The Association of Judges of Montenegro announced that it is becoming more and more common for judgments from parties who lose a court case to be commented on in an offensive manner on the media scene.
The goal, as assessed in the announcement, is to render meaningless the principle of the obligation of court decisions, which should serve judicial independence, but at the same time the realization of the rights established by the court decision.
The Association of Judges reacted to the statement of the coalition Za budućnost Zeta, which accused the judge of the Administrative Court, Veljko Vujović, that because of his "closeness" to Democratic Montenegro, he wrote the judgment that annulled the decision to dismiss the president of the Zeta Municipal Assembly, Luka Krstović.
"The Association of Judges of Montenegro, on the occasion of the statement of the coalition 'For the future of Zeta', in which it is stated that 'judgments are being written again in the headquarters of certain parties' and that the judgment of the Administrative Court of Montenegro, which annulled the Decision of the Zeta Council, which dismissed the president of the Council Zeta Luka Krstović 'obviously typed in the headquarters of Democratic Montenegro', indicates that the allegations presented are tendentious and designed to further undermine the independence of the judicial branch of government," states the statement signed by the Public Relations Commission of the Association of Judges of Montenegro.
They reminded public office holders of the importance of strengthening the standards of independence of the judiciary, as well as freedom of opinion and judicial conviction. They point out that an announcement such as that of the "For the Future of Zeta" coalition does not contribute to the strengthening of these principles.
"The tendentious statements that the decision was 'typed in the headquarters of Democratic Montenegro' are trying to cast a shadow on the legality and conscientiousness of the actions of not only one, but three judges who acted in this case. The question arises whether such an announcement would have followed if the decision had been different. In that situation, would it be considered important if one of the judges is a member of a politician's family? If the respondent authority really believed that there were circumstances for the judge's disqualification, why didn't he submit a request for disqualification? Especially considering that the judgment was passed after a public hearing, so the parties were familiar with the composition of the court panel".
DON'T MISS IT
The Association of Judges points to an increasingly frequent occurrence on the media scene of Montenegro that verdicts, from parties who lose a dispute before the court, are commented on in an offensive manner, with the aim of rendering meaningless the principle of the obligation of court decisions, which should serve judicial independence. but at the same time the realization of the rights established by the court decision.
"The Association of Judges emphasizes once again that the public, when it comes to the actions of the courts, can be manipulated very easily, due to the specificity of the relationships that are the subject of consideration by the judicial authorities, which is why it is very important that all segments of Montenegrin society make an active contribution to confirm that the rule rights is one of the key features of democracy. However, regardless of various types of pressure, tendentious comments on decisions of Montenegrin courts, difficult working conditions, Montenegrin judges will continue to make decisions impartially, in accordance with the Constitution, ratified international treaties, laws and their own interpretation factual situation, in which the Association of Judges of Montenegro will provide them with full support," concludes the announcement of the Association of Judges of Montenegro.
Bonus video:
