Anti-deadlock Mechanisms for the Election of Judges of the Constitutional Court

Although the election of judges by three-thirds majority in the second vote, which was proposed by the Venice Commission, is intended to serve as an anti-deadlock mechanism, it is not functional in the current political climate.

The above statement is supported by the fact that the Constitutional Court was deadlocked for almost six months because the MPs could not reach an agreement on the proposed candidates. Consequently, the Court was unable to decide in many cases within its jurisdiction, including the appeals on election processes and whether the President of the State had violated the Constitution.

In the absence of mechanisms that could “force” the MPs to elect the missing judges, the work of the Court was unblocked after six attempts by finally reaching the consensus, under the pressure under the pressure of the European Union and following the announcement of a possible suspension of the accession negotiations. At the beginning, it is important to note that appointments in the judiciary are recognised as one of the key challenges for meeting the benchmarks from Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) in the negotiation process between Montenegro and the European Union.

As it is highly probable that in the next two years the Constitutional Court will lose three of the current six judges because they will become eligible for retirement, there is a danger that this institution will end up deadlocked once again, without a quorum required for decision-making. The objective of this paper is to examine the potential mechanisms for unblocking the election of judges of the Constitutional Court in Montenegro through a comparative analysis of models used for the election of constitutional court judges in the region and in the member states of the European Union, and to offer recommendations to reduce the possibility of a repeated deadlock.

For a Better Law on the Government

In September 2023 – almost a year after the public debate on the draft Law on the Government ended, some civil society organisations had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the updated version of the draft of this legal act, albeit exclusively indirectly, through the expert mission of the Venice Commission, which is to submit comments on the said draft.The new draft contains several notable changes compared to the previous version, which was submitted for public debate, and in relation to which Institute Alternative issued a series of comments, most of which were rejected (six proposals were rejected, two were partially adopted, and one was adopted).

Expecting the 44th Government to invest further into the development of this act, and discussions in the new convocation of the Parliament, we underline the need to review certain provisions.Therefore, we once again call on the Government and MPs to ensure that the Law on Government addresses the following issues:

  1. Organisation of the Government and criteria for the establishment of ministries and offices, and other services that function under the Government
  2. Disallowing the process of filling vacant positions by a Government whose mandate has expired, outside the scope of the previously adopted Personnel Plan
  3. Nominations and consent to nominations that are not in line with regular procedures and ongoing, i.e. already initiated procedures
  4. The deadline for proposing the composition and program of the Government in accordance with the Constitution and the adopted amendments to the Law on the President, which have not been challenged by the Constitutional Court in the meantime
  5. Transparency of permanent and temporary working bodies of the Government
  6. Mandatory elements of the Government’s Opinion on proposed laws, initiated by the MPs
  7. Provisions on anticorruption, and integrity checks of members of the Government and their advisors
  8. Handover of duties

Read more about our findings in the new publication.

 

For a Better Law on Government

In September 2023 - almost a year after the public debate on the draft Law on the Government ended, some civil society organisations had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the updated version of the draft of this legal act, albeit exclusively indirectly, through the expert mission of the Venice Commission, which is to submit comments on the said draft.The new draft, which we are now familiar with, contains several notable changes compared to the previous version, which was submitted for public debate, and in relation to which Institute Alternative issued a series of comments, most of which were rejected (six proposals were rejected, two were partially adopted, and one was adopted).

Expecting the 44th Government to invest further into the development of this act, and discussions in the new convocation of the Parliament, we underline the need to review certain provisions.Certain burning issues that we outlined in this overview, confirm that efforts to regulate disputed situations from the current practice through the Law on Government are only halfhearted.

Therefore, we once again call on the Government and MPs to ensure that the Law on Government addresses the issues such as organisation of the Government and criteria for the establishment of ministries and offices, disallowing the process of filling vacant positions by a Government whose mandate has expired, nominations and consent to nominations that are not in line with regular procedures and ongoing. Additionally, there is a need to regulate the deadline for proposing the composition and program of the Government in accordance with the Constitution and the adopted amendments to the Law on the President, which have not been challenged by the Constitutional Court in the meantime, transparency of permanent and temporary working bodies of the Government, mandatory elements of the Government’s Opinion on proposed laws, initiated by the MPs, provisions on anticorruption, and integrity checks of members of the Government and their advisors as well as handover of duties.