Within the work of the Working Group for the Preparation of Amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office, Institute Alternative proposed a set of normative solutions aimed at strengthening integrity, transparency, and accountability in the selection and work of state prosecutors. The proposed amendments are intended to improve institutional verification mechanisms, prevent risks to the impartiality and independence of the prosecutorial function, and further strengthen public trust in Montenegro’s judicial system.
One of the key proposals concerns the introduction of prior security vetting for candidates for state prosecutors. It is envisaged that the Prosecutorial Council would ex officio request the competent authority to conduct such vetting, with clearly defined deadlines and procedural obligations. A candidate who fails to undergo the vetting process or refuses to provide the requested information would be deemed to have withdrawn their application, thereby preventing delays and ensuring equal treatment of all participants. The final decision on the existence of security-related obstacles would be made by the Prosecutorial Council, thus strengthening institutional balance and respecting the constitutional position of this body. For the full implementation of the proposed solution, it is necessary either to amend existing laws or adopt a special law on security vetting, following the examples of European Union member states.
Institute Alternative also proposed the introduction of mandatory verification of the income and assets of candidates for state prosecutors already at the stage of applying for a public vacancy, as well as in-depth verification during promotion procedures. This solution would enable the timely assessment of candidates’ integrity and the identification of potential risks of conflicts of interest or corruption, in line with modern standards of transparency and accountability of public officials. The proposed amendments also include the necessary harmonization of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption so that the obligation to submit reports on income and assets would also apply to candidates for prosecutorial positions.
Institute Alternative further proposes the introduction of a legal obligation for state prosecutors to report events and circumstances that may jeopardize their independence, impartiality, or integrity, or undermine public trust in the work of the State Prosecutor’s Office. The proposed provision includes, among other things, attempts of influence and pressure, communication with persons subject to proceedings, offers of gifts or other benefits, the establishment of financial or business relations with high-risk individuals, as well as other situations that could objectively call into question the perception of impartiality.
The proposed solutions introduce disciplinary liability in cases where events relevant to integrity are not reported, while distinguishing between minor and serious breaches of duty depending on the consequences for the reputation of the State Prosecutor’s Office. At the same time, it is emphasized that the mere reporting of risky circumstances does not constitute an admission of responsibility, but rather serves as a mechanism for prevention and the protection of professional integrity.
The proposals of Institute Alternative could improve the transparency of selection and promotion procedures and contribute to the creation of a more resilient and credible State Prosecutor’s Office.
Stevo Muk
President of the Managing Board