N16.T9 – New Pressures on Judges – Court Decision Inappropriately Commented on by Milo Đukanović’s Legal Representatives
HRA NEWSLETTER 16 – TOPIC 9
Pressure on the judiciary and inappropriate public commentary on court decisions continued at the beginning of 2026. Such conduct came from representatives of Democratic Montenegro and from the legal team of former high-ranking Montenegrin official and leader of the Democratic Party of Socialists, Milo Đukanović. The Basic Court in Podgorica stated that everyone must respect the independence of the judiciary, regardless of whether court decisions are favourable to them or not.
Đukanović’s defence attorneys reacted on 16 January to the decision of the Basic Court in Podgorica concerning his claim filed against the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.
“The judgment of the Basic Court in Podgorica, P. No. 912/25 of 12 January 2026, by which Milo Đukanović’s claim for compensation for damage due to the violation of the right to honour, reputation, and dignity was dismissed, represents the latest and most blatant example of ignorance and evasion of responsibility in relation to a legal matter that is both factually and legally entirely clear and resolved,” stated Đukanović’s defence attorneys.
They further claimed that the judge of the Basic Court, Valentina Vuković, either “did not read the claim or consciously fabricated reasons to dismiss it.”
As a reminder, Milo Đukanović filed a lawsuit against the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption due to its decision finding that he violated the Law on the Prevention of Corruption by failing to report an increase in assets amounting to EUR 16,741 in 2019. In his claim, he alleged that the Agency had deliberately violated his personal rights.
Following the criticism from Đukanović’s legal team, the Basic Court in Podgorica issued a response, stating that every party has the right to present arguments and express dissatisfaction with a judgment, but not to use offensive qualifications.
“It is unacceptable to publish public complaints on media portals and, due to dissatisfaction with a court decision, to use insulting characterizations regarding the professional competence of the acting judge. A judge performs her duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law, independently and based on her judicial conviction, while every decision is subject to review by the immediately higher court through the legal remedies available to the dissatisfied party,” the Basic Court stated.
The court added that it would be useful for criticism to be expressed within the legally prescribed instances, “rather than through public accusations that may undermine citizens’ trust in institutions without justification.”
“The judiciary must remain independent of political and public pressures, and the responsibility of all participants is to respect that principle, regardless of whether a particular decision is favourable to them or not.”
The Association of Judges of Montenegro also reacted, assessing that statements claiming the judge “did not read the claim” or “consciously fabricated reasons” were unacceptable, as they create pressure on the judiciary and undermine public trust in its independence and impartiality.
“Judges are obliged to render their decisions freely, independently, and without pressure, and the obligation of all participants in the public sphere is to contribute to the preservation of the dignity of the judicial function and the rule of law. The Association of Judges of Montenegro will continue to react in all situations in which the boundaries of legitimate criticism are crossed through public discourse and the fundamental principles of judicial independence are jeopardized,” the Association stated.
English