for any concrete autonomous competence. Thus, it is an issue that should be significantly altered and improved through the changes of the constitution.

26. 3. Nastanak autonomne pokrajine (AP) AP (pa i AP Vojvodina) su autonomne teritorijalne jedinice osnovane ustavom (čl. 182. st.1.). Formulacija ovog člana nije u skladu sa istorijskim činjenicama u odnosu na APV: autonomija Vojvodine postojala je i dok ona nije bila u sastavu Kraljevine SHS 1918. g., kao i u socijalističkoj Jugoslaviji od 1945., pa ne može biti osnovana ovim ustavom. Ako je APV “osnovana” 1945. i postojala u kontinuitetu do 2006. (formalno nikada nije bila ukinuta), ne može ponovo biti osnovana 2006.g.

27. 4. Osnivanje, ukidanje i spajanje AP Osim osnivanja novih AP, Ustav daje i mogućnost ukidanja ili spajanja postojećih. Takva mogućnost nije postojala u ustavu RS iz 1990. – Položaj AP oslabljen u odnosu na raniji jer ne postoji garancija da će postojeće AP opstati (uopšte, ili u slučaju spajanja – u prvobitnom obliku). Dakle, Ustav i pored prava građana na autonomiju ne jemči čak ni postojanje AP (ni onih koje već postoje kao takve).

28. 5. Teritorija AP Neodređena i promenljiva. Nije garantovana i definisana ustavom, već samo propisano da se ona utvrđuje zakonom (čl.182. st.4). Po sadašnjem Zakonu o teritorijalnoj organizaciji RS (čl.27) teritoriju AP čine teritorije 45 jedinica lokalnih samouprava nabrojanih u zakonu. Izmenama zakona je moguće menjati, pa i smanjiti, teritoriju AP, pripajanjem ili oduzimanjem od AP teritorije pojedinih jedinica lokalne samouprave (npr. pripajanjem jedinica lokalne samouprave na teritoriji Srema gradu Beogradu, čime one prestaju da budu deo teritorije AP).

29. 6. Nadležnosti AP AP su nadležne u pitanjima koja se, na svrsishodan način, mogu ostvarivati unutar AP, a u kojima nije nadležna RS; koja su pitanja od republičkog, a koja od pokrajinskog značaja određuje se zakonom (čl. 177) AP su nadležne u pitanjima koja se, na svrsishodan način, mogu ostvarivati unutar AP, a u kojima nije nadležna RS; koja su pitanja od republičkog, a koja od pokrajinskog značaja određuje se zakonom (čl. 177) Ustav ne navodi ni jedno konkretno pitanje od pokrajinskog značaja, niti daje kriterijume za utvrđivanje koja su pitanja od pokrajinskog značaja, već se to praktično mora definisati svakim pojedinim novim zakonom koji se odnosi na oblasti u kojima AP po Ustavu može imati nadležnosti (čl. 183)

30. Čak i kada se radi o pitanjima od pokrajinskog značaja, AP će biti nadležna za njih samo ako ona nisu propisana kao nadležnost RS (čl. 97) - ovaj deo norme omogućava dodatno sužavanje nadležnosti AP, koje su ionako postavljene sasvim relativno; njih je lako promeniti ili oduzeti od AP jednostavnim promenama zakona kojima se umesto pokrajinskih organa utvrđuje nadležnost republičkih i u pitanjima od pokrajinskog značaja.

31. Ustav ne propisuje gotovo nikakve konkretne nadležnosti AP; u čl. 183. nabrajaju se oblasti u kojima se, zakonom, mogu definisati pitanja od pokrajinskog značaja – međutim, tu nije navedena nijedna izvorna nadležnost AP. Dakle, prilikom donošenja bilo kog novog ili izmene važećeg zakona u nabrojanim oblastima mora se svaki put definisati i taksativno nabrojati da li AP ima kakve nadležnosti u toj oblasti (odn. da li postoje pitanja od pokrajinskog značaja koja neće biti u nadležnosti RS, jer samo u tim pitanjima bi se mogla uspostavljati nadležnost AP) – Teoretski moguće da AP nema ni jednu nadležnost u tim oblastima; u praksi moguće stalno menjanje nadležnosti AP izmenama zakona.

32. Čak su i izričito navedene nadležnosti AP sužene ili relativizovane drugim odredbama Ustava, ili ne postoje mehanizmi za njihovo efikasno i efektivno vršenje od strane AP: - Pravo na samostalno uređivanje organa AP - Obaveza staranja AP o ostvarivanju ljudskih i manjinskih prava u skladu sa zakonom, a AP nema ovlašćenja i organe za njihovu zaštitu i unapređenje (nema policiju, tužilaštva, redovne ni prekršajne sudove...) - Konkretne nadležnosti malobrojne (simboli, upravljanje pokrajinskom imovinom u skladu sa zakonom...)

33. Zaključak: AP gotovo da nema nikakve unapred definisane konkretne nadležnosti, a one koje joj mogu biti određene zakonom isto tako mogu biti i ukinute bez posebnih formalnih teškoća – i u ovom pogledu položaj AP je neodređen, podložan proizvoljnim tumačenjima, i nema ni minimalnih garancija da će AP biti nadležna čak i za uređivanje pitanja od značaja za AP.

34. 7. Akti AP i njihov status Statut AP, iako uređuje važnu ustavnu materiju, ima status podzakonskog akta (čl.195). Zbog značaja materije trebao bi da ima viši položaj u hijerarhiji pravnih akata, odn. da ima rang ustavnog zakona ili bar zakona. Skupština nema zakonodavnu, već normativnu nadležnost - ne donosi zakone, već samo podzakonske akte (odluke), čak i u materiji koja je zakonom utvrđena kao pitanje od pokrajinskog značaja – republičkim zakonima može se u potpunosti urediti materija koju bi formalno trebala da uređuje AP svojim odlukama, pa se republičkim zakonima akti AP mogu i obesnažiti.

35. 8. Pokrajinski organi Ustav izričito utvrđuje da AP samostalno, u skladu sa Ustavom i svojim statutom, propisuju uređenje i nadležnost svojih organa i javnih službi (čl.179), odn. da AP u skladu sa Ustavom i svojim statutom, uredjuju nadležnost, izbor, organizaciju i rad organa i službi koje osnivaju (čl. 183.). Međutim, Ustav (čl.180) utvrđuje i da je najviši organ AP Skupština, i tako obezvređuje odredbu o samostalnom uređenju organa. AP nema svoj pravosudni sistem, izvršna vlast je ograničena na neke oblasti, a Odlukom Ustavnog suda je i postojanje Vlade APV proglašeno neustavnim (skupštinski sistem)

36. Zaključak: Ustavna odredba o samostalnom propisivanju uređenja i nadležnosti organa i javnih službi AP je drugim odredbama ustava i njihovim tumačenjem faktički derogirana, jer su i jedno i drugo u najvećem delu već uređeni republičkim aktima.

37. 9. Finansijska autonomija i imovina AP AP upravljaju pokrajinskom imovinom u skladu sa zakonom (čl.183. st.5.). Za finansiranje svoje nadležnosti AP ima izvorne prihode čije se vrste i visina određuju zakonom, a zakonom se određuje i njihovo učešće u delu prihoda RS. Ustav propisuje i da budžet APV iznosi najmanje 7% u odnosu na budžet RS, s tim što se 3/7 od budžeta APV koristi za finansiranje kapitalnih rashoda (čl.184).

38. Dakle, i u pogledu raspolaganja imovinom i izvornim prihodima AP je ograničena. Ustav unapred utvrđuje i namenu većeg dela (3/7) budžeta AP. Ni u oblasti finansija i imovine se stoga ne može govoriti o postojanju prave autonomije po Ustavu RS.

39. Zaključna razmatranja Ustav RS ne uspostavlja neki koncept autonomije kao osnovni – svaka AP slučaj za sebe. Ustavom nisu uspostavljene garancije ni za jedan bitan element autonomnosti pokrajina – ne priznaje se kontinuitet autonomije, AP su “osnovane” ovim ustavom; one mogu biti i ukinute; nemaju definisanu teritoriju, i gotovo nemaju nikakve izvorne nadležnosti. Donose samo podzakonske akte, a ni u pitanjima vezanim za imovinu i finansije AP nemaju stvarnu autonomiju.

40. Ustav RS deklarativno garantuje autonomiju pokrajina, ali je faktički ograničava u svakom pogledu ili je svodi na puku formu. Ono što Ustav u jednom članu naizgled daje, u nekom drugom članu ograničava ili faktički oduzima od AP. Autonomija po sadašnjem ustavu RS praktično ne postoji – njen obim i sadržina su neodređeni, lako se mogu promeniti/suziti (zakonom), i nema nikakvih garancija minimuma nadležnosti. Stoga je to jedno od pitanja koje bi trebalo da bude drugačije rešeno novim ustavom RS čije se donošenje očekuje u dogledno vreme.