The obligation to submit an extract from the records of the personal record of an unemployed person is not the reason for the low response of candidates to the advertisement for trainees in the Montenegrin courts, the Supreme Court said.
Action for Human Rights (HRA) previously announced that only nine candidates applied to the advertisement for 41 trainee positions in Montenegrin courts and warned that this was an alarmingly low turnout.
DON'T MISS IT
They said that, according to their knowledge, candidates are also discouraged by the fact that the advertisement requires an extract from the records of the personal card of an unemployed person as a condition for considering the application.
In their response, the Supreme Court stated that the obligation to submit an extract from the records of an unemployed person's personal record, when applying for a public advertisement for the selection of interns in the courts, is not necessarily an elimination condition when evaluating the submitted documentation.
That condition, as they said, was foreseen in public advertisements since 2016, when the Law on trainees in courts and the state prosecutor's office and the bar exam came into force.
"In addition, the same requirement was applied exactly three years ago, when interns were selected whose employment relationship ended due to the expiration of the internship period (three years)," says the response.
It is stated that at that time a total of 41 candidates applied for the public advertisement for the selection of 53 candidates, and three years later only nine applied and all were selected.
"Consequently, the stated condition is not the cause of the low response of trainees, especially considering the legal regulations," said the Supreme Court.
They stated that the provision of Article 2 of the Law on interns in the courts and the State Prosecutor's Office and the bar exam stipulates that an intern is a person who establishes an employment relationship for the first time in the capacity of an intern in the courts, that is, the State Prosecutor's Office.
As the Supreme Court said, the broader concept of the definition of intern is provided for in the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees.
From that court, they said that the provisions of Article 80 of that law stipulate that an intern is a person who establishes an employment relationship in a state body for the first time at a certain level of educational qualification, for the purpose of training for independent performance of work.
According to them, when evaluating the application of a candidate for the selection of a registrar, the Extract from the records of the personal card of an unemployed person is valued as a guiding criterion for concluding whether a person has already established an employment relationship.
"If so, is the employment relationship in a state body, and if the employment relationship is based in a state body, is that employment relationship based in the courts, that is, in the State Prosecutor's Office," stated the Supreme Court.
As they said, in that case, the trainee candidate could not be selected (again) as a trainee, in accordance with the cited legal provisions, but this does not mean that during the duration of the public advertisement and submitting the application, the employed candidate must resign from his current job.
The Law on trainees in courts and the state prosecutor's office is, as the Supreme Court said, lex specialis and regulates the narrower concept of trainee, unlike the Law on civil servants and state employees.
"For this reason, among other things, in practice so far, more applications from candidates who were already employed in other state bodies, but not in the courts, have been accepted," says the response.
The Supreme Court clarified that only after making a decision on the selection of an intern, the candidate would be obliged to request the termination of employment in another state body, in order to obtain the conditions for establishing an employment relationship in a certain court.
"Such an interpretation was justified precisely because of the goal of choosing a larger number of interns and maintaining a continuous positive trend in the number of candidate applications, from the first public advertisement in 2017 to the advertisement in January of this year," the response states.
The Supreme Court emphasized that they have concluded memoranda on a wide scope of cooperation with all Law Faculties in Montenegro, but that despite this, students are not obviously motivated to apply for a public advertisement for the selection of interns in the courts.
They said that the possible reasons for the insufficient interest of students are the system of selecting apprentices, which is based on the previous passing of a professional exam after completing their studies, the required professional qualifications, the duration of the internship, as well as the mobility system of apprentices at the national level.
"Bearing in mind that during a certain period during practical training, trainees must spend at least one year in Podgorica, in order to be trained in the Administrative and Commercial Court, regardless of their place of residence and without any additional compensation for expenses," says the response.
In addition, as stated by the Supreme Court, it is necessary to draw attention to the already existing insufficient conditions for the work of judges and court administration in all courts, which can additionally affect the quality of training of trainees with mentor-judges.
"We also point to the general situation in the socio-political context, often based on inappropriate criticism of the judiciary," says the response.
This, as they said from the Supreme Court, had a high degree of probability and directly affected the motivation of young people to start a career in the judiciary after their studies.
"On the other hand, the Supreme Court expresses its support for further discussion that should contribute to establishing the exact reasons why candidates for practical training in the courts are not applying," the response states.
The Supreme Court appealed to the HRA to, before publishing such announcements, ask them for clarification or an answer, bearing in mind the importance that such information has as a priority for the interested public - potential candidates for interns in the courts.
"The Supreme Court remains open for communication and cooperation with all non-governmental organizations, regardless of whether it has concluded a memorandum of cooperation," said the court.
Bonus video:
