Long road to justice - Reform of judiciary in Montenegro
Long road to justice - Reform of judiciary in Montenegro

Author(s): Vladimir Vučković, Mira Popović, Siniša Gazivoda
Subject(s): Politics, Law, Constitution, Jurisprudence, Politics and law, EU-Accession / EU-DEvelopment, EU-Legislation
Published by: Centar za građansko obrazovanje (CGO)
Keywords: Montenegro; judiciary; reform; EU;
Summary/Abstract: After eight years of accession negotiations with the EU, the judiciary is positioned as one of the key obstacles and there are no indications in which manner and how quickly the situation in this area will improve. The Constitution prescribes that the Parliament elect the Supreme State Prosecutor and four members of the Judicial Council (from among eminent lawyers) by a 2/3 majority of votes of all MPs (55 MPs) in the first round of voting, and a three-thirds majority (49 MPs) in the second round. This majority remains unattainable for a long time period, which reflects on the ongoing interim state in the prosecution, and the questionable legitimacy and legality of the work of the current composition of the Judicial Council, some of whose members have long expired. Since October 2019, the head of the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office has been the Acting Supreme State Prosecutor, and out of 15 basic and high prosecutor’s offices, 11 of them are in the interim state, including those working for the largest number of citizens (Higher State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica and Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica). The problems in the judiciary are explicitly indicated by the European Commission, but this is not accompanied by a sense of responsibility in the judiciary itself, as evidenced, inter alia, by the repeatedly highlighted multiple, unconstitutional and illegal mandates of the President of the Supreme Court and many other courts. There are very high expectations regarding the judiciary, as the third branch of government, in addition to the legislative and executive branches in the ongoing process of negotiations with the European Union. This refers in particular to the obligations arising from Chapter 23, which, along with Chapter 24, represents the starting and ending point of Montenegro’s negotiations with the EU, but also of the overall reform processes in the country. However, the reluctance of decision-makers at the political level in Montenegro, but also lack of independence of the judiciary from political leaders and related impacts, along with the inconsistency of the EU in insisting on meeting the benchmarks that reform the judiciary has led to stagnation and in some respects regression in Montenegrin judicial reform. It remains to be seen whether the new parliamentary composition will have the capacity for dialogue to find a widely acceptable solution for the new Supreme State Prosecutor and for new members of the Judicial Council elected among eminent lawyers. It also remains to be seen whether the judiciary has well understood the previous messages from the EU and the burden that some of their leaders represent for the further Europeanization of Montenegro, i.e. whether some of them will withdraw and whether others will change the current approach to make justice attainable within the Montenegrin framework for all those seeking it through the judicial system. Montenegro’s path to the EU will significantly depend on the speed and quality of these processes, but also on the overall process of establishing a functional rule of law in the country.

• Details
• Contents