The amendments to the Law on Judges and the Judicial Council, which the Parliament adopted recently, increased the possibility of Montenegro getting the President of the Supreme Court, the executive director of the Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS) said. Marija Popović Kalezić.
On Wednesday, the Judicial Council announced the ninth advertisement for the election of the President of the Supreme Court, and the application deadline is the next 15 days. That position has been vacant since the end of 2020, when she is the long-term president of that institution Vesna Medenica decided to leave office due to an unconstitutional third term. Since her departure, eight attempts to fill the most important position in the judiciary have failed, so the Supreme Court is in an acting state. From then until September 2021, she was acting President of the Supreme Court Stanka Vučinić, and since September 2021 he is in that position Vesna Vuckovic, although the Venice Commission recommended that the appointment of acting presidents of courts should be the exception rather than the rule.
The Constitution of Montenegro (Article 124 paragraph 3) stipulates that the President of the Supreme Court is elected and dismissed by the Judicial Council, on the proposal of the General Session of the Supreme Court.
The amendments to the Law on Judges and the Judicial Council, which were part of the package of laws required for Montenegro to receive from the EU the Report on the Assessment of the Fulfillment of the Provisional Benchmarks for Chapters 23 and 24 (IBAR), have expanded the circle of potential candidates for the President of the Supreme Court - so far they are only judges could apply for the advertisement, and at the General Session of the Supreme Court, each of the judges will now be able to select more candidates from the list of applicants - a maximum of three. Until now, it was possible to select only one candidate.
Popović Kalezić says that the non-election of the first person of the Supreme Court all this time should be of concern.
"Amendments to the law made it significantly easier to find candidates, and they gave the Judicial Council the opportunity to choose, but also the space to slowly strengthen itself and turn it into a kind of control and executive body of the judiciary. The possibility of reaching the candidates proposed by the General Session of the Supreme Court has increased, and the Judicial Council will now actually choose them," Popović Kalezić told "Vijesta".
He emphasizes, however, that despite certain changes, the reform of the judiciary is still in place.
The reform and strengthening of the independence of the Montenegrin judiciary is the main condition for Montenegro to close chapters 23 (judiciary and fundamental rights) and 24 (justice, freedom, security) in negotiations with the EU.
At the end of June, Montenegro received a positive Assessment Report on the fulfillment of temporary benchmarks (IBAR) for chapters 23 and 24, and the condition for this was the amendment of several laws in the field of justice, the fight against corruption and organized crime, as well as the filling of key positions in the judiciary.
In last year's report for Montenegro, the European Commission stated that the prolonged acting state in the Supreme Court led to "weak leadership and management, lack of strategic vision and weak planning, which affected the administration of justice and undermined the legitimacy of the highest judicial institution."
Two candidates responded to the previous eighth advertisement - a judge of the Supreme Court Ana Vuković and President of the Administrative Court Miodrag Pešić.
Vuković told "Vijesta" that she has not yet decided whether she will apply for the new ad.
The closest to getting the post of head of the judiciary was a former judge of the Supreme Court Miras Radovic, who in April 2021 was one vote short of the then convocation of the Judicial Council for Selection.
The candidate can be a lawyer, notary, law professor...
According to the public announcement, the candidate for the president of the Supreme Court must meet the conditions stipulated in Article 33 of the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges.
That article defines that a person who meets the general requirements for a judge and has work experience of at least 15 years as a judge or state prosecutor, or 20 years as a lawyer, notary, professor of legal sciences or in other legal jobs, can be elected as the president of the Supreme Court. Also, the person applying for the ad should "be characterized by professional impartiality, high professional and moral qualities", according to the Law.
The Judicial Council compiles a list of candidates who meet the requirements prescribed by law for the election of the President of the Supreme Court.
According to Article 35 of the law, the list of candidates is submitted to the General Session of the Supreme Court in order to conduct interviews with the registered candidates.
After the discussion, the General Session of the Supreme Court determines by secret ballot the proposal for the election of the President of the Supreme Court, in such a way that each of the judges of the Supreme Court can select a maximum of three candidates from the list. The proposal for the election of the President of the Supreme Court contains all candidates who received more than half of the votes of the total number of judges of the Supreme Court and must be explained.
If none of the registered candidates receives the required majority in the first round of voting, the vote will be repeated between the candidates who received more than a quarter of the votes of the total number of judges of the Supreme Court.
If none of the candidates receives the necessary majority in the repeated voting, the General Session of the Supreme Court will state that the proposal of the candidate for the President of the Supreme Court has not been determined and will inform the Judicial Council accordingly, the law states.
Bonus video:
