While judges of the Special Department face pressures, security risks and dozens of the most complex criminal cases on a daily basis, institutional support is still lacking, says the president of that department. Vesna Kovačević.
In an interview with "Vijesti", she assessed that politicians, certain legal analysts, but also those from other professions, often flatly assess the work of judges as incompetent, unprofessional and corrupt, which largely serves them to collect political points.
She also explained that the authority of the court, the professionalism of the judge, and the knowledge in managing the proceedings determine whether and to what extent there will be obstruction in court proceedings.
"Preserving the authority and dignity of the judicial office is a prerequisite for an independent and efficient judiciary, and constructive criticism is always welcome, but only when it is based on facts and professional standards, and not on blanket assessments and political interests," she said.
Last year you said that judges in the Special Department were “called out on a daily basis” and often targeted as corrupt. Has this pressure increased, decreased, or just changed form?
As you know, pressures have not disappeared, but instead of open and direct criticism, they are increasingly appearing through more subtle forms of public pressure, comments and interpretations of court decisions that do not take into account the entire legal and factual framework. Every day we witness numerous public comments and criticisms coming from politicians, individual legal analysts, but also people from other professions, in which the work of judges is often assessed in a blanket manner as incompetent, unprofessional and corrupt. Such an approach does not contribute to understanding the real challenges that courts face, but rather represents an attempt demotion of judges currently handling extremely complex and demanding cases. These assessments are most often devoid of a comprehensive insight into the factual and legal framework of specific proceedings and are reduced to blanket conclusions, which largely serve to score political points, while simultaneously attempting to shift all responsibility for systemic problems onto judges.
Does such a narrative correspond to reality?
Such a narrative does not correspond to reality. Judges act professionally, responsibly and in accordance with the law, in difficult working conditions and under constant public pressure. We will not allow judges to be targeted or discredited, nor to be unjustifiably blamed for problems that have deeper, systemic causes, and if there are corrupt judges, we stand by our previous statement that those who mention this in their public appearances should say by name which judges they are, and not constantly use the empty word “corrupt judges” without any foundation. Preserving the authority and dignity of the judicial office is a prerequisite for an independent and efficient judiciary, and constructive criticism is always welcome - but only when it is based on facts and professional standards, and not on blanket assessments and political interests. Despite this, the judges of the Special Department remain consistent with their professional integrity and act exclusively in accordance with the law and evidence. Criticism is legitimate in a democratic society, but judicial decision-making cannot and must not be guided by public expectations, but exclusively by legal standards and principles of fair trial. Such an approach is the best response to any form of pressure and the strongest guarantee of preserving judicial independence and citizens' trust in the judiciary.
Is the public better informed today about the real problems in the Special Department, or does the narrative about "inefficient judges" still dominate?
It can be said that the simplified narrative of “inefficient judges” still dominates to a significant extent, often without taking into account the actual working conditions, volume and complexity of cases under the jurisdiction of the Special Department. Such assessments often ignore the fact that these are proceedings that require exceptional time, concentration and careful procedural management.
However, recently, certain progress has been noted in understanding the work of the Special Department, and we have demonstrated and refuted this “inefficiency of judges” with our work results this year. Through greater transparency, public data on the number of completed cases of high-level corruption and organized crime, and more open communication, a part of the public and the media is showing greater interest in seeing the real picture of the functioning of the court. This is an important step, because trust is not built through short-term assessments, but through continuous, lawful and reasoned court decisions, while at the same time informing the public about the objective challenges that judges face.
I believe that the public often makes judgments based on insufficient information, which, as I have stated, is often politically motivated. I believe that the role of the media and journalists who are present in the courtrooms of the High Court every day is also important in this regard, because the public's perception of the judiciary largely depends on their objective information, given that they are witnesses to a large number of trials that are held. In addition, we continuously strive to make our actions as transparent as possible, and we certainly issue statements in cases that are of interest to the public, because the public has the right to know, to the extent possible, respecting European standards and the rights of participants in the proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution.
At one point you said that judges of the Special Department could be the first in the vetting process to remove suspicions of corruption. Has there been any response from institutions to that suggestion? Do you still think that vetting is a good model for Montenegro?
After this position was raised, there was no formal or institutional response in terms of initiating a specific model or vetting process. However, the very fact that the topic was raised played an important role in initiating a broader debate on integrity, accountability and trust in the judiciary.
I believe that vetting, as a concept, should not be viewed solely as an extraordinary or repressive measure, but rather as a possible mechanism for strengthening public trust, if it is carefully designed, constitutionally based and implemented with full respect for judicial independence and individual rights. In this sense, judges should not be viewed as obstacles, but as partners in any process aimed at strengthening the integrity of the judiciary. Montenegro already has constitutional and legal mechanisms for verifying the accountability of judges, but any initiative that contributes to greater transparency and trust deserves serious, professional and institutional discussion, rather than blanket assessments or politicization.
The cancellation of attorneys' powers of attorney and the abuse of the right to defense were one of the key causes of the delay in proceedings. Have these mechanisms of abuse only increased since last year, or can certain developments be observed?
Cancellation of powers of attorney and other abuses of the right to defense are recognized as mechanisms that have significantly contributed to the delay of proceedings in the past. However, recently, certain developments can be observed, on the one hand because they themselves are aware that it is better and more expedient to end the proceedings, and on the other hand, thanks to the more decisive and authoritative actions of judges in conducting the proceedings.
To a large extent, the scope and frequency of obstructions in the proceedings depend precisely on the authority of the court, the professionalism of the judge and the knowledge in managing the proceedings. When a judge consistently applies legal powers, clearly sets procedural rules and conducts the proceedings professionally and decisively, the scope for abuse and delay is significantly narrowed. This does not mean restricting the right to defense, but ensuring a balance between that right and the court's obligation to conduct the proceedings efficiently and within a reasonable time. Such an approach contributes to reducing the scope for abuse, while at the same time fully respecting the rights of the defendants and contributes not only to efficiency, but also to greater mutual respect among all participants in the proceedings and to strengthening the authority of the court as an institution. Although these challenges cannot be completely eliminated, it is clear that the consistent application of legal powers and the authority of the court is a key factor in improving the efficiency of criminal proceedings.
It is more than obvious that the maximum fine of 1.000 euros cannot have a real deterrent effect in proceedings against persons who are reasonably suspected of having obtained multi-million-euro sums by committing the most serious criminal offences. In such circumstances, the existing sanctioning mechanisms do not contribute to the efficiency of the proceedings or prevent their deliberate procrastination. At the same time, when considering possible amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code where higher fines are proposed, care must be taken to preserve the right to defence and the independence of the legal profession, with a clear distinction between the legitimate use of procedural rights and the abuse of those rights with the aim of obstructing the proceedings.
You said that you warned for two years that the number of cases would explode. Has anyone today taken political responsibility for ignoring those warnings?
In the public sphere, the impression is often created that responsibility for the current situation is simply shifted to the judges, although they pointed out these challenges in a timely and well-argued manner. However, as a judge, I believe that it is not appropriate for courts or judges to appoint or assess political responsibility. Our role is not to deal with these issues, but to ensure lawful, impartial and efficient conduct in the current conditions. Judges will, as before, continue to do their job responsibly and professionally, regardless of the institutional circumstances in which they operate. As I have already said, little has been done in terms of ensuring better working conditions for the High Court, and politicians are trying to shift responsibility to the judges of the Special Department, which we believe cannot lead to solving the problem, nor do we accept it, but rather we firmly and categorically deny it through our professional work, decisions and achieved work results.
How do you assess the current state of judicial independence in Montenegro? Has it improved, deteriorated or stagnated?
Judicial independence in Montenegro is a constitutional category and represents the foundation of the functioning of the judicial system. In practice, judges act independently and autonomously, making decisions solely on the basis of the Constitution, the law and the evidence presented in the proceedings. Although the judiciary faces numerous challenges, including increased public attention, media pressure and complex social circumstances, judges have demonstrated professional resilience and integrity, successfully resisting all types of influence. It is precisely such an approach that confirms that judicial independence has not been violated, but is continuously affirmed through everyday judicial practice. An independent judiciary does not mean the absence of accountability, but the consistent application of the law without fear, favoritism or pressure, and it is precisely through such conduct that the trust of citizens is built.
It is important to emphasize that the judges of the Special Department work as a true team. There is a high degree of mutual trust, unity and professional solidarity, without vanity and personal divisions. In our daily work, we continuously consult on legal issues, exchange experiences and case law, all with the aim of ensuring that decisions are uniform, of high quality and fully based on the law. Such a team approach represents one of the greatest strengths of the Special Department, especially in complex and demanding cases. It allows judges to cope more effectively with pressure and workload, but also to maintain a high professional standard and integrity of judicial decision-making. It is precisely this unity and professional work culture that give the judges of the Special Department additional strength to respond to the challenges that lie ahead, in the interest of justice.
We are aware that some court decisions, especially when they relate to public officials, will not please a part of the citizens or certain political entities. However, before the court, everyone is equal and the court cannot, and must not, decide with the aim of satisfying the public or political interests. Judges decide exclusively on the basis of the Constitution, the law and evidence, and it is the professional and ethical obligation of every judge not to succumb to any external influence. It is precisely such an approach that represents the essence of judicial independence and the only guarantee of fair and lawful treatment.
Without fear and without privilege
Judges of the Special Department often deal with organized crime cases. Do you feel more personally and professionally exposed today than in previous years?
Organized crime cases by their nature carry increased responsibility and complexity, but the judges of the Special Department are aware of the weight and importance of the work they perform. Professional and personal exposure is not something that determines the way they make decisions - judges act without fear and without favoritism, exclusively within the framework of the law and on the basis of evidence. Institutional protection mechanisms and professional solidarity within the judiciary enable judges to cope with the challenges that these cases bring. Despite the increased public attention and the complexity of the proceedings, judges remain dedicated to their profession, and the sense of responsibility towards the rule of law is stronger than any pressures or risks.
Given the nature of organized crime cases, they undoubtedly face a greater degree of personal and professional exposure today than in the past. At the same time, it should be openly stated that the working conditions and level of personal security of judges are not at a satisfactory level, especially considering the standards that such cases require. There is a need for a systemic and stronger institutional response in terms of security protection, technical working conditions and administrative support.
Numerous challenges at work
When you look back on all the challenges from today's perspective, what is the most difficult thing about the work of a judge of the Special Department - workload, pressures, risks, or something else?
From today's perspective, I would say that the most difficult aspect of the work of a judge of the Special Department is a combination of several factors, and not just one isolated challenge. The heavy caseload, their complexity and the volume of evidence undoubtedly represent a significant professional challenge. Added to this are the increased security risks inherent in working on cases of organized crime and corruption. However, what often proves to be particularly demanding is the need to maintain complete independence, professional distance and the quality of judicial decision-making, despite all these circumstances and limited working conditions. Judges of the Special Department are faced every day with public expectations, complex legal issues and high standards of fair trial, which requires exceptional dedication and personal responsibility.
Can't you single out any factors?
When all the challenges are considered, the most difficult part of a judge in the Special Department is not the workload, the pressures, or the risks individually, but the simultaneous existence of all these factors in complex and socially extremely sensitive cases. These are procedures that are extensive, legally demanding and under constant public scrutiny. Despite this, judges strive to maintain a high level of professionalism and concentration every day, because the court is obliged to make every decision with arguments and exclusively on the basis of the law and evidence. It is precisely this need to preserve impartiality and legal certainty in the most demanding circumstances that represents the greatest professional challenge, but also the essence of the judicial profession. At the same time, every lawful and reasoned decision, made regardless of pressures or expectations, confirms that the Special Department is fulfilling its role in strengthening the rule of law and citizens' trust in the judiciary.
“Sky” puts additional pressure on us
How has the work of the Special Department changed in the last year in terms of working on SKY ECC cases?
The work on SKY ECC cases in the last year has placed even greater pressure on the Special Department, primarily due to the extraordinary volume and complexity of the evidence. These are cases that are by their nature legally, technically and factually extremely demanding, and for which there is often insufficient public understanding when it comes to the time and manner of their processing.
Has the volume of evidence become more sustainable or is the pressure even greater?
The volume of evidence in these cases has not become simpler or “easier to maintain”, but on the contrary requires detailed analysis, careful procedural management and high concentration in every segment of the proceedings. Despite this, the judges of the Special Department, with their great effort, professional work and dedication, manage to responsibly face these pressures, acting exclusively in accordance with the law and the standards of a fair trial. It is precisely such an approach, even in the most demanding cases, that confirms that the judges of the Special Department bear the burden of these proceedings with full awareness of their importance for the rule of law and citizens' trust in the judiciary. As is known, the Special Department has issued or published several judgments based on the SKY ECC application. This is a very extensive material, the processing of which requires a great deal of commitment from judges and employees, but the judges manage to cope with this challenge by working around the clock.
Bonus video:
