Annual Report 2016

ISSN 2536 - 5525
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL

AND TOTAL BALANCE IN THE JUDICIARY FOR 2016
Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF 31 DECEMBER 2015 .................................................................... 7
PART I ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
1. JUDICIAL COUNCIL..................................................................................................................................... 9
2. ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL IN 2016 ..................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Filling vacant judicial posts .............................................................................................................. 10
2.2. Internal announcement for the voluntary transfer of judges from one court to another .............. 10
2.2.1. Public announcement ............................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Assessment of judges of the Basic Court in Niki ........................................................................... 14
2.4. Temporary transfers of judges (mobility of judges) ........................................................................ 15
2.5. Termination of the judicial office ..................................................................................................... 16
2.6. Disciplinary responsibility ................................................................................................................ 16
2.7. Code of Ethics................................................................................................................................... 16
2.8. Acting upon complaints filed ........................................................................................................... 16
3. TRANSPARENCY OF WORK ...................................................................................................................... 17
4. NORMATIVE ACTIVITY ............................................................................................................................. 18
5. OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL ....................................................................................................... 19
5.1. Reporting upon the strategic documents ........................................................................................ 20
5.2. Commissions of the Judicial Council ................................................................................................ 20
5.3. Expert witnesses .............................................................................................................................. 21
6. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION ............................................................................................................. 22
7. SECRETARIAT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL ............................................................................................... 25
7.1. Act on requests for free access to information ............................................................................... 25
7.2. Activities of the Department for ICT and multimedia...................................................................... 26
7.3. Funding for the work and review of the budget for 2016 ............................................................... 27
7.3.1. Overview of approved funds..................................................................................................... 27
7.3.2. Structure of implementation of Budget of "Judiciary" in 2016 per expenditures ........................ 28
7.3.4. Program-Misdemeanor procedure (301022711).......................................................................... 29
7.3.5. Program-Administration of Misdemeanor bodies (301022701) .................................................. 30
2
7.3.6. Review of the total costs of the courts, with an overview of the number of judges, advisors and
other administrative staff ....................................................................................................................... 31
7.3.7 Free Legal Aid ................................................................................................................................. 34
PART II ......................................................................................................................................................... 35
1. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN 2016 ...................................................................................... 35
1.1. The right to trial within a reasonable time ...................................................................................... 36
2. DATA ON CONTROL REQUESTS ............................................................................................................... 38
3. OVERVIEW OF RESOLVING BACKLOG CASES........................................................................................... 39
4. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN 2016. ............................................................... 40
4.1 Efficiency of the work of courts in 2016. upon CEPEJ indicators ...................................................... 41
5. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF BASIC COURTS .................................................................... 42
5.1 Statistical overview of the work of Basic courts upon case types .................................................... 43
5.2 Efficiency of work of Basic courts ..................................................................................................... 46
6. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF HIGH COURTS ..................................................................... 47
6.1 STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF HIGH COURTS UPON CASE TYPES................................. 48
6.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF HIGH COURTS........................................................................................... 50
7. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO ............................................... 51
7.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO UPON CASE TYPES .......... 51
7.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO ............................................... 52
8. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF APPELLATE COURT .................................................................................. 53
8.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF APPELLATE COURT UPON CASE TYPES .............................................. 53
8.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF APPELLATE COURT OF MONTENEGRO .................................................... 54
9. OVERVIEW OF WORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF MONTENEGRO ................................................. 55
9.1 OVERVIEW OF WORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT UPON CASE TYPES ........................................... 55
9.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF MONTENEGRO .......................................... 56
10. OVERVIEW OF WORK OF SUPREME COURT OF MONTENEGRO ........................................................... 57
10.1 OVERVIEW OF WORK OF THE SUPREME COURT UPON CASE TYPES .............................................. 57
10.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTENEGRO ............................................. 58
11. OVERVIEW OF IMPOSED SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 59
12. SEIZED OBJECTS OF CRIMES UPON BINDING JUDGEMENTS................................................................. 60
13. SEIZED OBJECTS OF CRIMES UPON NON-BINDING JUDGEMENTS........................................................ 62
14. CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES .......................................................................................................... 65
3
PART III ........................................................................................................................................................ 72
OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE MISDEMEANOR COURTS FOR 2016 ..................................................... 72
I MISDEMEANOR COURTS ........................................................................................................................... 73
II JUDGES ..................................................................................................................................................... 74
III BUDGET FUNDS ....................................................................................................................................... 75
IV OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF MISDEMEANOR COURTS IN 2016 ........................................................... 76
1. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF MISDEMEANOR COURTS IN 2016 ...................................... 78
2. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK ON PP CASES ............................................................................ 80
2.1. Overview of PP pending cases ......................................................................................................... 80
2.2. Structure of PP pending cases ......................................................................................................... 81
2.3. Overview of solving PP cases and timeliness rate ........................................................................... 82
2.4. Overview of solving backlog PP cases .............................................................................................. 83
2.5. Overview of the ways of solving PP cases........................................................................................ 84
2.6. Summary review of the ways of solving PP cases ............................................................................ 86
2.7. Overview of solved PP cases per structure ...................................................................................... 87
3. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK ON IPS CASES .......................................................................... 88
3.1. Overview of paid pecuniary fines and legal costs ............................................................................ 89
3.2. Execution of imprisonment.............................................................................................................. 90
3.3. Execution of protective measures ................................................................................................... 90
3.4. Other cases in the execution ........................................................................................................... 91
3.5. Statute of limitations in execution................................................................................................... 91
4. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK ON PP CASES .......................................................................... 91
4.1. Overview of ways of solving in PP cases ........................................................................................ 92
4.2. Duration of proceedings in new cases ............................................................................................. 93
V CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES ............................................................................................................. 93
4
5
INTRODUCTION
Annual Report for 2016 is the ninth in a row submitted to the Parliament of Montenegro by
the Judicial Council since its constitution, on 19 April 2008. An integral part of this Annual
Report is a report on the work of Misdemeanor courts, which are introduced in the regular
court system by entering into force of the Law on Courts (Official Gazette of Montenegro,
no. 11/15), but their way of reporting is not depicted with the Instruction on drafting
statistical reports on the work of the courts, which relies on Guidelines for statistics in the
justice system adopted by CEPEJ.
The report consists of two parts in accordance with the types of information required by
law for the report to contain. The first part relates to the activities of the Council, while the
second part presents an analysis of the situation in the judiciary, providing detailed
information for each court, referring to the number of received and resolved cases in the
reporting period, problems and shortcomings in their work, as well as measures to be
taken in order to remedy identified deficiencies.
New Law on the Judicial Council and judges incorporates all the provisions on the rights
and duties of judges and the Council, as an autonomous and independent body, whose
primary responsibility is to appoint and dismiss judges, and ensures the independence and
autonomy of courts and judges. This law also introduces significant innovations that
further improve the independence of the judiciary by introducing, at the state level, a
unified system of election and promotion of judges based on the results of work. It also
regulates the procedure of permanent transfer of judges from one court to another on a
voluntary basis. The responsibility of the judicial function is further reinforced by the
performance of periodic assessment of judges and the introduction of the system of
disciplinary responsibility based on the principle of legality and proportionality of offenses
and sanctions and mandatory disciplinary sanctions. Thus conceived system of election,
promotion and disciplinary responsibility of judges was realized in practice over the past
year, and it has caused certain concerns, on which will be discussed in this report.
The report shows that significant progress was made, which is reflected in the results of
the work of the Council and the courts in relation to 2015. However, numerous and
demanding challenges of implementing the new legislative framework remain.
6
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF 31 DECEMBER 2015
MLADEN VUKEVI PhD

President
Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018
VESNA MEDENICA RADOJE OROVI

Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018 Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018
Performs the function of the President Performs the function of the judge
of the Supreme court of MNE of the Supreme court of MNE
MILI MEEDOVI MAGDALENA ZEEVI

Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018 Mandate 4/5/2015 - 2/7/2018
Performs the function of the judge Performs the function of the judge
of the Appellate court of MNE of the High court in Podgorica
7
ZORAN PAIN ELJKA JOVOVI
Mandate 18/3/2015 - 2/7/2018 Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018
Minister of Justice of MNE Performs the function of the judge
of the Basic court in Podgorica
VESNA SIMOVI-ZVICER PhD DOBRICA LJIVANANIN

Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018 Vice - President
Elected by the Assembly of MNE Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018
among eminent lawyers Elected by the Assembly of MNE
among eminent lawyers
LORO MARKI
Mandate 2/7/2014 - 2/7/2018
Elected by the Assembly of MNE
among eminent lawyers
8
PART I
1. JUDICIAL COUNCIL
In accordance with the constitutionally established competences, which were amended

after the adoption of the amendments to the Constitution in 2013, the competences of
the Council are further extended by the Law on the Judicial Council and judges (Official
Gazette of Montenegro, no. 11/2015 and 28/2015), so the Council: decides on
disciplinary responsibility of judges and the Presidents of courts; provides the use,
functionality and uniformity of the judicial information system in the part related to
courts; ensures the training of judges and court presidents; keeps records on judges and
court presidents; considers complaints against judges and court presidents; considers
judges complaints and take positions regarding threats to their independence and
autonomy; proposes framework criteria regarding necessary number of judges and
other civil servants and employees; gives an opinion on the incompatibility of
performing certain tasks with the performance of judicial functions; establishes a
Commission for evaluation of judges; elects the disciplinary prosecutor; adopts Rules of
Procedure of the Judicial council; establishes the methodology for preparing reports on
the work of courts and annual allocation of tasks in the court; issues official identity
cards of judges and court presidents and keeps records of official identification cards;
gives opinions on draft regulations in the field of justice, and perform other tasks
stipulated by law.
Since 1 January 2016, the provisions of Article 37 to Article 75 and Article 87 to Article
101 of the Law on the Judicial Council and the judges have begun to apply, considering
upon entering into force of this law, their use was suspended by the deadline stipulated
in Article 141 thereof. At the beginning of the application of those provisions, a different
manner and procedure for the election of judges and court presidents is established,
with respect to the Montenegrin courts of all instances. An important novelty in relation
to the previously applicable legislation is reflected in the introduction of evaluation of
judges, which process is carried out in the Basic Court in Niki, given as a pilot court for
the implementation of this novelty.
With the new legal solutions has been strengthened and expanded the jurisdiction of
the Judicial Council, which, in addition to investing maximum efforts in order to achieve
efficient implementation of new legal solutions in practice, has been recognized as an
important factor in the judicial system, which is expected to exercise its jurisdiction with
full transparency, accountability and efficiency.
2. ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL IN 2016
Judicial Council during 2016, held 25 sessions.
2.1. Filling vacant judicial posts
In accordance with the two-year Plan of vacant judicial posts at the national level, which
was adopted by the Judicial Council on 27 May 2015, with changes from 21 July 2016,
based on the assessment of the need for filling judicial posts in the manner provided by
law, the Council in 2016, applied the solutions from the Law on the Judicial Council and
the judges which established a new voluntary system of horizontal transfer of judges
from one court to another of the same instance.
If vacant judicial posts are not filled through an internal announcement for a voluntary
transfer of judges from one court to another, the legal requirements for announcing a
public announcement are acquired, in which the right to apply have all candidates who
meet the general and special conditions stipulated by provision of Article 37 and 38 of
the Law on the Judicial Council and the judges.
2.2. Internal announcement for the voluntary transfer of judges from one
court to another
At the beginning of implementation of new legal solutions governing the procedure for
filling vacant judicial posts in Basic, High and Misdemeanor courts, they are primarily
filled through internal announcement, in which the right to apply have the judges who
want to permanently allocate to another court of the same or lower instance.
During 2016, the Judicial Council has published two internal announcement for filling
five judicial posts in the Basic Court in Podgorica, one internal announcement for filling
one judicial post in the Basic Court in Herceg Novi, as well as an internal announcement
for filling one judicial post in the High Court in Bijelo Polje, by voluntary transferring of
judges from one to another High court.
At two internal announcements for filling five judicial posts in the Basic Court in
Podgorica, 9 judges have applied. The Judicial Council, based on the analysis of the needs
of the court in which applied judges perform judicial office, i.e. the court in which they
should be allocated, as well as on the results of work in the last three years, has drew up
a list of candidates for allocation, and made a decision on the allocation of three judges
from the Basic courts in Niki and Herceg Novi, at three vacant judicial posts in the
Basic Court in Podgorica.
10
At the published internal announcements for filling a vacant judicial post in the Basic
Court in Herceg Novi, and the High Court in Bijelo Polje, there were no applicants.
2.2.1. Public announcement
The Judicial Council in October 2016 announced a public announcement for the election
of three judges of the Basic courts. The reason for this is because in the Basic Court in
Podgorica, out of four vacant judicial posts, by internal allocation of judges were filled
two posts, while upon the published internal announcement for filling a vacant judicial
post in the Basic Court in Herceg Novi, there were no applicants.
At the public announcement 13 candidates have applied, while 11 of them approached

the written test, since the two candidates withdrew from the submitted application.
After determining the proposal of assessment of the written test by the Commission for
testing, the Judicial Council determined the final assessment of the written test and
conducted an interview with the candidates who achieved more than 60 points thereof.
Based on the number of achieved points on the testing and final assessment of the
interview, applying the provision of Article 50, Paragraph 1 of the Law on the Judicial
Council and the judges, the rank list of candidates for judges was made, and according to
the order of the rankings, the Judicial Council made a decision on the election of
candidates for the three Basic court judges and their allocation to the initial training in
the Basic court in Podgorica.
The exception to the above explained implementation of new legislation in the

procedure of filling vacant judicial posts, by the decision of the Judicial Council from
January 2016, two judges of the Basic Court in Podgorica were elected, on the basis of
Article 35 of the Law on the Judicial Council, earlier in force. This is because the
announcement for the election of judges was published in December 2015, i.e. during
the previously valid regulations. According to the said announcement, anonymously
written testing of 25 candidates was carried out, after which the Judicial Council
assessed them on the basis of criteria and sub-criteria prescribed by regulation
applicable at that time. On this basis, the Commission for testing has made the list of
candidates for the election.
11
Age and gender structure of Presidents of courts and judges on 31/12/2015
12
Compared to 2016, it can be noticed a greater gender participation of women, and the
total number of women in the judicial office is 112, i.e. 57.58%. When it comes to the age
structure of judges, the number of judges up to 30 years of age is amounted to 29.89%
out of the total judicial personnel, which indicates that there was a significant
rejuvenation of judicial personnel.
13
2.3. Assessment of judges of the Basic Court in Niki
Entering into force of the provisions of Article 87 to 101 of the Law on the Judicial
Council and the judges, the Judicial Council at its V session as of 29 February 2016,
determined the Basic Court in Niki as a pilot-court to conduct the procedure of
assessment of judges and the President of the said Court, in order to assess their
expertise, quality and quantity of work, ethics and training needs, and for the purpose of
promotion to a court of higher instance. Three judges of the said court were not included
in the assessment procedure, who were absent for more than a year in the period for
which the assessment is performed.
At the same session, in accordance with Article 88, paragraph 3 and 4 of the Law on the
Judicial Council and the judges and Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial
Council, the Council for the assessment of judges of the Basic Court in Niki was formed,
attended by: Vukota Vujai, President/Vesna Kovaevi Vice-President; Radule Kojovi-
member/Petar Stojanovi-deputy member; Julka Badnjar-member/Vesna Begovi-
deputy member; Vesna Joi-member/Katarina uri-deputy member; Suzana
Mugoa-member/Dragica Vukovi-deputy member.
The work of judges and court presidents in Niki was assessed for the period 1 January
2013 to 31 December 2015, based on the criteria and sub-criteria prescribed by law, and
therefore on the basis of the reports of work assessment in relation to each judge
individually and reports provided by judges, the Council for assessment made the
proposal of judge's work assessment. The proposal is then sent to the Commission for
the assessment of the Judicial Council which, pursuant to Article 88, paragraph 2 of the
Law on the Judicial Council and the judges, includes the President of the Supreme Court
and four members of the Judicial Council, three of which are from among judges and one
from among eminent lawyers.
After the judges declared on the drawn up assessment's proposal, the Commission for
assessment, based on Article 97 of the Law on the Judicial Council and judges,
determined the final assessment of the judges' work, i.e. of the President of the Basic
Court in Niki.
Assessment of the judges, i.e. the criteria under which the assessment is carried out as
well as the procedure for implementation thereof has caused certain concerns not only
in our country but in the region as well. It is concluded that the judges should be
additionally acquainted with the assessment procedure, which was realized.
14
2.4. Temporary transfers of judges (mobility of judges)
Judicial Council, in accordance with Article 82, paragraph 2 of the Law on the Judicial
Council and the judges may, with consent of the judge, reassign the judge to another
court of the same or lower instance for a period not longer than one year, if the timely
performance of duties in the court which the judge is reassigned to is called into
question as a result of a judge of that court being recused or prevented from discharging
duties of judicial office or due to a massive case backlog that may not be reduced with
the existing number of judges or for some other justified reasons.
During 2016, based on the decision of the Judicial Council of 22 December 2015, seven
judges of the Supreme Court, for a period of one year, were reassigned to the High Court
in Podgorica, due to the large number of pending cases which could not have been
solved with the current number of judges. Two judges of the Appellate Court of
Montenegro were reassigned to this court by the said decision, also for a period of one
year.
Furthermore, in accordance with the provision of Article 84 of the Law on the Judicial
Council and the judges, which envisages the possibility of reassigning a judge, with
his/her consent, for a period up to three years, to work in another body, in order to
participate in activities relating to the improvement of the work of courts and
particularly towards introducing international standards into the work of courts, the
Judicial Council has accepted the proposal of the president of the Registry of the
European Court of Human rights in Strasbourg and therefore made a decision on
reassigning Katarina Pekovi, a judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica, in the Registry of
the said Court, at a time up to three years. Monthly remuneration and tenancy costs
incurred as a result of reassignment of the judge to the Registry of the European Court
shall be borne by the Judicial Council, rather than at the expense of the State of
Montenegro, which represents a considerable financial outlay, which further burdens
the budget of the Council.
Furthermore, the decision of the Judicial Council of 2 September 2016 on temporary

reassignment of Ibrahim Smailovi, the judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica, to the
Ministry of Justice of Montenegro, decided by the Council of 26 July 2014, on the
proposal of the Minister of Justice, has been extended for up to three years. Significant
work results of the said judge are the reason for the extension, in matters relating to the
improvement of the work of courts, i.e. the need for his further participation in the
upcoming projects of the ministry.
15
2.5. Termination of the judicial office
The Council, in 2016, adopted four decisions on the termination of judicial office, three
of them at their own request, and one due to the fulfillment of conditions for age
retirement.
2.6. Disciplinary responsibility
During the reporting period, one proposal for establishing disciplinary responsibility of
judges has been submitted to the disciplinary prosecutor. After the conducted procedure
upon the submitted proposal, Disciplinary Council has rejected the above proposal, and
concluded that it is to be considered as the Initiative for establishing the violation of the
Code of Judicial Ethics, for which reason it is forwarded to the Commission for the Code
of Judicial Ethics, for further handling.
During the reporting period there were no decisions of the Council on temporary
suspension of judges from office.
2.7. Code of Ethics
During 2016, the Commission for the Code of Judicial Ethics was submitted a total of 19
initiatives for establishing violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics. After conducted
procedures, the Commission has determined that nine judges did not commit violations
specified therein, and that in three initiatives four judges with their conduct committed
violations of the Code of Ethics. In six cases the applicants were submitted a notice that
the provisions of the Code do not leave the possibility of examining and commenting on
final decisions. One procedure was suspended at the request of the initiator.
2.8. Acting upon complaints filed
During 2016, 203 complaints were filed to the Judicial Council, of which merits is
respected in the procedure envisaged by the provision of Article 87 and 88 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Judicial Council (Official Gazette of Montenegro, no. 61/15). Any
natural or legal person is entitled to file a complaint about the work and conduct of a
judge, which the Judicial Council, in order to verify the allegations set out in the
complaint, submits to the President of the court with a judge against whom it had been
submitted. The President of the Court may ask any person or organization for all
documents or other information as it deems necessary. It may also examine the person
who filed the complaint as well as the judge against whom the complaint is filed and any
16
other person who may provide useful information, as well as take other actions it deems
necessary in order to thoroughly investigate the complaint.
After reviewing the complaints at the sessions of the Judicial Council, it took position in
177 cases, and informed the complainant and the judge to whom the complaint relates,
while the remaining 26 complaints, which were filed in December 2016, the procedures
are in progress.
The complaints were mainly related to dissatisfaction of the parties with the first and
second instance decisions, because they were made at their expense, while one part
relates to the timeliness of judges involved and exceeding of procedure. The Judicial
Council has not been submitted by the President of the Court a proposal for establishing
disciplinary responsibility of a judge to whom the complaint relates in any of the cases.
3. TRANSPARENCY OF WORK
Judicial Council shall inform the public about its work through numerous activities,
whose implementation is aimed at achieving full transparency of work and conducting
of this body. The Council on its website prior to each session publishes daily work, and
after completing the session press release, all decisions on the election of judges and
presidents of courts, the decisions adopted in the disciplinary procedures and in the
procedures for determining violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics, as well as other
information about the activities of the Judicial Council.
Sessions of the Council are open to the presence of the media, civil society
representatives, non-governmental organizations and other interested individuals.
Council meetings are not open for public only in cases provided for in Article 11,
paragraph 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Council, i.e. situations in which,
according to the Law on the Judicial Council and judges, is envisaged the secret ballot.
Transparency of the Council's work was further strengthened by the obligation to

publish the Minutes from the sessions, so Minutes from all sessions starting from 13
November 2015 can be found at the Council's web page in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules on procedure of the Judicial Council, which entered into force on
the said date.
Public presentation of the Annual Report on the work of courts was held on 28 April
2016. The report was presented by the President of the Council, Mladen Vukevi PhD
and the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Vesna Medenica.
In addition, President Vukevi and President Medenica gave several interviews and
statements to printed and electronic media. Department of Public Relations regularly
17
met the media inquiries about the work of the Council, and there were over 200 in the
previous year. To all addressed questions, media representatives and other interested
organizations, were given full and timely answers.
4. NORMATIVE ACTIVITY
Intense normative activity of the Judicial Council continued in the past year. The most
important documents adopted during 2016 were: average benchmarks for the
assessment of judges in courts in Montenegro; Amendments to the Plan of vacant
judicial posts for the next two years; Incentives for voluntary permanent reassignment
of judges; Integrity Plan for the Judicial Council and the Secretariat of the Judicial
Council; Internal procedure for the calculation and payment of wages at the Secretariat
of the Judicial Council and the courts; Rulebook on the use of computer-communication
resources; Decision amending the Decision on the number of judges in courts in
Montenegro; The average standards of the quantity of work for the basic courts with
over 12 judges; Guidelines for conducting interviews with candidates being elected as a
judge for the first time, i.e. in case of advancement of judges; Rulebook on amendments
to the Rulebook on the internal organization and systematization of the Secretariat of
the Judicial Council; The methodology of framework criteria work for determining the
required number of judges and the equal workload of judges.
The Judicial Council adopted the Report of the Commission for the control of random
allocation of cases, which was established with the aim of determining the possibility of
influencing the human and technical factors on the system of random allocation of cases
in which, based on the determination of the factual situation at the level of Montenegrin
courts of all instances, it was concluded that there was no breach of the principle of
random allocation of cases.
A significant segment of normative activities of the Judicial Council is reflected in the

consideration, i.e. to comment on the laws and by-laws, whose implementation is
relevant for the started process of reform of the Montenegrin justice system, i.e. the
execution of measures under the action plans for Chapters 23 and 24, as well as the
Action Plan for the implementation of the judicial reform strategy. In this regard, the
Council gave comments on the Regulation on the supervision control of measures
electronically, and the Council members are familiar with the adopted Strategy for JICT
for 2016 - 2020. For the members of the Working Group for monitoring the
implementation of that strategy were appointed Darko Drakovi and Milo ii,
employees of the Department of ICT and multimedia of the Secretariat of the Judicial
Council.
18
5. OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE COUNCIL
In addition to its basic competence, relating to the election and management of human
resources, the Judicial Council during 2016, undertook a number of activities in other
spheres.
As one of the most important activities undertaken during the previous year, in the field
of meeting the housing needs of judges and employees of the courts, the Judicial Council
with the Government - the Ministry of Justice concluded a contract on the transfer of
rights to dispose of construction land, cadastral parcel no. 2090/1560 and no.
2090/1580, of real estate folio in the land register 5621, cadastral municipality
Podgorica III, Stari aerodrom. Thereafter, the Council has been issued planning and
technical conditions for the construction of multifamily housing on these parcels, which
was followed by activities on the development of conceptual design and other
supporting documentation.
In January 2016, the Council appointed mentors from among the judges of the Basic
Court in Podgorica, who meet the requirements of Article 33, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
Law on the Centre for Training in Judiciary and State Prosecution Service, competent for
conducting the practical part of the initial training for candidates for the judges of the
Basic courts. Moreover, at the V Council meeting, mentors from among the judges of the
Administrative and Commercial Court of Montenegro were appointed, competent for
conducting the practical part of the initial training for candidates for judges of the
Administrative, i.e. Commercial Court of Montenegro.
At the invitation of the Faculty of Law, University of Montenegro, the Council accepted
the participation in the capacity of non-academic partner in the project "Capacity
building of the faculty of law". In this project, as the "institution-user" also participates
the Centre for Training in Judiciary and State Prosecution Service of Montenegro,
"Regent's University" of London, University "St. Cyril and Methodius" of Skoplje,
University of Split, Universitat des Saarlandes from Saarbrucken-Germany and the
University of Ljubljana.
Within the project, the survey of the general knowledge of EU law will be carried out
among Montenegrin judges and other prominent members of the legal profession. The
survey will represent the basis for the preparation of a handbook on best practices in
teaching and research of European Union law, and it will be useful for judges when
applying European Union law.
The Judicial Council, by invitation of the Ministry of Justice, appointed Vesna Simovi-
Zvicer, a member of the Council from among eminent lawyers, as a member of the
19
Working group for drafting the proposed Law on Amendments to the Law Against
Discrimination, while the judge Magdalena Zeevi was designated as a member of the
Working group for drafting the Strategy management and development of human
resources in the judicial institutions for 2016 - 2018. By the decision of the Judicial
Council at the X session held on 4 April 2016, the judge eljka Jovovi was designated as
a member of the Council to monitor the implementation of gender equality.
During the last year, it was very significant the work of the Working Group for the
development of the Methodology of framework standards for the workload of judges
which was nominated at the VII session of the Judicial Council of 7 March 2016. This
Working group has prepared the Methodology of framework standards for determining
the required number of judges and judges' equal workload. This document serves as a
basis for developing the framework standards to determine the adequate number of
judges needed for updated and quality work of the courts in Montenegro, as well as
determining the ways for even distribution of cases per judges, which was adopted at
the XXIII Session of the Judicial Council of 29 November 2016.
5.1. Reporting upon the strategic documents
The Judicial Council in 2016 actively carried out measures under the Action Plans for
Chapters 23 and 24, the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Judicial Reform
Strategy, the Action Plan of implementation of the National Plan of Consumer Protection
and Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy to fight corruption and organized
crime. In these activities, good cooperation with other state bodies and institutions was
achieved, which have actively been involved in the negotiation process.
President of the Judicial Council is a member of the Council for the rule of law, the
Council for the implementation of the Judicial Reform Strategy, and the Commission for
Supervision and coordination of the implementation of the Strategy for ICT judiciary,
and these working bodies by active work and participation of all of its members, provide
a significant contribution to the implementation of the adopted legal framework -
Judicial Reform Strategy 2014 - 2018, and the process of European and Euro-Atlantic
integration of Montenegro.
5.2. Commissions of the Judicial Council
At the XII session of the Council of 11 May 2016, a Commission for the control of random
allocation of cases was formed, chaired by Stanka Vuini, Judge of the Supreme Court of
Montenegro, with the appointed members: Maja Baovi, head of the writing office of the
High Court in Podgorica, Danijela Sekuli-Jaovi, head of the writing office of the Basic
20
Court in Podgorica, Milo ii and Darko Kovaevi, advisers in the Department for ICT
and multimedia of the Secretariat of the Judicial Council. The task of the Commission
was to determine the possibility of influencing human and technical factors on the
system of random allocation of cases. After determining and controlling the actual
situation in the courts, it was found that there was no violation of the principle of
random allocation of cases, and a detailed report was submitted to the Judicial Council,
which was adopted at the XVI session of 7 July 2016.
The Commission for testing was formed at the XIX session of the Council of 16
September 2016, for a period of two years, attended by: Radoje Orovi, as the President,
Mili Meedovi and Vesna Simovi Zvicer, as members. During the two-year mandate,
this Commission shall prepare a test for the candidates being elected as a judge for the
first time, conduct testing, review the test and determine the proposal evaluation, on the
basis of Article 27 and 28 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Council.
The Judicial Council at the XX session of 13 October 2016, in accordance with Article 32,
paragraph 6 of the Law on Trainees in Courts and State Prosecution Office and the Bar
Exam (Official Gazette of Montenegro, no. 55/16), after the conducted legally prescribed
procedure, appointed the members of the Commission for the bar exam: Vesna
Medenica, the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Duanka Radovi, Nataa
Boovi, Radoje Orovi and Radule Kojovi, judges of that court.
5.3. Expert witnesses
Commission for appointment and dismissal of expert witnesses, deciding upon public
calls published on 8 December 2015 and 28 March 2016, at sessions held on 21 March,
11 April as well as on 4, 7 and 18 July 2016, adopted 101 decisions on the appointment
of experts, for which the Secretariat made the legitimacies. All re-elected and newly
appointed expert witnesses took an oath before the President of the Supreme Court, at a
ceremony held on 28 September 2016. At the session of the Commission of 18 July 2016,
the application of one legal entity was discussed, and it was found to meet the
requirements for the execution of expertise, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1 of Law on
the expert witnesses for the execution of expertise.
During the validity of the provisions of the Law on expert witnesses (Official Gazette of
Montenegro, no. 79/04), which was repealed on 23 August 2016, the Commission for
expert witnesses established by the Decision of the President of the Supreme Court
adopted a decision on the appointment, i.e. re-election (after the expiry of the six-year
term), a total number of 1,589 expert witnesses.
21
Entering into force of the Law on Expert Witnesses (Official Gazette of Montenegro, no.
54/16), starting from 23 August 2016, appointment and dismissal of expert witnesses, is
the responsibility of the Commission for expert witnesses established by the Minister of
Justice. Since the adoption of the new law, professional and administrative affairs of the
Commission, instead of the Secretariat of the Judicial Council are performed by the
Ministry of Justice.
6. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
In 2016, the Council realized a very intensive international cooperation. Apart from
regular cooperation with the Judicial Councils in the region and Europe, the President
and representatives of the Council organized and implemented a numerous and
significant visits, as well as meetings with representatives of international organizations.
President of the Judicial Council, Mladen Vukevi PhD, on 26 January 2016, met with
the representatives of the mission of the Council of Europe, Pilar Morales Fernandez-
Shaw, head of the Directorate General for the programs of the Council of Europe, Daniel
Smith, head of the Department for Southeastern Europe and Turkey and Oxana Gutu,
from the Department for Judicial Reform. During the talks they discussed the
possibilities for cooperation within the project South East Europe Horizontal Facility
(SEE HR), as a project framework of cooperation between Montenegro and the EU and
the Council of Europe in the period 2016 to 2018.
In February, a meeting of the President of the Judicial Council, Mladen Vukevi PhD was
organized with members of the delegation of the Kingdom of Norway, within the project
implemented by the Norwegian judicial administration. Guests from Norway expressed
the hope that the Judicial Council will play an active role in projects at bilateral and
regional level, which implementation started during 2016 aimed at improving the
collection and use of statistic data in the justice system.
From 17 to 19 March 2016, the President of the Council together with Dobrica
Sljivananin, a member of the Council, participated in the third regional Forum on the
rule of law in the South Eastern Europe, which was held in Sarajevo, organized by the
AIRE Center and defenders of civil rights. The Forum was attended by more than 130
representatives of various judicial instances, directors of judicial academies and
institutions, organizations that work to protect civil rights in the region, as well as
representatives of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Study visit to the UK, within the project EUROL, was organized from 18 to 22 April 2016,
in London, and it was dedicated to the exchange of experiences in the field of rule of law.
22
Montenegrin delegation, in addition to the President of the Judicial Council, was
consisted of the President of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica, Chief Special
Prosecutor Milivoje Katni and general director of the Justice in the Ministry of Justice
Marijana Lakovi-Drakovi. During the visit, meetings were held with representatives
of the Crown prosecution service, the Crown Prosecution Inspectorate, the Commission
for the appointment of judges, the Judicial Training Center, the Office for investigation of
judicial conduct, the Crown service courts and tribunals, as well as the Supreme Court.
The President of the Council, on 26 April 2016, held a meeting with the representatives
of the World Bank: Georgia Hurley, a specialist in judicial reforms and the head of the
team and Marina Mati -Bokovi, the consultant for the issues of judicial reforms. In the
meeting, it was also discussed about the draft Analysis of human resources in the
judiciary made by the experts of the World Bank, on which the representatives of the
Judicial Council gave comments.
At the regional conference "Management performance systems of the courts in the

countries of the Western Balkans", which was held in Budva from 18 to 20 May,
organized by the Norwegian Court Administration and UNDP, participated the president
of the Judicial Council with his associates. The existing management performance
systems of the courts were the theme of the conference, as well as control mechanisms
in the judiciary. During the conference, standards of the CEPEJ (European Commission
for the efficiency of Justice) were being discussed in more detail, as well as the
proceedings duration monitoring systems, systems of legal norms and the role of
support to judicial information systems in the monitoring activities.
A delegation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey paid a working visit to the
Judicial Council on 14 and 15 May 2016. The delegation was received by the President of
the Judicial Council, and meetings were also attended by Darko Drakovi, Head of ICT
Department of the Secretariat. The theme of the meeting was the development of
information technologies in Montenegrin courts, and they also talked about the potential
forms of cooperation.
The President of the Council attended the session of the Annual Meeting of the European
Network of Judicial Councils (ENCJ), which was held in June 2016 in Warsaw, whose
main theme was the perspective of European justice until 2035.
Deputy President of the Council Dobrica ljivananin attended a meeting of the General
Assembly of the Balkans and Euro-Mediterranean network of the Judicial Councils
(BEMNCJ), which was held on 13 and 14 June 2016, in Rome. The network was founded
in 2014 and brings together Judicial Councils of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Kosovo, Hungary, Italy, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania and Turkey.
23
President of the Council Mladen Vukevi, PhD and Deputy President Dobrica
ljivananin, on 24 June 2016 met with the President of the Supreme Court of
Azerbaijan, Ramizu Rzayev and his associates, in Podgorica. At the meeting, it was also
discussed about the jurisdiction of the body for the election of judges in both countries,
and the same was attended by the President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Vesna
Medenica.
Representatives of the US Embassy in Montenegro, as well as INL and USAID assistance

programs at the State Department, visited the Judicial Council on 15 September 2016,
when they were received by the President of the Council, Mladen Vukevi, PhD with his
associates. At the meeting, it was also discussed about the system of appointment,
promotion and disciplinary responsibility of judges in Montenegro, as well as the forms
of the future support to the courts and the Judicial Council.
From 19 to 21 September 2016, in Cetinje was held a Conference of Supreme Courts of

the Member States of the European Union and candidate countries, entitled "The role of
Supreme Courts in the creation of case law - harmonization, as well as building public
confidence in the judiciary, cooperation with the public and inform the public about the
work of the courts". The conference was attended by the President of the Judicial
Council, and its organizer was the Supreme Court of Montenegro with the support of the
US Embassy in Montenegro.
President of the Judicial Council paid a study visit to Norway, which was realized from
28 September to 2 October in Oslo, Norway, organized by Norwegian judicial
administration and UNDP. The study visit was followed by a continuation of the first
regional Conference organized within the project "Support to the reform of the judiciary
in the Western Balkans".
President of the Judicial Council, on 12 October 2016, met with Askwr Hussein, Deputy
Chief Inspector of Inspections Royal prosecution service for England and Wales. During
the meeting, they discussed the prospects of strengthening mutual cooperation and
improving the effectiveness of the judiciary as a service to citizens by enhancing the
quality of justice.
In Bucharest, on 1 and 2 November 2016, was held a regional Conference on "Preventing

and combating corruption in the justice system in South East Europe", organized by the
Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Foundation and the National Directorate of Romania.
President of the Judicial Council was a member of the Montenegrin delegation who
attended the said conference.
President of the Council was a member of the Montenegrin delegation that paid a study
visit to France, held in Paris on 12 and 13 December last year, organized by the Ministry
of Justice of France and the French Embassy in Montenegro. During the two-day visit,
meetings were held with representatives of the French Ministry of Justice and the
Council for the courts.
24
In addition to meetings at the international level, the President of the Judicial Council
during the previous year had several meetings with representatives of local institutions,
which are responsible for the implementation of international standards and the
training of judges, i.e. for the implementation and enforcement of new legal provisions
governing the appointment and promotion of judges, as well as their evaluation. In this
regard, the President of the Council, together with the President of the Supreme Court,
had several meetings with the President of the Management Board of the Center for
Training in Judiciary and State Prosecution Senka Danilovi and Director of the
Secretariat of the Center Maja Miloevi. The theme of discussion was the planning of
future activities of the Center in order to conduct initial training of candidates for judges
of the basic courts, i.e. continuous training for judges, as well as proposing guidelines for
strengthening cooperation among the institutions aimed at implementing new legal
solutions in the field of justice.
7. SECRETARIAT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
At the session of the Judicial Council of 18 November 2016, the Rulebook on

amendments to the Rulebook on internal organization and systematization of the
Secretariat of the Judicial Council was adopted. It was established 54 civil servant and
public employee posts in accordance with this systematization for the performance of
tasks within the scope of the Secretariat.
Systematized jobs are not completely filled, regarding that in the Secretariat as at 31
December 2016, there were 33 employees employed on a permanent basis.
Bearing in mind the volume of work and the stipulated jurisdiction of the Judicial
Council, we particularly expressed the need to increase the number of employees in the
ICT Department, as well as legal matters department. Thus, in the coming period the
emphasis will be on strengthening the human resource capacity in the Department for
normative activities, the status issues of the judges and their training, i.e. human
resource capacities for the collection, processing and analysis of statistical data
regarding the role and competence of the Council in the negotiation process in the field
of Justice. However, there is an evident problem in relation to the filling of vacancies in
the ICT department of the Secretariat, considering that after several public job
announcements, there were no applied candidates.
7.1. Act on requests for free access to information
During 2016, the Secretariat of the Judicial Council, while respecting the provisions of
the Law on Free Access to Information (Official Gazette of Montenegro, no. 44/12 of 9
August 2012) and the principle of transparency in the work of authority bodies and the
25
public's right to know, decided on a number of received requests for free access to
information. Moreover, on the website of the Secretariat all the information referred to
in Article 12 of the said Law are published, in a manner that ensures the privacy and
protection of personal data, which respects the principle of proactive access to
information.
During the reporting period, a total number of 285 requests were submitted to the
Secretariat, of which it was decided by issuing the decision, i.e. notification, depending
on the established facts.
Deciding upon all submitted requests, the Secretariat has complied with the standards
contained in the ratified international treaties on human rights and freedoms, as well as
the generally accepted principles of international law, where any legal or natural person
is given the access to information on an equal basis and under the same conditions.
7.2. Activities of the Department for ICT and multimedia
In 2016, the Department for ICT and multimedia has implemented a number of
activities:
- Regular maintenance of the complete ICT equipment in the courts
During the last year, the team of the ICT Department regularly maintained all
information and communication equipment in all courts in Montenegro. Officials in
charge of maintenance of computers and network devices responded to 715 requests. In
addition, the installation of supplied equipment was realized for all courts in
Montenegro.
- The web service with the criminal records of the Ministry of Justice was
improved
This web service is intended to have all requests for extracts from the criminal records
for the courts to be received electronically, thus significantly speeding up the
procedures, because one does not have to wait to obtain copies by mail.
- Regular activities to support users of JIS and the preparation of reports
In 2016, continuous activities to support users in their daily work of JIS were carried
out. This includes supporting the work of JIS administrators in the courts, user training,
assistance in the preparation of reports and direct customer support.
26
Officials at the Help Desk of the Department of ICT responded to 1,716 requests from
users.
- Regular activities on providing multimedia services to Courts
In 2016, the department was engaged in the presentation of evidences at 243 main
trials.
7.3. Funding for the work and review of the budget for 2016
7.3.1. Overview of approved funds
In accordance with the Law on Budget of Montenegro for 2016, consumer unit
"JUDICIARY" was approved funds in the amount of 26,569,837.96, which were
implemented through five programs:
1. Program- Judicial Council (301022291) 750,331.30

2. Program- Judiciary (301022301) 10,994,794.31
3. Program- Administration (301022311) 11,004,676.63
4. Program- Admin Misdemeanor bodies (30102701) 1,859,923.85
5. Program-(301021873)
(30102701 Misdemeanor procedure (30102711) 1,960,111.87
Attachment: Structure of implementation of Budget of Judiciary 2016
The largest share in the approved budget has the Program of Administration (41.42%),
followed by Judiciary (41.38%), Administration of Misdemeanor bodies (7.00%),
Misdemeanor procedure (to 7.38%) and Judicial Council (2.82%).
27
7.3.2. Structure of implementation of Budget of "Judiciary" in 2016 per
expenditures
Implementation
JUDICIARY in 2016 %
Functional Economy
classification classification Description
30102 Judiciary 34.705.489,68 100,00
34.705.489,68 100,00
4 Expenditures 34.705.489,68 100,00
41 Current expenditures 28.638.548,87 82,52
Gross salaries and
contributions charged to
411 employer 21.156.402,94 60,96
412 Other personal income 594.377,09 1,71
413 Expenditures for material 929.091,93 2,68
414 Expenditures for services 1.608.177,74 4,63
415 Current maintenance 137.167,12 0,40
417 Rent 290.660,38 0,84
419 Other expenditures 1.722.529,98 4,96
441 Capital expenditures 2.200.141,69 6,34
Repayment of debt from
463 previous years 6.066.940,81 17,48
The largest share in the implementation of Budget of Judiciary have payments for gross
salaries (60.96%), repayment of debt from previous years 17.48% (execution via MF),
capital expenditures 6.34% (expenditures on equipment and buildings-purchase of the
facility for accommodation of Administrative court), other expenditures 4.96% (costs of
court proceedings, development and software maintenance, insurance costs,
expenditures for payment of service contracts), expenditures for services 4.63%
(expenditures for official travels, representation, consulting and legal services,
28
professional training), expenditures for material 2.68% (administrative supplies,
materials for special purposes, expenditures for energy, fuel and other expenses for
materials), other personal incomes 1.71% (severance pay, other benefits and allowances
for housing of judicial office holders), annuity 0.84% (costs which incurred by the use of
premises for the Judicial Council, the Administrative Court, the Commercial Court in
Podgorica, Basic Court in Kotor, Herceg Novi, abljak, Pljevlja, parking spaces for the
Judicial Council, Supreme Court of Montenegro, Appellate, High and Basic Court in
Podgorica, Misdemeanor Courts in Podgorica and Bijelo Polje, as well as renting of fiber-
optic cable for all courts in Podgorica), current maintenance 0.40% (current
maintenance of equipment and buildings).
7.3.4. Program-Misdemeanor procedure (301022711)
The approved amount of funds in the Program of "Misdemeanor procedure" for 2016
amounted to 1,960,111.87. We spent 1,678,029.96, or 85.61% of the total approved
funds.
The largest share in the implementation of the Program "Misdemeanor procedure" are
expenditures for gross salaries 93.83%, other expenditures 4.50% (costs of court
proceedings, lawyers ex officio, expenditures for life and group insurance and other
costs), expenditures for other personal incomes 0.85% (fee for housing rent and
separate life of judges, jubilee awards, severance pay and help - redirected 3175.07),
expenditures for services 0.82% (consulting, professional training services and other
services of translating and printing).
MISDEMEANOR Implementation in
PROCEDURE 2016 %
Functional Economy
301022711 Administration 1.678.029,96 100,00
1.678.029,96 100,00
4 Expenditures 1.678.029,96 100,00
Gross salaries and
411 employer 1.574.567,52 93,83
414 Expenditures for services 13.685,68 0,82
419 Other expenditures 75.486,55 4,50
Attachment: Structure of Budget implementation of Judiciary in 2016, the program

"Misdemeanor procedure":
29
7.3.5. Program-Administration of Misdemeanor bodies (301022701)
The approved amount of funds in the Program Administration of Misdemeanor bodies

for 2016 amounted to 1,859,923.85. We spent 2,137,548.10, or 14.93% of the total
approved funds.
Attachment: Structure of Budget implementation of Judiciary in 2016, the

program "Administration of Misdemeanor bodies":
Administration of Implementation in
Misdemeanor bodies 2016 %
Functional Economy
301022701 Administration 2.137.548,10 100,00
2.137.548,10 100,00
4 Expenditures 2.137.548,10 100,00
Gross salaries and
411 employer 1.528.579,00 71,51
413 Expenditures for material 124.098,96 5,81
414 Expenditures for services 188.818,25 8,83
415 Current maintenance 34.548,34 1,62
419 Other expenditures 130.156,39 6,09
441 Capital expenditures 28.475,03 1,33
463 Repayment of debt 91.423,49 4,28
30
The largest share in the implementation of the Program Administration of Misdemeanor
bodies are expenditures for gross salaries 71.51%, expenditures for services 8.83%
(official travels, representation, communication services, professional training and other
services - redirected 49,661.99), other expenditures 6.09 % (service contracts,
software maintenance, expenditures for insurance, utility charges and other expenses-
redirected 95,311.51), expenditures for material 5.81% (administrative material -
redirected 35,919.87, material for special purposes, expenditures for energy and fuel),
repayment of debt of 4.28% (execution via MF), current maintenance 1.62% (current
maintenance of equipment and buildings), expenditures on equipment 1,33%, and
expenditures for other personal income 0.53% - (redirected 3,390.00, refers to jubilee
awards, severance pay and assistance).
7.3.6. Review of the total costs of the courts, with an overview of the number
of judges, advisors and other administrative staff
The approved budget for 2016, for all courts, amounted to 28,812,837.96
% from
total
% from expenses
total of all
Total Total Other Total courts
expenses of
Court number number of administrativ exspenses in
courts of
of judges advisors e staff 2016
same
jurisdiction
Misdemeanor
11 1 39 785.691,08 23,99% 2,64%
court Bijelo Polje
Misdemeanor
12 1 21 784.192,90 23,95% 2,64%
court Budva
31
Misdemeanor
27 7 70 1.704.524,70 52,06% 5,73%
court Podgorica
Total
Misdemeanor 50 9 130 3.274.408,68 100,00% 11,00%
courts
High
Misdemeanor 7 6 9 488.309,52 100,00% 1,64%
court
Bar 11 7 51 1.178.327,94 8,99% 3,96%
Berane 10 4 42 815.644,91 6,22% 2,74%
Bijelo Polje 11 5 49 1.174.817,98 8,97% 3,95%
Cetinje 6 5 15 603.025,77 4,60% 2,03%
Danilovgrad 4 2 15 331.879,82 2,53% 1,12%
Herceg Novi 8 4 31 651.756,00 4,97% 2,19%
Kolain 3 1 13 275.018,64 2,10% 0,92%
Kotor 16 8 39 1.260.670,83 9,62% 4,24%
Niki 15 8 60 1.412.223,06 10,78% 4,75%
Plav 3 1 14 260.931,25 1,99% 0,88%
Pljevlja 6 3 28 575.815,28 4,39% 1,93%
Podgorica 40 24 120 3.454.999,44 26,37% 11,61%
Roaje 5 0 18 424.897,81 3,24% 1,43%
Ulcinj 6 3 19 498.324,69 3,80% 1,67%
abljak 2 1 8 185.826,39 1,42% 0,62%
Total Basic
146 76 522 13.104.159,81 100,00% 44,03%
courts
Bijelo Polje 17 10 40 1.485.812,23 27,86% 4,99%
Podgorica 40 27 59 3.846.878,16 72,14% 12,93%
Total High
57 37 99 5.332.690,39 100,00% 17,92%
courts
Commercial
16 13 65 2.034.252,02 100,00% 6,84%
court
Appellate court 12 6 24 961.387,53 100,00% 3,23%
Administrative
12 12 21 2.969.809,32 100,00% 9,98%
court
Supreme court 19 10 19 1.595.431,08 100,00% 5,36%
TOTAL 319 169 889 29.760.448,35 100,00%
32
Overview of expenses per jurisdiction of the courts in 2016
33
7.3.7 Free Legal Aid
In the reporting year, the costs of hiring lawyers in providing free legal aid, before all
courts, it was spent a total of 156,206.76.
34
PART II
1. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN 2016
Montenegrin courts have begun the reporting year with 33,298 cases, received 97,478,
resolved 90,537 cases, and 32,313 cases remained unresolved, or 24.71%.
The influx of cases was higher compared to the previous year for 6.13%, and the number
of resolved cases was also higher than in the previous year for 2.49%.
Average monthly influx per judge was 32.99 cases, 367.66 were resolved and 131.22 of
unresolved cases remained per judge, annually.
The quality of work was maintained at a satisfactory level, which means that 21.02% of
all decisions on appeals were revoked, and 68.28% confirmed, while 5.68% partially
confirmed/amended/revoked.
Decisions were made in the legal deadline and only 0.68% of the decisions were made
after the legal deadline expired, which is one of the indicators of efficiency and
effectiveness, along with the respect of the trial within a reasonable time.
Penal policy, which is seen through the number and type of criminal sanctions imposed
for criminal offences in relation to which, during the previous year, were conducted
criminal proceedings, can be assessed as a policy that matches the seriousness of the
performed criminal offences. Out of the total number of passed judgments, 1,792
persons received a suspended sentence (44.31%), while 171 persons were sentenced to
35
pecuniary fines, and 1,360 persons to imprisonment (33.63%). A total of 233 sentences -
work in the public interest were imposed, which represents 5.76% of the total number
of penalties imposed.
High courts in relation to the influx have completed 103.63%, wherein the total number
of unresolved cases is less for 836 cases as compared to the number at the end of 2015.
In High Courts in 70.68%, procedures have been completed within three months,
counting all pending cases, i.e. the total number of resolved cases.
As for the two Specialized departments in High courts, which are trying cases of
organized crime, corruption and war crimes there were 70 pending cases in total, 38
cases were resolved, 32 cases remained unresolved, i.e. 45.71%. The influx was higher
compared to the previous year, and the number of resolved cases increased by 12 cases
compared to the number of cases in the last year.
Commercial Court was also efficient this year, and completed 98.52% compared to the
influx, in relation to the total number of cases 18.07% remained unresolved.
Administrative Court during 2016 had a greater influx of cases compared to the previous
year, as well as a greater number of resolved cases, a total of 4,197, which was 88.19%
out of the total influx of cases. 15.95% of decisions were revoked, which was almost
equal to the number of revoked decisions in 2015.
Appellate Court during 2016 had a total of 2,168 pending cases, of which 92.29%
resolved, i.e. 8.39% of unresolved compared to the influx. The quality of decision-making
is exemplified by 76.36% of confirmed decisions and 14.55% of revoked decisions.
Supreme Court in 2016 received a total of 4,155 cases, i.e. a total of 4,407 pending cases,
including cases from the previous year. In relation to the total influx, 100.55% of cases
were resolved, while 5.13% remained unresolved.
In the last year, 263 complaints of citizens were filed to the Office for complaints at the
Supreme Court of Montenegro, of which 31 were grounded, while there were 125
ungrounded, administratively completed 11 and 16 unfinished, due to their arrival in
December 2016. The complaints were mostly related to the dissatisfaction of the parties
due to decisions of courts of lower instances, while a smaller part was related to the
timeliness of the individual judges.
1.1. The right to trial within a reasonable time
The party and intervener in civil court proceedings, the party and the person concerned in an
administrative dispute, the defendant and the injured party in the criminal proceedings, all of
them have the right to judicial protection for the violation of the right to trial within a
reasonable time, if the proceedings are related to the protection of their rights under the
European Convention for the Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
36
The request to expedite the proceedings (the control request), and the claim for just
satisfaction are legal remedies for the protection of the right to trial within a reasonable time.
There were a total of 248 pending control requests during the last year, 219 were resolved,
while 29 remained unresolved.
After the completion of court proceedings, in accordance with the standards of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the right to a
claim for just satisfaction shall be acquired, and a complaint shall be filed with the Supreme
Court of Montenegro. During the reporting period, 54 of those complaints were in total, of
which 48 were resolved.
After terminated proceedings, the initiated claims for just satisfaction, in which the violation
of the right to trial within a reasonable time was determined, at the non-pecuniary damage
was awarded a total of 24,000.00, which is much smaller amount compared to 2015, when
at the same basis, was awarded 44,700.00.
Therefore, the law has proved to be an effective legal remedy to protect the said right at the
national level, which leads to a reduction in the number of cases addressing the parties to the
European Court of Human Rights.
Overview of the cases upon the claim for just satisfaction

Unresolved Total
SUPREME Received Resolved on Unresolved on %
on pending in
COURT in 2016 31/12/2016 31/12/2016 unresolved
1/1/2016 2016
Cjs 4 50 54 48 6 11,11
Manner of deciding
Claim turned
Violation Claim turned Claim turned
down art. 37 Claim turned down
determined down art. 37 down -
Claim para.2 - submitted Other
and para.2 related submitted at the
rejected related to opposite to art. 2 manner1
compensation to art. 33 same time when
art. 33 para. 1
awarded para.1 control request
para. 3
23 8 6 10 0 0 1
Decisions on claims:
1. Claims were rejected - 16

2. Claims were turned down - 8
3. Claims adopted and compensation awarded - 23
4. Other manner - 1
37
2. DATA ON CONTROL REQUESTS
Rejected as obviously unfounded
will be conducted in the case, or

decision will be passed within 4
by an attorney or a person with
Rejected as untidy, if submitted
Notification to the party that it

Number of submitted requests
determining the time limit for

taking procedural actions, the
Rejected as unfounded art16
Notification to the Parties of

Rejected for untidy control
Upon decisions on appeals
proceedings and decision-

unjustified delay in the
Resolved 31/12/2016
making in the art. 18

COURT
On cases of court
passed Bar exam

request, art. 13
months art. 17
Other manner
Unresolved
Adopted
art. 14
12 12 8 3 3 6 1 1 1
Supreme court
Administrative 16 15 15 1 1 3 2 9 1
court
13 13 4 9 1 8 3 1 0
Appellate court
Commercial 18 16 16 8 2 6 2
court
High court 36 36 36 36 24 12
Podgorica
High court 3 3 2 2 1
Bijelo Polje
4 4 4 3 4
Basic court Bar
Basic court 9 9 9 6 1 2
Berane
Basic court 9 9 9 3 2 3 1
Bijelo Polje
Basic court 1 1 1
Cetinje
Basic court 1 1 1 1
Danilovgrad
Basic court 9 5 9 1 4 4
Herceg Novi
Basic court 3 3 2 2 1
Kolain
Osnovni sud 26 21 26 4 10 6 5 5
Kotor
Basic court 10 10 10 6 4
Niki
0
Basic court Plav
Basic court 0
Pljevlja
Basic court 69 53 53 1 30 3 17 2 16
Podgorica
Basic court 0
Roaje
9 8 9 2 2 5 1 1
Basic court Ulcinj
Basic court 1 1 1 1
abljak
249 220 212 60 2 3 12 113 33 22 34 1 29
Total
38
3. OVERVIEW OF RESOLVING BACKLOG CASES
Total % of total Total % of total

Year of Year of
number number number number
case case
of of of of
initiating initiating
resolved resolved unresolved unresolved
1978 1 0,02% 1982 1 0,03%

1982 5 0,08% 1984 1 0,03%
1984 5 0,08% 1985 2 0,06%
1985 5 0,08% 1986 1 0,03%
1986 2 0,03% 1987 2 0,06%
1987 1 0,02% 1988 1 0,03%
1988 2 0,03% 1989 3 0,09%
1989 7 0,11% 1990 1 0,03%
1990 1 0,02% 1991 2 0,06%
1991 5 0,08% 1993 5 0,16%
1992 5 0,08% 1994 4 0,12%
1993 16 0,25% 1995 7 0,22%
1994 10 0,15% 1996 3 0,09%
1995 15 0,23% 1997 7 0,22%
1996 16 0,25% 1998 6 0,19%
1997 17 0,26% 1999 5 0,16%
1998 20 0,31% 2000 12 0,37%
1999 22 0,34% 2001 15 0,47%
2000 34 0,52% 2002 20 0,62%
2001 26 0,40% 2003 28 0,87%
2002 29 0,45% 2004 30 0,93%
2003 47 0,72% 2005 31 0,96%
2004 54 0,83% 2006 53 1,65%
2005 86 1,32% 2007 112 3,48%
2006 105 1,62% 2008 118 3,67%
2007 190 2,92% 2009 229 7,13%
2008 222 3,42% 2010 334 10,39%
2009 450 6,93% 2011 434 13,50%
2010 629 9,68% 2012 667 20,75%
2011 844 12,99% 2013 1080 33,60%
2012 1492 22,97%
2013 2133 32,84%
Total 6496 Total 3214
39
4. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN 2016
Aver Average
Unresolved at Unresolved at
Delegated/licensed
age Resolved Averag unresolved per
Total beginning the end
Received mont Total of e judge Time
to notary
num
COURT hly pending resolve liness
ber of
influx cases Mer d per rate1
judges
Total OLd2 per Total itor Old judge Total Old Total3 Old
judge ious
Basic 132,25 25644 4140 63660 40,11 89304 56213 16858 2881 7658 425,05 25428 2252 192,27 17,03 88,30
High 56 2947 916 15924 23,70 18871 16502 7004 2153 258 294,68 2111 623 37,70 11,13 103,63
Commercial 16 2279 359 6828 35,56 9107 7461 1674 252 0 466,31 1646 203 102,88 12,69 109,27
Appellate 12 16 11 2152 14,94 2168 1986 806 298 0 165,50 182 49 15,17 4,08 92,29
Administ 12 2160 1 4759 33,05 6919 4197 3444 1 2 349,75 2720 0 226,67 0,00 88,19
rative
Supreme 18 252 158 4155 19,24 4407 4178 1520 911 3 232,11 226 87 12,56 4,83 100,55
TOTAL 246,25 332984 5585 97478 32,99 130776 90537 31306 6496 7921 367,66 32313 3214 131,22 13,05 92,88
1 Timeliness rate (CR indicator)represents the ratio between received cases and resolved cases in the reporting period, expressed as a percentage
2 Old cases older than 3 years (from 2013 and earlier).
3 Number of cases per judge (CPJ indicator): Number of unresolved cases of a certain type at the end of reporting period in relation to the number of judges resolving them in the
reporting period.
4
The difference in the number of unresolved cases at the beginning of 2016, with the number of unresolved cases at the end of 2015, reflects in a greater
number of unresolved cases under the heading "other", which is now 108, while in the last year's report was only one; a result of different ways of
displaying cases of execution ("I" and "Ip").
4.1 Efficiency of the work of courts in 2016 upon CEPEJ indicators
Time
necessary to
Unresolved Time Total
Total Total Resolved Unresolved at The cases resolve total
at the necessary to Efficiency number o
COURT number of resolved backlog in the end flow number of
beginning of resolve rate7 backlog
employees in 2016 2016 31/12/2016 coefficient5 backlog
1/1/2016 cases6 cases8
cases9
(in months)
Basic 744 25644 56213 18334 25428 2,21 165,11 75,56 7310 6,90
High 193 2947 16502 2890 2111 7,82 46,69 85,50 57 0,05
Commercial 94 2279 7461 1761 1646 4,53 80,52 79,37 518 0,40
Appellate 42 16 1986 14 182 10,91 33,45 47,29 2 0,00
Administrative 45 2160 4197 2160 2720 1,54 236,55 93,27 0 0,00
Supreme 48 252 4178 252 226 18,49 19,74 87,04 0 0,00
TOTAL 1166 33298 90537 25411 32313 2,80 130,27 77,65 7887 7,08
5 The cases flow coefficient (CTR indicator) is the ratio between the number of resolved cases and the number of unresolved cases at the end of the reporting period.
6 Time necessary to resolve cases (DT indicator) is the ratio between the number of days in a year and the cases flow coefficients - in days.
7 Efficiency rate (ER indicator) is the ratio between the number of employees in the court (judges, administrative and technical staff who work full-time) in the reporting period and
resolved cases in the same court at the end of the reporting period.
8 Total number of backlog cases (TB indicator) is the difference between the total number of pending cases at the beginning of the period and resolved backlog of cases in the same
period.
9 Time necessary to resolve total number of backlog cases in months, (BR indicator) is the ratio between number of cases and efficiency rate.
41
5. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF BASIC COURTS
Average
Unresolved at Averag Unresolved at
Total Average Resolved unresolved per
the beginning the end
Delegated
Total e judge Efficie
number Received monthly
COURT pendi resolve ncy
of judge influx per
ng Merito d per rate
s Total Old judge Total Old Total Old Total Old
rious judge
Bar 10 1527 406 3911 32,59 5438 3632 1121 335 517 363,20 1289 237 128,90 23,70 92,87
Berane 10 2079 100 4221 35,18 6300 4329 1351 106 750 432,90 1221 26 122,10 2,60 102,56
Bijelo Polje 13 1107 106 4229 27,11 5336 4158 1243 99 524 319,85 654 40 50,31 3,08 98,32
Cetinje 5 1134 190 2085 34,75 3219 2006 660 126 153 401,20 1060 128 212,00 25,60 96,21
Danilovgrad 3 398 51 1805 50,14 2203 1548 340 54 206 516,00 449 25 149,67 8,33 85,76
Herceg Novi 7 1089 361 2879 34,27 3968 2190 541 241 395 312,86 1383 272 197,57 38,86 76,07
Kolain 3 273 13 1114 30,94 1387 1139 439 11 3 379,67 245 2 81,67 0,67 102,24
Kotor 10 2422 733 5551 46,26 7973 4600 1165 502 853 460,00 2520 552 252,00 55,20 82,87
Niki 15 2870 367 9460 52,56 12330 9100 1784 277 709 606,67 2521 206 168,07 13,73 96,19
Plav 3 456 14 1549 43,03 2005 1477 586 14 180 492,33 348 4 116,00 1,33 95,35
Pljevlja 6 276 13 1915 26,60 2191 1442 668 15 478 240,33 271 6 45,17 1,00 75,30
42
Podgorica 34,25 10964 1548 19325 47,02 30289 15055 5264 864 2530 439,56 12704 657 370,92 19,18 77,90
Roaje 5 314 26 2726 45,43 3040 2726 1040 32 141 545,20 173 4 34,60 0,80 100,00
Ulcinj 6 685 206 1918 26,64 2603 1835 484 199 217 305,83 551 93 91,83 15,50 95,67
abljak 2 50 6 967 40,29 1017 976 172 6 2 488,00 39 0 19,50 0,00 100,93
TOTAL 132,25 25644 4140 63655 40,11 89299 56213 16858 2881 7658 425,05 25428 2252 192,27 17,03 88,31
5.1 Statistical overview of the work of Basic courts upon case types
Avera Average
Unresolved at Unresolved at the
ge Resolved Averag unresolved per
Total the beginning end
Delegated
month Total e judge
num Received Efficie
Case type ly pendi resolv
ber of ncy rate
influx ng Merito ed per
judges Total Old Total Old Total Old Total Old
per rious judge
judge
First instance
47 1888 225 3443 6,10 5331 3673 3261 190 166 78,15 1492 79 31,74 1,68 106,68
criminal cases
Cases in criminal
proceedings for 18 53 4 144 0,67 197 162 24 3 0 9,00 35 1 1,94 0,06 112,50
juveniles
Cases of criminal
panel outside of 59 170 3 3294 4,65 3464 3293 0 3 29 55,81 142 0 2,41 0,00 99,97
main hearing
43
Cases of
indictment 46 40 0 447 0,81 487 453 0 0 0 9,85 34 0 0,74 0,00 101,34
control
Cases of the
41 40 0 629 1,28 669 632 0 0 12 15,41 25 0 0,61 0,00 100,48
panel for parole
Cases of
investigating 45 106 4 2505 4,64 2611 2554 0 1 0 56,76 57 3 1,27 0,07 101,96
judge
Implementation
of criminal 15 896 262 2515 13,97 3411 2506 0 109 1 167,07 904 153 60,27 10,20 99,64
sanctions
Civil cases 99,25 16348 2466 22167 18,61 38515 19850 11192 1852 1459 200,00 17206 1553 173,36 15,65 89,55
Civil cases of
92 2781 25 5388 4,88 8169 5117 2369 20 32 55,62 3019 8 32,82 0,09 94,97
small value
Probate cases 43 616 121 6775 13,13 7391 1043 0 71 5943 24,26 405 69 9,42 1,60 15,39
Cases on
complaints
against the 19 5 0 45 0,20 50 34 0 0 0 1,79 16 0 0,84 0,00 75,56
decisions of the
notary
Complex non-
51 747 90 1846 3,02 2593 1758 12 83 0 34,47 835 44 16,37 0,86 95,23
litigious cases
Other civil and 35 59 3 1332 3,17 1391 1229 0 2 0 35,11 81 0 2,31 0,00 92,27
non-litigious
44
cases
Cases on
complaints
against the civil 18 1 0 19 0,09 20 16 0 0 0 0,89 4 0 0,22 0,00 84,21
and non-litigious
decisions
Cases of
109 1786 869 11371 8,69 13157 12088 0 542 0 110,90 1050 336 9,63 3,08 106,31
implementation
Other 22 108 68 1735 6,57 1843 1805 0 5 16 82,05 123 6 5,59 0,27 104,03
TOTAL 132,25 25644 4140 63655 40,11 89299 56213 16858 2881 7658 425,05 25428 2252 192,27 17,03 88,31
45
5.2 Efficiency of work of Basic courts
Unresolved
Total Total Backlog Unresolved at The case Time Total number Time necessary to
at the Efficiency
COURT number of resolved resolved the end flow necessary to of backlog resolve total number
beginning rate of backlog cases
employees in 2015 in 2015 31/12/2015 coefficient resolve cases cases
1/1/2015 (in months)
Bar 69 1527 3632 1120 1289 2,82 129,54 52,64 407 0,37
Berane 56 2079 4329 1938 1221 3,55 102,95 77,30 141 0,11
Bijelo Polje 65 1107 4158 1027 654 6,36 57,41 63,97 80 0,07
Cetinje 26 1134 2006 744 1060 1,89 192,87 77,15 390 0,34
Danilovgrad 21 398 1548 257 449 3,45 105,87 73,71 141 0,14
Herceg Novi 43 1089 2190 650 1383 1,58 230,50 50,93 439 0,48
Kolain 17 273 1139 249 245 4,65 78,51 67,00 24 0,02
Kotor 63 2422 4600 1447 2520 1,83 199,96 73,02 975 0,98
Niki 83 2870 9100 2122 2521 3,61 101,12 109,64 748 0,65
Plav 18 456 1477 410 348 4,24 86,00 82,06 46 0,04
Pljevlja 37 276 1442 245 271 5,32 68,60 38,97 31 0,03
Podgorica 184 10964 15055 7229 12704 1,19 308,00 81,82 3735 4,00
Roaje 23 314 2726 301 173 15,76 23,16 118,52 13 0,01
Ulcinj 28 685 1835 547 551 3,33 109,60 65,54 138 0,12
abljak 11 50 976 48 39 25,03 14,59 88,73 2 0,00
TOTAL 744 25644 56213 18334 25428 2,21 165,11 75,56 7310 6,90
46
6. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF HIGH COURTS
Tot Unresolved at the Average

