The eighth attempt to elect the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro has failed, resulting in Vesna Vučković continuing to lead, as she has done for the previous three years.

The European Commission had previously issued a request for the Application Council to conclude the election of the Supreme Court’s President by April 24, a significant step in the European integration process.

The failure of the Supreme Court to submit a candidate for the presidency reveals a reluctance from Montenegro’s highest judicial authority regarding European integration, according to human rights advocates.

They argue that this situation “seriously jeopardizes the European integration process,” emphasizing that the election of the court’s president is crucial for meeting positive interim evaluation criteria related to the rule of law.

At the beginning of May, the Minister of European Affairs indicated that while the election of the Supreme Court President is not a prerequisite for a positive interim assessment, addressing this issue would enhance Montenegro’s image as it prepares to enter a new phase of accession negotiations.

What happened during the voting

During the election procedure, all Supreme Court judges would vote following candidate interviews.

A candidate who secures a two-thirds majority advances to the Judicial Council, which makes the final decision.

However, on May 16, neither of the two candidates achieved the required two-thirds majority from the Supreme Court judges.

Out of 17 judges who cast their votes, five ballots were found to be invalid.

This number of invalid votes matched the previous, seventh election attempt.

Lawyer Budislav Minić has described the situation of not electing a president as a “logical scenario that only those willfully blind in the judiciary cannot see.”

“One of the legislative leaders mentioned that there are corrupt individuals among them, indicating a lack of integrity in our judiciary,” he stated.

Addressing the invalid ballots, Minić remarked that they are “shamelessly preventing the selection of someone who could rectify these corrupt practices.”

The NGO Center for Civil Education noted that the repeated failure to elect a president reflects a coordinated effort within the Supreme Court to hinder the rule of law and raises concerns regarding Montenegro’s path to EU membership.

Without a president by the end of 2020

Since September 2021, the Supreme Court has been led by Acting Judge Vesna Vučković.

The Venice Commission stated on May 6 that having acting officials should be the exception rather than the norm and should occur only in extraordinary circumstances.

Vučković has faced criticism for not promptly establishing election guidelines detailing the two-thirds majority requirement.

In response, Vučković claimed that there has been ongoing pressure on the Supreme Court judges concerning the voting process, which she deemed unacceptable.

Vučković lacks support for a full term

Vučković has emphasized the urgency of electing a President for the Supreme Court for nearly two years.

“Given the court president’s critical role in court operations and accountability for outcomes, it is imperative to elect a president as soon as possible,” Vučković expressed in October 2022.

A month later, she applied for that position but did not secure the necessary two-thirds backing from Supreme Court judges, even though she was the sole candidate.

Since she was not elected as President before July 2023, the Supreme Court remains under her acting leadership.

Supreme Court’s previous decisions

The key position in the judiciary has been vacant since December 2020, when Vesna Medenica stepped down after 13 years in office.

She served three terms, although Montenegro’s Constitution permits a person to hold the presidency of the Supreme Court only twice.

Her third term in 2019 had unanimous support from 18 Supreme Court judges and the judicial council of that time.

Her resignation at the end of 2020 came under pressure from the international community.

Medenica was arrested in April 2022 following leaked transcripts from Europol, indicating possible involvement in drug and cigarette trafficking orchestrated by her son.

In the transcripts, Miloš reportedly said that his mother was aware of his illegal activities and expected protection.

In October 2022, the Special State Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against Medenica, alleging she was part of a criminal organization created by her son.

Vučković’s appointment reveals the challenges in electing a new court president, as some judges are perceived as “guardians of the previous judiciary” and its leaders.

“After the departure of such a leader, the corrupt elements remained entrenched within the judiciary,” Minić noted.

He emphasizes that the current state of the Supreme Court reflects a lack of accountability among top judicial leaders in the country.

Despite the legal limitations, both the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro and several judges from lower courts continue to fulfill their roles beyond their second term.

Đurišić: A demotivating atmosphere in the judiciary

Lawyer Aleksandar Đurišić from Podgorica tells RSE that there is significant demotivation among judges regarding the election of judicial positions.

“It is crucial to have competent judges, individuals, and lawyers who can restore faith in the judiciary, especially following the arrests of former judicial and prosecutorial officials.”

In recent years, among those who have faced challenges were the President of the Commercial Court Blažo Jovanić, Special Prosecutor Saša Cadjenović, and former Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoje Katnić.

He points out that the last two election rounds for the Supreme Court President featured highly qualified candidates.

“The facts reveal something is amiss—on one hand, there is an inability to facilitate voting, and on the other, the election mechanisms are problematic and burdensome,” adds Đurišić.

Legal amendments, which are prepared for adoption in Parliament, aim to simplify the selection of the most critical position within the court system.

Minister of European Integration Maida Gorčević expressed hope last week in the Assembly that Parliament would vote on these amendments by late May.

In the meantime, the court council must decide whether to promptly announce a new call for the Supreme Court President or await the enactment of these legal changes.