Montenegro - January 2025

The Parliament Constitutional Committee’s December 2024 decision to end Constitutional Court Judge Dragana Đuranović’s tenure upon retirement, deviating from the procedures established in the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, exposed weaknesses in the separation of powers. The opposition blocked Parliament’s work and demanded the annulment of the decision. For a judge’s termination to be formally recognized, the Court must adopt a decision by majority vote (at least four affirmative votes) and notify Parliament, which is then responsible for announcing the vacancy. However, the Court voted against notifying Parliament in June 2024. Four judges opposed the notification (citing the Labour Law) and two supported it (based on the Pensions and Disability Insurance Law). Experts argue that the differing interpretations of the legislation regarding retirement are driven by the self-interest of some of the judges. They also argue that the vote is questionable because two judges whose terms should have ended, along with Đuranović, participated in the vote. The latter thus violated the rule that no one can judge their own case. Had Đuranović recused herself, it is likely that no decision would have been reached, allowing Parliament to step in, as it did in the past. The European Commission raised concerns, urged legal reforms, and proposed a Venice Commission review.  

UPDATE: The opposition and the government reached an agreement to seek the Venice Commission’s opinion on the termination of a Constitutional Court judge’s mandate, with the aim of easing the political tensions and restoring the Parliament’s work. The selection process for a new Constitutional Court judge will be suspended pending the Commission’s opinion. 

Sources: Balkan Insight, Akcija za Ljudska Prava (1), Akcija za Ljudska Prava (2), Antena M, Vijesti (1), Vijesti (2), Vijesti  (3) 

New Sources: Vijesti, Cafe del Montenegro