Behind every case before the Constitutional Court is a person waiting for an answer. Until recently, citizens could wait up to six years for a decision; today, the average duration of proceedings is 11 months. Over the past three years, the Court has resolved more than 5,000 constitutional appeals. In this interview, Constitutional Court President Snežana Armenko discusses the Court’s work, efforts to improve transparency and communication with the public, and the challenges of sustaining progress. The interview is part of the broader context of a decade of support for institutional reforms in Montenegro through the action “Strengthening accountability of the judicial system and enhancing protection of victims’ rights in Montenegro”, implemented under the joint European Union and Council of Europe programme “Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Türkiye”.
1. The Constitutional Court has faced an incomplete composition, a significant backlog and limited communication with the public. Efforts to improve its functioning and openness continued even after the Court’s full composition was restored. What key changes have been introduced, and what concrete results have been achieved in resolving constitutional appeals and preventing a new backlog from building up?
The Constitutional Court has achieved a historic result in resolving constitutional appeals: the only appeals remaining under consideration are those received in 2025 and 2026. Over the past three years, we have resolved more than 5,000 constitutional appeal cases, and the average duration of proceedings has been reduced to 11 months. For citizens who previously had to wait up to six years for a decision, this represents a fundamental change in their access to constitutional justice. Today, the Court has fewer than 2,000 cases pending across all its areas of jurisdiction.
Our goal is to resolve all remaining constitutional appeals from 2025 by the end of this year and to deal only with appeals received in the current year in 2027. The Court made every possible effort even during the more than six months when it operated with just four judges and only 40 per cent of its adviser positions filled. With all seven judges now appointed, the process of completing the Court’s composition has come to an end, creating the conditions for more stable decision-making.
However, sustaining these results requires concrete state support for the Court’s professional staff. Without improvements to their remuneration and working conditions, we risk losing experienced advisers while finding it increasingly difficult to attract new ones. The Court is also expected to rule in a timely manner on numerous legislative provisions whose constitutionality is being challenged by applicants. To provide protection before consequences arise that are difficult to remedy, we need a significantly stronger professional service. This is particularly important ahead of an election year, which the Court must not enter unprepared.
2. With the support of the Council of Europe and the European Union, the Court has adopted a Communication Strategy for 2026–2028 and an Action Plan for 2026. What has changed in practice since their adoption, and how are these documents helping the Court move from a predominantly reactive approach towards more structured, proactive and sustainable communication with citizens and the media?
The Communication Strategy and Action Plan provide a common framework for the changes we have initiated and set the direction for their further development. With the support of the Council of Europe and the European Union, we are making communication a planned part of the Court’s work, with clear objectives, responsibilities and priorities.
Timely publication of information, clearer explanations of decisions, a presence on social media, involving students in the Court’s activities, and preparing monthly summaries of decisions and institutional activities are all part of this approach.
We have also published the first Guide to Filing a Constitutional Appeal to make it easier for citizens to access constitutional justice. It is important to us that they understand when they can apply to the Court, what requirements they must meet and what they can expect from the proceedings. Clear information can reduce barriers to accessing protection, while also helping manage expectations that go beyond our jurisdiction. Proactive communication means identifying what the public needs to know ourselves, rather than providing information only in response to media enquiries.
3. The Court has held public hearings in cases of public interest and made them available via live broadcasts, while safeguarding the confidentiality of judicial deliberations and voting. What has this experience shown about the importance of greater visibility and public access to information about the Court’s work?
After eight years without a public hearing, the Court held a hearing on 15 December 2025 on the constitutionality of the law ratifying the agreement with the United Arab Emirates. In September this year, we also held a hearing on vaccination as a condition for children’s attendance at kindergartens. Both hearings were accessible to the public via live broadcasts online and on television.
Citizens were able to hear first-hand the arguments of the participants in the proceedings, the judges’ questions and the opinions of invited experts. This is particularly important in cases that provoke strong reactions, as it allows different legal and expert perspectives to be considered, rather than relying on isolated statements. In the case of vaccination, the issue also has a direct impact on families’ everyday lives.
This experience has shown that open hearings can reduce the scope for arbitrary interpretations and help the public understand the complexity of our decision-making. They cannot ensure that everyone agrees with the final decision, but they allow for a better understanding of the issues and arguments considered by the Court. At the same time, judicial deliberations must remain a space for the free and independent exchange of legal views. Making information accessible and protecting the integrity of decision-making are equally important obligations for the Court.
4. In addition to public hearings, the Court has improved its regular communication with journalists by providing clearer explanations of its decisions, responding more consistently to media enquiries and making its representatives more accessible. How have these changes affected the Court’s relationship with the media, and how can stronger cooperation with the media contribute to a better understanding of the Court’s work and greater public trust in the institution?
The establishment of the spokesperson function in October 2025 has enabled more organised and consistent communication. Journalists now have a clear point of contact for enquiries, and the Court strives to respond promptly, provide clearer explanations and ensure equal access to information. The results of a survey we conducted indicate that journalists have recognised this change.
Legally reasoned decisions remain the foundation of our work, but their content often requires further explanation for the wider public. The media play an important role in this, and it is our responsibility to provide reliable information and access to relevant interlocutors. Professional cooperation also means that the Court must be willing to answer critical questions. We do not expect favourable reporting; rather, we seek a relationship in which facts are accessible and criticism is recognised as legitimate.
Better communication can contribute to trust, but trust is built through the quality of decisions, consistency in our actions and effective protection of rights. Our task is to enable the public to understand and assess this work. Openness matters even when questions are uncomfortable or a decision gives rise to disagreement.
5. A survey conducted by the Court in April 2026 showed positive assessments of its new communication practices, including a high perceived level of openness towards journalists and greater satisfaction with the Court’s communication compared with an earlier survey. What are the most significant findings and comparative results, and how will the Court use this feedback to further improve its communication?
First, I would like to clarify that this was the first survey of its kind conducted by the Constitutional Court. We initiated it ourselves to obtain more specific information about the needs of Montenegrin journalists and their experience of working with the Court. We wanted our communication priorities to be informed also by feedback from the people who report information to the public on a daily basis.
One hundred journalists who follow our work regularly or occasionally took part in an anonymous, voluntary online survey conducted in mid-April 2026. They gave the Court’s current communication an average score of 4.45, compared with 2.48 for communication before the appointment of a spokesperson. In other words, they assessed two periods within the same survey; these figures do not represent a comparison between two separate surveys.
At the same time, respondents highlighted the need for greater access to interlocutors, timely responses and regular updates on cases of public interest, as well as clearer press releases and better content on the Court’s website. The findings also showed that some journalists had experienced receiving no response to their enquiries, with these cases relating predominantly to the period before the spokesperson function was established. Ninety-one per cent of respondents supported opening the Court’s sessions to the public, while 87 per cent supported greater transparency regarding individual judges’ votes and the identity of the reporting judge.
These findings are guiding the implementation of our Communication Strategy. The high scores are an encouragement, while the shortcomings identified represent concrete obligations for further work. The results reflect the experiences of the journalists who took part in the survey and should not be equated with a measurement of trust among the public as a whole.
6. Through recent capacity-building activities, including practical work on strategic and crisis communication, how is the Court developing its ability to respond promptly and accurately in sensitive cases or those attracting significant public attention, while safeguarding judicial independence, the confidentiality of judicial deliberations and voting, and the integrity of ongoing proceedings?
A recent training session for judges with a Council of Europe expert, which included a crisis-simulation exercise, made a significant contribution to our preparedness for future challenges. Such exercises help us clarify in advance who is responsible for verifying facts, preparing information and publishing it. It is important that the Court’s response is coordinated, accurate and understandable, particularly when information spreads rapidly and there is considerable pressure to react immediately.
In cases attracting significant public attention, a timely response must be accompanied by reliable verification of every piece of information. We can explain the Court’s jurisdiction, the stage reached in proceedings and the procedural steps taken, but we must not prejudge a decision or jeopardise the rights of participants or the confidentiality of judicial deliberations and voting. A lack of information leaves room for assumptions and inaccurate interpretations. Therefore, when we cannot disclose certain information, we should clearly explain why and provide the information that is available.
Our goal is to apply the knowledge acquired through the training in our day-to-day work, address the weaknesses identified and communicate promptly and responsibly even under increased pressure, while safeguarding judicial independence and the integrity of proceedings.
7. The Court is considering proposed amendments to its Rules of Procedure concerning the possibility of publishing, under clearly defined conditions, the identity of the reporting judge and the votes of individual judges. How will the Court strike a balance between this objective of transparency and the need to protect judicial independence and the confidentiality of judicial deliberations and voting? How will it ensure that the progress achieved with the support of the Council of Europe and the European Union becomes lasting institutional practice?
The proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure have not yet been put to a vote, but I expect them to be placed on the agenda soon. The publication of the identity of the reporting judge and the votes of individual judges should be governed by clear rules defining when and under what conditions this information may be disclosed. I believe that interest in individual voting will be limited in most cases. However, it is natural that, in cases of particular social significance, such as vaccination, citizens want to know how each judge voted.
Publishing votes after a decision has been adopted must be distinguished from disclosing the content of judicial deliberations. Judges must retain a protected space in which to exchange arguments freely and reconsider their legal positions without undue pressure. I believe that clear rules can reconcile greater transparency and individual accountability with the protection of judicial independence and the integrity of decision-making.
The sustainability of the progress achieved with the support of the Council of Europe and the European Union depends on embedding it in the Court’s rules, responsibilities and everyday work. The support of our partners is important for developing standards and capacities, but responsibility for their consistent application rests with us. Openness should become a lasting feature of the institution, regardless of changes in its composition.
