The Human Rights Action (HRA) is protesting against the violation of the Constitution and the law caused by the extension of the term of office of Constitutional Court judge Desanka Lopičić. We are also protesting against the non-compliance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission that judges of the Constitutional Court refrain from deciding on issues that concern them personally, and that they explain all their decisions. We are expecting the President of the State to propose to the Parliament of Montenegro a new person to replace Judge Lopičić as soon as possible, and to stop supporting the unconstitutional actions of the Constitutional Court. We are appealing to the executive and legislative authorities to urgently specify the legal framework for leaving a Constitutional Court office in line with the Constitution of Montenegro and the recommendations provided by the Venice Commission.

We are warning that valid legal norms are currently being ignored, which violates the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law. The fact that Constitutional Court judges are deciding on issues that concern them personally, and their failure to explain their decisions, means that this institution does not have a democratic character (see the Opinion of the Venice Commission, paragraph 67).

At the session held on 26 June 2025, the Constitutional Court decided to inform the President of Montenegro that the term of office of judge Desanka Lopičić will expire in December of this year, which means that she will continue to discharge office until then, contrary to the Constitution and the law.

In accordance with the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (LPDI), having completed 40 years of service judge Lopičić fulfilled the requirements for retirement back in June 2024, and therefore her office should have ended based on the Constitution of Montenegro, which stipulates that, once a Constitutional Court judge meets the requirements for retirement, his/her office shall terminate before the end of the period for which s/he was elected (Article 154, paragraph 1).

The Constitutional Court did not comment on the above mentioned rule or the years of service of Judge Lopičić. Instead, it decided, without explanation, that she would continue to discharge her office until her 12-year mandate expires in December.

According to the statement of the Parliament of Montenegro, the office of judge Dragana Djuranović – Unlike that of judge Lopičić – ended based on Article 154, paragraph 1 of the Constitution and the LPDI, when she reached the age of 65.

It is particularly worrying that judge Lopičić herself participated in making the decision which, in her case, ignored the application of the Constitution and the law. In its opinion, the Venice Commission recalled the fundamental principle “Nemo iudex in causa propria” (one cannot adjudicate in one’s own case), asking the judges of the Constitutional Court to resort to self-restraint and prevent the impression that they are prioritising personal interests when deciding on topics that concern them personally (paragraphs 55 and 67).

Another example of unequal treatment is that of judge Budimir Šćepanović, whose office was terminated only when he reached the age of 66, despite the fact that he had met the requirements for retirement when he turned 65. It is assumed that the rule on mandatory termination of employment at the age of 66 from the Labour Law has been applied in this case. However, it is a known fact that judges of the Constitutional Court are not employed by the Court itself, but rather hold a public office that is governed by the Constitution of Montenegro and the rules governing its termination. The Constitutional Court did not explain its position at all.

At the same time, the offices of judges of all other courts in Montenegro regularly end when they meet the requirements for retirement prescribed by the LPDI. Hence, according to the same constitutional rule, the same should apply also to judges of the Constitutional Court.

Selective and especially unexplained application of the law undermines trust in the Constitutional Court, which in a democratic state must protect constitutionality and legality even when they do not correspond to the personal interests of its judges.

The Venice Commission stated that the Constitutional Court is obliged to provide explanations of its interpretations of the Constitution and the law, and noted, with regret, that the Constitutional Court never explained how, and why, it interprets the moment when judges have met the requirements for retirement, thus contributing to legal uncertainty (paragraph 54 of the Opinion of the Venice Commission).

The Venice Commission recommended that the Constitutional Court do the following: “In the future, until the law is amended, [the Court] should provide clear and sufficient reasons, through formal decisions or resolutions, stating which law is applied with regard to the retirement of judges of the Constitutional Court” (paragraph 54 of the Opinion of the Venice Commission).

The Human Rights Action calls on the President of the State to propose a new judge to the Parliament of Montenegro as soon as possible to replace Judge Lopičić, and does not support the unconstitutional actions of the Constitutional Court, which show bias in protecting the personal interests of its judges.

At the same time, we appeal to the executive and legislative authorities to urgently specify the legal framework and automate the termination of offices in the Constitutional Court in line with the Constitution of Montenegro and the recommendations of the Venice Commission.

BELOW: Photo of the Constitutional Court’s public notice on the expiry of judge Lopičić’s term of office, which does not contain an explanation as to why Article 154 paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Montenegro does not apply to this judge’s status.