Unresolved at
al Resolved Averag unresolved per
beginning Average the end
Delegated
num Total e judge Efficiency
Received monthly
COURT ber pendin resolve Total rate (CR
influx per Merit
of g d per (CPJ indicator)
Total Old judge Total oriou Old Total Old Old
judg judge indicato
es s
r)
Bijelo Polje 17 290 3 4935 24,19 5225 5037 2400 5 4 296,29 184 0 0,00 0,00 102,07
Podgorica 39 2657 913 10989 23,48 13646 11465 4604 2148 254 293,97 1927 623 15,97 15,97 104,33
Total 56 2947 916 15924 23,70 18871 16502 7004 2153 258 294,68 2111 623 11,13 11,13 103,63
47
6.1 STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF HIGH COURTS UPON CASE TYPES
Averag Average
Unresolved at the Unresolved at
Total e Resolved Average unresolved
beginning the end
Delegated
per judge Efficienc
numbe Received monthl Total resolved
CASE TYPE y
r of y influx pending per
rate
judges per Merit judge
Total Old Total Old Total Old Total Old
judge orious
First instance
13 123 16 211 1,35 334 197 174 11 0 15,15 137 7 10,54 0,54 93,36
criminal cases
First instance
criminal cases - 6 27 4 43 0,60 70 38 17 2 0 6,33 32 2 5,33 0,33 88,37
special
Cases in
criminal
2 3 0 8 0,33 11 10 2 0 0 5,00 1 0 0,50 0,00 125,00
proceedings for
juveniles
Cases of
criminal panel
8 43 0 1360 14,17 1403 1391 0 0 0 173,88 12 0 1,50 0,00 102,28
outside of main
hearing
Cases of
indictment 5 7 0 192 3,20 199 192 0 0 0 38,40 7 0 1,40 0,00 100,00
control
48
Cases of
criminal panel
outside of main 6 6 0 169 2,35 175 170 0 0 0 28,33 5 0 0,83 0,00 100,59
hearing -
special
Cases of
indictment
2 3 0 23 0,96 26 23 0 0 0 11,50 7 0 3,50 0,00 100,00
control -
special
Cases of
investigating 7 30 0 508 6,05 538 499 0 0 0 71,29 39 0 5,57 0,00 98,23
judge
Second
instance 15 182 1 1756 9,76 1938 1863 1303 5 0 124,20 75 2 5,00 0,13 106,09
criminal cases
Second
instance civil 38 2444 893 9779 21,45 12223 10238 5503 2133 258 269,42 1727 612 45,45 16,11 104,69
cases
Other 12 79 2 1875 13,02 1954 1881 5 2 0 156,75 69 0 5,75 0,00 100,32
TOTAL 56 2947 916 15924 23,70 18871 16502 7004 2153 258 294,68 2111 623 37,70 11,13 103,63
49
6.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF HIGH COURTS
Time necessary
Unresolved Total Backlog
Total Unresolved at The case Time Total number to resolve total
at the resolved resolved Efficiency
COURT number of the end flow necessary to of backlog number of
beginning in in rate
employees 31/12/2016 coefficient resolve cases cases backlog cases
1/1/2016 2016 2016
(in months)
Bijelo Polje 67 290 5037 286 184 27,38 13,33 75,18 4 0,00
Podgorica 126 2657 11465 2604 1927 5,95 61,35 90,99 53 0,04
TOTAL 193 2947 16502 2890 2111 7,82 46,69 85,50 57 0,05
50
7. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Averag Average
Total Unresolved at Unresolved at
Resolved unresolved per
Delegated/licensed
the beginning e Average the end
numb Received judge
monthl Total resolv Efficienc
to notary
COURT er of
y influx pending ed per y rate10
judge
per Merito judge
s Total Old11 Total Old Total Old Total12 Old
judge rious
Commercial 16 2279 359 6828 35,56 9107 7461 1674 252 0 466,31 1646 203 102,88 12,69 109,27
7.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO UPON CASE TYPES
Averag Average
Delegated/licensed
numb Received judge
monthl Total resolve Efficienc
to notary
CASE TYPE er of
y influx pending d per y rate13
judge
per Merito judge
s Total Old Total Old Total Old Total Old
judge rious
Civil cases 12 1787 259 2131 15,33 3918 2760 1674 235 0 230,00 1158 120 96,50 10,00 129,52
reporting period.
51
Cases of
16 93 2 4051 24,79 4144 3991 0 1 0 249,44 153 1 9,56 0,06 98,52
execution
Bankruptcies
and 6 381 98 597 8,29 978 660 0 16 0 110,00 318 82 53,00 13,67 110,55
liquidations
Other 12 18 0 49 0,75 67 50 0 0 0 4,17 17 0 1,42 0,00 102,04
7.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF COMMERCIAL COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Time
necessary to
Unresolved Total Backlog Time Total resolve total
Total Unresolved at The case
at the resolved resolved necessary to Efficiency number of number of
COURT number of the end flow
beginning in in resolve rate 16 backlog backlog
employees 31/12/2016 coefficient 14
1/1/2016 2016 2016 cases 15 cases 17 cases (in
months)18
Commercial 94 2279 7461 1761 1646 4,53 80,52 79,37 518 0,40
15 Time necessary to resolve cases (DT indicator) is ratio between the number of days in a year and the cases flow coefficients in days.
16 Efficiency rate (ER indicator) is the ratio between the number of employees in the court (judges, administrative and technical staff who work full-time) in the reporting period and
resolved cases in the same court at the end of the reporting period.
17 Total number of backlog cases (TB indicator) is the difference between the total number of pending cases at the beginning of the period and resolved backlog of cases in the same
period.
52
8. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF APPELLATE COURT
Averag Average
Delegated/licensed
the beginning e Avera ge the end
numb Resolved judge
to notary
COURT er of
y influx pending ed per y rate19
judge
per Merito judge
judge rious
Appellate 12 16 11 2152 14,94 2168 1986 806 298 0 165,50 182 49 15,17 4,08 92,29
8.1 OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF APPELLATE COURT UPON CASE TYPES
Averag Average
Delegated/licensed
e Average
numb the beginning Received the end
monthl Total resolved judge Efficienc
to notary
CASE TYPE e r of
y influx pending per y rate22
judge
per Merito judge
judge rious
Second
8 5 4 857 8,93 862 858 161 40 0 107,25 4 2 0,50 0,25 100,12
instance
criminal
reporting period.
53
cases
Second
instance
5 2 1 22 0,37 24 23 17 12 0 4,60 1 1 0,20 0,20 104,55
criminal
cases - special
Second
instance civil 4 9 6 1259 26,23 1268 1091 622 244 0 272,75 177 46 44,25 11,50 86,66
cases
Other 4 0 0 14 0,29 14 14 6 2 0 3,50 0 0 0,00 0,00 100,00
8.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF APPELLATE COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Time
necessary to
months)27
24 Time necessary to resolve cases (DT indicator) is ratio between the number of days in a year and a case flow coeffcients in days.
25 Efficiency rate (ER indicator) is the ratio between the number of employees in the court (judges, administrative and technical staff who work full-time) in the reporting period
and resolved cases in the same court at the end of the reporting period.
26 Total number of backlog cases (TB indicator) is the difference between the total number of pending cases at the beginning of the period and resolved backlog of cases in the
same period.
54
Appellate 42 16 1986 14 182 10,91 33,45 47,29 2 0,00
9. OVERVIEW OF WORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Averag Average
Delegated/licensed
numb Received judge
to notary
COURT er of
y influx pending ed per y rate 28
judge
per Merito judge Ukupn Ukupno
s Total Old29 Total Old Starih Starih
judge rious o 30
Administrative 12 2160 1 4759 33,05 6919 4197 3444 1 2 349,75 2720 0 226,67 0,00 88,19
9.1 OVERVIEW OF WORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT UPON CASE TYPES
Total Received Averag Average Average

Unresolved at Total Unresolved at Efficienc
to notary
Delegate
d/licens
CASE TYPE Resolved unresolved per
numb the beginning e pending resolve the end y rate 31
judge
e r of monthl d per
ed
29 Old cases older than 3 years (from 2013 and earlier)
reporting period.
55
judge y influx judge
Merito
s Total Old32 per Total Old Total Old Total33 Old
rious
judge
Upravni
12 2158 1 4691 32,58 6849 4130 3444 1 0 344,17 2719 0 226,58 0,00 88,04
predmeti
9.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF ADMINISTRATIVE COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Time
necessary to
Unresolved Total Backlog The case Time Total resolve total
Total Unresolved at
at the resolved resolved flow necessary to Efficiency number of number of
COURT number of the end
beginning in in coefficient resolve rate 36 backlog backlog
employees 31/12/2016
1/1/2016 2016 2016 34 cases 35 cases 37 cases (in
months)38
Administrative 45 2160 4197 2160 2720 1,54 236,55 93,27 0 0,00

reporting period.
35 Time necessary to resolve cases (DT Indicator) is ratio between the number of days in a year and a cases flow coefficient in days.
same period.
38 Time necessary to resolve total number of backlog cases in months, (BR indicator) is the ratio between number of cases and efficiency rate .
56
10. OVERVIEW OF WORK OF SUPREME COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Averag Average
Delegated/licensed
num Received judge
monthl Total resolve Efficien
to notary
COURT ber of
y influx pending d per cy rate 39
judge
per Merito judge
judge rious
Supreme 18 252 158 4155 19,24 4407 4178 1520 911 3 232,11 226 87 12,56 4,83 100,55
10.1 OVERVIEW OF WORK OF THE SUPREME COURT UPON CASE TYPES
Averag Average
Delegated/licensed
num Received judge
monthl Total resolv Efficien
to notary
CASE TYPE ber of
y influx pending ed per cy rate 42
judge
per Merito judge
judge rious
6 7 0 404 5,61 411 397 32 0 3 66,17 11 0 1,83 0,00 98,27

Criminal cases
11 200 158 1532 11,61 1732 1584 1055 909 0 144,00 148 87 13,45 7,91 103,39
Civil cases
reporting period.
57
Administrative 3 38 0 459 12,75 497 438 404 0 0 146,00 59 0 19,67 0,00 95,42
cases
Cases upon
claims for 3 4 0 50 1,39 54 48 28 2 0 16,00 6 0 2,00 0,00 96,00
just
satisfaction
15 7 0 1760 9,78 1767 1759 35 2 0 117,27 8 0 0,53 0,00 99,94
Other
20 252 316 4155 17,31 4407 4178 2613 0 3 208,90 226 174 11,30 8,70 100,55
TOTAL
10.2 EFFICIENCY OF WORK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTENEGRO
Time
necessary to
months)47
Supreme 48 252 4178 252 226 18,49 19,74 87,04 0 0,00
44 Time necessary to resolve cases(DT Indicator) is ratio between the number of days in a year and the cases flow coefficients in days.
same period.
58
11. OVERVIEW OF IMPOSED SENTENCES
Number of
Number of
Number of imprisonm Work in public
COURT Total % suspended % % % Other %
fines ent interest
sentences
sentences
Bar 355 8 2,25 176 49,58 116 32,68 19 5,35 36 10,14
Berane 204 22 10,78 83 40,69 75 36,76 21 10,29 3 1,47
Bijelo Polje 275 12 4,36 121 44,00 74 26,91 29 10,55 39 14,18
Cetinje 171 7 4,09 81 47,37 51 29,82 29 16,96 3 1,75
Danilovgrad 16 0 0,00 13 81,25 2 12,50 0 0,00 1 6,25
Herceg Novi 167 5 2,99 94 56,29 24 14,37 10 5,99 34 20,36
Kolasin 135 9 6,67 77 57,04 37 27,41 0 0,00 12 8,89
Kotor 457 24 5,25 232 50,77 160 35,01 21 4,60 20 4,38
Niksic 478 9 1,88 269 56,28 121 25,31 38 7,95 41 8,58
Plav 54 4 7,41 19 35,19 25 46,30 2 3,70 4 7,41
Pljevlja 83 9 10,84 46 55,42 24 28,92 0 0,00 4 4,82
Podgorica 1039 30 2,89 417 40,13 312 30,03 48 4,62 232 22,33
Rozaje 201 15 7,46 70 34,83 80 39,80 1 0,50 35 17,41
Ulcinj 121 8 6,61 74 61,16 24 19,83 5 4,13 10 8,26
Zabljak 33 9 27,27 17 51,52 4 12,12 0 0,00 3 9,09
Total Basic courts 3789 171 4,51 1789 47,22 1129 29,80 223 5,89 477 12,59
High court
90 0 0,00 0 0,00 81 90,00 2 2,22 7 7,78
Bijelo Polje
High court
165 0 0,00 3 1,82 150 90,91 8 4,85 4 2,42
Podgorica
Total High courts 255 0 0,00 3 1,18 231 90,59 10 3,92 11 4,31
TOTAL 4044 171 4,23 1792 44,31 1360 33,63 233 5,76 488 12,07
59
12. SEIZED OBJECTS OF CRIMES UPON BINDING JUDGEMENTS
Court Weapons Drugs Money
BAsic court Cetinje 8 pistols, 10 guns, 18 - -

blasting caps, 1596,12
gr of commercial
explosive, 4,2 m of
detonating cords, 825
pcs of different
ammunition
Basic court Kolain 5 pistols, 1 gun , 28 pcs - -

of different ammunition
Basic court Kotor 4 pistols, 3 guns, 164 11 packets of marijuana, -
pcs of different 3 marijuana cigarettes
ammunition
Basic court Bar 3 guns, 13 pistols, 381 - 50 euros- falsificate

pcs of different
ammunition, 4.378,54 gr
of TNT-a, 4 blasting
caps, 3 sticks of
dynamite
Basic court Ulcinj - - 300 euros- falsificate
Basic court Berane 5 guns, ammunition - -
185 pcs, 5 pistols,500 gr
of explosive, 28 blasting
caps, stick of dynamite
70 m, 51 pcs of hunters
ammunition municije, 6
frames for ammunition
Basic court abljak 2 guns, 2 optical - -

aftersight
Basic court Niki 10 pistols, 15 guns, 1 - 200,00 euros -
machine gun, 7 pcs of falsificate
hand bombs, 1768 pcs
of ammunition, 1458,88
gr of commercial
explosive, 12,5 m of
detonating cords, 2
commercial stick of
dynamite, 6 pcs of
blasting caps
Basic court Herceg 3 pistols Cocaine 9,36 gr. -

Novi
Basic court 2 pistols, 16 bullets, 11 - -
Danilovgrad sticks of dynamite, 2
commercial explosive,
frame for ammunition
Basic court Roaje 3 guns, 3 pistols, 18 pcs - 50 euros
of ammunition
Basic court Bijelo Polje 4 pistols, 7 guns, 226 1,26 g marijuana 180 euros
pcs of different
ammunition
Basic court Plav 70 guns, 90 bullets, 1 - -
stick of dynamite, 1
blasting cap
Basic court Podgorica 33 pistols, 6 guns, 361 - -
pcs of ammunition
Basic court Pljevlja - - -
61
High court Bijelo Polje 1 pistol 5,9 kg marijuana, 15 -
steams, 509,27 g
heroine, 96,18 cocaine,
9,94 amphetamine,
MDMA 15,54 g,
High court Podgorica * 4 pistols, 2 guns, 130 1,665 kg heroine, 1830 euros
pcs of ammunition 571,125 kg marijuana,
municije 96,19 g cocaine, 0,92 gr
hashish, 1,35 g
amphetamine, 1 beg of
seed without gramage,
MDMA powder 43,46 g
* According to the plea agreement, it was seized: 48.37 grams of heroin, 376.970 kg of
marijuana, 44.03 grams of cocaine, 0.92 grams of amphetamine, MDMA 7.21;
* Material gain: 2,010, $ 20, and payments for NGO 4Life 2500, Association Parents
5,000, KBC 15,500, Komanski most 2,000.
13. SEIZED OBJECTS OF CRIMES UPON NON-BINDING JUDGEMENTS
Court Weapons Drugs MOney

Basic court Cetinje 1 gun, 2 bombs, 14 - -
bullets, 3 sticks of
dynamite, 21 blaasting
caps, 4,750 g explosive
Basic court Kolain 1 gun, ammunition 117 - -

pcs,
detonating cord 6,21m,
62
Basic court Kotor 10 pistols, 4 guns, 1 RPG, 2 cigarettes of 10,00
2 hand bombs 708 pcs of marijuana, 5 cigarettes
different ammunition of canabis, beg of
amphetamine
Basic court Bar 3 pistols, 42 pcs of - -

different ammunition
Basic court Berane Guns 2 pcs, 2 frame for - -
ammunition, 31 pcs of
Basic court abljak - - -
Basic court Ulcinj 1 gun, 5 bullets - -

Basic court Niki 2 pistols, 2 guns, 1 hend - -
bomb, 165 pcs of
,1835,6 g of commercial
explosive, 5 detonating
cords, 17 pcs of blasting
caps, 2 package of TNT
Basic court Herceg 1 pistol - -

Novi
Basic court - - -
Danilovgrad
63
Basic court Roaje - - -
Basic court Bijelo Polje - - -
Basic court Plav - - -
Basic court Podgorica 8 pistols, 11 guns, 536 - 3.500

pcs of ammunition
Basic court Pljevlja - - -

High court Bijelo Polje 3 pistols Marijuana 397,72 g,
cocaine 0,75 g, MDMA
15,91 g
High court Podgorica 26,775 kg heroine, -
13,923 kg marijuana, 80
tablets of MDMA
64
14. CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES
Montenegrin courts have begun the reporting year with 33,298 cases, received 97,478,
resolved 90,537 cases, and 32,313 cases remained unresolved or 24.71%.
Montenegrin courts were efficient in 2016, also, as indicated by the Efficiency rate indicator,
according to the CEPEJ guidelines, as follows: Basic courts - 88.30%, High courts -
103,63%, Commercial Court of Montenegro - 109.27%, Appellate Court of Montenegro -
92.29%, Administrative court of Montenegro - 88.19% and the Supreme court of
Montenegro - 100.55%.
At the level of the Montenegrin judiciary, efficiency rate is 92.88% and the efficiency rate
by CEPEJ indicators is 77.65%.
In terms of resolving cases older than three years, compared to the previous year, the
number of resolved cases increased by 30.9%, while the average backlog of "old" cases
was 13,05 per judge. Increasing the number of resolved old cases was harmonized with
the efforts, priorities and objectives of the judicial branch, which was also stated in the
Report on Montenegro's progress in 2015, in the part for efficiency of the courts.
Total number of unresolved cases at the end of 2016 amounted to 32,313 cases, which,
as compared to the end of 2015, was less for 1,101 cases, i.e. 3.29%.
In 2016, we have observed the increase in the quality of the work of courts, in relation
to the previous year, when the percentage of revoked decisions accounted to 21.83%,
and this year it was 21.02%. Over the past year, from the total number of decisions on
appeals, 68.28% was confirmed, 21.02% was revoked, while 5.68% partially
confirmed/amended/revoked.
It is evident that in the reporting year in courts, only 0.68% of the decisions in complex
types of cases were drafted after the legal deadline expired, which is at last year's level.
Of all the decisions that were made, in the Basic courts 0.80% of the decisions were
drafted after the legal deadline, and in the High courts 0.84%.
Regarding the duration of proceedings in complex cases, in all Basic courts in

Montenegro, up to three months 55.69% of all cases were completed, up to six months
15.86%, up to nine months 9.94%, up to one year 5.23%, and more than one year
13.28%.
In Basic courts there was about the same number of civil cases in relation to 2015,
considering that in 2016, a total number of 22,167 cases were received, while there
were 3443 criminal cases received, i.e. 123 cases more compared to 2015.
Penal policy, which is seen through the number and type of criminal sanctions imposed
for criminal offenses in relation to which, during the previous year were conducted legal
proceedings, can be assessed as a policy that matches the seriousness of the performed
criminal offences. Out of the total number of passed judgments, 1,792 persons received a
suspended sentence (44.31%), while 171 persons were sentenced to a pecuniary fine
(4.23%), and 1,360 persons to imprisonment (33.63%). A total number of 233 sentences
65
work in the public interest was imposed, which represents 5.76% of the total number of
imposed sentences.
The High Court in Podgorica started the reporting year with 2,657 cases, received
10,989, had a total number of 13,646 pending cases, resolved 11,465 cases, 1,927
remained unresolved, which makes the efficiency rate of 104.33%. High Court in Bijelo
Polje during 2016, received a total of 4,935 cases, resolved 5,037 (including cases from
earlier years), while at the end of the year 184 cases remained unresolved. So, High
courts in relation to the influx resolved 103,63%, while 70.68% of procedures were
completed within three months, counting all pending cases.
As for the Specialized department in High court, trying cases of organized crime,
corruption and war crimes, there was a total number of 70 cases, 38 cases were
resolved, 32 remained unresolved, i.e. 45.71%. The influx was higher compared to 2015,
as well as the number of resolved cases to 12. This is a result that is better than the
previous year, but leaves room for improvement in the coming years.
Commercial Court was also efficient this year, completed 109.27% compared to the
influx, and in relation to the total number of cases 18.07% remained unresolved. Out of
977 bankruptcy cases, 660 were resolved, while from the civil cases 38.20% remained
unresolved. The quality of work is satisfactory, considering that 22.30% of all the
decisions were revoked.
Administrative Court in this year had a greater influx of cases compared to the previous
year, completed 88.19% of the total influx of cases. The quality of work of the
Administrative Court was 15.95% of revoked decisions, which is almost equal to the
number of revoked decisions at the end of 2015.
Appellate Court had 2,168 of pending cases and completed 92.29% of cases compared to
the influx. The quality of decision-making is exemplified by 76.36% of confirmed and
14.55% of revoked decisions, which is a good quality.
Supreme Court had a total of 4,155 cases, completed 4,178 and 226 remained
uncompleted.
Office for complaints at the Supreme Court of Montenegro reduced the number of
addressing of citizens compared to 2015, 263 complaints were filed, that were mainly
related to the dissatisfaction of the parties due to first and second instance decisions,
while a smaller part was related to the timeliness of the behavior of individual judges.
In the reporting period, implementation of positive regulations, established a new

system of election, promotion, performance appraisal, mobility and disciplinary
responsibility of judges. Thus, for the first time a process of voluntary horizontal
deployment of judges was carried out by filling judicial posts through internal
announcement. At internal announcements for filling vacant judicial posts in the Basic
Court in Podgorica, there were more interested candidates, while for the another court
of the same kind in Herceg Novi and the High Court in Bijelo Polje, there were no applied
candidates. Incentives for voluntary permanent reassignment of judges, which the
Judicial Council brought at the VII session of the Judicial Council, held on 7 March 2016,
66
did not encourage judges to apply on the said announcements, so their further
improvement is necessary, which is in accordance with EU recommendations.
After the conducted procedure upon the public announcement, three candidates for
judges of the Basic courts were elected. They will be elected for judges of the Basic Court
after completing initial training, conducted by the Center for Training in Judiciary and
the State Prosecution, and the time spent on practice in the Basic Court in Podgorica in
the period of nine, i.e. 18 months, under the supervision of a mentor, if they get a rating
of "satisfactory".
Election of judges of Basic courts, by the implementation of new legislation has shown
certain shortcomings in the practice. Thus, the election of judges lasts much longer than
it was the case with the application of the previous legislation, which, with an increased
influx of cases is reflected to the workload of judges, as well as achieved measure of
efficiency. Moreover, the method of assessment of candidates did not provide evaluation
of all parameters that are relevant for the election of the highest quality candidate.
A system for periodical professional assessment, planned by the Judicial Reform

Strategy, was established in order to strengthen the independence, impartiality and
accountability of the judiciary. The prescribed criteria, sub-criteria and indicators for the
assessment of judges and the presidents of courts, provide a basis for transparent and
performance-based promotion and they should lead to a result of promotion of judges in
the court of higher instance, i.e. indicate to occupational cons of judges, resulting in their
additional training or responsibility. Moreover, the evaluation process should be based
on adequate and substantive analysis of the work of judges, and it should not be a mere
statistical indicator. In the upcoming period, it is necessary to establish proper and
effective implementation of the evaluation system, making efforts to strengthen the
quality of justice by the evaluation of judges, without compromising judicial
independence, which, along with the existence of the courts qualified for the adoption of
decisions of the highest possible quality, represents the basis of the rule of law.
It is necessary to emphasize the obvious differences between certain courts in the influx
of cases and the workload of judges, and that problem can be solved by reassigning
judges from less burdened courts to the court in which is recorded a large number of
cases per judge. It is therefore necessary by positive regulations to envisage measures
that would regulate material costs which are required for the procedure of reassigning
the judge to work in another court, i.e. another municipality.
Regarding the content of the legal provisions which envisage disciplinary violations of
judges, it appears that the criteria for minor, serious and most serious disciplinary
violations, are set too high, in the sense that is very difficult to start up the procedure for
determining disciplinary responsibility of judges, in particular for the most serious
disciplinary violations, which may result in dismissal. As a result, the fact that in 2016,
not a single decision was brought by which the disciplinary responsibility of a judge was
determined, which balance of the achieved results remains limited and leaves room for
reducing public confidence in the work of the Judicial Council. Therefore, in this year it is
necessary to intensify activities of monitoring the implementation of these legal
provisions and to make a proposal to amend the Law on the Judicial Council and the
67
judges, in order to precisely identified the rules of disciplinary responsibility of judges,
i.e. that non-compliance with the procedural and substantive norms by judges would be
accompanied by the respective procedures.
Extended jurisdiction of the Judicial Council strongly demands the strengthening of

material and human resources of the Secretariat of the Council. Problems have been
noticed in the ICT department of the Secretariat due to the departure of leading experts,
but also in employing highly qualified staff, since according to the published
announcements there were no candidates. Moreover, the Judicial Council and the
Secretariat do not have their own space, but still work in the premises that were
transferred from the Central Bank, which makes an increasing problem, especially
regarding the realization of new competences of the Council.
During 2016, significant activities were undertaken to determine the impact of human
factors on the system of random allocation of cases, and after determining the factual
situation at the Montenegrin courts of all instances, it was found that there were no
violation of the principle of random allocation of cases. Namely, by JIS, each party is
guaranteed the right to a randomly selected judge, and during the reporting year, the
specific ICT Strategy in the field of justice was adopted, for the period 2016 - 2020,
aimed at developing and improving the judicial information system. The Judicial Council
will continue with the maintenance of JIS and after the adoption of ICT Strategy of
Justice envisaging the development of a new system whose implementation is being
planned for 2019. The Council will intensify activities upon the action plans for the
implementation of the Judicial Reform Strategy, action plans for Chapters 23 and 24 and
the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy for combating corruption and
organized crime. In order to further strengthen their own capacities and transparency,
the Council and the courts will seek to enhance the cooperation with law faculties, as
well as with non-governmental sector.
Full respect of the right to trial within a reasonable time will remain the strategic
guideline, which will assume the improvement of the system of monitoring the duration
of court proceedings through an information system, development of a system of
measuring the workload of judges, effective protection of the right to trial within a
reasonable time, and to encourage a greater use of alternative methods of resolving
disputes.
Quality and continuous training of judges and court administration will contribute to
improving the knowledge of holders of judicial office, on jurisprudence of the European
Court of Human Rights and European Union law, aimed at ensuring compliance of
relevant national case law with the European one, which will be conducted through the
Center for Training in Judiciary and the State Prosecution. In the field of the effective
application of the rights under the European Convention in the national case-law, in the
coming period additional attention should be paid to freedom of expression under
Article 10 of the Convention and the drafting of the document on the evaluation of the
68
needs for training of judges on the application of the rights guaranteed by the
Convention.
Judicial authority, in addition to independence compared to other constitutionally

regulated authorities, requires the provision of economic independence of the holders of
judicial office. It is a prerequisite of any other independence, a guarantee of free
operation, full dedication to work, the equivalent to the weight and duties of the judicial
function, and therefore, the material position of judges and court administration should
be continuously strengthened. In this regard, in order to solve the housing needs of
judges and employees of the courts, the Judicial Council was issued urban - technical
conditions for the construction of multifamily housing, after being transferred the right
to dispose of construction land, on the cadastral parcels in Podgorica, by the Ministry of
Justice. Afterward, the activities have been carried out on the development of technical
documentation - conceptual design, the main project through the Directorate of Public
Works. The next step is to seek co-investors and defining ways of repayment of built
apartments, as previous issues necessary for drawing up tender documentation and
announcing public invitation. It confirms that the status of the judge is not measured
only by the income, but also by other guarantees of their independence - solving housing
matters, payment for overtime work, etc.
In the process of preparation and adoption of the budget, funds were requested in the
amount of 36,309,030.96, however, 28,812,837.96 were approved. This amount is
not sufficient to meet the needs of current activities of the Council, the courts and the
Secretariat which will generally mean less investment in the judicial system.
Furthermore, it is necessary to provide adequate budget funds for the smooth operation
and development of judicial institutions. This includes the allocation for salaries of
employees, material costs and the provision of funds for investment, primarily for
building and creating material - technical conditions for the work of the Special Division
of the High Court in Podgorica, as well as a building for the courts. It should be noted
that after a public call, in the past year, the work premises for the Administrative Court
of Montenegro was bought, which will meet the accommodation needs of the Court. The
technical requirements for the monitoring of trials and full transparency were provided
in a certain number of courtrooms.
It is necessary to provide the necessary funding for the final realization of the goals of
improving the infrastructure and strengthening the security of court buildings. In
addition, in accordance with the Directive of Judicial Reform Strategy 2014 - 2018, in all
courts unrestricted access to judicial institutions to persons with disabilities and other
vulnerable groups should be allowed, in order to offer equal access to justice for all
citizens, regardless of their specialty or personal characteristics. Providing access to a
building in which are placed the Supreme Court of Montenegro, the Appellate Court of
Montenegro and the High Court in Podgorica, the previous obstacle to achieving the goal
of ensuring the right of access to justice for all categories of persons is removed.
69
In the budget of the courts, it is necessary to provide significant funds for capital
investments, in order to provide adequate space to accommodate the Judicial Council
and the courts, the maintenance of existing equipment and software licenses,
replacement of old computer equipment. This need is particularly evident in
Misdemeanor courts, the resources for training of IT and other staff in the judiciary, as
well as the further development of information systems.
Judicial statistics are used primarily to facilitate the efficient functioning of the judicial
system, the systematization of information on the outcome of the work of the courts and
the quality of justice, the workload of courts and judges, the time required to resolve the
workload, the quality of work of the courts and the amount of human and financial
resources needed to be deployed in the system, thus the influx of cases should be solved
within a reasonable time. Therefore, it is important to modernize the Judicial
Information System since the present technology is out-of-date, so the system currently
does not have full capacity to meet the needs of modern time.
Bearing in mind that JIS will be strategically treated as an asset of national interest, it is
necessary that the state, outside of the budget for the judiciary, financially intervenes
and assists its further development. In addition, complete integration and automation of
court proceedings is one of the essential conditions of the European integration.
Court efficiency, increasing the quality of the work and harmonization of court practice,
contributes to the strengthening of Montenegro as a democratic and legal state, but
above all, to enjoyment, exercising and protection of the rights and freedoms of every
individual. Just the respect for the guaranteed rights and freedoms at the national and
international levels, respecting the principle of a fair trial, trial within a reasonable time
and access to justice, are the values that Montenegrin judiciary should exercise and
protect.
Implementation of strategic documents relating to the reform of the judiciary is running

by the planned dynamics. According to reports on implementation of the measures from
the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Judicial Reform Strategy 2014-2016, and
the reports on implementation of the action plans for chapters 23 and 24, there was a
high level of implementation measures. Time has shown commitment of the judicial
branch to planned implementation of extensive and demanding reform activities. These
results represent a stimulus to achieving even better results that are essential to
Montenegro progressed on the path of European integration and ultimately to get the
benchmarks for closing the negotiating chapters 23 and 24. In this regard, emphasis
should be placed on further strengthening the independence, accountability, efficiency,
impartiality and transparency of the court system, as the full application of the law,
continuing education of judicial function holders, respect for human rights and
international standards based on the performance of the judicial function.
Therefore, the recommendation from previous reports remains that only an
independent budget commitment and strengthening the administrative capacity of the
70
judiciary can effectively and sustainably achieve established objectives. The
commitment, willingness and determination of judges and court administration, as well
as the results obtained from the reporting year provide a solid basis, that the successful
work will also be continued in the following year.
71
PART III
OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE MISDEMEANOR COURTS FOR 2016
72
I MISDEMEANOR COURTS
Misdemeanor courts have been established by the Law on Courts (Official Gazette of
Montenegro, no. 11/2015), as follows:
1) Misdemeanor court in Bijelo Polje, for the territory of the municipalities: Bijelo Polje,
Andrijevica, Berane, Gusinje, abljak, Kolain, Mojkovac, Petnjica, Plav, Pljevlja and
Roaje, with the departments in:
- Berane - for the territory of the municipalities of Berane, Andrijevica and Petnjica;
- abljak - for the territory of the municipality of abljak;
- Plav - for the territory of the municipalities of Plav and Gusinje;
- Pljevlja - for the territory of the municipality of Pljevlja;
- Roaje - for the territory of the municipality of Roaje;
- Kolain - for the territory of the municipality of Kolain;
- Mojkovac - for the territory of the municipality of Mojkovac.
2) Misdemeanor court in Budva, for the territory of municipalities: Budva, Bar, Kotor,
Tivat, Herceg Novi and Ulcinj, with the departments in:
- Bar - for the territory of the municipality of Bar;
- Kotor - for the territory of the municipalities of Kotor and Tivat;
- Herceg Novi - for the territory of the municipality of Herceg Novi;
- Ulcinj - for the territory of the municipality of Ulcinj.
3) Misdemeanor court in Podgorica, for the Capital City of Podgorica, Royal Capital
Cetinje and municipalities: Danilovgrad, Niki, Pluine and avnik, with the
departments in:
- Royal Capital Cetinje - for the territory of Royal Capital Cetinje;
- Danilovgrad - for the territory of the municipality of Danilovgrad;
- Niki - for the territory of the municipalities of Niki, Pluine and avnik.
Misdemeanor courts have jurisdiction to decide on the request for initiating

misdemeanor proceedings and on the request for judicial decision
High Misdemeanor Court
High Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro has been established for the territory of
Montenegro, and its seat is in Podgorica.
High Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro shall decide on appeals against the decisions of
Misdemeanor courts, decides on conflict of jurisdiction among misdemeanor courts and
carries out other activities prescribed by law.
73
II JUDGES
Decision on the number of judges in the courts (Official Gazette of Montenegro, no.
25/2015, 62/2015, 47/2016 and 83/2016) stipulates the following number of judges in
Misdemeanor Courts:
-Misdemeanor Court in Bijelo Polje - President of the Court and 10 judges;

-Misdemeanor Court in Budva - President of the Court and 11 judges;
-Misdemeanor Court in Podgorica - President of the Court and 26 judges, and in the High
Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro - President of the Court and 6 judges.
All judicial seats were filled in 2016.
COURT Gender structure Age structure

Number of juges with president
Women Men Do i >30 >40 >50 >60
% % % % % %
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
Number
High
Misdemeanor
court 7 4 57,14 3 42,86 0 - 1 14,28 1 14,28 5 71,42
Misdemeanor
court
Podgorici 27 18 66,67 9 33,33 3 11,11 6 22,22 16 59,25 2 7,40
Misdemeanor
court
12 8 66,67 4 33,33 5 41,67 3 25 3 25 1 8,33
Budva
74
Misdemeanor
court
11 4 36,36 7 63,64 3 27,27 1 9,09 3 27,27 4 36,36
Bijelo Polje
TOTAL 57 34 59,65 23 40,35 11 19,30 11 19,30 23 40,35 12 21,05
III BUDGET FUNDS
Budget funds within the consumer unit "Judiciary" which in 2016 were envisaged for
Misdemeanor Courts, together with the High Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro,
amounted to 3,820,035.72, of which the program "Administration-Misdemeanor
bodies' 1,859,923.85 and the program "Misdemeanor procedure" 1,960,111.87.
75
IV OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF MISDEMEANOR COURTS IN 2016
Misdemeanor Courts in 2016 had a total of 105,802 pending cases, of which 55,680 or
52.63% in misdemeanor proceedings PP, 48,069 or 45.43% in enforcement proceedings
IPS and 2,053 or 1.94% in appeal proceedings PP.
Misdemeanor Courts started the reporting year with 50,235 cases, while in 2016,
received 55,567 new cases.
At the end of the year, there were 63,457 cases resolved, 152 transferred, while 42,193
remained unresolved, i.e. 39.88% of the cases.
The average monthly influx of cases to the total number of judges in Misdemeanor
courts was 81.24 cases, on the average there were 1,113.28 resolved cases annually per
judge, while on the average 740.23 cases per judge remained unresolved.
Efficiency rate at the level of all Misdemeanor courts amounted to 114.20.
From a total of 55,680 PP pending cases at the end of the year, there were 39,715
resolved PP cases, i.e. 71.33%. There were 152 or 0.27% of transferred cases. At the end
of the year, there were 15,813 or 28.40% of unresolved PP cases. Misdemeanor courts in
2016 had pending cases from more than 120 different areas. Most of them were pending
cases in the field of the Law on Road Traffic Safety 40,430 or 72.61%. Moreover, a
significant percentage in the structure were cases in the field of the Law on Public Peace
and Order (4,035 or 7.25%), the Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence (2,103
or 3.78%), the Law on VAT (1,615 or 2.90%), as well as the Law on Prevention of
Corruption (787 or 1.41%), while on all the other areas is left remaining 12.05%.
Resolved cases were completed in a manner that in 23,288 cases a pecuniary fine was
imposed, in 302 cases imprisonment, in 319 suspended sentence, in 1,215 comprise
76
reprimand, in 25 cases the protective measures-individually, in 814 cases corrective
measure, in 5,332 cases the proceedings was suspended, in 579 cases the request for
initiating misdemeanor proceedings was rejected; in 255 cases the request for judicial
decision was rejected; in 1,219 cases misdemeanor order was repealed; in 1,957 cases
misdemeanor order has become final and enforceable, while in 4,431 cases a decision of
release was rendered.
In completed cases, prevailing dominant cases are in the field of the Law on Road Traffic
Safety, and out of 39,715 completed PP in the field of the Law on Road Traffic Safety is
29,337 cases or 73.87%, while the cases that participate significantly in the structure of
resolved cases in the field Law on Public Peace and Order (2,716 or 6.84%), cases in the
field of the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence (1,599 or 4.03%), the Law on VAT
(1,188 or 3%) and the Law on Prevention of Corruption (644 or 1.62%). For cases from
other areas is left remaining 10.64%.
From a total of 48,069 enforcement pending cases (IPS), Misdemeanor courts in 2016
completed 21,689 or 45.12% of IPS cases. At the end of the year remained 26,380
uncompleted IPS cases or 54.88%. In the process of enforcement of pecuniary fines and
legal costs, total amount of 4,435,745.70 was paid. 157 sentences of imprisonment
were executed for a term of 2,995 days and 2,700 protective measures. The other cases
in the execution were 1,304 of which were executed 1,039 of the said cases. The
execution procedure was suspended due to the statute of limitations in 2,286 cases,
which is worrying and refers that measures must be urgently taken to reduce that
number.
From a total of 2,053 pending cases in 2016, the High Misdemeanor Court of
Montenegro at the end of the year resolved all cases. Those cases are resolved in a
manner that in 37 cases or 1.80% the appeal was rejected, in 1,417 cases or 69.02% it
was confirmed the first instance decision, in 270 cases or 13.15% the first instance
decision was revoked, in 264 cases or 12.86% the first instance decision was amended,
26 cases or 1.27% were resolved in some other way, while at the end of the year 39
cases or 1.90% were administratively returned to the first instance courts.
Compared to 2015, the year in which former regional misdemeanor bodies had a total of
101,392 pending cases (56,473 PP, 43,193 IPS and 1,726 PP), the number of cases in
2016 increased to 105,802, i.e. for 4,410 or 4.34%. Namely, compared to 2015, the
number of PP pending cases dropped from 56,473 to 55,680, i.e. for 793 or 1.40%,
wherein the above-mentioned is the result of the reduction of the backlog pending cases,
while the influx of new PP cases remained almost identical (34,725 in 2015 - 34,702 in
2016). The number of resolved PP cases increased from 35,536, which was in 2015, to
39,715, i.e. 4,179 cases or for 11.75%. The total number of unresolved PP cases at the
end of 2016 was 15,813, or 5,165 less than at the end of 2015.
Compared to 2015, the number of cases in the enforcement proceedings (IPS cases) was
increased from 43,193 to 48,069, i.e. for 4,876 or 11.29%, while the number of
completed cases increased from 12,275 to 21,689, i.e. for 9,414 or 76.69%. Total number
of uncompleted IPS cases at the end of 2016 amounted to 26,380, i.e. 2,841 cases less
than at the end of 2015.
Compared to 2015 the number of cases on appeal to the High Misdemeanor Court of
Montenegro increased from 1,726 to 2,053, i.e. for 327 cases or 18.95%.
77
1. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF MISDEMEANOR COURTS IN 2016
Average unresolved
Avera ge resolved
Unresolved at the
Average monthl y
Number of judges
Unresolved at the
influx per judge
Efficiency rate
COURT
Total pending
per judge
per judge
Delegated
beginning
Resolved
Received
end
Misdemeanor
court
Podgorica 27 33.005 30.206 93,23 63.211 35.302 53 1.307,48 27.856 1.031,70 116,87
Misdemeanor
court
12 11.607 14.640 101,67 26.247 16.914 60 1.409,50 9.273 772,75 115,53
Budva
Misdemeanor
court
Bijelo Polje
11 5.587 8.704 65,94 14.291 9.188 39 835,27 5.064 460,36 105,56
High
Misdemeanor
court 7 36 2.017 24,01 2.053 2.053 0 293,29 0 0 101,78
TOTAL 57 50.235 55.567 81,24 105.802 63.457 152 1.113,28 42.193 740,23 114,20
79
2. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK ON PP CASES
2.1. Overview of PP pending cases
Number of judges(with
Average year number

of cases in work per
Average monthly
influx per judge
president) Transferred to 2016
judge
New Total
pending
transferre
Misdemeanor
From
From
2014
2015
Total
d
court
Misdemeanor 27 3.236 9.930 13.166 18.12 31.294 55,95 1.159,04

court 8
Podgorica 42,07%
57,93
%
Misdemeanor 12 1.750 4.603 6.353 10.59 16.948 73,58 1.412,33

court 5
37,49%
Budva 62,51
%
Misdemeanor 11 141 1.318 1.459 5.979 7.438 45,30 676,18

court
19,62% 80,38
Bijelo Polje %
Total 50 5.127 15.851 20.978 34.70 55.680 57,84 1.113,60

2
37,68%
62,32
%
2.2. Structure of PP pending cases
81
2.3. Overview of solving PP cases and efficiency rate
Total Resolved
Delegated
Misdemeanor Transfe New pending Unresolved Efficiency
court rred rate
Podgorica 13.166 18.128 31.294 21.145 53 10.096 116,64
42,07% 57,93% 67,57% 0,17% 32,26%
Budva 6.353 10.595 16.948 12.642 60 4.246 119,32
37,49% 62,51% 74,59% 0,35% 25,06%
Bijelo Polje 1.459 5.979 7.438 5.928 39 1.471 99,15
19,62% 80,38% 79,70% 0,52% 19,78%
Total 20.978 34.702 55.680 39.715 152 15,813 114,45
37,68% 62,32 71,33% 0,27% 28,40%
82
2.4. Overview of solving backlog PP cases
Average transferred per
Average unresolved per

Average resolved per
Misdemean Transferred Resolved Unresolved
judge
judge
judge
or court
From
From
From
From
From
From
Total
Total
Total
2014
2015
2014
2015
2014
2015
3.236 9.930 13.166 487,63 3.236 7.967 11.203 414,93 0 1.965 1.965 72,78
Podgorica
85,09%
1.750 4.603 6.353 529,42 1.747 3.541 5.288 440,67 3 1.062 1.065 88,75
Budva
83,24%
141 1.318 1.459 132,64 139 1.178 1.317 119,73 2 138 140 12,73
Bijelo Polje
90,27%
5.127 15.851 20.978 419,56 5.122 12.686 17.808 356,16 5 3.165 3.170 63,40
Total
Court
Budva
Podgorica
Bijelo Polje
Pecuniary fine
3.958
8.203
11.127
Imprisonment
69
122
111
Suspended sentence
6
110
203
Comprise reprimand
250
364
601
Protective measure-
6
5
2.5. Overview of the ways of solving PP cases
14
individually
Corrective measure
181
387
246
Discontinuance
414
625
2.426
Statute of limitations
55
627
1.175
Rejected request for

80
initiating misdemeanor
134
365
proceedings
Rejected request for
60
97
98
judical decision
Repealed
53
misdemeanor order
377
789
final and enforceable

137
278
misdemeanor order
1.542
Rendered decision of
552
598
release
3.281
84
23.288 302 319 1.215 25 814 3.465 1.857 579 255 1.219 1.957 4.431
Total
58,62% 0,76 0,80 3,05 0,06 2,05 8,72% 4,67% 1,45% 0,64 3,06% 4,92% 11,15
% % % % % % %
85
2.6. Summary review of the ways of solving PP cases
2.7. Overview of solved PP cases per structure
87
3. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK ON IPS CASES
Seat/ Number of resolved cases Number of completed cases Unresolved

department
Old New Total Old New Total Old New Total
Podgorica 19.839 12.078 31.917 8.800 5.357 14.157 11.039 6.721 17.760
44,36% 55,64%
Budva 5.254 4.045 9.299 3.032 1.240 4.272 2.222 2.805 5.027
45,94% 54,06%
Bijelo Polje 4.128 2.725 6.853 2.338 922 3.260 1.815 1.778 3.593
47,57% 52,43%
Total 29.221 18.848 48.069 14.170 7.519 21.689 15.076 11.304 26.380
60,79% 39,21% 48,49% 39,89% 45,12% 54,88%
88
3.1. Overview of paid pecuniary fines and legal costs
Code Seat of the court/department Amount
7152310302 PECUNIARY FINES IMPOSED IN THE MISDEMEANOR AND OTHER 983.559,36

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY -
PODGORICA
DANILOVGRAD

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY NIKSIC

CETINJE

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY -BUDVA

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY - BAR

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY - ULCINJ

HERCEG NOVI

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY -KOTOR

PLJEVLJA

ZABLJAK

89
BERANE

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY - PLAV

ROZAJE

PROCEEDINGS AND LEGAL COSTS - REGIONAL MISDEMEANOR BODY -BIJELO
POLJE

MOJKOVAC

KOLASIN
TOTAL 4.435.745,70
3.2. Execution of imprisonment
Number of cases and Executed cases and Partillly executed cases and days
number of imposed days days
Number of Days Number of Days Number of cases Days

cases cases
339 5.869 157 2.995 - -

46,31%
3.3. Execution of protective measures

Number of cases and Executed cases and Partillly executed cases and days
number of imposed days days
90
Number of Days Number of Days Number of cases Days
cases cases
339 5.869 157 2.995 - -

46,31%
3.4. Other cases in the execution
Number of cases Executed

1.304 1.039
3.5. Statute of limitations in execution
Pecuniary fines Imprisonment Other cases

Cases Amount Cases Amount
2.286 265.563,50 - - 21
4. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW OF THE WORK ON PP CASES
Type of cases upon Old cases New Total Completed

the register pending
Transferred Administratively
from 2015 returned from
2015
PP register 36 23 1.947 2.006 2.006
1,79% 1,14% 97,05% 100%
PPm register - - 3 3 3
100%
- - - - -
PPi
(see note)
91
- - - - -
PPpr
(see note)
PPo register - 44 44 44
100%
TOTAL 36 23 1.994 2.053 2.053
1,75% 1,12% 97,12% 100%
Note: By the beginning of implementation of the new Court Rules (Official Gazette, no.
65/16) the High Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro kept PP, PPm and PPo registers.
Since the new Court Rules, which came into force on 20 October 2016, as obligatory
registers in the High Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro, in addition to PP and PPm
registers, were also envisaged PPi and PPpr register, so the registers for PPi and PPpr
cases were developed and put into use from 1 January 2017, while the register PPo was
assessed as necessary and retained in terms of Article 233, paragraph 1 of the Court Rules.
4.1. Overview of ways of solving in PP cases

Completed cases Remained unresolved
Number of PP cases
upon appeal
Administrativel
Total resolved
Register
another way
Resolved in
y returned
Confirmed
Amended
Revoked
rejected
Appeal
PP 2.006 37 1400 270 264 13 22 2.006
PPm 3 - 3 - - - - - -
PPo 44 - 14 - - 13 17 - -
92
Total 2.053 37 1.417 270 264 26 39 - -
1,80% 69,02% 13,15% 12,86% 1,27% 1,90%
4.2. Duration of proceedings in new cases
Duration of proceedings
Up to 1 month From 1 to 2 months From 2 to 4 months Over 4 months
1.555 301 90 1
79,86% 15,45% 4,62%
V CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES
Regarding the above-mentioned results of the work, it can be concluded that the
Misdemeanor courts in 2016 achieved good results in the area of solving cases,
especially bearing in mind that in PP proceedings, with the same influx of new cases as
in 2015, they resolved more than 4,000 compared to 2015.
In addition to increasing IPS cases for 4,676 compared to 2015, the number of
completed cases increased for 9,414 cases.
When analyzing these results, in particular it should be noted that the current
Misdemeanor courts have ten judicial positions less than the former Misdemeanor
Council of Montenegro and regional misdemeanor bodies so that it is necessary to
increase the number of judges in Misdemeanor courts.
In the Misdemeanor Court in Budva, it is necessary to increase the number of judges for
two judicial positions, regarding that one judicial position is vacant in the Department of
Kotor, where the current judicial function is performed by only one judge, while the
Department of Bar has an obvious problem with the large influx of cases, even despite
the fact that three judges were deployed in this Department.
In the Misdemeanor Court in Bijelo Polje there is a need for two new judge positions,
and one each in Departments in Pljevlja and Berane. This requirement is primarily based
on the fact that the Misdemeanor Court in Bijelo Polje in 2016 had a total of 7,438 PP
pending cases and 6,853 IPS pending cases, for a total of 14,291 cases at the court level.
93
Considering the great number of pending cases in the Misdemeanor court in Podgorica,
with all the possible efforts of the judges, the said court could not achieve that at the end
of 2016, the number of uncompleted cases is less than the influx of cases in any quarter
during 2016, although each of the judges on the average completed more than 1,000
cases. Therefore, only by increasing the total number of judges may comply with the
provision referred to in Article 8, paragraph 3 of Court Rules, and achieve the expected
accuracy and efficiency in work of this court and departments within the court, whereby
appreciating the real situation of the total number of pending cases and the number of
completed cases on average per judge, an increase of at least 10 judges would give a
positive effect as regards the efficiency and timeliness of the court.
The quality of the work is satisfactory, while the percentage of decisions on appeals
amounts to: 13.15% revoked, 69.02% confirmed, and 12.86% amended, while the penal
policy essentially corresponds to the type and seriousness of the offense.
The very figure of 103,749 pending cases (55,680 PP and 48,069 IPS) to 50 judges
(including the presidents) speaks about the workload level of Misdemeanor courts,
provided that the same level of workload varies among the courts.
Through annual reports, as well as through the implementation of regular activities and
the realization of certain measures in 2016, several problems and goals were identified
relating to the work in Misdemeanor courts, which are required to be implemented
during 2017.
It is necessary to regulate the enforcement proceedings in such a way as to simplify it

and make it more efficient, and in a new way edit records on the payment of pecuniary
fines and harmonize RNK and the said records, to bring the data entry into RNK and
monitor of payment on a daily level of promptness.
With regular monitoring and reporting the status of the influx of cases in the
Misdemeanor courts and departments within the courts, it is necessary to define in a
timely manner the undertaking of measures aimed at overcoming the problems with the
enormous increase in influx (delegation of the cases).
Moreover, in cooperation with the Judicial Council, it is necessary to adopt the

Instruction on the preparation of statistical reports in Misdemeanor courts, complete
the procedure of opening the official website of Misdemeanor courts, make a purchase of
new computer equipment and examine the possibility of introducing JIS in the
Misdemeanor courts.
Taking into account a series of accommodation problems in certain Misdemeanor courts

and departments of Misdemeanor courts, it is necessary to continue the initiated
activities in relation to their resolution in those departments that have this kind of
problem, both through the renting of new business premises or through the expansion
and renovation of existing ones. During 2016, concrete measures were taken in solving
accommodations of departments in Plav, Niki and Kotor, where the department in
Niki completely solved this problem by moving to new premises, while for the
94
departments in Plav and Kotor, after the implementation of certain technical actions, is
expected their near relocation.
In addition, filling the vacant systematized posts, it is necessary to relieve the existing
civil service personnel, especially judges in those departments where they carry out a
part of civil service activities themselves.
Special emphasis in 2017 will be placed on the quality and monitoring of uniformity of
the penal policy, with an increase in the degree of training of judges and employees.
Basic program orientation of the High Misdemeanor Court of Montenegro in 2017 will
be directed that through the enhanced control of operations and taking a series of
appropriate measures to achieve the highest possible level of efficiency in completing
cases within the Misdemeanor courts, and improving the quality of work, consistency of
jurisprudence and the consistent application of regulations.
Special emphasis will be placed on the fact that in cooperation with the Supreme Court
within the Misdemeanor courts to try to find a modus of uniform internal organization
in order to increase the level of accountability at the level of departments, as well as on
taking measures in terms of accelerating the first instance proceeding and reducing the
number of backlog cases on minimum.
When analyzing the number of backlog cases, it should be kept in mind that these are
piled up old cases, so the statute of limitations was inevitable in most of them, despite
the concrete measures taken in this direction during 2016.
In relation to the reasons that have contributed to the statute of limitations of cases in
the enforcement proceedings, it should be noted that the judges are overburdened, there
is a great number of pending cases, the unavailability of convicted persons, a small
percentage of actions taken under the orders of the Police Directorate for bringing the
convicted person and the urgencies thereof, as well as failure to take actions under the
orders of the police Directorate for conducting convicted persons to serve their prison
sentences, a large number of incorrect addresses of convicted persons and untimely
information of the registration service on changes of address, failure of employers to
take actions under the orders for coercive collection by commercial banks, as well as the
lack of funds on gyro-accounts of legal entities for which CBM (Central Bank of
Montenegro) is unable to comply with an order of coercive collection. As one of the
reasons leading to the occurrence of the absolute statute of limitations in the
enforcement proceedings is also the complicated procedure for addressing to all
commercial banks in Montenegro in order to obtain information on whether convicted
legal entities and natural persons have opened bank accounts thereat, for the purpose of
issuing the order for coercive collection that required a lot of time and taking more
actions (copying, expediting, investment delivery), and that the judges were required to
carry out the proceedings of execution of misdemeanor sanctions. In addition, during
the reporting period, a particular problem in the Misdemeanor Court in Budva was the
fact that there were not enough employees and trained officers in the executive
department, i.e. in the departments in Bar, Kotor and Herceg Novi.
95
The presidents of the Misdemeanor courts in this year will give priority in work on
enforcement cases, and take a series of measures in order to reduce the number of
backlogs in the execution to a minimum. We specially emphasize that during the last
year a system of regular monitoring of cases at risk of statute of limitations was
established, that they are under the special control, and that a number of other concrete
actions were taken in order to eliminate this problem where, appreciating the large
number of old cases inherited by the Misdemeanor courts, it is reasonably to expect that
the undertaken measures will give positive results in the upcoming period.
96

Annual Report 2016

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Annual Report 2016

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ISSN 2536 - 5525

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE WORK OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL

MLADEN VUKEVI PhD

VESNA MEDENICA RADOJE OROVI

MILI MEEDOVI MAGDALENA ZEEVI

VESNA SIMOVI-ZVICER PhD DOBRICA LJIVANANIN

In accordance with the constitutionally established competences, which were amended

Judicial Council during 2016, held 25 sessions.

2.1. Filling vacant judicial posts

2.2.1. Public announcement

At the public announcement 13 candidates have applied, while 11 of them approached

The exception to the above explained implementation of new legislation in the

Furthermore, the decision of the Judicial Council of 2 September 2016 on temporary

2.6. Disciplinary responsibility

2.7. Code of Ethics

2.8. Acting upon complaints filed

Transparency of the Council's work was further strengthened by the obligation to

A significant segment of normative activities of the Judicial Council is reflected in the

5.1. Reporting upon the strategic documents

5.2. Commissions of the Judicial Council

5.3. Expert witnesses

At the regional conference "Management performance systems of the courts in the

Representatives of the US Embassy in Montenegro, as well as INL and USAID assistance

From 19 to 21 September 2016, in Cetinje was held a Conference of Supreme Courts of

In Bucharest, on 1 and 2 November 2016, was held a regional Conference on "Preventing

7. SECRETARIAT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL

At the session of the Judicial Council of 18 November 2016, the Rulebook on

7.1. Act on requests for free access to information

7.2. Activities of the Department for ICT and multimedia

- Regular activities to support users of JIS and the preparation of reports

7.3.1. Overview of approved funds

1. Program- Judicial Council (301022291) 750,331.30

Attachment: Structure of implementation of Budget of Judiciary 2016

7.3.4. Program-Misdemeanor procedure (301022711)

Attachment: Structure of Budget implementation of Judiciary in 2016, the program

The approved amount of funds in the Program Administration of Misdemeanor bodies

Attachment: Structure of Budget implementation of Judiciary in 2016, the

Berane 10 4 42 815.644,91 6,22% 2,74%

Bijelo Polje 11 5 49 1.174.817,98 8,97% 3,95%

Cetinje 6 5 15 603.025,77 4,60% 2,03%

Danilovgrad 4 2 15 331.879,82 2,53% 1,12%

Herceg Novi 8 4 31 651.756,00 4,97% 2,19%

Kolain 3 1 13 275.018,64 2,10% 0,92%

Kotor 16 8 39 1.260.670,83 9,62% 4,24%

Niki 15 8 60 1.412.223,06 10,78% 4,75%

Plav 3 1 14 260.931,25 1,99% 0,88%

Pljevlja 6 3 28 575.815,28 4,39% 1,93%

Podgorica 40 24 120 3.454.999,44 26,37% 11,61%

Roaje 5 0 18 424.897,81 3,24% 1,43%

Ulcinj 6 3 19 498.324,69 3,80% 1,67%

abljak 2 1 8 185.826,39 1,42% 0,62%

Bijelo Polje 17 10 40 1.485.812,23 27,86% 4,99%

Podgorica 40 27 59 3.846.878,16 72,14% 12,93%

TOTAL 319 169 889 29.760.448,35 100,00%

1. OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN 2016

1.1. The right to trial within a reasonable time

Overview of the cases upon the claim for just satisfaction

1. Claims were rejected - 16

Rejected as obviously unfounded

will be conducted in the case, or

Notification to the party that it

determining the time limit for

Notification to the Parties of

proceedings and decision-