Montenegro

A major problem within the judiciary that Montenegro needs to work on to uphold the rule of law is efficiency. This is currently impaired in the judiciary due to a failure to invest in human resources and infrastructure.   

This is reflected in particular by a low clearance rate, especially in administrative and civil proceedings. In 2022, the completion rate was below 90 % and processing times, especially for administrative cases, are very high. The duration of proceedings in administrative cases continued to deteriorate in 2023, which leads to a considerable burden on the system and jeopardizes the rule of law, as citizens and companies must wait a long time for court decisions. At the end of 2023, the number of cases older than 3 years had risen by 20 %. The average processing time rose to 309 days in 2023 compared to 238 days in 2022. It is particularly worrying that the completion time for administrative court cases has risen further to 1,411 days compared to 1,158 in 2022. The completion rate in 2023 remained at 82.49 %.  

In May 2024, the Ministry of Justice adopted a new plan for the rationalisation of the judicial network 2024-2027. The plan aims to continue long-term judicial reforms and includes measures to improve the expertise and efficiency of the judiciary. Montenegro must complete the rationalisation of the judicial network based on the existing analyses and the adopted plan. 

The excessive length of judicial proceedings remains one of the most persistent challenges facing the judicial system, with the average case now taking between two and three years to resolve. This long-standing problem has been worsening in recent years: in 2023 alone, the number of cases pending for more than three years rose by 20%. The severity of the problem is further illustrated by the fact that this is one of the main recurring issues addressed by the ECtHR in judgments concerning Montenegro.   

The growing inefficiency of the judicial system is also highlighted in the European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law Report, which notes that while some progress has been made in improving judicial efficiency, Montenegro’s courts continue to struggle with substantial case backlogs, particularly in administrative matters. In 2023, the clearance rate across both court instances and all case types remained below 100%, indicating that more cases were filed than resolved, leading to a growing number of pending cases. Administrative cases were especially problematic: after doubling from 2021 to 2022, incoming cases continued to rise in 2023. That year, the first-instance administrative courts had a clearance rate of only 40%, with cases taking an average of 1,422 days to resolve. By 2024, performance improved significantly, with a clearance rate of 109% and a reduced disposition time of 880 days. 

However, the same period saw worsening trends in civil and commercial cases, where clearance rates declined and case durations lengthened, while criminal cases showed moderate improvement. The workload in the Administrative Court remains alarmingly high, with each judge handling an average of 2,513 cases in 2024, despite a slight reduction in pending cases—from 27,589 to 26,638. These persistent delays in administrative justice undermine the business climate and weaken public trust in the judiciary. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court also faces a serious backlog, with 2,069 pending cases as of June 2025, including 1,739 constitutional complaints.

The Judicial Council has adopted a plan to upgrade the court information system (PRIS), which is used for case allocation, tracking, management, and communication with parties. This upgrade, which will be rolled out in the coming period, aims to revise the existing random case allocation procedure, further improving the efficiency of case allocation and the use of judicial statistics.

Additionally, it plans to expand the use of PRIS to misdemeanour courts. But, the digitalisation of the judiciary must be further advanced, especially in terms of communication with the courts. 

Montenegro is currently facing a significant shortage of qualified judges and prosecutors as many positions are vacant, which impairs the functioning of the system. 17.6 % of judges’ positions and 39.7 % of public prosecutors’ positions are currently vacant.

In November 2024, Montenegro’s Judicial Council unanimously appointed a new permanent President of the Supreme Court, restoring independence, legitimacy, and stability to one of the judiciary’s key institutions after nearly four years of interim leadership. Despite this important step, institutional gaps remain: the Judicial Council still has one vacant seat, while the Prosecutorial Council lacks two members. More broadly, the timely appointment of judges and prosecutors continues to be a major challenge, largely due to low remuneration levels. By the end of 2024, Montenegro employed only 243 full-time judges out of 329 planned positions—an increase in vacancies compared to the previous year. In contrast, the number of state prosecutors rose from 85 to 114, although this still falls short of the planned 141 posts.

There is also a backlog of constitutional complaints and applications to review the constitutionality of laws. In the past, the Constitutional Court has had problems working fully and efficiently due to an incomplete panel of judges. This has led to delays in important political and legal decisions, such as the confirmation of election results.

Ethical and professional standards are insufficiently promoted or enforced among judges and prosecutors in Montenegro. This is evident in several areas:

The Ethics Commission of the Judicial Council, responsible for determining whether a judge’s conduct is in accordance with the Code of Ethics, is significantly behind in processing cases. Since August 2022, the Commission has not issued any decisions in the 19 pending cases, indicating a lack of oversight. In addition, there is no legal recourse for judges to challenge the Ethics Commission’s decisions, although this is provided for by law. The Ethics Commission of the Council of Public Prosecutors has also only dealt with a few cases.

In addition, existing accountability obligations are not enforced. Judges and prosecutors in Montenegro are obliged to declare their assets and income and to report on possible conflicts of interest each year, with the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption responsible for verifying these declarations. However, compliance remains weak: the disciplinary measures for failing to submit these declarations are considered misdemeanour proceedings, and there have been no criminal convictions based on the verification procedures. The problem is also exacerbated by the weaknesses in the control system, as the verification could be improved through more intensive checks and effective disciplinary measures.

Beyond the issue of insufficient enforcement, existing guidelines have also been criticized as inadequate. There has been only modest progress in implementing codes of professional ethics for notaries, bailiffs, and court interpreters, with the code for lawyers yet to be adopted by the Bar Association.

The issue of political interference in the work of the judiciary in Montenegro has been the subject of discussion and concern for several years and presents a challenge to the rule of law.

Significant delays in the appointment of high-level personnel have ultimately had an impact on the judicial system.,. After a long period of political standstill, in November, December 2023 and January 2024, Parliament at least appointed a new permanent Supreme Public Prosecutor, three lay members of the Judicial Council and a judge of the Constitutional Court by a qualified majority as part of a transparent and merit-based selection process.

Despite some efforts to reform the system and strengthen the autonomy of prosecutors, there are still allegations of political influence on the work of prosecutors: One of the main problems in this context is the composition of the Prosecutorial Council and the influence of political parties on the selection and appointment of members of the Prosecutorial Council. In April 20204 for example, the arrest of a former special prosecutor sparked a fierce controversy, highlighting the deep political divisions and pointing to a possible abuse of the judicial system to settle political disputes. The prosecutor was accused of formation of a criminal organisation and abuse of office, critics said these allegations were politically motivated and an act of revenge.

In addition, stakeholders reported cases of undue influence and public attacks on the Bar through derogatory public statements by government representatives, which are directed against individual lawyers and the Bar and can contribute to undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

The politicization of judicial appointments at the Constitutional Court has been an ongoing issue that has gravely impacted the court’s capacity to function and deliver its mandate.

The Parliament’s persistent inability to elect new judges caused the shutdown of the Court’s operations between September 2022 and February 2023, effectively leaving it without the necessary quorum to deliver judgments with only three out of the seven judges appointed. In February 2023, under pressure from the European Commission, which threatened to suspend accession negotiations, three new judges were elected. Finally, in November 2023, more than three years after the start of the appointment process, the last judge was elected. However, the Constitutional Court’s inability to function resulted in a large case backlog.

At the end of 2024, a deep institutional and political crisis emerged over the Parliament’s decision to unilaterally declare the retirement of a Constitutional Court judge, in disregard of the procedure outlined in the Constitution, requiring a plenary decision of the Court itself. The move raised concerns about the respect for the independence of the Constitutional Court and plunged the legislative branch into deadlock for months. The government and opposition reached a political agreement in March, which included requesting the Venice Commission’s opinion on the Parliament’s decision, which was published in June. Despite these developments, the Parliament’s procedure for selecting a replacement for the concerned Constitutional Court judge continued.

Despite some efforts to reform the system and strengthen the autonomy of prosecutors, there are still allegations of political influence on their work. One of the main problems in this context is the composition of the Prosecutorial Council and the influence of political parties on the selection and appointment of members of the Prosecutorial Council. In April 2024, the former Special Prosecutor sparked a fierce controversy, highlighting the deep political divisions and pointing to a possible abuse of the judicial system to settle political disputes. The Prosecutor was accused of forming part of a criminal organisation and of abuse of office; however, critics found these allegation