The Montenegrin judiciary continues to operate at the intersection of formal progress and structural weaknesses. Although several reform laws have been adopted over the past two years with the aim of improving the functioning of the courts, the prosecution service, and the fight against corruption, the effects of these changes in practice remain limited and insufficiently visible. These are some of the key findings of the analysis by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE), “State and Development Directions of the Judiciary in Montenegro,” authored by Dr Ivan Vukčević, Human Rights Programme Coordinator at CCE, which provides a comprehensive overview of the current situation, alongside concrete recommendations for overcoming the prolonged institutional stagnation.
The document clearly indicates that normative progress has not been matched by adequate implementation. Key challenges – insufficient independence, low efficiency, and weak accountability – continue to burden the functioning of the judicial system and undermine public trust. It is further noted that political influence remains pronounced, particularly through the manner of appointing members of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, as well as through public pressure exerted on holders of judicial office.
“Judicial independence implies genuine institutional autonomy of courts and prosecution offices vis-à-vis the executive and legislative branches. It is equally important that the Judicial Council and the Prosecutorial Council are structured in line with international standards and provided with adequate human and technical resources, as independence begins with the manner of appointment and working conditions of office holders,” Dr Vukčević explains in the analysis.
The duration of judicial proceedings remains a particular challenge. Prolonged cases, frequent adjournments, and insufficient coordination between the judiciary and the police contribute to significant delays in the delivery of justice, thereby directly infringing upon citizens’ right to a trial within a reasonable time.
The analysis also highlights the extensive and prolonged use of pre-trial detention, which runs counter to international standards. This concern is echoed in the 2025 Preliminary Observations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which note that more than half of the prison population in Montenegro consists of detainees (56%), a figure that has doubled compared to 2022. “Such a trend not only burdens the system, but also seriously calls into question the protection of human rights,” the author warns. For this reason, CCE calls on decision-makers to use detention strictly as a measure of last resort and to abandon proposals to extend its maximum duration.
The analysis further points to inconsistent transparency, as well as harmful practices of leaking information from investigations and selectively informing the public, which undermine the integrity of proceedings and the principle of the presumption of innocence.
Among the significant challenges are also the material and human capacities of the judiciary, characterised by low salaries, a shortage of qualified staff, and inadequate infrastructure, which reduce the system’s resilience to external pressures and hinder professional and independent conduct.
Although new ethical codes and strategic documents have been adopted, their implementation remains uneven, and without consistent application and clearly established institutional accountability, these mechanisms cannot produce the necessary changes.
Particularly concerning is the selectivity in addressing cases of high public interest, which directly erodes citizens’ trust in the judiciary; the analysis also highlights several concrete examples of such practice.
It is also noted that the prosecution service insufficiently acts upon negative findings of the State Audit Institution, further undermining institutional accountability.
The document additionally addresses the idea of so-called vetting, warning that such processes require careful design so as not to further destabilise an already fragile judicial system.
At the same time, the analysis recognises certain positive developments, such as the adoption of strategies and guidelines aimed at improving the efficiency of investigations, protecting victims, and enhancing transparency, but stresses that these advances must be applied systematically and consistently.
Through 15 conclusions and recommendations, the document offers a roadmap for strengthening the independence, accountability, and efficiency of the judiciary, underscoring the necessity of moving from superficial to substantive reforms.
“Priority measures include strengthening judicial independence at the constitutional level, improving efficiency through better case management, clearly delineating and consistently applying accountability, limiting the use of detention in line with standards, as well as increasing transparency and institutional capacities. The key challenge remains the transition from normative alignment to the consistent and impartial application of the law, as reforms will be measured solely by results, which are currently lacking. Without this, progress in the area of the rule of law will remain limited, and public trust will continue to decline,” concludes Dr Vukčević.
CCE calls on decision-makers to use the findings and recommendations of this document as a basis for genuine judicial reform and urges all social actors to contribute to an open, evidence-based, and responsible debate on its future.
Željka Zvicer, Programme Associate