All judges of the Court of Appeal of Montenegro, as well as almost the entire administration, filed a complaint with the Judicial Council, requesting that this body take a position and initiate legal mechanisms due to, as they stated, the long-term inappropriate behavior and manner of work of the president of that court. Mirjana Popovic.
The judges stated in the letter that, if the Judicial Council does not assume constitutional jurisdiction, they will be forced to take "all legally prescribed options."
The Judicial Council received the complaint on Monday, after which they asked President Popović for an urgent statement by 13 p.m. yesterday, which she did.
In a letter, which was made public at the Judicial Council session, the President of the Court of Appeal wrote, among other things, that she was "surprised, taken aback and shocked" by the allegations of her colleagues from the court, which she has headed since April 2024.
Popović also wrote that in two years of leading the Court of Appeals, she "did not feel that there were any damaged interpersonal relationships"...
The complaint from all judges of the Court of Appeal and a large part of the administration about Popović's work methods and alleged inappropriate behavior came after the court's panel on Saturday accepted the allegations from the Special State Prosecutor's Office's appeal to reverse the decision of the High Court and send the former head of the judicial branch of government, Vesna Medenica, into custody.
The Judicial Council should determine whether there may be other motives behind the entire case, since the Court of Appeals has made completely different decisions than its colleagues from the Higher Court in Podgorica in several key cases of organized crime and high-level corruption, especially regarding decisions on detention for defendants in high-profile cases.
In addition, the Court of Appeal, led by Popović, confirmed that the evidence from the “Anom” application was legally valid, upholding the appeals of the SDT and overturning the contrary decisions of the President of the Higher Court. Zoran Radović.
After discussion, the members of the Judicial Council reached the position that the President of the Supreme Court Valentina Pavlicic Today, it is requesting a statement from the judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as the president of that court instance, and then determining whether there are elements to initiate disciplinary liability or perhaps a proposal to dismiss Popović.
President of the Judicial Council Radoje Korac He said in the introductory part of the discussion about this complaint that all judges signed it, and that only three from the administration did not do so.
The President of the Supreme Court explained that the Judicial Council also received another document from a former employee of the Court of Appeal, who moved to the Constitutional Court last year, who also made a series of accusations against the work and behavior of President Popović.
"The act clearly states that it is about arrogant behavior, as well as the sentences that were addressed to her. This is the first time that we have two acts, and we must treat this not at the level of personal, but institutional relations. We have the position of all judges and part of the administration and their disapproval of the behavior and management of the court by the president," Pavličić stated.
She emphasized that the Judicial Council must be determined.
"The law is clear here," said the first lady of the judicial branch of government.
Give details...
Member of the Judicial Council Miodrag Ilicković He was more reserved than his colleagues from the Council, so he immediately suggested that the judges of the Court of Appeal be asked for more detailed explanations, that is, to specify the allegations in the complaint, but he also added that he would not dwell too much on the act of the former employee of the Court of Appeal.
"She had time to make these accusations, not now that she is no longer on the Court of Appeal. This is an impressive number of signatures in the complaint. All judges and practically two-thirds of the employees, that is, the entire court, are not satisfied with the way the president communicates and manages. When the president of the Supreme Court addresses you with a specific letter, then it is up to you to submit one of the proposals to the Judicial Council for prompt further action on this matter," said Iličković.
Pavličić emphasized that their obligation and goal is to ensure the legal operations and work of the Court of Appeal and asked whether they can expect this based on the complaint they received.
"The Judicial Council cannot act faster than it has acted. We don't need to emphasize that the court must work. They must work, that is the most important thing," said Iličković.
And a member of the SS Drazen Medojević He said that "we are in danger of blocking an important court," adding that the Judicial Council must not allow this.
"We must not allow the court to be blocked. And let these allegations be checked to see if they are founded, that is, to determine any possible responsibility," said Medojević.
Pavličić explained that Article 126, paragraph 3 of the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges can be examined here.
"That's the only thing we can do at this moment. It can't be faster, it's important that we reacted quickly," said Korac.
During this hearing, a judge of the Court of Appeal recused himself from the decision. Predrag Tabas, who signed the complaint.
Open door, "vetting"...
At the session, the Judicial Council also discussed proposals submitted to them by the NGO Action for Human Rights, on which they should give their opinion in order to submit them to the working group of the Ministry of Justice, which is working on amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges.
Member of the SS Sanja Konatar She informed her colleagues that the Commission of that body had processed the proposals and informed the members about the content and explanations for any possible changes.
The Judicial Council accepted the proposal in Article 31 that the Annual Report should include a table showing the number of obsolete cases, as well as the reasons why this happened, but they did not accept the HRA initiative to make evaluation a condition for the election of the President of the Supreme Court.
Although during previous elections for the head of the judicial branch of government, there were multiple repetitions of the General Session of the Supreme Court judges, because they were unable to determine a two-thirds majority, the Judicial Council took the position that Article 35, which stipulates that the proposal should be determined by the total number of all Supreme Court judges, and not by those present as proposed, should not be changed.
The Judicial Council also broadly considered the possibility of "opening up the courts" by creating a limit or quota so that for every 15 judges in a court, one non-career judge would be employed.
"Our intention is to open up the court a little. This is our initiative and will benefit the Ministry of Justice as the processor," said Korac.
The SS rejected the proposal to amend Article 48, because they emphasized that they do not have the legal right to collect personal data regarding integrity when testing candidates for basic court judges.
The Judicial Council believes that it would be good to legally stipulate that disciplinary proceedings against a judge are not suspended if he or she has resigned in the meantime.
"There is a greater public interest in finding out whether someone has committed a disciplinary offense," Pavličić added.
The members of the SS also agreed in principle to retain the HRA proposal to add a new member, which would require the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption to "conduct an in-depth asset check of income and property reports for judges who have applied for promotion."
During the discussion of this proposal, members of the SS said that it could be a kind of "internal vetting"...
Judges of the Special Department requested not to be evaluated
Judges of the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica addressed the Judicial Council, requesting to be exempted from the benchmarking system, as established.
The judges explained that unattainable standards were set during the evaluation, as they work on complex, time-consuming cases, which is why they asked that they "not be evaluated at all."
"That's a bit of an unrealistic request. If a judge in that department has completed a case, then we will evaluate it through our work on that case. We cannot leave them out. In 2024, the Supreme Court adopted Guidelines for Handling Organized Crime and High Corruption Cases by British experts. But we don't want to apply anything that changes the work system. They don't adhere to that. There is no blocking of trials... Last year in February, we elected eight judges in the Special Department, and out of eight of them, we have adjudicated maybe two cases this year," said the President of the Supreme Court.
Pavličić announced that the Supreme Court judges, when they begin to oversee the work of the Special Department, will "fully adhere to these guidelines."
"Well, let the gentlemen protest when we start evaluating them," she emphasized.
They had some familiarity with the subject.
The first woman in the judicial branch of government had a sharp comment after today's postponement of the start of the main trial of the organized crime group of businessman Aleksandar Mijajović, because a member of the council requested exemption.
"Today I read news on the portal that the judge requested a disqualification at the main trial. That's for the assessment of whether she acted conscientiously in the case," Pavličić commented.
She explained that, while she was a judge, she always asked the president of the panel for the files before the start, so that she could familiarize herself with them.
"And today we have a council member seeking exemption from the parties," she said.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
