Judges' Association: Unacceptable personal attack creates pressure on the judiciary

Claiming that a judge "did not read the lawsuit" or that she "consciously fabricated reasons" in order to make a certain decision constitutes an unacceptable personal attack on a judge and creates pressure on the judicial authority, thereby jeopardizing public trust in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the Association of Judges of Montenegro announced.

They expressed concern about the content of the "public statement published in the media," which "concerns a court decision, making qualifications and claims that go beyond the limits of permissible and legitimate criticism of judicial proceedings."

Although they did not specify which statement was in question, the legal team of former President Milo Đukanović today, in connection with the recent decision of Judge Valentina Vuković of the Basic Court in Podgorica, which rejected as premature Đukanović's lawsuit against the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, stated that it is clear that "the judge either did not read the lawsuit or consciously invented reasons to reject the lawsuit."

The Association recalls that the right to public criticism of court decisions is indisputable and protected, but that such criticism must relate to the legal positions and reasoning behind the decision, and not to the personality of the judge, her expertise, integrity or alleged motives for making the decision.

They particularly emphasize that any errors in the work of judges can and must be investigated exclusively through legally prescribed legal and institutional mechanisms, "and not through media disqualifications and imputations of dishonorable or illegal motives."

"Judges are obliged to make their decisions freely, independently and without pressure, and the obligation of all participants in the public sphere is to contribute to preserving the dignity of the judicial function and the rule of law. The Association of Judges of Montenegro will continue to react in all situations in which the limits of legitimate criticism are crossed through public discourse and the basic principles of judicial independence are threatened," the statement reads.