The situation in the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica significantly improved last year thanks to staff expansion - six new judges were elected, so there are now 14 judges and the court president, which has significantly facilitated daily proceedings and enabled better organization of work.
This was stated in an interview with "Vijesti" by the Deputy President of the Higher Court in Podgorica, Judge Vesna Kovačević, emphasizing that the change has enabled a more even distribution of cases and is already yielding visible results.
Before the expansion, the Special Department faced a historically high caseload per judge - each one handled an average of 25-30 special cases, with an additional 70-100 from other departments.
Kovačević explains that the new distribution of cases, whereby judges who have already acted do not take on new cases, ensures continuity and procedural stability.
“Judges who act in the Special Department do not receive new cases upon the arrival of new judges, while cases that have not been started, in accordance with the applicable rules, are assigned to newly elected judges. Cases that were started earlier remain in the work of judges who have already acted in them, which ensures continuity of work and procedural stability. Such a model of work organization has contributed to a more even distribution of workload, and is already yielding visible positive results. However, it is important to emphasize that most judges, in addition to special cases, also have additional departments, which means that they act in parallel in a large number of complex and regular cases. Such a work structure still represents a serious challenge and indicates the need for systemic solutions, in order to not only maintain the achieved results, but also further improve them, bearing in mind the fact that the number of cases in all departments is constantly increasing. This clearly shows that resolving at least one of the key systemic issues can have a visible and positive effect on the overall results of the court’s work.”
She assessed that the effective fight against organized crime, corruption and other serious forms of crime does not only involve personnel, but also normative and institutional prerequisites.
"When it comes to normative changes, amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code have not yet been adopted, although they have been recognized as necessary for further improving efficiency and adapting judicial practice to modern needs. Their absence means that courts continue to rely on existing procedural solutions, which to a certain extent make work in complex and extensive cases more difficult, and in this sense it can be said that their hands are tied until the necessary amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code are made, "which means that without modern and adapted procedural solutions, courts are limited in their ability to further speed up and improve procedures."
He adds that the issue of infrastructure remains open, that the construction of the Palace of Justice has been mentioned as a strategic goal for years, but without concrete progress, which is why judges continue to operate in difficult working conditions:
"Primarily due to inadequate technical and spatial capacities, which further complicates daily proceedings, especially in large and complex cases."
"At the same time, it is often emphasized in public that the dynamics of Montenegro's accession negotiations with the European Union, especially within Chapters 23 and 24, largely depends on the results of the work of the judiciary, and especially the Special Department. One gets the impression that the burden of these processes is often shifted exclusively to judges, while there is a lack of systemic support in terms of creating adequate conditions for their work.
Judges do not have mechanisms to influence other branches of government or organs of the system when it comes to improving working conditions because our role is strictly limited to applying the law and acting in specific cases.”
The judge also said that without improving infrastructural, technical and security conditions, it is difficult to expect full efficiency in work.
“...So progress in the work of the courts depends to a significant extent on the activities of the executive branch, that is, on the creation of normative and institutional assumptions that will enable the courts to more efficiently fulfill their constitutional role.
Judges will, as before, continue to work professionally and responsibly within the framework of existing regulations, but amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, adequate technical, personnel in terms of increasing the number of judicial advisors, and spatial capacities are a necessary prerequisite for substantially improving the efficiency of the actions of all judges of the High Court, and this means that true progress in this process requires broader institutional support and political will to finally resolve the problems that have been recognized for years.
Digitalization would also help.
The judge emphasized that modernizing court infrastructure, especially through improving digital case management systems, can significantly contribute to work efficiency:
"Modern technological solutions enable better organization of procedures, more rational use of time and resources, as well as easier coordination of all participants in the procedure. Digitalization affects not only speed, but also transparency and legal certainty, with full respect for the procedural rights of the parties. In cases that are extensive and complex, "As often the case under the jurisdiction of the Special Department, such tools represent an important support for judges in achieving efficient and high-quality trials. The current practice, in which minutes are still largely dictated, objectively slows down the course of the proceedings, prolongs the duration of the hearing and makes it difficult for all participants to concentrate on the essence of the evidentiary proceedings. The application of modern technologies, such as audio-visual recording of hearings, digital record-keeping and improved information systems, would enable judges to focus more on the management of the proceedings, the assessment of evidence and procedural issues, rather than on technical aspects."
