Mirjana Radović, a candidate for the Constitutional Court judge, stated today that the court should not impose deadlines on its provisions.

This remark was made during her testimony at a session of the Constitutional Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro.

Radović further asserted that she has never been affiliated with any political party.

Candidate Goran Velimirović was also present at the hearing.

The President of the Constitutional Committee, Jelena Božović (New Serbian Democracy), indicated that they would pause until reaching a consensus on the next steps—whether to appoint one judge—and are awaiting the Venice Commission’s opinion regarding the election of a judge to succeed Dragana Đuranović.

Opening her presentation, Radović mentioned her early career involvement with non-governmental organizations focused on human rights.

She noted she was among the contributors to a report on journalist attacks and media property damage.

“I’ve been with the Ombudsman institution since 2017, and since 2020 I have served as its deputy,” she highlighted.

Bosniak Party (BS) MP Admir Adrović inquired about the similarities in the roles of a Constitutional Court judge and the Ombudsman, as well as her views on the deadlines for the Constitutional Court’s responses, given the pending constitutional appeals.

She clarified that there are no supplementary institutions to the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman, emphasizing that both adhere to international standards when making decisions.

Radović reiterated that the Constitutional Court should not impose deadlines, and emphasized that a judge in that court cannot be dismissed, which she views as a privilege.

Socialist People’s Party (SNP) MP Bogdan Božović asked Radović to elaborate on whether she believes the Constitutional Committee overstepped its authority in determining that former Constitutional Court judge Dragana Đuranović met the retirement criteria. He also asked whether she believes institutions have failed in addressing attacks on journalists, as many instances lack identifiable perpetrators.

She stated that the Committee had indeed exceeded its jurisdiction.

“My stance is based on the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro. I believe Article 18 outlines that one of the Committee’s roles is to assess key constitutional implementations. The process for terminating a judge’s term before its conclusion is governed by Article 154 of the Constitution of Montenegro, along with Article 120. In my assessment, I don’t see how this could be interpreted otherwise,” Radović remarked.

In response to the second inquiry, she mentioned it would be appropriate for those responsible for such situations to be held accountable.

Europe Now Movement (PES) MP Jelenka Andrić questioned how to safeguard the judicial branch from political and other influences, as well as whether Radović is affiliated with any political party.

Radović affirmed that integrity “either exists or it does not,” noting that the legal framework cannot cover every circumstance, and reiterated her lack of political party membership.

News