The fact that the Judicial Council, at its VI session held on March 24, 2023, found it appropriate to deal with the analysis of the Law on Prevention of Corruption is surprising, and it is worrying that, when interpreting the competencies of the Agency for Prevention of Corruption, it took into account only Article 4, and disregarded Article 78 paragraph 1 item 5, in which it is stated that the Agency "shall give an opinion on the existence of threats to the public interest that indicate the existence of corruption", and Articles 52 and 54.

As holders of the highest judicial positions, the members of the Judicial Council should be well acquainted with the Law and the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which Montenegro ratified in 2005, and Article 11 of which stipulates that " Bearing in mind the independence of the judiciary and its crucial role in combating corruption, each State Party shall, …, take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary.

This is exactly what the Agency for Prevention of Corruption did, ex officio and based on its legal competences, issuing an opinion on the existence of a threat to the public interest that indicates the existence of corruption in the process of determining the termination of judicial office for seven judges.

At the session held on August 3, 2021, the Judicial Council, without prior notification from the competent courts, made a decision on the termination of the judicial office of the then Acting President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Stanka Vučinić and former judges of that court Branimir Femić, Dušanka Radović, Svetlana Vujanović, Lidija Ivanović and Petar Stojanović, and the president of the Basic Court in Rožaje, Zahid Camić and the president of the Misdemeanor Court in Budva, Koviljka Đačić.

By doing that, the Council invalidated the imperative norm from Article 105 of the Law on Judicial Council and Judges. The statement of the Judicial Council that Article 105 of the Law elaborates Article 128 of the Constitution of Montenegro is contradictory, followed by the explanation that the application of Article 105 is not in accordance with the Law on Administrative Procedure. If the purpose of the existence of the Judicial Council is to confuse the public with illogical and legally unsustainable interpretations, then it has been fulfilled. However, if, as in every democratic society, it protects the autonomy and independence of the judicial office and takes care of the lawful work of all judges, then it is devastating that it treats the presidents of the courts and the general session of the Supreme Court of Montenegro as parties to the proceedings, and ignores that their acts are passed ex officio while performing an official act, and it is considered that the procedure for determining the termination of the judge's office is initiated by them delivering a notification.

If the Judicial Council is of the opinion that in this particular case it is an administrative procedure, then why did it not give the parties, that is, the judges who were forced to terminate their judicial office, the opportunity to express themselves, nor send them the results of the examination procedure, on which they would also have the right to express themselves? Instead, on August 3, 2021, during the collective annual vacation for employees of the judiciary, the Judicial Council made a decision on the termination of the judicial office of the mentioned judges, without conducting an administrative procedure.

It is pointless to discuss such an arbitrary statement which, unfortunately, was signed by the Judicial Council, because the Agency does not make decisions about the legal or illegal work of this body, nor does it invalidate its decisions, but it is done in court proceedings. However, the courts had their say, annulling the decisions of the Judicial Council as illegal.

Our obligation and duty is to point out that a flat and self-interested interpretation of the law is a high corruption risk, which we determined in our opinion, given on the basis of the responsibilities prescribed in Articles 52, 54 and 78 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption.

With its decision, the Judicial Council threatens the permanence, and therefore the independence, of the judicial function, guaranteed by the Constitution of Montenegro. The Agency keeps its opinion and believes that it is for the benefit of every judge, and therefore in the public interest, that there is always multiple control of the fulfillment of the conditions for the termination of the judge's office, which was absent in this particular case.

This behavior of the Judicial Council leaves room for doubt about the motives of conducting the procedure to determine the grounds for the termination of the judicial office of seven judges, which does not befit a body that should be an example of ethics and integrity.