The executive power should improve the material position of judges and provide additional spatial and technical conditions for the work of the courts, and the legislative power should adopt changes to the law, with the aim of removing barriers that affect the promptness of the courts, said the president of the Judicial Council, Radoje Korać.
Korać, in an interview with the MINA agency, said that the efficiency of Montenegrin courts should be increased, especially the number of criminal verdicts in cases of organized crime, high corruption and money laundering.
For the realization of that task, as he said, additional activities are needed, not only by the courts, but also by the legislative and executive authorities.
"The executive power should improve the material position of judges and provide additional spatial and technical conditions for the work of the courts," Korac said.
He pointed out that the legislative power should quickly adopt amendments to some laws, especially those that regulate the rules of court procedure, with the aim of removing barriers that affect the promptness of the courts.
As stated by Korać, the Judicial Council decided to change the Framework Rules on the number of judges and double the number of judges who will act in the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica, as well as to increase, for the time being, the number of professional associates by six more executors who will assist judges dealing with organized crime cases.
"We expect to fill the number of missing judges in almost all first-instance courts by the end of this year," said Korac, adding that a number of candidates for judges are already in training, and that new advertisements will follow.
Korać believes that the amendment of the law should open up the possibility for lawyers, notaries, and law professors to apply for the position of judges in the courts of first instance, i.e. that work experience for those courts is not only acquired in the courts and the state prosecutor's office.
He added that in the process of preparing the budget for this year, the Judicial Council requested an increase in funds for the work of the courts, not only for salaries, but also for the improvement of technical and spatial conditions for the work of judges.
Answering the question whether Montenegro has a good legislative framework that regulates issues of independence and impartiality of the judiciary, Korac said that the independence of the judiciary has been raised to the level of the constitutional norm.
"An independent and independent court has been proclaimed as a constitutional principle related to the judiciary," said Korać.
He reminded that the Constitution of Montenegro guarantees the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time before an independent and impartial court, as well as that the Law on Judicial Council and Judges and the Law on Courts stipulate that the judge judges independently, independently and impartially.
"The right to an independent and impartial court is also guaranteed by the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is also part of our legal order," Korać said.
The independence of the judiciary, he added, is a condition for making impartial decisions and effective protection of human rights.
According to Korac, complete independence of the judiciary is neither possible nor necessary.
"The judiciary is one of the three branches of government, and each of them complements and controls the other. But that's why judicial independence and impartiality is important and necessary when judging specific cases," Korac explained.
As he said, it is not a privilege of judges in their personal interest, but in the interest of citizens, who have the right to be judged by an independent and impartial judge.
Korac said that this independence is not absolute, but limited by the Constitution and laws.
The judge, as he pointed out, must remain independent from the influence of any authority and influence.
"Independence includes the absence of both external and internal influence from other judges, court presidents or council presidents. On the other hand, independence must not be a mask for possible abuses, incompetence and unscrupulous work," said Korac, stating that with independence comes responsibility.
He added that in expert legal circles, independence and responsibility are considered inseparable determinants of the judiciary.
Korac said that independence was proclaimed so that the courts would professionally, objectively and efficiently provide legal protection to citizens and legal entities, and that responsibility is a barrier to prevent independence from turning into arbitrariness.
Asked to what extent the influence of the legislative and/or executive power on the judiciary was noticeable in the previous period, he said that there were certain inappropriate statements by representatives of those two branches of government, which were reacted to by the Judicial Council, as well as the Association of Judges.
Similar statements, as Korac said, have happened before, and such behavior contributes to undermining the public's trust in the judiciary.
"There is no justice in the courts if they are exposed to political influences," Korać pointed out, adding that this does not mean that the judiciary is not subject to criticism from the general and expert public.
He said that criticism of the work of the courts will not threaten their independence, and that objective, well-founded and reasoned criticism is part of the public interest in the work of all state institutions.
Korać said that inappropriate criticisms that have the significance of putting pressure on the course of court proceedings and decision-making in a specific case are inadmissible.
Asked about the accusations that could be heard recently against the work of judges and what the consequences of such rhetoric could be, he said that pressures and illicit influences on judges represent a violation of their independence, especially in ongoing proceedings.
As he stated, the Judicial Council expressed its position regarding those criticisms with the aim of protecting the independent and impartial actions of judges.
Korać added that, in the event of an attempt at illegal influence, the judge can turn to the Judicial Council, as a body that has the constitutional and legal authority to ensure the independence and independence of courts and judges.
"Judges, as persons of integrity and ability, well trained in law and its application, should remain dependent only on the law in every situation," Korać pointed out.
This, as he said, does not prevent commenting on court decisions and analyzing court proceedings, as well as public reporting in accordance with the regulations on public information.
"Criticism of the judiciary itself should not worry, because it can be helpful to better identify the shortcomings of the legal system and contribute to maintaining a high level of judicial duties. The public nature of proceedings and the openness of courts and judges towards participants and society as a whole must be respected," said Korać.
According to him, in an open democratic society, public criticism of the courts is part of the public interest.
That criticism, as he said, can be aimed at all aspects of the realization of justice.
"You can especially criticize legally binding decisions of the courts, but it is standard that the criticism refers to legal issues and not to the personality of the judge," added Korać.
Asked what the election of the president of the highest judicial instance in a full term means for the functioning of the Montenegrin judiciary, he said that the election of Valentina Pavličić as the president of the Supreme Court ended the multi-year acting state in that court.
"It probably wouldn't have happened even now if the legal provisions had not been changed and if the earlier qualified, two-thirds majority required to determine the proposal of the General Session of the Supreme Court had not been replaced by a simple majority, with the possibility of voting for several candidates," Korać said.
As he stated, the election of the president of that court for a full term opened up the possibility of improving the organization of work in the entire judicial pyramid and the realization of a series of activities in the direction of greater efficiency of the courts, improvement of technical and working conditions and better utilization of capacities.
Answering the question of his position on the introduction of vetting and which system is the most adequate for Montenegrin conditions, Korac said that it was previously established that vetting, as a process of independent and competent assessment of the ethical and financial integrity of the holders of judicial office, is acceptable.
"Decision-making implies, as has been repeatedly emphasized, in addition to constitutional changes, a thorough analysis in order not to jeopardize the process of judicial activity, bearing in mind the lack of personnel in the courts and the insufficient base for the selection of new judges," said Korać.
He said that it seems that the proposal of the phase vetting model can be the basis for formulating a decision on that process.
"A kind of vetting has already begun, given that one third of the judges are out of the court system as of 2021, whether their function ended with retirement, or they stopped working in the court at their personal request," said Korać.
He believes that certain amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges, which refer to the disciplinary and ethical responsibility of judges, can contribute to that process.
"The material provisions on disciplinary responsibility should be supplemented, elaborated and specified, and it would be justified to regulate the rules of the disciplinary procedure in a special way," stated Korać.
According to him, certain improvements should be made in the part of the normative regulation of the ethical responsibility of judges.
Korać emphasized that the prescribed permanency of the judicial office, which is an international standard and an element of protecting the independence of judges, does not protect undisciplined, incompetent and unscrupulous judges.
"A judge who is found to be unprofessional or to work unconscionably will be removed from office in the prescribed procedure," Korać said.
Bonus video:
