Pressure on judges in Montenegro under scrutiny: the Supreme Court chief’s statement sparks the debate on possible vetting

The recent statement by the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Zoran Radović, that “some judges take expected decisions”, as the public broadcaster RTCG reports, has caused numerous reactions in public and has raised the question of whether this testifies to serious systemic weaknesses within the country’s judicial system.

The President of the Association of Judges, Miodrag Pešić, says that pressure on judges is not always direct and easy to spot. The most dangerous, according to him, is the pressure that over time turns into expectation — from politics, the media, the public or other centres of power. That is precisely where, Pešić stresses for RTCG, the personal and professional integrity of the judge matters, who must have the knowledge, independence and professional courage to decide solely on the basis of the Constitution, the law and the evidence, even when the decision is not popular.

Judicial Council member Mirza Ademović is categorical that judges do not take decisions under pressure from the public. He recalls that they go through a rigorous multi-stage selection — from trainee and adviser to candidate and election to office, with continuous evaluation and monitoring — and calls “easy” the assessment that some judges decide under pressure, as RTCG quotes.

The executive director of the Human Rights Action (HRA), Tea Gorjanc Prelević, warns that every judge is obliged to act only according to the Constitution, the law, international human rights standards, conscience and the judicial oath — and if he is not able to do so, the only honest thing is immediate resignation. She calls an adequate vetting useful, something no longer talked about because it is considered a hindering factor for EU entry, provided that vetting is not carried out by politicians, but by professional and independent commissions, with a right of appeal.

While parts of civil society and politicians insist on cleansing the judiciary, Brussels warns of the risk of the system’s collapse in a small state and suggests strengthening the existing mechanisms of disciplinary and ethical accountability, RTCG writes.