Number 1: Judicial Monitor – Monitoring and Reporting on Judicial Reforms
16/11/2024N1.T2 – Ninth Attempt to Elect the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro
20/11/2024N1.T1 – High Court Judges in Podgorica Appeal: Current Number of Judges Insufficient to Address Case Backlog
HRA NEWSLETTER 1 – TOPIC 1
In the first nine months of 2024, judges in the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica successfully completed 29 cases, marking an increase of 11 cases compared to the same period last year. However, this achievement does not significantly enhance their overall performance, as the Special Department still has 162 pending cases on its docket. This information was detailed in an appeal sent by the judges of the department to the Judicial Council, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, the President of Montenegro, the Prime Minister, and the Parliament of Montenegro on October 10, 2024.
In their appeal, the judges concluded that the six judges responsible for special criminal cases, along with two investigative judges, “cannot manage the influx of cases from the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, which currently employs 18 special prosecutors.” The judges of the Special Department of the High Court assert that the number of judges should have been significantly increased as soon as materials obtained through the SKY ECC application began to be utilized in ongoing cases.
They further highlighted that they are still operating under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1976, which has not been updated regarding provisions related to main hearings and is inadequate for combating organized crime.
As a result, the judges of the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica have urgently requested:
- Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code;
- The appointment of new judges and supporting staff;
- Solutions for the spatial and technical resources necessary for judges to perform their duties effectively.
The judges warned that if these changes do not take place, the number of cases will continue to rise, and Montenegro “will not be able to provide an adequate response in terms of finalizing procedures that are of exceptional importance for society.” They expressed their willingness to be the first to undergo vetting, including property and asset verification.
Following the appeal, the NGO Human Rights Action (HRA) emphasized that improving working conditions for the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica should be an absolute priority for the Judicial Council, the Ministry of Justice, the Government, and the Parliament of Montenegro. The HRA stated that “the authorities’ approach to resolving this serious issue is a testament to their commitment to the rule of law and their readiness to advance Montenegro’s aspirations to join the European Union.”
The HRA has proposed that the Judicial Council urgently assign criminal judges from the High Court in Bijelo Polje, the Appellate Court, or the Supreme Court to the Special Department of the High Court to provide assistance. They are also advocating for expediting the election of four judges to the High Court, a process that has been ongoing since April 2024, along with the appointment of advisory staff.
During a session held on October 18, the Judicial Council concluded that it would take measures related to the ongoing selection of judges and consider increasing the number of judges. However, the temporary assignment of judges to the Special Department was not addressed.
HRA NEWSLETTER 1
- N1.T1 – High Court Judges in Podgorica Appeal: Current Number of Judges Insufficient to Address Case Backlog
- N1.T2 – Ninth Attempt to Elect the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro
- N1.T3 – Vesna Medenica in Court Proceedings: Hearings Delayed 23 Times Across Two Criminal Cases
- N1.T4 – CEPEJ Shows Significantly Reduced Efficiency of the Montenegrin Judiciary
- N1.T5 – Judges Declare November Work Stoppage in Demand for Higher Salaries
- N1.T6 – Constitutional Court Fails to Notify Montenegro’s National Assembly of Judges’ Terminations, Ignoring Statutory Obligation
- N1.T7 – Inertness of the Judicial Council Is Threatening the Transparency and Independence of the Judiciary