Vladan Petrov: The first Brussels Agreement was constitutionally questionable, but necessary

The president of Serbia’s Constitutional Court, Vladan Petrov, declared that the first Brussels Agreement of 2013 was, “narrowly”, questionable from the standpoint of Serbia’s Constitution and constitutionality, as Danas reports, admitting that he himself had been among its first critics.

Petrov, in statements given to Radio Belgrade, said that today, from the perspective of the broader constitutional and state interest, he understands the “deep meaning” of the agreement: it “withstood the burden and the test of time”. He stressed that he is not speaking about its implementation, but about the importance of such an act at the moment it was reached.

He noted that Serbia signed that agreement with the European Union, not with Pristina — and that young people should remember that it is not an agreement between two equal parties. “The important lesson for the future: when you sign something important, you must pay attention to whom you sign it with, because the fact that someone appears as a guarantor or seems well-intentioned does not mean what was signed will also be implemented by the other party,” Petrov declared.

He said that at the time he had not been fully ready to understand the deep meaning of the Brussels Agreement; today, with the experience gained, he would say it was necessary to reach such an agreement at that time — “even just to stand, and perhaps, in more favorable geopolitical circumstances, to be finally realized”.

The first Brussels Agreement was reached in April 2013 with the mediation of EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, between Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dačić and Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaçi — a key step in Serbia’s EU accession negotiations. Kosovo declared independence in 2008; Serbia does not recognize it.