During the last year, the judicial inspection of the Ministry of Justice found symbolic irregularities in only two courts - the Basic Court in Danilovgrad and Herceg Novi (HN), but there were no sanctions for that either.
This can be seen from the records of inspections carried out in courts and prosecutor's offices for the past year, which the Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) and the Center for Civil Liberties (CEGAS) received from the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).
Judicial inspection should play a key role in ensuring efficiency, legality and transparency, but also in preventing and sanctioning irregularities in the work of the judiciary in Montenegro. The records of the judicial inspectors, however, still look almost identical and there is no substantial control over the management and work of the courts and prosecutor's offices.
Almost all courts and prosecutor's offices were controlled by surveillance, but as in previous years, almost nothing objectionable was found. There were no irregularities in the prosecutor's offices.
CIN-CG previously wrote that the judicial inspection, from 2016 to 2021, found only three irregularities in the work of prosecutor's offices, and those were also symbolic.
Judicial inspectors, despite numerous warnings, do not have unannounced inspections, nor do they have enough extraordinary supervision.
The European Commission (EC) report for 2023 notes that further improvements and effective implementation of judicial oversight, including more thorough and unannounced inspections, are needed.
"The capacities of the Ministry in this area still require significant strengthening," the EC report says.
A similar assessment is repeated in the latest report on the rule of law for 2024 on Montenegro, which was prepared by the EC.
Director of CEGAS Marija Popović Kalezić confirms that in the last few years, the European Commission's reports have recognized the need for reform in the area of responsibility of the judicial system, with an emphasis on strengthening the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to carry out judicial inspection.
"The judicial inspection needs to be trained for efficient work, because it is not allowed to follow the well-trodden paths of formalism," she emphasizes.
Lawyer Boris Marić for CIN-CG explains that in practice, judicial inspectors feel inferior to court presidents, and that their controls are mostly reduced to formal visits to meet the norm.
"At the same time, a narrative is being created that they have nothing to ask for in the courts and that they can control 'only' the registry office, and there is nothing there. It is a dangerous method of the bureau mafia, which in this way renders the essential control of the judicial administration meaningless and impossible," Marić points out.
Two technical irregularities last year, the plan was not followed
The supervision from 2023 established that the president of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi did not adopt a work plan for 2022, that registers are not kept in the court in accordance with court rules of procedure, and that the cases are not properly archived. The President of the Court was ordered to correct the irregularities. However, there is no penalty for mistakes. In Danilovgrad, it was established that the Basic Court does not keep a controller of fines, costs of criminal proceedings and confiscation of property benefits in accordance with the rules of procedure. No one will answer for that either.
The MoJ confirms for CIN-CG that last year judicial inspectors found irregularities of a technical nature at two primary courts, which, they say, were immediately rectified after they were pointed out.
Speaking about why they do not punish for established omissions, they state that they act in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Courts and the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, which do not leave them such an option.
However, the Law on Inspection Supervision leaves the possibility of fines from 500 to 15 euros.
The fact that the judicial inspection does not determine any sanctions in case of irregularities, Marić explains, is due to the lack of capacity and the established practice of non-punishment for omissions, as well as the vagueness of the norms.
The Ministry of Justice did not fully comply with the monitoring plan for 2023, so the control was not carried out in the Basic Prosecutor's Office in Bar and the Court for Misdemeanors in Budva.
The MoJ explains that due to the volume of work and the insufficient number of hired judicial inspectors, they were unable to comply with the plan, "considering that only two judicial inspectors for most of the year supervised more than 150 subjects, as was foreseen in the annual supervision plans".
No one was monitoring the depot
Even after the case of breaking through the tunnel and ransacking the depot in the High Court in Podgorica, the Inspection for Archives did not carry out any supervision, while the Judicial Inspection also does not play any role.
The court depot was raided in September of last year, and half a year later an inventory of the court archives was made, when it was determined that several pistols, rifles, drugs, mobile phones were missing...
The Inspection for Archives had only four inspections of courts and prosecutor's offices in the last year, and it controlled the Basic Court in Nikšić and Bar and the basic prosecutor's offices in those cities. They pointed out the defects, but there is no information whether these defects have been removed. In 2022, it had no supervision over judicial institutions in Montenegro.
According to the Ministry of Justice, that department, through the judicial inspection, supervises compliance with the provisions of the Rules of Court, which regulate the filing of cases in courts, and when conducting supervision, given the large number of cases in courts, it uses a method of random selection to control whether the filing of reviewed cases has been carried out. in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The president of the High Court in Podgorica has jurisdiction over the court depot, but also the head of the court administration, from which it follows that in this case there was work for the judicial inspection. Marić points out that in the case of the depot, where there was a dilemma about jurisdiction, it was possible to engage more inspection bodies, such as the inspection for archival activities.
"We will have to learn that there are no untouchable individuals or institutions and that everyone must be controlled. Until then, it should not be surprising why parts of Montenegrin institutions are still under the influence of informal and political centers of power," says Marić.
An extraordinary inspection established that everything is fine with the Vučković lawsuit
Only one extraordinary inspection was carried out in the Administrative Court in June 2023. It was established that there were no omissions in the case filed by the Acting President of the Supreme Court. Vesne Vučković, although there were doubts that her case was decided out of order in the Administrative Court.
These doubts were forwarded to the prosecution and the Judicial Council (SS) by the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK), which claimed that the public interest had been violated and that corruption was suspected, during the Administrative Court's decision regarding Vučković's candidacy for Supreme Court President. KAS considered that there is a basis for the disciplinary responsibility of the judges of the Administrative Court, because allegedly the judges of that court took up the Vučković case out of order.
CIN-CG previously wrote that the judicial inspection from 2016 to 2022 did not carry out any extraordinary supervision in prosecutor's offices.
The epilogue of the extraordinary supervision of the judicial inspection at the end of 2022 is not yet known, when the inspection in the High Court in Podgorica, which judges the most serious crimes, concluded that the random distribution of cases was called into question by the introduction of the practice that the president of the court decides on the composition of the judicial panel. These inspection records ended up in the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT), but the prosecution does not announce itself, nor does it want to answer whether it has initiated the procedure of checking these suspicions.
The MoJ explains that they have done everything that was within their competence, that the Ministry submitted the minutes of the extraordinary supervision to the Acting President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, who determined that there are no conditions for the possible initiation of the procedure to determine the responsibility of the President of the High Court in Podgorica before the Judicial advice.
According to the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, extraordinary inspection supervision in the prosecutor's office is determined by the Minister of Justice, on the proposal of the supreme state prosecutor, the head of the immediately higher state prosecutor's office or the president of the Prosecutor's Council. The decision on extraordinary inspection supervision is delivered to the state prosecutor's office where the supervision is carried out, no later than the day before the supervision begins. Also, according to the Law on Courts, extraordinary inspection supervision in the court is determined by the Minister of Justice, on the proposal of the President of the Supreme Court, the President of the immediately higher court or the President of the Judicial Council. The decision on extraordinary inspection supervision is also submitted to the court no later than the day before the supervision begins.
Outdated IT system, but no irregularities
Last year, the judicial inspection did not find any irregularities in the operation of the IT system of the so-called courts. PRIS, although the reliability of statistical data in the judiciary is a problem that, even after more than a decade, has not been resolved. PRIS is considered an outdated system, which is subject to abuse, especially when assigning cases to judges.
In the courts for misdemeanors, there is no information system yet, so the distribution of cases is done manually.
The Ministry of Justice states that the existing PRIS is being upgraded, which, as they say, will have a positive effect on the supervision in the part related to the system of random distribution of cases in the courts, in addition to strengthening personnel capacities.
According to the opinions of experts, the Government, in cooperation with the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, should determine why PRIS is not functional, how much money was invested and which funds were withheld in that project.
"Judicial inspection is someone who should also deal with this issue. Of course, other authorities must also be involved, because only with a multidisciplinary approach and targeted supervision can the branches of corrupt schemes be broken, which are evident in every story about the IT needs of the state administration, as well as connections with the judiciary and other social entities," explains Marić.
There are currently only two inspectors working in the Judicial Inspection, according to claims from the Ministry of Justice. They state that at the end of 2023, a special Directorate for judicial supervision was established, in which currently, out of 10 systematized positions, only three are filled, one of whom is on sick leave.
"In order to strengthen personnel capacities, a public advertisement has been announced, which is currently underway, to fill the position of one judicial inspector in the Directorate for Judicial Supervision in the courts and the State Prosecutor's Office. In the coming period, in order to improve the work of the judicial inspection, the Ministry will strive to fill vacant positions in the Directorate for Judicial Supervision", the Ministry of Justice stated.
This Directorate is divided into two parts, one that monitors the courts and prosecutor's offices, and the other the work of notaries, public bailiffs, interpreters and the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution
According to experts' analyses, the number of inspectors is important, but the most important thing is that the judicial inspectors are strengthened in terms of personnel, that their competences are precisely defined with clear procedures, obligations and measures that are taken depending on the findings of the supervision.
The judicial inspection should be a powerful mechanism for controlling the work of the entire judiciary, says Popović Kalezić, and as such it would introduce positive changes in the judiciary and the prosecutor's office: "It is clear that the number of judicial inspectors, no matter how important, does not bring essential changes in the exercising supervision over the judiciary and prosecution".
The capacities of the judicial inspection were not developed in accordance with the needs, adds Marić, especially the needs of implementing reforms in the judiciary, but also in the state administration: "As a result, we have a judicial inspection with weak capacities and the logical question is whether, after more than ten years of pretending, these capacities building, it is necessary to think about the purpose of existence of the judicial inspection".
Neither the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office nor the higher prosecutor's offices for years did not carry out internal supervision of the majority of prosecutors' offices, and now that they have finally started to perform their legal duty, they do not give the public insight into who they controlled and what they found.
Popović Kalezić notes that the internal supervision of prosecutor's offices is another important form of control over the work of the entire prosecutor's organization, and that he is concerned about the non-transparency of the prosecutor's organization in not making this data available for inspection.
"CEGAS, in the interest and right of the public to know, will use the right to appeal, which it will send to the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and Free Access to Information, believing that by anonymizing the document, an answer to these requests could be given, as in earlier periods," Popović Kalezić points out.
According to the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro, the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office analyzes the work of other state prosecutor's offices at least once a year.
And while Montenegro is facing a serious problem of lack of promptness and ineffectiveness of the courts, the institutions in charge of supervising the judiciary, judging by the results, are not yet equipped to more effectively control the judicial administration, and punish those who do not work properly.
Increase supervision over notaries and bailiffs
In the Judiciary Development Strategy 2024-2027. writes that the mechanism of inspection supervision by the Ministry of Justice continues to face two problems: the lack of extraordinary inspection supervision and the lack of human resources.
"The lack of capacity of the judicial inspectorate affected the efficiency of its work and the number of inspections carried out".
However, the Strategy emphasizes the need for increased supervision, both by chambers and judicial inspections, over notaries and bailiffs, while the prosecution and courts are not mentioned.
"The number of controlled notarial records in the observed period is 431, which represents about one percent of the total number of notarial records made in that period, so a more comprehensive insight into the work of the notary service is needed. A prerequisite for this is the filling of vacant judicial inspector positions in the Directorate for Supervision of the Ministry of Justice," the Strategy reads.
Bonus video:
