President of the Court of Appeal Mirjana Popović she said that she did not support the originally proposed changes to the law that would have extended the duration of detention until the first-instance verdict from three to five years, saying that the efficiency of the court in cases of organized crime would have to be ensured by increasing the number of judges and improving working conditions...
She also assessed that the Montenegrin judiciary is struggling with various problems that are not from yesterday, but which have led to an extremely low level of public trust in the work of the courts.
Speaking about the problem of missing personnel in all courts, she said that the law should be amended in order to ensure greater competition among candidates for judges:
"In such a way that the conditions for the selection of judges in all judicial instances would be changed, so that lawyers from other legal professions can apply for the position of judges".
In an interview with Vijest, she also announced that the council that is now acting in the case of the murder of police official Slavoljub Šćekić, is conducting searches continuously and that the case is in its final phase.
Since you were elected president of the Court of Appeal at the end of April of the current year, what are the priorities in your work?
When applying for the post of President of the Appellate Court of Montenegro, as required by law, I submitted my plan and program of work of this court for the next five years. In that plan, which is publicly available on the Appellate Court's website, the goals that I plan to achieve at the head of this court are described, in order to ensure efficient, timely, transparent and socially responsible work of this court. My priority is the efficient and up-to-date performance of the judicial function in this court, a high degree of transparency of the Court of Appeal of Montenegro, according to the requirements of international standards and good practices, as well as the organization of the work of the Judicial Practice Department in a way that would fully ensure the application of international standards in to that part. In order to achieve these priority goals, as well as other goals foreseen in my work program, I have clearly foreseen in the work plan and the closer activities to achieve them, and I am undertaking these activities in a big way, which, of course, I will continue.
Is there a shortage of judges in the Court of Appeal and how much?
The problem of lack of staff, which all courts in Montenegro face, was not bypassed by the Court of Appeal. Namely, due to fulfilling the conditions for exercising the right to an old-age pension only this year, the judicial function of four judges of this court ended. Since new judges have not been elected in the meantime, out of the prescribed number of judges, which for this court is 12 judges and the president of the court, only eight judges and me, as the president of the court, perform the judicial function in the Court of Appeal. In addition to judges, this court also lacks advisory staff, because of the 13 systematized positions of advisers, only six are filled, and we also have two clerical positions vacant, while the interest in the advertised positions to fill these positions is weak.
What is urgent and what problem needs to be solved? Missing judges, offices, courtrooms, etc.?
The Montenegrin judiciary is struggling with problems that, above all, are not from yesterday. These problems are numerous and varied, and they have in common that, unfortunately, they have led to an extremely low degree of public trust in the work of the courts, and I am afraid that the question of efficiency and promptness in the work of certain courts can also be raised as justified, and, with in this regard, respecting the right of the parties to a trial within a reasonable time. The problem of missing personnel in all courts, both judges and advisers, is evident, working conditions are bad, the spatial capacities available to the judiciary have long been exceeded. I believe that the law should be amended in order to ensure greater competition among candidates for judges, and in such a way as to change the conditions for the selection of judges in all judicial instances, so that lawyers from other legal professions can apply for the position of judge. Spatial, technical and administrative capacities of the judiciary must be strengthened and modernized, and this is without a doubt the responsibility of the state, that is, the executive power, which must provide modern and adequate conditions for the work of the courts.
How do you assess the work of the Court of Appeal in 2024 as a whole?
Considering that I have been at the head of this court for the last eight months of 2024, for now, as a whole, given the short time I have been leading this court, I am satisfied with its work. Since I have been at the head of this court, in terms of organization, numerous internal procedures have been introduced that regulate the work of the court, a lot of work has been done to increase transparency in the work, the organization of the work of the Judicial Practice Department has been improved, a lot has been done to establish regional and international cooperation, in accordance with the financial the working conditions were improved to the extent possible, and according to the available possibilities, activities were undertaken to strengthen the security of the employees and assets of this court. The annual work report will show the rate of promptness and efficiency in the work of the court and according to those indicators, within my legal powers, I will take adequate measures for the next year so that this segment will also be at the satisfactory level where it must be, uncompromisingly. I am satisfied with what I have done, for now, but certainly, it can and must always be better.
What are the results of the court's work? How many have been received in course work, and how many have been completed, and do you have "old courses"?
The report on the work of this court, which shows all the statistical data, including those to which your question refers, and concerning the number of received and completed cases, is drawn up at the end of the reporting year, more precisely on December 31, until and discharge processed items. Since that report is not yet finished, I would like to point out that at the beginning of 2025, immediately after the work report for 2024 is drawn up, we will present it to the public, to whom all statistical data on the work of this court will be available. In this direction, we will also organize a press conference where the results of the work of this court for the reporting year 2024 will be presented, and I will be pleased if you attend that conference. As for the so-called of 'old' cases and this court, like all other courts, has them in operation, there are not too many of them, and, I repeat, the annual report will show the exact number. Certainly, regardless of the number, those cases are a priority in the work of the judges of this court.
The length of detention cannot be used to predict a prison sentence
Recently, the proposal to amend the CPC was withdrawn, which would extend detention from three years to five years until the first-instance verdict is pronounced... However, could such an announcement of a change in the legal provisions contribute to the efficiency of court processes? What is your position regarding legal changes to the length of detention?
Of course, I accompanied the above-mentioned situation by proposing changes to the CPC in that direction.
I am of the opinion that the amendment of the provisions of Art. 179 paragraph 1 of the CPC, which prescribes that from the filing of the indictment to the passing of the first-instance verdict, detention can last for a maximum of three years, as it would now be prescribed that in that situation detention can last for 5 years, is not in accordance with the provisions of Art. 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, nor in accordance with our Constitution.
The rich practice of the European Court of Human Rights clearly indicates that the duration of detention cannot be used to predict a prison sentence, while the right of a defendant who is in custody to have his case investigated with particular speed, all of which imposes an obligation on the court to, in custody cases, no matter how complex they are, it acts with particular promptness and efficiency, because any contrary action by the court can lead to a violation of human rights.
The legislator has a difficult task to achieve a balance between effective protection of society and guaranteeing the personal freedoms of citizens who appear as defendants, and the executive power has its own responsibility. Specifically, I believe that better efficiency and promptness of the court in cases of organized crime and corruption could and should be provided by increasing the number of judges in that department, by improving working conditions in terms of adequate and sufficient spatial, technical and administrative capacities, which is the obligation of the executive power , as well as, after all those conditions are provided to judges for efficient and up-to-date work in those cases, with their increased responsibility for up-to-date action according to the convention criteria for the protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time.
The case of Šćekić's murder is in its final phase
The case before your court is the murder of police officer Slavoljub Šćekić. Next year, 2025, will be 20 years since his murder, and there is still no final verdict. When can we expect the end of the court proceedings and a verdict?
For the sake of proper and complete information to the public, I would like to clarify, in the briefest terms, that in that case, in the earlier stages of the procedure, a final judgment was passed, however, after the Constitutional Court annulled the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montenegro in this case, the procedure was returned to the beginning and the trial is now taking place before the Court of Appeal of Montenegro.
The panel of this court, which in the current composition of judges of the Court of Appeal, is acting in this case, holds hearings continuously and the case is in the final phase. Of course, the Montenegrin public, which rightly expresses interest in ending this decades-long procedure, will be adequately and timely informed about the outcome of the procedure.
Bonus video:
