Montenegro still has a large number of cases in Strasbourg: No judgments for discrimination

The index of the number of cases from Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg decreased last year from 5,8 to 2,91, which, as the representative of our country before that court, Zoran Pažin, said, are optimistic data.

However, as he said at the session of the Committee for Human Rights and Freedoms, Montenegro is still classified as one of the member states with a high number of cases before that court, because the index refers to the inflow of objects in relation to 10.000 inhabitants of the member state.

"Looking at the numerical influx of cases from 269 in 2009 to 314 in 2011, in 2012 it dropped to 180 cases on an annual basis with a corresponding trend in 2013 that promises a further trend of reducing the number of cases before the European Court", he said. is Pazin.

In the information on the international legal proceedings against Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights, which was presented to the members of that parliamentary committee, it is stated that the work of the judicial and prosecutorial councils is hindered due to insufficient administrative capacity and budget resources, while corruption and conflict of interest are still are insufficiently monitored in the judiciary. The number of backlog cases has decreased by about 4 percent, and as the president of the board, Halil Duković, said, Montenegro is still the country with the largest number of basic courts, judges, prosecutors and administrative staff per capita in Europe.

The European Court of Human Rights made 377 court decisions related to Montenegro, of which 350 were rejected as clearly unfounded, inadmissible or deleted from the list, while in 27 cases the court found a violation of at least one of the convention rights to which in the petitions indicated.

Pažin said that the largest number of cases relate to various aspects of the fairness of the trial, the delay of court proceedings, that is, violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time and non-execution of court verdicts.

"The number of cases related to the right to an effective legal remedy is also significant. This raises the question of the effectiveness of a constitutional appeal within the legal order of Montenegro, which I believe is an important and pressing issue that the state must resolve. The Constitutional Court is a national legal mechanism which should serve to prevent and stop the flow of cases to the European Court," he said.

Pažin also presented the information that there were petitions related to discrimination, but so far the European Court has not accepted any of them, nor has there been a judgment stating discrimination. He also stated that Montenegro should expect cases related to prison issues, while as a recommendation he stated the need for a constitutional appeal to be an effective legal tool because the conditions for such a thing have not been met so far.

MP Snežana Jonica SNP said that the information they received from Pažin would be much more useful for the ministers of justice and human rights, Duško Marković and Suad Nuamnović, who, despite the invitation, did not appear at the session. She also remarked that Montenegro does not have a representative website before the European Court, as countries in the region have, pointing out that this is perhaps another indicator that the institution of the protector is not given enough attention. Dritan Abazović from the PCG believes that more citizens would initiate proceedings before the European Court, but they do not have the opportunity, nor are they informed about it. Predrag Sekulić, a member of the Delegation of the Assembly to the Parliament of the Council of Europe, stated that the number of judgments that were rejected shows that sometimes citizens demand much more than their rights.

When it comes to media freedom, judicial practice wanders

Pažin also said that a point of balance between freedom of expression and media freedoms on the one hand, and protection of rights and personal freedom on the other should be persistently and consistently sought.

"I noticed the inconsistency and wandering of court practice in the interpretation of the difference between the presentation of the values ​​of the courts in public appearances of individuals and groups in relation to the presentation of facts, which is especially important in determining responsibility, especially in proceedings for the violation of honor and reputation.

I believe that an additional problem in this area can be represented by an erased space that arose after the decriminalization of defamation. Bearing in mind that this reform move was not accompanied by any other move that is common in countries that have joined it," he added.

Gallery