Constitutional Court reviews the anonymization of public officials in court decisions

The Constitutional Court of Montenegro has initiated proceedings to assess the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Court Rules of Procedure that require the anonymization of information relating to public officials in final court decisions published on the websites of the courts.

The proceedings concern provisions requiring the anonymization of information relating to court experts, interpreters, social workers, psychologists, pedagogues, special education professionals, medical doctors, and other individuals who participate in civil, commercial, criminal, and administrative proceedings in the performance of their official duties, as well as information identifying the first-instance authority that rendered the administrative decision.

According to the Constitutional Court, these individuals and authorities do not participate in proceedings in a private capacity, but rather as public officials performing professional duties or exercising public powers. The Court therefore considers it legitimate to examine whether their identities should remain publicly available.

The Constitutional Court notes that information concerning court experts, interpreters, and other professionals is generally already publicly available through official registers, licensing systems, and other public records. Accordingly, during the proceedings it will assess whether anonymizing their identities serves a legitimate aim consistent with the Constitution of Montenegro and the European Convention on Human Rights.

As stated by the Court, publishing the identities of these individuals may contribute to greater transparency in the administration of justice, strengthen public confidence in judicial proceedings, and facilitate the identification of potential conflicts of interest or the repeated appointment of the same experts in favour of one party to proceedings.

- The Court will examine whether, by prescribing the anonymization of these individuals, the authority that adopted the Court Rules of Procedure exceeded its statutory powers and whether such a restriction is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is necessary in a democratic society - the Constitutional Court stated.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court rejected the initiative insofar as it challenged the anonymization of information relating to the parties to proceedings, their legal representatives, attorneys, and other participants, as well as the provisions governing the manner in which anonymization is carried out prior to the publication of final court decisions.

The Court Rules of Procedure were adopted by the Ministry of Justice following the prior opinion of the Judicial Council.

The proceedings before the Constitutional Court were initiated following an application submitted by the non-governmental organization MANS. The decision initiating the proceedings will be served on the participants in the case.