The practice of the Administrative Court in the last two months confirms that the Montenegrin judiciary is under the direct control of the executive branch, and that makes decisions and creates jurisprudence in accordance with the interests of the executive brunch and its officials. In fact, in early March, the Judicial Council for the Chairperson of the Administrative Court chose Branka Lakocevic, who previously was, for many years, Deputy Minister of Justice. Thus, it is continued common practice that for the higher positions in the judiciary are elected senior officials of the executive branch, and thus they are enabled to personally, or through the court whose work they manage, to evaluate the legality of acts of the executive branch, including those in which making were directly involved.
So for just two months there has been a change of views that the Administrative Court had for many years, without any explanation or reason that would pointing to the justification of such reaction.
We remind that the Administrative Court in the domestic and international public was recognized as a court operating independently, primarily from the executive branch, and as the court which issued a significant number of judgments by which was found that the acts of the executive branch were illegal. However, instead of changing practice and starting to make legal acts, the executive branch through Judicial Council, made from its officials, apparently tries and succeeds to change the practice of that Court.
Last in a series of changes of perennial views of the Administrative Court is the decision by that court to dismiss the lawsuit of the President of the Inquiry Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro Koca Pavlovic against the decision of MONSTAT, and on which basis the case file was given to the Ministry of Finance for consideration. Unlike this view, the same Administrative Court has previously acted twice on the same lawsuits that in behalf of Koca Pavlovic submitted a lawyer Veselin Radulovic, and in both cases made judgments that the decision of MONSTAT is annulled as illegal. Thus the Administrative Court twice founded that MONSTAT to the President of the Inquiry Committee illegal denies data relevant for a parliamentary investigation.
Hence there is a logical question why the Administrative Court suddenly changed attitude in this case after the election of the President of the Court directly from the top of the executive branch. Why the Administrative Court now considers that the executive branch should decide on the right of the members of the Parliament and President of Inquiry Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro to access information which disclosure would point on execution of severe abuses specifically made by the executive branch?
Doubts about the reasons for the change of the view of the Administrative Court further confirms the fact that, as a rule, such a decision is made immediately after the previous questioning of lawsuit, because it is logical that the court immediately after receiving lawsuit knows whether it has jurisdiction to decide on the lawsuit, or the documents should be submitted to another authority for decision. However, the Administrative Court did not immediately rejected the lawsuit already but has scheduled a public hearing, as well as in the two previous cases when annulled the decisions of MONSTAT, but now rejected the lawsuit and decided to pass it to the Ministry of Finance.
The only factor that has changed compared to the previous two lawsuits which the Administrative Court adopted, is the fact that in the meantime as the head of the Administrative Court was elected perennial senior official of the executive branch. Therefore the judges of the Administrative Court should explain to the parties, and the public in general, what is the reason for the change of the perennial views and practices.
MANS indicates that this is not the only case in which it was noted that the Administrative Court after the change of President of the Court changes and the perennial attitude. Unlike previous years when the Administrative Court was recognized as independent from the executive branch, in recent months it is significantly reduced the number of judgments in which the Court adopted lawsuits. Such practice will further shake confidence in the work of the courts and independence of the same, because it is hard to believe that the executive branch has begun to make legislative decisions just because the Deputy Minister of Justice left and came at the judicial position.
It is known that the executive branch in every way obstructed the parliamentary investigation of the affair Snapshot, and that in any ways concealed information that would contribute to the clarification of a number of election abuses. It seems that the changing of attitudes without explanation, now and the Administrative Court began to contribute to the obstruction or at least delaying of resolving the affair Snapshot.
MANS
