HRA NEWSLETTER 4 – TOPIC 3

Amendments and supplements to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges from 2015 envisages one judicial position in the Supreme Court of Montenegro for a person who had worked for 20 years as a judge, state prosecutor, attorney, notary, law professor or in other legal positions. However, despite several advertised competitions, this position was never filled.

The last time, at the session that was held on 12 May 2023, the Judicial Council rejected the application of Danka Živković, the head of the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Kotor, who applied for the position.

The Judicial Council explained its decision by interpreting that the objective of Article 38, paragraph 9 of the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges is to elect to that office a person who is not coming from a judicial or prosecutorial position, as judges and prosecutors are already allowed to advance to any other position in the Supreme Court. The position of the Council was that this vacant position requires an attorney or a professor, i.e. a lawyer who may have once been a judge or state prosecutor, but had left the court or state prosecutor’s office and also has 20 years of work experience.

In its Analysis of the Work of the Judicial Council, the Human Rights Action proposed that the competition for that special position in the Supreme Court remain permanently open, while one judge’s position, which has been vacant for years, should in the meantime be filled with available candidates from the judiciary and the State Prosecutor’s Office.

HRA NEWSLETTER 4

• N4.T1 – The “SKY verdict“ gets another chance
• N4.T2 – Worryingly high number of unlawful verdicts in favour of defendants – Ignorance or corruption?
• B4.T3 – One judicial office in the Supreme Court has been vacant for an entire decade
• N4.T4 – Constitutional Court – The crisis continues
• N4.T5 – Bijelo Polje is also missing a judge – A quick reaction is necessary
• B4.T6 – Trust in state prosecutor’s offices is growing
• N4.BN – BRIEF NEWS