N11.T2 – Judge Rabrenović Found in Breach of Judicial Code of Ethics
HRA NEWSLETTER 11 – TOPIC 2
The Judicial Ethics Commission has determined that High Court judge in Podgorica, Nada Rabrenović, violated the Judicial Code of Ethics by failing to allow journalists to attend the April 10 hearing on the indictment against former Anti-Corruption Agency director Jelena Perović and her former deputy, Nina Paović, both accused of abuse of office. The Judicial Council later unanimously upheld this finding.
The Commission, chaired by attorney Dražen Medojević, concluded that Judge Rabrenović “undermined public confidence in the judiciary, thereby violating Article 7(1) of the Judicial Code of Ethics.” It emphasized that judicial office must be treated as an expression of public trust, requiring judges to act in ways that maintain and strengthen confidence in the system.
The decision further underscored that judges are obliged to take all necessary measures to ensure the publicity of proceedings, noting that transparency is not only a legal requirement but also an ethical duty.
Despite the importance of transparency, the ruling has not yet been published on the website of the Judicial Council of Montenegro. From the available reasoning, it remains unclear whether the hearing could have been relocated to a larger courtroom to accommodate journalists, or whether they were excluded without justification. The NGO Human Rights Action has previously urged that all Judicial Council decisions be made public to guarantee timely access to essential information.
The review of Judge Rabrenović’s conduct was initiated in April by Supreme Court President Valentina Pavličić, who argued that her actions “undermined professionalism, dedication, the integrity of judicial office, and the transparency of proceedings.”
In her defense before the Commission, Judge Rabrenović denied banning journalists. She stated that, due to the lack of available courtrooms, the hearing was held in her office and that security staff informed reporters there was no space for their attendance. She insisted the hearing was not formally closed to the public.
Although the Judicial Council confirmed the Commission’s decision as final, Judge Rabrenović retains the right to challenge it before the Administrative Court, which can review its legality.
English
Montenegrin