N14.T2 – European Commission Report on Judiciary and Constitutional Court: Progress Noted, but Old Recommendations Remain
HRA NEWSLETTER 14 – TOPIC 2
In its new report on Montenegro’s progress, the European Commission assessed that the country’s judicial system remains “between a moderate and a good level” of alignment with prescribed standards and that “some progress” has been achieved in implementing key reforms. Positive steps acknowledged in the report include the election of the President of the Supreme Court, a 30% salary increase for judicial office holders, and the initiation of constitutional amendments recommended by the European Commission regarding the composition of the Judicial Council.
As in previous reports, it was reiterated that significant improvements are still required in human resources, infrastructure, IT systems, and budget. The report notes that the backlog of cases remains high and that delays in judicial appointments undermine efficiency.
Concerning efficiency issues, the report specifically points to the Higher Court in Podgorica, the Administrative Court of Montenegro, and the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, recommending measures to enhance the pace of case resolution and increase procedural efficiency.
This year’s report places additional emphasis on the need for timely and consistent appointment of Constitutional Court judges, based on clearly defined and transparent criteria. However, in practice, the process remains marked by inertia and political calculations, culminating in the failure to appoint all necessary judges.
Regarding the appointment of judges and prosecutors, the report correctly observes that the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils still struggle to provide full reasoning for their decisions. Human Rights Action has repeatedly criticized the ongoing failure to include all relevant criteria and sub-criteria in such reasoning.
The report also notes that the legal framework is largely aligned with international standards, but that constitutional amendments are still required—especially with respect to the composition of both the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils. As previously recommended by the Venice Commission, the Minister of Justice should be excluded from the Judicial Council, and judges should comprise the majority of its members. As for the Prosecutorial Council, it is recommended that its composition be specified directly in the Constitution, with members to be elected by a qualified majority.
The transparency of both councils’ operations is assessed as partially improved—meetings are public, and minutes and decisions are regularly published. However, the Judicial Council no longer publishes decisions of the Disciplinary Commission, representing a serious setback in transparency.
The Commission states that records of investigations and indictments have improved, but that the number of final convictions remains low, and the lack of effective sanctions contributes to the perception of impunity. It also highlights that the quality of indictments and court decisions—including rulings on pre-trial detention—has not improved significantly and remains inconsistent across courts and within the Special State Prosecutor’s Office.
The European Commission concludes that the application of professional standards among judges and prosecutors has improved, and that progress in disciplinary accountability is ongoing, though further efforts are needed. Notably, disciplinary accountability has resulted in only one final decision over the past two years, and enforcement remains inconsistent—particularly regarding reports from the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. No disciplinary measures were imposed last year for failure to report assets.
Nonetheless, it is rightly recommended that the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils improve their practices and adopt a more proactive approach, as disciplinary proceedings—when substantiated—often result in relatively mild sanctions.
Taking all of the above into account, it is clear that Montenegro’s judicial system remains caught between formally acknowledged progress and underlying structural weaknesses. In addition to constitutional amendments, digitalization, the appointment of missing judges and prosecutors, and improved infrastructure, the core obligation is the development of a culture of independence, accountability, and professionalism. The Judicial Council—above all—together with the Ministry of Justice and the President of the Supreme Court, must take a more active role in the reform process and ensure the conditions necessary to meet final benchmarks related to reducing backlogs and strengthening accountability by the end of 2026.
English