If the Supreme Court continues to function without a head with the legitimacy to implement reforms, it is likely that the current situation in the judiciary will continue and that many will use it to "buy" time, which is especially important in criminal proceedings.
This is what the lawyer and executive director of Human Rights Action (HRA) told "Vijesta" Tea Gorjanc Prelevic, answering the question of how important it is, in the context of the recent arrests of former and current state officials, that the President of the Supreme Court be elected for a full term.
That position has been vacant since the end of 2020, when she is the long-term president of that institution Vesna Medenica decided to leave office because she was illegally serving a third term. Since her departure, seven attempts to fill the most important seat in the judiciary have failed.
Two candidates responded to the last advertisement - a judge of the Supreme Court Ana Vuković and President of the Administrative Court Miodrag Pešić. In order for one of them to be elected, it must first receive the support of the judges of the Supreme Court at the General Session of that institution, and then the members of the Judicial Council.
The European Commission (EC) said the day before yesterday that it is time for Montenegro to get a head of the judiciary after three and a half years, announcing that this election and "rapid progress in the drafting of amendments to the Law on the Financing of Political Parties" would give "important momentum to the process of accession and enabled the EC to present to the member states in the upcoming period a revealing report on the assessment of the fulfillment of the temporary criteria for the rule of law (IBAR)".
The EC's messages were supported yesterday by the US Embassy in Podgorica, saying that the president of the Supreme Court should be elected "through a fair, transparent selection process, based on merit."
"The judiciary has been without permanent leadership for more than two years, which prevents it from implementing any long-term reforms aimed at strengthening the rule of law and Montenegro's candidacy for EU membership. This appointment would additionally demonstrate the progress of Montenegro before the report on the interim benchmarks", they stated.
Gorjanc Prelevic assesses that the failure of another advertisement would jeopardize the receipt of IBAR. He says that this choice is necessary for the adoption of the report, and that this was clearly emphasized in last year's EC report on Montenegro.
"We should not lose sight of the fact that it is necessary for all member states to accept IBAR. It is enough for one country to see a reason to challenge Montenegro's progress in meeting those standards, so that the report is not adopted. I think that the inability of the Supreme Court to choose its president for over three years, out of as many as eight attempts, would be a sufficient reason," she states.
Asked what she thinks is the real reason why so many advertisements failed, Gorjanc Prelevic replied that it is obvious that there is "serious resistance to change" in that court. He also points out that it is unacceptable to sabotage the election with "white ballots", which was the case.
"The umbrella judicial institution is expected to demonstrate integrity and take responsibility. A judge of the Supreme Court who is dissatisfied with the proposed candidates should have run for office himself, instead of obstructing the proceedings by not voting to the detriment of the entire state," adds Gorjanc Prelevic.
Recalling that the EC writes in the report that the prolonged acting state led to "weak leadership and management, lack of strategic vision and weak planning, which affected the administration of justice and undermined the legitimacy of the highest judicial institution", the interlocutor says that the consequences of not electing the head of the judiciary are especially visible in the poor results of the Special Division of the High Court, on whose performance, he states, much depends for the rule of law.
"If the Supreme Court continues without a leading person with the legitimacy to implement reforms, it is certain that the maintenance of the existing situation will only continue, which many use to buy time, which is especially important in criminal proceedings," said the HRA director.
Acting President of the Supreme Court Vesna Vuckovic, announced yesterday at a press conference that the General Session, where the candidates will be interviewed, will be held at the beginning of May. She stated that the candidates need two-thirds support (of the total number of judges of the Supreme Court), i.e. 13 out of a possible 19 votes, in order for the Judicial Council to decide on their election.
Vučković told "Vijesta" last night that this assessment does not contradict last year's decision of the Administrative Court, which ruled that she received the necessary support to be a candidate for the head of the judiciary with the votes of 12 judges in one of the previous competitions. That court judged that the quota for calculating the two-thirds majority should have been reduced from 19 to 18 judges, given that Vučković was not invited to vote.
"It is not in contradiction because I received 12 votes, but I did not vote. The court said that, since I did not vote, the two-thirds majority should be taken from number 18, not 19. At all sessions of the Supreme Court, when we elect the president, we determined that it was from the total number of judges, according to the decision on the number of judges in the Montenegrin judiciary. The decision stipulates that the Supreme Court has 18 judges plus the president - a total of 19. A two-thirds majority of 19 is - 13. That's what the Rules of Procedure of the General Session say," she stated.
Two candidates responded to the last advertisement - Supreme Court judge Ana Vuković and President of the Administrative Court Miodrag Pešić. In order for one of them to be elected, it must first receive the support of the judges of the Supreme Court at the General Session of that institution, and then the members of the Judicial Council
The Constitution of Montenegro (Article 124 paragraph 3) stipulates that the President of the Supreme Court is elected and dismissed by the Judicial Council by a two-thirds majority, on the proposal of the General Session.
The closest to getting the post of head of the judiciary was a former judge of the Supreme Court Miras Radovic, who in April 2021 was one vote short of the then convocation of the Judicial Council for Selection.
Vučković has been acting president since September 2021.
The long "journey" of Pešić's post office
The last public advertisement of the Judicial Council for the election of the President of the Supreme Court was marked by an unusual situation - the application of the President of the Administrative Court Miodrag Pešić, which he sent by registered mail, "traveled" for an unusually long time.
On April 4, the Judicial Council published an advertisement, which lasted until April 19, and on the penultimate day of the call, Supreme Court judge Ana Vuković sent the application.
On Monday, April 22, the Judicial Council published a statement on the website in which they stated that only Vuković applied for the advertisement. The next day, the Council announced that in addition to Vuković's application, another one - Pešić's - was received.
"Although sent by registered mail on April 18, 4 at 2024:14.36 p.m., Judge Pešić's application was received by the Secretariat of the Judicial Council at 8.30:XNUMX a.m. today," the Judicial Council stated.
The council did not explain how it is possible for registered mail to "travel" for five days, and whether they had already closed the public advertisement the day before.
Gorjanc Prelevic: Take care not to repeat Medenica
Gorjanc Prelevic says that the chaotic situation in the judiciary is also reflected in the uneven judicial practice, non-compliance with procedures and plans for solving the accumulated problems, and that all these are the competences of the President of the Supreme Court.
"An honest and fundamental reform in the judiciary is necessary, which requires a strategic vision to be implemented. Especially in criminal proceedings, which are obstructed by being delayed indefinitely. It is necessary that the judiciary itself more decisively demands the necessary changes to the law, and for that that there is a person with legitimacy to represent him".
The interlocutor says that it is necessary to urgently strengthen trust in the judiciary, protect the right to a fair trial, solve the burning problem of fighting backlogged cases, and with a shortage of judges. All of this, he adds, requires the immediate election of a person to head the judiciary who would primarily have integrity and adequate experience for the reforms.
"With regard to the integrity of the President of the Supreme Court, one should also take into account the competences in the procedure of determining the measures of secret surveillance and take care that a person like Vesna Medenica, who shamelessly threatens the misuse of data that is thus allegedly collected".
Bonus video:
