N7.T4 – Closing Chapter 23: What Else Does Montenegro Need to Do in the Area of Judiciary?
HRA NEWSLETTER 7 – TOPIC 4
Montenegro faces a significant challenge in closing Chapter 23, which concerns the judiciary and fundamental rights. Although the European Commission has acknowledged some progress in judicial reforms, far more work is required to meet the necessary standards and regain public trust.
According to the European Commission’s report and final benchmarks, Montenegro must focus on several key tasks. One crucial task is amending the Constitution to ensure that the Minister of Justice is no longer a member of the Judicial Council. Additionally, the majority of members of the Judicial Council should be judges elected by their peers. The Government of Montenegro proposed these constitutional changes on April 17 (see: Brief News).
The European Union emphasizes that the independence, impartiality, integrity, and efficiency of the judiciary are vital for upholding the rule of law. Judges and prosecutors must operate free from political or external influence; however, it remains common to see politicians commenting on their work, which compromises judicial integrity. Adequate attention must also be given to ensuring proper funding, sufficient staffing, and good working conditions. There remains a significant shortage of judges and prosecutors that must be addressed urgently. Proposed legal changes would increase their salaries by 30% (see Topic 5).
Ensuring that the selection, evaluation, and promotion of judges and prosecutors is transparent and based on merit is also essential. The assignment of court cases should be completely random. While some explanations of decisions have improved, they still need to explicitly state all criteria and sub-criteria. Further enhancements are required to improve PRIS, the system for randomly assigning cases, to enhance efficiency and reduce the potential for manipulation.
The EU mandates consistent application of disciplinary measures when judges and prosecutors violate professional standards (see Topic 2). Additionally, it is imperative to enforce asset declaration rules more effectively and raise public awareness of available complaint mechanisms. However, over the past two years, no judge or prosecutor has faced disciplinary action for failing to declare assets, with such actions remaining rare. In 2024, disciplinary responsibility was formally established in only one case, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision and returned the case for retrial, which is still ongoing.
A strong emphasis is also placed on expediting court procedures, reducing case backlogs, and modernizing IT systems. The judicial practice database must be improved, court decisions made more accessible, and further investment is needed in the training of judicial staff. Nonetheless, the latest CEPEJ report indicates a significant decline in efficiency—performance in the Administrative Court dropped by 89%, and the average case takes 739 days to resolve. Civil and commercial cases have an average duration of over 300 days, while the backlog in the Supreme Court stands at 93%, the highest in Europe.
Montenegro is one of the few countries where the number of cases is increasing while efficiency is declining, necessitating urgent action. To successfully close Chapter 23, Montenegro must demonstrate full commitment to the rule of law through genuine, sustainable, and transparent reforms. In addition to tasks such as constitutional changes, improved staffing, and digitalization of the judiciary, it is vital to foster a robust culture of independence, accountability, and efficiency within the judicial system. Achieving these objectives is crucial not only for EU integration but also for restoring public confidence.
English