System crisis and breakdown of trust: Unprecedented case in the Court of Appeals exposes the crisis of the judiciary

Decision of the Judicial Council to unanimously dismiss the President of the Court of Appeal in an expedited procedure Mirjana Popović, with a previous complaint from almost the entire staff, raised serious questions about the state of the Montenegrin judiciary and its internal stability and conflicts of authority.

The situation in which all judges of a court rebel against the president has been unprecedented so far, but such an unprecedented case, as "Vijesti" interlocutors assess, indicates deep disruptions in its functioning and reinforces the impression that the judiciary does not inspire the trust that citizens and international partners expect.

The interlocutors also agree that this case should not be viewed as an isolated incident, but as a possible symptom of a deeper crisis in the judicial branch of government.

Attorney Veselin Radulović believes that although poor interpersonal relations may be a factor, it is difficult to believe that it is solely a question of collegial intolerance.

"There remains a suspicion that there were both political and personal motives, as tensions over authority often exist within the judicial system. The judges may have felt that formal channels were not sufficient to resolve problems, so a joint complaint was necessary to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation," he said.

The procedure for dismissing the President of the Court of Appeal, Radulović emphasized, clearly shows that the judicial system is not just a series of laws and procedures, but also a network of power and influence.

"Conflicts between the court president and his judges reveal how internal power dynamics can block work and influence decisions, and how difficult it is to maintain professional cohesion when there is a concentration of authority," the lawyer believes.

All judges and most of the administrative staff of the Court of Appeal addressed the Judicial Council in early March, pointing out the long-term, inappropriate behavior and manner of work of Mirjana Popović, who had headed the court since the end of April 2024.

The Judicial Council reacted promptly and tasked the President of the Supreme Court Valentina Pavličić to collect statements from all complainants, after which, on March 20, she submitted a proposal to dismiss Judge Popović from the position of president.

During two public hearings, numerous accusations were made against Popović, indicating possible long-standing disagreements, but also some trivialities that are unbecoming of holders of the highest judicial positions. During the hearing, Popović denied the allegations of her colleagues and claimed that she was targeted because she insisted that the detention case of the former President of the Supreme Court be concluded over the weekend. Vesne Medenica.

The unanimous conclusion of the Judicial Council was to dismiss Popović, after which she resigned from her judicial position.

"After assessing all the allegations, individually and together, it was concluded that the information presented leads to the conclusion that relations in that court are disrupted and that they will not be restored quickly. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that they will become more difficult and serious, which could reflect on negative results in the work of that court," concluded the President of the Judicial Council. Radoje Korac, after the body's decision was made public on Thursday.

Radulović states that the public session at which Popović's dismissal was discussed revealed that it was not just a matter of individual disagreements, but a serious lack of trust and relationships, which call into question the functioning of the court.

"To the public, all this seems as if the judiciary is not homogeneous and self-confident, which further undermines the already poor perception of the independence and credibility of the courts. The public has witnessed a rare and dramatic picture of the judiciary with systemic problems, political-personal tensions and weakening trust. Therefore, this case may be a symptom of a wider crisis, and not an isolated incident," believes lawyer Radulović.

And former member of the Prosecutorial Council, lawyer Filip Jovovic, He told "Vijesti" that the stability of the judicial system should be built on human resources, emphasizing that the trust of the community depends most on the reliability of these capacities.

"However, this event shows that this base has been seriously devastated, that there are problems with communication within the judiciary and that there is clearly a certain mutual suspicion among court leaders," Jovović said.

He believes that this situation shows that it is crucial that the criteria for the selection of both judges and prosecutors, as well as the heads of courts and prosecutors' offices, be much stricter than they are now.

It also warns of the need to review the criteria for selecting judicial office holders.

"Perhaps these criteria could eventually include a security check and psychological evaluation, so that based on this data, not only a candidate who possesses knowledge could be selected, but also a person who is morally and legally uncompromised and who has a psychological profile that gives the right to believe that he can perform these functions. In any case, the appearance of this case already shows the diagnosis of our justice system, which is unfortunately not favorable," concluded Jovović.

The Judicial Council is obliged to elect an acting president until the election of the head of the Court of Appeal for a full term, and one of the judges from that collective is elected for that position.

Motive and animosity

In the first days after the complaint was filed against her, the dismissed President of the Court of Appeal told "Vijesti" that possible motives were hidden within the court, but also outside it.

During the hearing, Mirjana Popović emphasized that the President of the Supreme Court, Valentina Pavličić, acted contrary to the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Council, which directly violated the principle of transparency and prevented her from adequately responding to the allegations of all complainants.

She also assessed that the factual situation in the motion for dismissal was established - unilaterally, by exclusively accepting the allegations of the complainants, without providing them with the opportunity to refute it with evidence, which she considers a gross violation of the right to a fair trial and protection of personal integrity.

She claimed that such moves by Pavličić were not accidental, nor were they the result of ignorance of norms, but rather the result of "more than obvious animosity" that she has been displaying over a long period of time.

The President of the Supreme Court, during the explanation of the proposal, noted that the expressed conflict in that court was not limited to individual cases, but was widespread and "estimated at almost 100 percent of the collective."