Kovačević adds that expanding the number of courtrooms, changing the scheduling system, introducing specialized advisors... are necessary measures that represent precisely the steps that would positively impact the work of judges.
He adds, however, that despite the current inadequate working conditions, judges have overall demonstrated increased responsiveness, a high degree of professionalism and efficiency.
"This clearly confirms that judges, even in difficult circumstances, manage to meet the demands placed on them by the system. That is precisely why the implementation of these measures would have an even stronger effect, as the expertise and dedication of judges would be fully demonstrated. This would significantly improve the work of the Special Department, but also the work of the High Court in general, in the interest of a more efficient judiciary and greater legal security for citizens."
There is also a lack of advisors.
Judge Kovačević emphasizes that not all judges of the Special Department currently have judicial advisors, "although their role is foreseen and extremely important for efficient work."
“Unfortunately, interest in these positions is very low, which directly affects the workload of judges. Judicial advisors would provide significant professional support through drafting decisions, analyzing case law and legal issues, allowing judges to focus more on substantive decision-making and conducting proceedings. The absence of such support inevitably affects the dynamics of work and prolongs the duration of proceedings, especially in complex organized crime cases. For this reason, strengthening interest and creating conditions for engaging advisors is one of the key measures for improving the efficiency of the work of courts, without any interference with judicial independence.”
He also points out that in comparative practice, for example in Bosnia and Herzegovina, judges have two judicial advisors and one intern, who actively monitor trials, record evidence presented during the proceedings, and participate in drafting court decisions.
"Such a system represents significant professional and operational support for the judge and contributes to the efficiency of the procedure to a large extent. Unfortunately, we have a serious shortage of such personnel, as candidates are increasingly applying for vacancies for judicial advisors and trainees. Interest in these positions is declining, and one of the key reasons lies in the continuous public criticism, pressure and often inappropriate commentary on the work of courts and judges, which negatively affects the perception of the judicial profession as a whole. This is why young lawyers are increasingly opting for the legal profession or other, less exposed and easier professional engagements, so as not to be faced with the type of pressure and public targeting that judges go through today, which ultimately affects their private lives. I am not saying this only from personal experience, but also as someone who is actively involved in the training of trainees through the Education Center, where the change in the interests and professional aspirations of young lawyers is clearly visible."
She also emphasized that similar problems do not apply exclusively to the Special Department, but also to all judges of the High Court, who also work in very difficult conditions.
"They often share substandard offices, with limited spatial and technical capacities, and at the same time, they do not have adequate professional support from judicial advisors. Such working conditions additionally burden judges and affect the efficiency of proceedings, because a large part of their time is spent on administrative and technical tasks, instead of on substantive legal decision-making."
Decisions made in almost twice as many cases
Compared to 2024, the High Court can boast a large number of completed cases, said Kovačević, adding that the Special Department made decisions in more than 70 cases last year, which is almost double the number compared to previous years.
"In addition, the evidentiary proceedings have been completed in several cases of public interest, namely cases of high-level corruption and organized crime, and the publication of verdicts, which were scheduled for January, is awaited... According to statistics, the percentage of resolved cases in relation to the inflow at this time is 105,17 percent, which does not include cases that have been completed but whose decisions have not been drafted or published, which speaks best in favor of the efficient and professional conduct of the judges of the Special Department."
She explained that from the moment the judges transferred to the Special Department, it was necessary for a certain amount of time to pass before greater and more visible results in the number of completed cases could be expected:
"Because these are cases that are by their nature extremely complex and extensive, which requires a long and demanding process of proceedings before final decisions are made."
He also states that an additional challenge was the heavy workload on judges due to the number of cases:
"The judges of the Special Department, in extremely difficult working conditions, with a large influx of complex and demanding cases, have made significant and superhuman efforts to act efficiently, lawfully and impartially. Despite the personnel and organizational challenges, the cases were resolved within reasonable deadlines, with full respect for the rights of the parties and procedural guarantees, so that this year we are witnessing a significantly higher number of completed cases, which confirms that the effort, experience and continuity of work have yielded concrete results."
Kovačević says that even better results are expected in the year that has just begun.
"Primarily due to the increase in the number of judges and the fact that the newly elected judges have also quickly and efficiently joined the work, as they judge every day and actively participate in proceedings."
“It should be particularly noted that the transition from civil to criminal matters, and especially to the Special Department, is not easy at all, as it is the most demanding part of the judicial system. Despite this, the judges have demonstrated a high level of professionalism and ability to adapt and respond to these challenges. By reducing the number of cases per judge and appointing new judges, conditions have been created for more efficient and quality work, which has already been clearly reflected in the better results of the Special Department this year. This confirms that adequate staff support and a more even distribution of cases directly contribute to increased efficiency and the adoption of timely and lawful decisions.”
She emphasized that with such responsible and dedicated work, the judges made a concrete contribution to strengthening the rule of law and restoring citizens' trust in the judiciary, "confirming that even in the most demanding circumstances, it can and must be a pillar of legal certainty and institutional stability."
“It is important to note that the High Court today has between 30 and 50 scheduled trials per day, which clearly speaks to the intensity and volume of work that is carried out on a daily basis. Such a pace of work requires exceptional organization, dedication, and a high level of professionalism from all involved.”
She especially thanked the court security:
"Considering that on the same day we have a large number of defendants from UIKS, which continuously ensures the safe and smooth conduct of the trial, as well as the professional service of the Judicial Council, which provides the necessary logistical and administrative support to the work of the judges. Without their engagement and professional attitude towards their obligations, this volume of work would not be possible."
With international partners about the burden
Kovačević said that she had discussed the problem of the workload of judges in the Special Department with international partners, who were aware of the marked disproportion in the workload compared to the countries of the region.
"An important step forward has been made in this direction by increasing the number of judges in the Special Department, which represents a significant step towards relieving the burden on existing judges and improving work efficiency."
She emphasized that the recent visit of the TAIEX Peer Review mission was extremely important, as judges from EU member states had the opportunity to learn firsthand about the real working conditions of judges in the Special Department, the structure and complexity of cases, but also the workload, which is many times greater than comparable practice in the region and the EU.
“When it comes to the work of judges, the experts emphasized their strong commitment to the cases. At the systemic level, the challenges identified were insufficient physical protection of judges and the need to strengthen public trust in the work of the judiciary, which is the obligation not only of the judiciary, but also of all social actors, including politicians and the media. This position represents a significant confirmation of the work of the judges of the Special Department. I believe that the reports of such missions will play an important role in the further relationship of the EU towards Montenegro in the accession negotiations, especially within the framework of chapters 23 and 24, about which the Supreme Court has already informed the public.”
Kovačević also explains that it is important to emphasize that such missions can significantly influence the public's perception of the work of the courts, as the public often gets the impression that they are dependent on politics.
"The judges firmly deny this, and the results of the work of the Special Department clearly show that each case is approached conscientiously, objectively and in accordance with the law, regardless of its sensitivity or public interest. I believe that such direct insights from international partners will contribute to a more realistic view of the situation in the judiciary, but also further highlight the need to provide judges with adequate institutional, technical and security working conditions, so that the achieved results can be further improved."
She also explained that the court evaluates the indictment through legally prescribed procedural mechanisms, while the responsibility for its preparation lies solely with the prosecution.
“Such a clear division of jurisdiction constitutes the basis of the rule of law and guarantees the impartiality and legality of the proceedings.”
Bonus video:
