The Montenegrin judiciary and prosecution have never been more determined to strengthen institutional independence and improve efficiency

The Montenegrin judiciary and prosecution have never been more resolute in consolidating institutional independence and enhancing efficiency. The progress achieved through reform implementation is becoming increasingly visible, although there is still room for further improvement.

This was the message conveyed during the second panel, “Judicial Reforms – Building an Independent, Efficient and Accountable Judiciary and State Prosecution Service”, held within the Rule of Law Forum 2025, organised by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro, the Government of Montenegro and the EUROL IV project.

The President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Valentina Pavličić, emphasised that the judicial system had entered a period of profound change following years of a shortage of judges, significant backlogs and inadequate institutional support.
Despite this, she added, a “serious shift” had been achieved over the past eleven months.

“Instead of last year’s 86 per cent case resolution rate, today we have an efficiency rate of 99 per cent,” Pavličić said. She cited the Commercial Court, the Administrative Court, and the Supreme Court, where, as she noted, 28 per cent more cases had been resolved than in 2024, despite the continued reduced number of judges.

She placed particular emphasis on results in cases of organised crime and corruption.
“In 2025, 56 such cases were resolved, which is around 20 per cent more than the previous year, and it is expected that a further eight first-instance judgments will be delivered by the end of December. We are not entirely satisfied, but within eleven months, it was not possible to achieve more,” Pavličić stated.

She pointed out that judicial reform also involved strengthening the disciplinary accountability of judges, recalling that a new system had been introduced – the systemic evaluation of judges, including those of the Supreme Court.
“I have not encountered an example of another country in which Supreme Court judges are evaluated. But very well, we shall evaluate ourselves,” Pavličić remarked. She noted that evaluations must be carried out strictly within the time limits prescribed by law and in accordance with the principle of legitimate expectations.

Pavličić stressed that the reforms would not create a “perfect system” by 2026/27, but that Montenegro would offer “a reliable, responsible and results-oriented judiciary”.
“Citizens and our international partners must know that we have embarked decisively on delivering results,” she said, adding that the broad support for projects in the field of justice confirmed partners’ confidence in the reforms underway.

The Supreme State Prosecutor of Montenegro, Milorad Marković, stated that over the past two years, a process of deep institutional reform had begun, aimed at establishing a fully independent and professional prosecution service.
He assessed that reforms cannot be completed within a short period, but that the most important task is to lay “clear and firm foundations” for the system.

“The most important step was to change the approach and establish absolute internal and external independence of the prosecution service,” Marković said, noting that all procedures and decisions must pass through a “quality filter”.

Marković stressed that independence does not mean only protection from external pressures, but also the internal autonomy of every prosecutor in making decisions “without the influence of superiors, except in proceedings prescribed by law”.
“Without the independence of the prosecution service, there is no rule of law,” Marković said unequivocally.

Speaking about accountability, Marković emphasised that it must be a principle as strong as independence, stating that every prosecutor is responsible for the cases they handle, and every superior for the efficiency and lawfulness of the prosecution service’s work.
He recalled that new rules for evaluating prosecutors had been introduced in the previous period, which had already led to different evaluation outcomes, including a higher number of “good” ratings and the first “unsatisfactory” rating.

He announced that, in cooperation with UNDP, a central information system would be introduced in 2026, enabling more efficient case management, monitoring of work, analytical reviews and improved reporting to domestic and international institutions.
“This will be a key tool for improving both the efficiency and the quality of work of the prosecution service,” Marković believes.

The State Secretary in the Ministry of Justice, Sergej Sekulović, assessed that Montenegro’s justice system has long been facing the consequences of years of denying the existence of organised crime and corruption.
“For many years, we lived in a way that our judiciary sent us the message that we had no organised crime and no corruption,” Sekulović said, adding that only under the pressure of European integration and growing public awareness did an open acknowledgement of the real situation begin.

Nevertheless, Sekulović believes that significant institutional progress has been made and that “today we have a rather solid foundation”.
He said he expects that on 1 January 2027, the Montenegrin justice system will be sufficiently stable for the European Commission to assess that the country has passed the most important rule-of-law test.

Speaking about judicial independence, Sekulović claimed that Montenegro’s system “has never been more autonomous from political influence”, noting that attempts at influence always exist, as they do in every country.
However, he warned of another risk — institutions retreating into “their own bunkers” and becoming untouchable — and stressed the need for a culture of openness.

Sekulović believes that now is not the time for radical moves in the sector, but rather for completing key reforms by the end of 2026, after which long-term solutions can be considered in a more stable political environment.