Activity Details (ID# 7099)

Activity Synopsis

The objectives of the conference were the following:

- to present the judges from the Supreme and High Courts and the prosecutors to the general principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights
- to compare the current Montenegrin legislation concerning freedom of expression and information with the relevant articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
- to have an exchange of views on some other topics concerning Article 10 of the ECHR, such as defamation, insult and criticism of public figures, protection of journalists’ sources, preservation of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary

The objective was only partially attained due to the lack of the participation of judges from the Supreme and High Courts.
 

From a practical point of view, the conference was very well organised. All participants received a copy of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Case law concerning Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the series of Recommendations and other texts of the Committee of Ministers in the media field, the Montenegrin Media Law, Broadcasting Law and Public Broadcasting services law, all of which allowed them to compare existing national legislation with European standards.

The Conference received extensive newspaper and television coverage.

However, it was very disappointing to see only two Supreme Court judges and no High Court judges present at the conference. Nevertheless, the judges, prosecutors and representatives of the Broadcasting Agency who attended had very interesting and constructive discussions with the Council of Europe experts. The fact that Council of Europe experts came from neighbouring countries (FYROM and Croatia) contributed to the success of the conference in that they understood the local legal systems, working methods and language.

The discussions focused on the question of whether the defamation should be included in the criminal law or civil law and it was interesting to hear different points of view: some participants felt that defamation should stay in the criminal law because honour and reputation are very important notions in Montenegrin tradition, while others felt that keeping defamation in criminal law represents a step backwards. One of the participants said that the “courts of justice can not necessary protect honour and reputation”.

The participants stressed that due to the difficult financial situation of Montenegrin judges and prosecutors, the authority and impartiality of the judiciary can not always be properly ascertained.
 

Apart from the lack of participation of judges from the Supreme and High courts, the conference could be considered a success. The general conclusion was that the existing Montenegrin legislation concerning freedom of expression and information can generally be considered in line with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it remains be seen whether its implementation by the magistrates and prosecutors will take into account the relevant principles of the European Court’s of Human Rights case law.

 

Judges from Constitutional and Supreme courts, Prosecutors, Members of the Broadcasting Agency
Executive Director of the Judicial Training Centre of Montenegro
 

Ms Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovksa, Judge at the European Court of Human Rights
Ms Vesna Alaburic, Lawyer, Zagreb (Croatia)
 

Mr. Vladimir RISTOVSKI, Head of the Council of Europe Office in Podgorica,
Ms Daliborka ULJAREVIC, Political and Media Adviser, Council of Europe Office in Podgorica
Lejla DERVISAGIC, Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights