Criticizing court rulings is legitimate and acceptable, but only if it is professionally, factually and legally argued, and not if it is personally and emotionally colored, the Judicial Council announced.
"Criticism is desirable if it contributes to public debate about the work of the courts and the improvement of the judicial system, and not when it is offensive, populist and aimed at discrediting judicial office holders in cases where they do not make 'ordered' decisions in line with the expectations of those who criticize," the Judicial Council said in a statement.
They spoke out after RTCG Director General Boris Raonić, commenting on the first-instance verdict of the Basic Court to the president and some members of the RTCG Council, said that such a verdict was "shameful, legally untenable and dangerous for the legal order of Montenegro."
"The honorable people from the Council deserve respect, not the label of guilty. Their only 'guilt' is the decision made in accordance with the recommendations of lawyers, secretly and in accordance with the verdict of the High Court. This sends a message that independent decision-making is a criminal offense," Raonić said, among other things, as reported by RTCG.
The Judicial Council emphasizes that respect for institutions and the legal order is reflected in the use of all available regular and extraordinary legal remedies against court decisions with which there is disagreement, and not in a personal attack aimed at discrediting the judge who made the decision, which also encourages citizens' distrust in the judicial system.
"'Respect for institutions and the legal order is not a phrase for me, but a principle', a statement worthy of every responsible public office holder, who promotes those social values on which the rule of law is based in a professional manner and with integrity. Behind this media statement published on July 17 of this year, at least nominally, is Boris Raonić, director of RTCG - the public media service of Montenegro. Anyone who sincerely experiences this principle and is committed to it would not allow themselves to call the first-instance court verdict, in a case in which they are personally interested, 'shameful' and 'scandalous', and even less so to inappropriately mention the closest ancestor of that judge, who was also a judge and who is no longer among the living, in a personal attack on the judge. Because this is not respect for institutions or the legal order, and it is certainly not well-intentioned, legitimate and legally based criticism aimed at improving the judicial piggy bank and developing the rule of law. Unfortunately, even below these qualifications is Boris Raonić's signature. And only after a little more than two months of first statements," the Judicial Council announced.
They add that in the previous period they have repeatedly condemned numerous statements by prominent public figures that threaten the independence of judges and directly encourage citizens' mistrust in the judicial system without basis.
"It seems that all these reactions do not reach those to whom they are addressed, because we are once again witnessing lamentations over court decisions, joined by politicians eager for cheap political points and legal 'analysts' in the fight to shine in the media sky under the auspices of the public service. Regardless, for the dignity of the judicial system and the culture of non-violent dialogue, we will continue our mission of protecting the independence of judges and raising public awareness of topics that are crucial for the development of democratic principles in our society. We point out that criticizing court decisions is legitimate and acceptable, but only if it is professionally, factually and legally argued, and not if it is personally and emotionally colored. Criticism is desirable if it contributes to the public debate on the work of the courts and the improvement of the judicial system, and not when it is offensive, populist and aimed at discrediting judicial office holders in those cases when they do not make "ordered" decisions in accordance with the expectations of those who criticize. Criticism is allowed to be expressed professionally, professionally and in accordance with ethics, by prominent "... of lawyers, analysts and the media, and not when it is obvious that it is a deliberate influence on the principles of a fair trial and the creation of pressure on the court. And finally, and especially important in this case, final judgments are subject to public criticism, not those that can be reviewed in the appeal procedure and in this way remove all possible shortcomings. This is because in the event that the first-instance decision is overturned, another thesis would be presented to the public, namely that such a decision is not a consequence of expertise, but of inappropriate pressure and fear of judges, who calculated with justice in order to preserve themselves so as not to be 'branded' in the media as unworthy of administering justice," it was announced.
It is certain, they add, that such a thesis would not contribute to the process of healing the judiciary.
"Even yesterday's astonishing statement by Boris Raonic, which has none of the listed characteristics of legitimate criticism, could not bypass vetting in a threatening context. It stands out in that it extremely 'creatively' identifies vetting with a 'broom' for people unworthy of administering justice. Therefore, we will use it to reiterate our position that judicial office holders are not afraid of vetting and to emphasize that the majority support it. Such statements do not contribute to the harmonization of decision-makers on the form, manner and very essence of implementing the vetting process. On the contrary, they fuel skepticism about what can be expected of us after that process. Have we finally matured as a society to deal with the harmful phenomenon that public figures, when they are dissatisfied with the legal position presented and elaborated by a judge in a decision that personally concerns those public figures, take it upon themselves to cause legal hysteria, presenting their interpretation as the only measure of what is objective, logical, coherent and correct? Will we allow judges to do their job, to judge and adjudicate? In our opinion, this is imperative. Finally, we would like to note that insulting and belittling judges does not fall under freedom of speech, according to the Judicial Council.
Bonus video:
