The President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Valentina Pavličić, sent a letter to representatives of the judicial and executive branches - Prime Minister Milojko Spajić, President of the Judicial Council Radoje Korac, and Minister of Justice Bojan Božović.
She stated in the letter that she considers the judges' dissatisfaction with their financial status and their demands for salary increases and improvements in overall working conditions to be justified and urgent to resolve.
It is also emphasized that she and all judges of the Supreme Court express a clear position that they do not support the implementation of precautionary measures in the form of postponing actions in court proceedings until the requirements are met, i.e. increasing judges' salaries, because such actions would be contrary to the rule of law and the purpose of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, for the following reasons.
We are quoting Pavličić's letter in its entirety:
"Within the framework of the open dialogue of the judicial authority, I take this opportunity to point out the latest developments in the field of judges' efforts to achieve an appropriate social and material status. In doing so, I would first like to emphasize that I truly consider the dissatisfaction of my fellow judges with their material status and their demands for an increase in salaries and improvement of overall working conditions (regarding the lack of courtrooms, work space, insufficient number of expert advisors and administrative staff) to be justified and urgent to resolve.
However, I consider the path and manner of implementing these requests (with the proposal of warning measures for temporary and permanent suspensions of work), which were communicated to the judicial community through specific, informative material, to be unconstructive and ineffective for the system of functioning of the state, the rule of law and human rights and fundamental freedoms, and especially negative for the reputation of the Montenegrin judiciary.
As is well known to all parties, Montenegro is obliged to enact a law that will (finally) The issue of judges' salaries should be adequately regulated, based on adopted international regulations and standards, as well as national legislation and strategic documents, which have been significantly amended precisely in order to fulfill international obligations and ensure a faster integration path for Montenegro into the European Union. The goal of these norms, and related positive obligations, is always the same - preserving the independence and autonomy of courts and judges. Along the way, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that judicial independence is not a privilege that is in the exclusive, personal interest of judges, but rather in the interest of the rule of law i respect for the human rights of citizens who seek protection of their rights before the courts. The adoption of a special law is also required by the specificities of the judicial function, which require strict separation from other branches of government, both in organizational and financial terms, and recognition of the importance and responsibility of the function performed by judges. on behalf of MontenegroUltimately, investing in the judiciary means investing in the future, the stability of the country and its economic and overall development.
In a letter sent to the representatives of the executive branch dated 11.02.2025, to which we still do not have a formal written response, I pointed out that the Government of Montenegro has not yet adopted the Proposal for a Law on Amendments to the Law on Salaries of Public Sector Employees and called for its adoption as soon as possible, especially in the part relating to the increase in the salaries of judicial office holders, in order to resolve the issue of the salaries of judicial office holders as soon as possible with an interim solution. I would also like to remind you that after the announcement by the judiciary in 2024 about the suspension of work, at working meetings and negotiations with the then representatives of the judiciary (the Judicial Council, the then Acting President of the Supreme Court and representatives of the Association of Judges), the Government gave an explicit and unambiguous promise to ensure the right of judges to adequate salaries in the manner previously stated, starting from 01.01.2025. Subsequently, a Working Group was formed with the task of drafting a special law, which will regulate the rights of judges related to their work, including the financial aspects of exercising their judicial function, which is in line with the Opinion of the Venice Commission from the previous year and international standards. I was informed by a Supreme Court judge-member of this Working Group that the sessions were not held continuously, but that the next session will be held on 02.04.2025.
Given the fact that the Working Group has not yet completed its work on drafting a special regulation - the Law on Salaries and Other Income of Holders of Judicial and Constitutional Court Offices, I assessed that there is a strong need for its creation. transitional solution to resolve the status of judges, constructively proposing that the Law on Amendments to the Law on Salaries of Public Sector Employees increase the salaries of judicial office holders by 30%, and in this regard, I once again urge the executive branch to make a decision regarding judicial office holders.
Negotiations between the judiciary and the executive, which will soon include the legislative branch, are ongoing. I would also like to point out that, starting with the submitted work program for the election of the President of the Supreme Court, in addition to initiatives on the normative front, I have undertaken a number of other activities so far, including legal diplomacy. Namely, the issue of increasing the salaries of judges, as well as other status issues, including pension rights, were at the top of the agenda of the meeting with the presidents of all courts in Montenegro (25.12.2024), the meeting with the Head of the European Union Delegation to Montenegro, Johan Satler (06.12.2024), the press conference at the Supreme Court (17.12.2024) and the meeting with the judge spokespersons (26.02.2025), the meeting with the Minister of Justice and judges at the Basic Court in Podgorica (29.01.2025), the session of the Committee on Political and Civil Rights in Geneva (03.03.2025), the session of the Subcommittee on Justice, Freedom and Security with representatives of the European Commission (18.03.2025), the meeting with the President of the European Court of Human Rights (25.03.2025), and the sessions of the Council for the Rule of Law and the Council for National security and public appearances in the media, and in this regard, there is a unanimous opinion that legal solutions to this situation must be found as soon as possible.
At the Session of Judges held today, the judges of the Supreme Court of Montenegro recognized the consensus of a certain number of judges at the level of all courts, who agree that the material position of judges is not adequate, and that it is necessary to provide the judicial authority with additional material and human resources. In this regard, the judges of the Supreme Court of Montenegro provide unanimous support for the achievement of the goals in terms of intensifying the work on the drafting of the Law on Salaries and Other Rights of Holders of Judicial and Constitutional Court Offices and ensuring optimal conditions for the work and performance of judicial functions and the final determination of the Draft, and subsequently the adoption of the Proposal of this Law by the Government.
However, the Supreme Court of Montenegro cannot express its support for the implementation of the goal that includes the preparation of the Draft Law on Amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges, which is a new measure that has not been the subject of institutional discussion so far. We would like to point out in particular that amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges cannot be prepared without consulting the European Commission and the Venice Commission, nor is there a need for amendments to this regulation given the fact that the Working Group needs to complete its work on the preparation of the Draft Law on Salaries and Other Remuneration of Holders of Judicial and Constitutional-Judicial Positions. We would like to remind you that an interim solution needs to be provided immediately by amending the Law on Salaries of Public Sector Employees, which already defines the salary coefficients, which is why we cannot additionally, in an unsystematic, unplanned and inexpedient manner, change the regulation that regulates, inter alia, organization and method of work of the Judicial Council, rights and duties, method of determining the termination of judicial office, disciplinary liability and dismissal of judges and other issues on which the Judicial Council decides.
Additionally, the President and all judges of the Supreme Court of Montenegro express a clear position that they do not support the implementation of precautionary measures in the form of postponing actions in court proceedings until the requirements are met, i.e. increasing judges' salaries, because such actions would be contrary to the rule of law and the purpose of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, for the following reasons.
In Montenegro, according to the Constitution of Montenegro and national legislation, it is not prescribed that judges can organize any warning measures - work stoppages, which in their actual form represent a strike. Namely, judges have taken an oath and are obliged to perform their function in accordance with the Constitution, the law and the rules that guarantee the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. The Constitution of Montenegro and the Law on Courts clearly define the independence of courts and judges, and any type of strike could be understood as threatening the functioning of the legal system and access to justice. However, judges can organize certain types of actions, or engage in initiatives, aimed at improving working conditions, but any work stoppage, as a form of protest activity, is not provided for by the national legal framework for judges.
Judges are the holders of judicial power, and their work is of essential importance for the rule of law and the functioning and security of the state, so any form of work stoppage, which postpones actions in court proceedings, could lead to a standstill in court processes, delays in decision-making and the violation of legal certainty. We also recall the international practice that in many countries, precisely for these reasons, judges are prohibited from carrying out work stoppages - they strike, because their position differs from other employees in the public sector. Judges are not in a classic employment relationship, but have a special status that implies independence and an obligation to continuously perform their duties. Instead of warning measures regarding work stoppages, judges in various countries use other methods of pressure, such as statements, protests or requests for improvement of working conditions through institutional mechanisms and dialogue between all three branches of government.
We take this opportunity to remind you of the application of principles that all judges should know. "the name of the right does not change the substance of the thing", which means that the name of certain activities or actions does not change the essence of the matter, but what is crucial is what is actually contained, not how something is formally designated. So in that sense, we believe that the warning measures of postponing actions in court proceedings, in their essence, mean a “strike”.
Therefore, the suspension of work, as a "postponement of actions in court proceedings", which, specifically due to the request for an increase in wages and material working conditions, puts the other party, i.e. citizens and the economy, in a position of certainty that damage will occur, represents a unilateral declaration of the will of a certain number of judges to introduce a suspension, which has no basis in the Constitution and national legislation, and specifically not in international standards.
Namely, international legal frameworks do not explicitly guarantee the right of judges to stop work - strike, and many international norms and recommendations even support limitations on this right in order to preserve the independence and continuity of the judiciary, as well as national security. According to the standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the right to strike is one of the fundamental workers' rights, but it is not absolute. The ILO allows states to limit or even prohibit strikes by certain categories of employees whose stoppage of work could jeopardize the essential functions of the state, including judges.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly held that states may restrict the right of judges to stop work – to strike, in order to preserve the independence of the judiciary and protect the rights of citizens to an efficient judicial system.
The Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) in its opinions (in particular Opinion No. 18 of 2015) stresses that judges should not take collective action that could jeopardise access to justice. However, it recognises the need for judges to express their dissatisfaction through institutional mechanisms, and in the specific case of a work stoppage “staying the proceedings” does not constitute this.
United Nations (UN) – The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Ethics emphasize that judges should maintain the integrity and independence of the judiciary, which can be undermined by a work stoppage - a strike.
Therefore, although international legal frameworks do not provide for an explicit prohibition, they allow states to limit the right of judges to suspend work - strike in order to protect the rule of law, the stability of the judicial system and national security. Instead of suspending work, other methods of expressing dissatisfaction and fighting for one's rights are recommended through public statements by judicial officials, dialogue with other branches of government, for the purpose of implementing institutional reforms related to a better position of judges, and thus the reputation of the judicial authority, to which the judges of the Supreme Court of Montenegro hereby point out to all stakeholders in this process.
Bearing in mind that in my capacity as the President of the Supreme Court, I advocate the principles of transparency in decision-making, communication and management of the work of the highest court in the country, I call on all stakeholders, on whose actions the resolution of these issues in a quality manner and for the benefit of the citizens of Montenegro depends, to remain within the institutional framework by applying the above-mentioned norms and standards and to continue actively undertaking initiatives for a professional and independent fight for a broader scope of rights for judges in Montenegro, within the already established dialogue between the judicial branch of government and the executive and legislative branches.
Only together and unitedly as the judicial branch of government can we achieve better conditions that guarantee the rule of law in Montenegro.
In this regard, I would like to remind you that dialogue and substantive communication with the competent authorities are still ongoing and I am convinced that on the path of a legal and legitimate struggle to fulfill the demands, all Montenegrin judges will have a reliable partner in the institutional form of the highest level - the Supreme Court of Montenegro.
Bonus video:
