Following the change of government three years ago, deposits held in the bank of the younger Đukanović began to ‘melt away’. The bank has survived thanks to substantial backing from the government, as well as deposits from state-owned enterprises, institutions, local governments and close businessmen. Auditors warned about the company’s uncertain future, while the Central Bank insists that everything is fine but withholds audit findings.

By Biljana Matijašević

As Prva Banka (First Bank) grapples with a new crisis stemming from its history of risky operations and the loss of its privileged market position after 30 August 30 2020, its major owner, Aco Đukanović, resides outside Montenegro following the collapse of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) and is seeking to sell this company. For years, the Prva Banka has survived thanks to substantial backing from the government, as well as deposits from state-owned enterprises, institutions, local governments and and businessmen close to the Đukanović family.

Multiple sources confirmed to the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) that the brother of the former multiple prime minister and president of the country, Milo Đukanović, moved to Luxembourg shortly after the 2020 elections and has already embarked on new projects there.

The long-standing regime of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) enabled Aco Đukanović and a certain number of affiliated businessmen to amass enormous wealth, often bypassing legal regulations, despite the fact that laws were written precisely for them. The wealth of the younger Đukanović has been estimated at several hundred million euros. Prva Banka is just one of the former state-owned companies that have fallen into Aco’s hands during years of dubious and partner privatizations led by the elder Đukanović.

Following the change of government three years ago, deposits placed in the Prva Banka began to dwindle, and the 2022 audit report highlighted significant uncertainties regarding the bank’s future operations.

“The potential cumulative effects of the issues raised in sections of our report entitled ‘Basis for a qualified opinion and emphasis of matter’ may directly impact the reduction of capital adequacy below prescribed minimums, as well as worsen other indicators and limits prescribed by the Central Bank, indicating the existence of material uncertainty that raises significant doubt about the bank’s ability to continue operating in accordance with the principle of going concern,” states the report from BDO, an independent auditing firm.

How deposits were dwindling

The new management of the Electric Power Company (EPCG), which is a significant shareholder in Prva Banka (around 20 percent), withdrew around 11 million euros in deposits from the bank immediately after the establishment of the new management and change of government. According to EPCG officials, the current balance in the deposit account at Prva Banka is around 1.6 million euros.

In 2019, the energy company had a total of 24 million euros in deposits (fixed-term and on-demand) in Prva Banka, which decreased to around 20 million euros in 2020. According to audit reports, EPCG reduced its deposits in Aco Đukanović's bank to 14.5 million euros in 2021, and further to 8.8 million euros in the previous year, leaving only 1.6 million euros in the account now.

In 2010, the state-owned energy company granted Prva Banka a subordinated loan of 10 million euros to overcome liquidity problems. The loan was reduced to six million euros through several annexes, with the last annex signed by the former management of EPCG in 2020, postponing the repayment until 1 April 2028.

EPCG recalls that last year they requested approval from the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG) to withdraw the subordinated loan, but the regulator did not allow it. The CBCG previously explained that such action would jeopardize the bank’s operations.

“The total income of EPCG from accrued and paid interest on the subordinated debt, as of 31 March 2023, amounts to approximately 6.5 million euros,” EPCG officials told CIN-CG.

At the end of 2019, Prva Banka had deposits of around 340.8 million euros. By the end of 2020, following the fall of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS), customer deposits decreased to 301.7 million. In 2021, they further dropped to 258.4 million euros. However, by the end of last year, deposits at Prva Banka had increased to approximately 285.3 million euros, but this still represents a significant outflow compared to the time of the elder Đukanović’s rule.

Significant amounts of deposits in Prva Banka were also held by EPCG’s subsidiaries – the Montenegrin Electric Distribution System (CEDIS), as well as the companies majority-owned by EPCG – the Coal Mine and Zeta Energy. Deposits were also held by Pivara Trebjesa, Sports Facilities LLC, the Student Dormitory and Student Centre in Nikšić and the Municipality of Nikšić. 

Of those, significantly reduced deposits were held only by EPCG, CEDIS, Zeta Energy and Coal Mine in the last year. For example, in 2019, CEDIS had a total deposit of 20 million euros, while by the end of last year, it was reduced to only 3.5 million euros.

The deposits of Coal Mine amounted to 3.2 million euros in 2019, falling to 675 thousand euros last year. Zeta Energy reduced its deposits from 953 thousand euros in 2019 to a symbolic one thousand euros last year.

CBCG witholds audit findings

The Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG) conducted an audit of Prva Banka last year, but the institution, still managed by Radoje Žugić, a trusted figure of the former regime and former director of Aco Đukanović’s bank, refuses to disclose the findings. Žugić’s term of office has expired, but due to political disagreements, a new governor has not yet been appointed, so he continues to lead this institution, which he took over in 2016. He also headed the institution between 2010 and 2012.

“The information regarding the findings of the bank audit, as well as any potential measures to be implemented, is confidential,” the CBCG told CIN-CG.

Goran Knežević, a banking expert and former deputy director-general of the CBCG, says that, to his knowledge, the CBCG conducted an audit of the bank at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, and allegedly found nothing irregular.

According to him, the audit findings by the CBCG regarding Prva Banka reportedly indicate that the bank’s operations are compliant with the law, based on good practices and stable. He mentioned that the cut-off date for an assessment was the end of November, rather than the end of the year.

“In line with the new Law on Credit Institutions, CBCG is required to disclose any disciplinary measures imposed on banks, if any. If none are imposed, it should mean that everything is in order,” he explains.

The CBCG says that Prva Banka is operating within the regular regime. It is liquid and there are no outstanding orders.

In response to CIN-CG’s inquiry about whether EPCG will continue to support Prva Banka as in the previous period, the energy company said that Prva Banka, in its semi-annual report, indicates that there are no operational issues and that liquidity is at a satisfactory level, enabling uninterrupted operation, adding that the bank operates without any restrictions regarding loan approvals.

An analysis by CIN-CG has revealed that Prva Banka has not received a positive report from independent auditors for over a decade, which should have been a warning signal for the regulator, the Central Bank, to take stricter measures.

In their reports of auditing firms over the past 12 years (earlier reports are not available on the Central Bank’s website), audit companies generally highlight the same issues – a high level of non-performing loans, non-compliance with regulatory requirements and international auditing standards, underestimated or overestimated balance sheet items, leading to a misrepresentation of the true financial performance.

A source familiar with the situation at Prva Banka (name known to the editors) stated that the bank had previously warranted a negative opinion from auditors, “but no one dared to write it,” given that it is owned by the brother of Milo Đukanović, who himself once held shares in the bank. It is known that he earned his first legal million by selling those shares.

The source indicated that the bank did not adjust to banking regulations in Montenegro; instead, the regulations were “adjusted to it”. In other words, the Central Bank relaxed regulations to tailor them to Prva Banka.

Goran Knežević told CIN-CG that analysing the performance of this bank, one can conclude that it would be desirable for Prva Banka to change its business model, risk management system and corporate culture.

“Those who build one culture rarely change it, unless they themselves undergo intensive change. Typically, a new culture needs to be introduced by someone else, or an inadequate business culture ultimately results in the system’s demise,” Knežević notes.

He confirmed that after 2008, when Prva Banka faced its first major crisis, bank controls were ‘relaxed’.

Measures and performance data also remain under the veil of secrecy

Asked about why stricter measures were not taken against Prva Banka, given the fact that it has not received a positive auditor’s opinion for over a decade, the CBCG told CIN-CG that information regarding the findings of bank business controls, as well as the implementation of measures, is confidential and can only be provided to the competent state authorities.

Ines Mrdović, director of the Action for Social Justice (ASP), told CIN-CG that actual control of the bank’ operations by the supreme monetary institution has never been undertaken, and those who attempted it previously were quickly removed.

“It was simply an ‘untouchable’ bank to which state interests were subordinated due to strong political and nepotistic connections, so there is a big question mark about whether auditors received truly relevant data from the bank’s management in such an environment, and how they were able to provide relevant assessments of the bank’s condition," she notes.

Mrdović believes that since the 2008 financial crisis, during which the bank was assisted with 44 million without consulting the public, and a year later, when tens of millions of euros were deposited into it from the sale of part of the government’s stake in EPCG to prevent bankruptcy, the true business figures of the bank are still largely shrouded in ‘a veil of secrecy’.

Prva Banka was founded by taking over the state-owned Nikšić Bank in 2006, and within a few months under the control of the Đukanović family, it grew by several dozen times. It immediately began to serve, as reported by the BBC, as an ATM machine for the ruling elite and their friends, some of whom received multimillion-dollar loans without proper collateral.

Before the crisis and state aid in 2008, the regulator had imposed measures on Prva Banka due to identified liquidity problems. At that time, the bank was required to cease granting loans that did not comply with regulations. However, according to audit reports, the bank did not adhere to the measures imposed by the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG), under which it was effectively operating only nominally for two and a half years.

In 2008, Prva Banka managed to avoid collapse with the help of the state following the enactment of special legislation, allegedly due to the global crisis, and by approving a loan of 44 million euros from the state budget. The bank repaid the loan in instalments, but doubts arose in some quarters about the authenticity of the repayment. The first instalment was repaid by transferring 11 million euros in 11 consecutive transactions on 13 March 2010, following the inflow of deposits from the state-owned Regional Waterworks, also in 11 transactions of one million euros each. This was confirmed by the auditor.

Due to suspicions regarding the regularity of the loan repayment to the state, several criminal complaints were filed against Prva Banka and some former members of the government. The complaints were filed by MANS, the CBCG and the Movement for Changes. Prva Banka at the time denied allegations that they had unlawfully repaid a portion of the loan to the government.

The Special State Prosecutor’s Office did not respond to CIN-CG’s questions regarding the criminal complaint filed in 2020 by the Democratic Montenegro, the Pensioners’ Party and the Pensioners’ Union. The previous criminal complaint filed in 2012 was dismissed by the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, led by Ranka Čarapić. That complaint was filed by the CBCG due to suspicions of irregularities in business operations when Ljubiša Krgović was at its helm. He was dismissed from that position after opposing the Đukanović family.

It will be difficult for someone to buy a bank burdened with problems

During the era of the DPS, the bank was effectively supported by the Montenegrin Electric Power Company (EPCG) through deposits, recapitalization, approval of subordinated loans and through million-dollar transactions during the sale of a part of the EPCG to the Italian company A2A. The sale of Montenegro’s most valuable company was negotiated by the elder Đukanović.

Thanks to the EPCG, Prva Bank managed to maintain the legally prescribed level of capital. Following the latest auditor’s report for 2022 and the expressed qualified opinion, there have been discussions about selling the bank.

Media outlets from Serbia and Montenegro reported in July that the Postal Savings Bank of Serbia was interested in acquiring Prva Banka, but this news was quickly denied. The Central Bank says they have not received any formal notification regarding the intention to purchase the shares of Prva Banka, claiming that the EPCG is also not aware of such information.

In the 2022 report on Prva Banka, the auditor stated that there is interest in acquiring a majority stake in the bank “by strategic investors from Europe and the region.”

“According to the bank’s management, some of the offers could be implemented in the short term, creating the necessary conditions for the survival and further development of the bank,” the report states.

CIN-CG has reached out to several banks in Europe and the region, all of which said they were not considering the purchase of Prva Banka. Prva Banka did not respond to CIN-CG’s inquiries regarding whether they are conducting negotiations for selling the bank and with whom.

An insider familiar with the matter points out that the talks about the sale of the bank have been ongoing for more than a decade, so it will be challenging for anyone to acquire it due to liquidity issues.

As early as in 2011, according to media reports, negotiations were underway for the sale of Prva Banka to Russian banker Vladimir Antonov, who was suspected of embezzlement in Lithuania’s Snoras and Latvian Krajbanka, as well as financial irregularities involving the HSBC bank.

Prva Banka was in negotiations for sale with the royal family of Al Nahyan from the UAE in 2008 and 2013, but those attempts were also unsuccessful.

At the end of last year, the bank had 280 shareholders, with the largest being Aco Đukanović, holding 41.46 percent and EPCG holding 19.76 percent. However, the owners of a total of 11 percent of shares are concealed behind aggregate custody accounts at Hipotekarna Bank (4.48 percent), Prva Banka (3.44 percent), and CKB (3.1 percent).

Aco is now increasing his deposits

NGO Action for Social Justice (ASP) announced in late August that Aco Đukanović withdrew his deposits when seeking state assistance in 2008.

According to ASP data, Aco Đukanović’s fixed-term deposits fell from 18.1 million euros at the end of 2008 to 4.3 million euros. His deposits continued to decrease, so by 2019, according to the auditors’ report, he had not held any deposits at Prva Banka under his name.

Since leaving the country, however, the younger Đukanović has been injecting deposits into his bank over the past three years, while others were withdrawing, as shown by the audit reports. In 2020, he had a deposit in the bank amounting to 956,000 euros, and by 2021, this sum had grown to 1,127,000 euros. In the same year, a microcredit company owned by Prva Banka, Montenegro Investment Credit, deposited 806,000 euros in Prva Banka. The 2022 audit report states that Aco Đukanović’s deposit amounted to 1.8 million euros, while Montenegro Investment Credit reduced its deposit to 514,000 euros.

Since the state no longer injects money into the bank that has been privileged for years, it is evident that the younger Đukanović now has to inject his own money to save the bank’s liquidity and prepare it for sale. Considering how much money they have taken from the state, these deposits are only symbolic amounts for the family.

CIN-CG requested copies of the 2008 and 2009 control reports on Prva Banka from the Central Bank, but the request was denied on the grounds that they constitute business secrets.

Through the freedom-of-information platform developed by MANS, CIN-CG also requested a separate 2009 audit report by the PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), ordered by the Central Bank. However, the Central Bank also declined this request, stating that they do not have it. The PwC did not complete the audit, which remained in a draft form. This, as Krgović stated in his statement to the prosecution service in 2014, is one of the most severe qualifications for a bank.

Asked by CIN-CG whether the Central Bank destroyed documentation on the operations of Prva Banka for 2008 and 2009, they said that they “do not destroy documentation on bank operations, and it is available for inspection by third parties in accordance with the law.”

“When it comes to archiving and storing documentation, the Central Bank acts in accordance with the Law on Archival Activities and the List of Categories of Central Bank Registry Material approved by the State Archives of Montenegro,” they said.

Parts of the draft audit report by PWC were published in 2012 by the regional network of investigative journalists, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). The report revealed that Prva Banka approved nearly two-thirds of loans to related parties, where it not only violated its internal rules but also laws and other regulations, causing harm to itself in favour of providing special treatment to VIP firms and individuals.

One example involves foreign companies associated with businessman Zoran Bećirović, a friend of Milo Đukanović. Central Bank inspectors established in 2007 that the bank, without obtaining all the necessary information and documentation, opened accounts for Beppler and Partners, registered in the British Virgin Islands, as well as Caldero Trading, Beppler Property and Development and Beppler Investments, registered in Cyprus.

In 2014, the OCCRP also reported that Prva Banka conducted business with the convicted drug lord Darko Šarić and his associates, allowing them to take out loans under favourable conditions through accounts at the bank, which raised justified suspicions of money laundering.

“In its dealings with Šarić and Rodoljub Radulović, or their companies, Prva Banka violated the law and internal regulations, granting them loans in violation of prescribed procedures and without adequate collateral to ensure repayment. For instance, when opening accounts for Lafino Trade LLC in the US state of Delaware and for Camarilla Corporation in Seychelles, Prva Banka failed to obtain valid registry extracts or copies of personal documents for individuals with access to the accounts. In this way, Prva Banka breached the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing,” the OCCRP reported.

Jegdić has been on trial for six years already, and yet there is still no first-instance decision. How much longer will the trials of Medenica and Jovanić last? Judging by the initial hearings, the wheels of justice will move slowly, if at all.

By Maja Boričić

The Judicial Council dismissed two judges over 10 years ago for committing criminal offences. In 2017, the Judicial Council dismissed another judge, but that decision was overturned and the judges were reinstated. Five judges were dismissed for negligent and incompetent conduct, but even those dismissals occurred a long time ago, with the last one taking place 12 years ago.

According to data obtained by the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), it is common for judges to evade disciplinary proceedings by resigning. As CIN-CG previously reported, the same practice was observed in the prosecution service.

A number of dismissed judges continued to work in the judicial system, most often as attorneys.

By reviewing disciplinary proceedings published on the website, the Council has had a practice of imposing symbolic salary cuts for a few months as punishments for judges for consistent delays in rendering judgments; unjustified absence from hearings for up to a month; failure to act within legal deadlines in multiple cases. It has often happened that judges only received warnings for breaches of duty.

The system for establishing the accountability of judges and state prosecutors, unfortunately, is still ineffective, says Marija Vesković, legal advisor at the Human Rights Action (HRA), speaking to CIN-CG.

“Numerous criminal proceedings initiated in the past 15 months indicate that there has been unlawful influence within the judiciary and the prosecution service, while on the other hand, the practice of establishing disciplinary and ethical accountability remains at a minimal level,” Vesković stresses.

Former judge of the Basic Court in Kolašin, Branislav Grujić, was dismissed by the Judicial Council in 2009 because he was sentenced by a final judgement to one year in prison for abuse of office and negligent performance of duty.

He was convicted for allowing the limitation period for criminal prosecution to expire in several cases, and in one case, he enabled a convicted individual to avoid serving the sentence. 

He was charged with abuse of office, which carries a sentence of imprisonment ranging from one to eight years, and for two offences of negligent performance of duty, for which the penalty is either a fine or imprisonment for up to three years. 

However, the Basic Court in Bijelo Polje sentenced him to ten months in prison for the lesser offence of abuse of office and three months for only one offence of negligent performance of duty, imposing a total sentence of one year. In the same case, the court clerk responsible for criminal cases received a prison sentence twice as long as judge Grujić, totalling two years.

The most serious consequences for violating ethics and professional principles were faced by Arif Spahić, a former judge of the High Court in Bijelo Polje. In 2010, he was sentenced to seven years in prison for two offences of bribery. The Judicial Council dismissed him in 2011. The crime for which he was convicted carries a penalty of three to 15 years in prison.

He was convicted after it was proven that he had accepted bribes totalling around 20,500 euros to impose a lighter sentence in a case involving a serious criminal offence in the field of public transport resulting in death. Additionally, the judge allowed the defendant to have their detention revoked and facilitated their escape.

In another case, Spahić accepted a bribe of 18,500 euros to impose a lighter prison sentence and revoke the detention of the accused for unauthorized production, possession and trafficking of narcotics.

In 2017, the Judicial Council dismissed Goran Vrbica, the then president of the Basic Court in Cetinje, but reinstated him in 2021. Vrbica was accused of instructing judge Nebojša Marković on what decision to make, thereby causing €800,000 damage to one company to the benefit of another.

The one-year sentence was overturned by the Constitutional Court. In the retrial, the judge was acquitted on the grounds that there was no evidence of abuse of office. After being reinstated, Vrbica continued to work as a judge in the Basic Court in Kotor but soon resigned from his position.

Judge Nebojša Marković, who was also involved in the same case, was also acquitted of the charges. However, the Judicial Council did not address his case as he had already resigned and became a practising lawyer.

A judge buried a defendant

Due to incompetent and negligent work, the Judicial Council dismissed five judges, the last one being dismissed twelve years ago.

Former judge of the Basic Court in Pljevlja, Zorica Novaković, former judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica, Žarko Savković, former judge of the Basic Court in Kolašin, Ljiljana Simonović, former judge of the Basic Court in Cetinje, Duško Jovović, and former judge of the High Court in Bijelo Polje, Atif Adrović, were dismissed for incompetent and negligent performance of judicial duties in proceedings between 2008 and 2011.

Simonović was dismissed because in 2008 and 2009, over 50 percent of her decisions were overturned, and for years she failed to proceed in dozens of execution cases, although she was required to do so urgently. In one case, the judge even terminated the proceedings due to the death of a defendant, who was still alive.

Savković was dismissed because he did not proceed in many cases for several years, causing limitation periods to expire in some cases.

Similarly, Novaković failed to act in enforcement cases for years or proceeded incorrectly. She later continued to practise as an attorney. However, she was recently sentenced to three years in prison for the continuing criminal offence of fraud and the continuing criminal offence of forging a document. She is accused of collecting false costs totalling 160,000 euros in over 20 cases. This judgment is not yet final.

Former judge Jovović was fired because, in 2009, he delayed rendering over 150 judgments. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, a judgment must be drafted and delivered within one month, and within two months for complex cases. Former judge Jovović, now an attorney, took up to eight months for some judgments.

No one is held accountable for crimes, but some are for electricity theft

The case of judge Adrović vividly illustrates how a judge can be dismissed for much milder offences than those committed by many representatives of the judiciary over the years.

Adrović was dismissed because he imposed a suspended sentence on a person who stole electricity, but later paid the Electric Power Company (EPCG) even more money than he had consumed. However, this accused person had previously been sentenced to 45 days in prison for endangering traffic, so the Judicial Council referenced the provision of the Criminal Code that a suspended sentence cannot be imposed if someone commits a new offence within five years.

In all these proceedings, the president of the Judicial Council was Vesna Medenica, who is now facing trial for abuse of office. The Special State Prosecutor’s Office is prosecuting Medenica for her involvement in a criminal organization formed by her son, Miloš Medenica, and for inciting judges from various courts to make decisions in favour of certain parties, who in return provided bribes or had family ties with her.

Currently, criminal proceedings are underway against judges Danilo Jegdić and Blažo Jovanić, as well as judges Marija Bilafer and Milica Vlahović-Milosavljević.

Judge Bilafer of the Basic Court in Kotor is suspected of abuse of office, particularly for issuing unlawful court decisions cornering the registration of property in the maritime zone. The Special State Prosecutor’s Office has not responded to CIN-CG’s inquiries regarding the status of this case and whether charges have been brought against the judge.

Judge Milica Vlahović-Milosavljević of the Commercial Court is accused of abuse of office, specifically for imposing a temporary measure in favour of Vesna Medenica’s godfather, Rado Arsić, and his company, under pressure from the former president of the Supreme Court, Vesna Medenica. This action was contrary to the Law on Enforcement and Security, resulting in a serious violation of the rights of the other party.

Her suspended superior at the Commercial Court, Blažo Jovanić, is accused of creating a criminal organization that engaged in malpractices in bankruptcy proceedings in that court. This included fabricating fictitious expenses and false evaluations, resulting in eight companies being defrauded of hundreds of thousands of euros.

Since its establishment, the Judicial Council has issued 21 decisions to suspend judges, including Branislav Grujić, Snežana Dragojević, Željko Šupljeglav, Žarko Savković, Zorica Novaković, Zoran Lekić, Zoran Ašanin, Milorad Marotić, Ilijaz Krom, Isad Jašarović, Arif Spahić, Ljiljana Simonović, Nikola Tomić, Vidomir Bošković, Nedeljko Mrdak, Atif Adrović, Lazar Aković, Danilo Jegdić, Marija Bilafer, Milica Vlahović-Milosavljević and Blažo Jovanić.

The decision to suspend, effectively temporarily removing a judge or prosecutor from their duties, is taken if a criminal procedure has been initiated against them for an offence that disqualifies them from performing their function, if they are detained or if there is an ongoing disciplinary procedure leading to dismissal.

In addition to the already dismissed judges and the four against whom proceedings are still ongoing, almost all other suspended individuals have resigned, thereby preventing the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.

Even Vesna Medenica, who held top positions in the judiciary for almost three decades, avoided having her case reviewed by the Judicial Council by resigning before criminal proceedings were initiated against her.

Prolonged proceedings cast a shadow on truth

Speaking to CIN-CG, Ana Perović-Vojinović, a long-time judge and former member of the Judicial Council, says she is confident that criminal proceedings against judicial leaders and judges will end ingloriously.

“However, there is justified concern regarding the duration of the proceedings, as prolonged proceedings always cast a shadow on the truth established in the proceedings, diluting it and diminishing its strength,” she notes. 

Perović-Vojinović suggests that there should be a consensus to prioritize these proceedings and ensure absolute dedication to them in order to reach a high-quality judgment that is professionally grounded and substantiated.

“This means shorter deadlines for scheduling hearings, thorough and swift processing of the evidence and proficient handling of entire case files,” says this judge from the Administrative Court.

She notes that the disciplinary responsibility of judges is undoubtedly one of the most important issues upon which the efficiency of the judiciary hinges.

“We have been witnessing many negative developments in the judiciary in recent years, especially the inability to adequately and promptly resolve situations where there is suspicion of major errors due to incompetence or suspicion of corruption,” she adds.

Perović-Vojinović was a member of the Judicial Council between July 2018 and July 2022. She emphasizes that during that period, the Judicial Council particularly struggled with the disciplinary responsibility of judges, as well as with an inefficient, outdated and inapplicable Law on the Judicial Council and Judges.

She explains that the law broadly defines disciplinary offences, which in practice often results in the dismissal of complaints.

Vesković of Human Rights Action further explains that the legal descriptions of some disciplinary offenses by officeholders, not only in the judiciary but also in the prosecution service, are too vague and subject to arbitrary interpretation, leading to avoidance of accountability. As a result, judges and prosecutors are sometimes treated unevenly.

According to the legal advisor from HRA, it is necessary to improve the legislative framework, especially regarding violations of the Code of Ethics and disciplinary offences.

“The difference is not insignificant because disciplinary offenses entail serious sanctions unlike ethical violations, which practically go unpunished.”

Resignation should not be allowed during disciplinary proceedings

Perović-Vojinović also points out the problematic issue of allowing judges to resign, especially in cases where there is suspicion that they have committed serious disciplinary offenses through their conduct.

“I believe that judges, as public officials, have a special responsibility to the public, and that the law should address the ‘legal power’ of resignation in a way that prioritizes disciplinary offences.”

Vesković also highlights the problematic nature of this practice, noting that Human Rights Action has proposed amendments to the law to stipulate that resignation should not be considered during disciplinary proceedings. However, the Ministry of Justice rejected this proposal, stating that according to the Constitution, the judicial function, among other things, ceases upon the judge’s request.

Vesković explains that in Serbia, there is a legal possibility allowing a resignation not to be accepted until the completion of disciplinary proceedings. In addition, their Constitution also states that the judge’s function ceases upon the judge’s request, so this was not a valid reason for not adopting this provision.

HRA’s legal advisor notes that there is also a problem with initiating proceedings to establish the responsibility because neither members of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils nor the disciplinary prosecutor have the authority to initiate proceedings to establish the responsibility of a judge or prosecutor. This should be changed. Every member of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils should have the authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings, she emphasizes.

The fact that certain cases have never been prosecuted, despite legal conditions allowing it, also shows that the problem lies not only in the legislative framework but also in the lack of proactivity or willingness of judicial officials to initiate proceedings against their colleagues, says the legal advisor from HRA.

Vesković cites the case of judge Milosav Zekić, who continued to hold judicial office for almost a year after being criminally convicted, despite being required to be immediately dismissed.

“At that time, Vesna Medenica was the president of the Supreme Court, aware that criminal proceedings were underway against Zekić, but did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against him even after he was convicted.”

Such conduct by the court president constitutes grounds for removal from the presidential position, concludes Vesković.

It is not known to us whether the legality of the decisions made by judge Zekić during the time when he could no longer be a judge was questioned. Only after a year of being convicted, he resigned.

Acting president of the Supreme Court Vesna Vučković, who is also a member of the Judicial Council, told CIN-CG that it is not within her responsibility to discuss the accountability of judges and referred us to the Disciplinary Council of the Judicial Council. However, even the Disciplinary Council of the Judicial Council remained silent to our questions, which speaks volumes about their readiness to change the system.

Judge Danilo Jegdić of the Basic Court in Podgorica has been on trial for six years, and a first-instance decision has not yet been rendered. He is accused of continuing forgery of an official document, which is liable to imprisonment for a term from three months to five years, with the possibility of a stricter sentence for continuing offences. In response to CIN-CG’s questions, the Basic Court in Nikšić, where this case is being tried, said the proceedings were still ongoing before judge Sava Mušikić.

How long will the trials of the former president of the Supreme Court and the suspended president of the Commercial Court last? Given the way the trials started, with frequent postponements of hearings, one might infer that the wheels of justice will turn slowly, if at all.

Reasons for missed limitation periods should be examined 

The previous practices of both councils concerning complaints about the work of judges and prosecutors, as well as annual reports on their performance, have shown numerous cases of limitation periods being missed in criminal prosecutions, Vesković recalls.

“However, in practice, there has been a lack of checks and initiation of proceedings to determine their responsibility.”

Accordingly, Vesković emphasizes, it will be particularly important to ensure that the reasons for missed limitation periods in criminal prosecutions are investigated. If the responsibility of a judge or prosecutor is established, it should have implications for their evaluation, advancement, and dismissal.

There is no progress in establishing accountability in the judiciary

By Maja Boričić

Special Prosecutor Saša Čađenović received a disciplinary sanction 11 years ago for arbitrarily taking away a case assigned to another prosecutor while serving as a prosecutor at the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica. Čađenović is currently in prison on charges that he is part of a criminal gang.

In a 2012 decision by the Prosecutorial Council, seen by the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), Čađenović had his salary cut by 15% for three months as punishment for failure to perform his prosecutorial duties properly.

On 24 October 2012, he requested from V. M., the technical secretary of the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica, to be handed over a case assigned to by the state prosecutor in Podgorica, LJ. K, to deputy prosecutor, I. P. Without the knowledge of the prosecutor and the case processor, he prevented the dispatch of the decision previously agreed upon by the state prosecutor, drafted another decision without authorization, signed it as the processor, and submitted it to the prosecutor for review.

Eleven years later, the Special State Prosecutor’s Office brought charges against Čađenović for the offence of forming a criminal organization and six offences of abuse of office.

Čađenović is accused of becoming a member of the criminal organization of ‘Kavac clan’ in mid-2020, with the task of not pursuing criminal prosecution and not initiating proceedings against the organizers and members of that criminal organization as a special prosecutor. As the indictment reads, Čađenović among other things hindered the identification of perpetrators of the most serious criminal offences, prevented their detention, removed reports provided by EUROPOL from case files as well as criminal complaints filed by the police against them.

No prosecutor has ever been dismissed since the establishment of the Prosecutorial Council in Montenegro. Only prosecutor Romina Vlahović was fired for incompetent and negligent work, but she was soon reinstated as the Prosecutorial Council’s decision on her dismissal was overturned.

In the last ten years, there have not even been any fines imposed in disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Prosecutorial Council, except for prosecutor Nikola Boričić from the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica, but even that decision was overturned, so the prosecutor was acquitted in a retrial.

Many prosecutors, however, have resigned before disciplinary proceedings were initiated, thereby preventing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Some who made serious mistakes were not even subject to any proceedings, and some have been promoted in the meantime.

Even if criminal proceedings are initiated against prosecutors and judges, they usually drag on for years and often end “ingloriously”. Disciplinary proceedings resulted in symbolic penalties at best –such as a salary deduction for a few months.

In the latest unofficial document, known as a non-paper, the European Commission emphasizes that there is virtually no progress when it comes to establishing the accountability of judges and prosecutors:

“The promotion and enforcement of ethics and standards of professional behaviour of judges and prosecutors remains a challenge. There is a limited track record and a lack of proactivity by both Councils.”

The Prosecutorial Council attributes this to legislative solutions, which, as they assert, are inadequate as they leave room for interpretation.

In recent times, proceedings have been initiated against some of the top figures in the judiciary, including former president of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica, president of the Commercial Court Blažo Jovanić and Special Prosecutor Saša Čađenović, among others.

“The extent of disruption to the foundation of the judiciary and justice in Montenegro is best illustrated by arrests of those who were supposed to serve it. Still, there needs to be caution towards the propensity for selective justice, which unfortunately is not an exception but rather the rule for Montenegro,” emphasizes Marija Popović Kalezić, director of the Centre for Civic Freedoms (CEGAS).

She notes that for further reform, it is necessary to fill all positions in the judicial and prosecutorial system with higher-quality staff, but also to consider the introduction of vetting.

Kalezić also underscores that both the Prosecutorial and Judicial Councils should do much more to expedite key changes.

“The functionality of both councils, as well as transparency, must be increased and lead to concrete results,” she adds. 

Vlahović dismissed and then reinstated to her position

The only decision by the Prosecutorial Council leading to the dismissal of Romina Vlahović was later overturned and she was reinstated.

Vlahović, a prosecutor at the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica, was dismissed in disciplinary proceedings in April 2013 due to incompetent and negligent performance of prosecutorial duties. The decision stated that the prosecutor made unlawful decisions in certain cases, failed to act in cases assigned to her, kept cases at home and refused to return them upon request. It was also noted that she did not consider cases with sufficient care and expertise, while delaying proceedings. Her actions led to the dismissal of criminal charges in some cases, as stated in the annulled decision of the Prosecutorial Council.

A few days before this decision was made, Vlahović submitted her resignation. However, the Prosecutorial Council deemed it ‘irrelevant’ back then.

Before facing disciplinary action, a criminal proceeding was initiated against Vlahović in January 2013 for stealing two creams from a ‘Cosmetics’ shop. She was found guilty in the first-instance judgment, but the High Court later overturned that decision. The case was remanded for retrial, which was then suspended due to a legislative change concerning the prosecution for thefts valued at less than 150 euros, which now requires a private lawsuit. The shop owner did not prosecute Vlahović.

In addition to being reinstated, she also received compensation totalling 21,000 euros for reduced or unpaid salaries from February 2013 to August 2014, as well as for unpaid rent during that period.

Prosecutor Nikola Boričić from the same prosecutor’s office faced disciplinary charges for failure to act, resulting in the limitation period expiring in 13 criminal cases. He received a symbolical punishment from the Prosecutorial Council in the form of a 20% salary deduction for three months. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, citing a lack of evidence that the prosecutor’s actions led to the expiration of the cases and consequently acquitting him of responsibility.

Boričić claimed that this procedure was retaliation from Lepa Medenica, head of the High State Prosecutor’s Office, and Dražen Burić, former Acting Head of the High State Prosecutor’s Office, because he refused to act on their unlawful orders, especially after refusing to engage in illegal actions regarding the case publicly known as Belivuk – Miljković. In particular, he refused to participate in lifting the entry ban for those individuals into Montenegro.

As a result of this case, disciplinary proceedings were recently initiated against Medenica, which also ended ingloriously. The Prosecutorial Council refused to discuss the proposal for Medenica’s dismissal because the indictment was poorly drafted. According to information obtained by CIN-CG, this decision will also be brought before the Supreme Court.

Deputy disciplinary prosecutor Tanja Nišavić lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Prosecutorial Council’s decision and remand the case for reconsideration.

The prosecutor accused of usury awaits the High Court

In response to CIN-CG’s request to have access to all decisions regarding the dismissal and temporary removal of prosecutors, the Prosecutorial Council said that data from 2015, the year when the Secretariat of the Prosecutorial Council was established, are available on the website. They also mentioned that they currently do not have access to the archives of that institution as they have not yet been digitized.

The website only contains three decisions regarding the temporary removal of Saša Čađenović, Grujo Radonjić and Lidija Mitrović.

The Basic Court in Kotor told CIN-CG that the proceedings against Grujo Radonjić, the suspended prosecutor of the High State Prosecutor’s Office, have been before the High Court for a year now, pending an appeal against the first-instance judgment.

The proceedings against Radonjić were initiated back in 2018. In April last year, he was initially sentenced to the minimum term of one year imprisonment for usury and fined 1,000 euros. He was accused of ‘earning’ around 44,000 euros through usury. According to the Criminal Code (CC), usury is liable to a fine and imprisonment for a term ranging from one to eight years.

Prosecutor Lidija Mitrović of the Special Prosecutor’s Office has been accused of abusing her office in the ‘Klap’ case by enabling five defendants to avoid criminal prosecution.

In the ‘Klap’ case, the Special Prosecutor’s Office accused 19 individuals of tax evasion and non-payment of contributions, resulting in damage to the state budget amounting to 2.6 million euros.

CIN-CG previously reported that the majority of defendants, including individuals from the ‘Klap’ case, who were members of criminal groups involved in tax evasion amounting to millions of euros, were only imposed suspended sentences and fined a few thousand euros. All of these agreements were approved by judge Boris Savić, with most of the deals having been negotiated by prosecutor Mitrović.

Prosecutor Srđa Jovanović from Kotor resigned after the Special Prosecutor’s Office initiated proceedings against him, thereby avoiding disciplinary action. The Special Prosecutor’s Office began proceedings against Jovanović over a year ago on suspicion of committing the crime of abuse of office. The current status of this case, including whether charges have been filed against the former prosecutor, remains unclear as the Special Prosecutor’s Office has not provided further information.

The Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Nikšić told CIN-CG that the proceedings against prosecutor Vukas Radonjić, on suspicion of domestic violence, are still in the preliminary investigation stage.

Radonjić's wife reported him for domestic violence back in May, but the Nikšić-based prosecutor’s office has not yet decided on whether to prosecute Radonjić, despite three months having passed since the complaint was filed.

No progress in holding judges and prosecutors accountable

European officials also stress the need for better supervision of the judiciary in Montenegro, including more thorough and unannounced inspections.

“The approach of Ethical Commissions of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils to handling cases is still not sufficiently effective and consistent.“

Marija Popović Kalezić, the director of CEGAS, also says that the lack of implementation and malfunctioning of both internal and external control systems are key reasons for the lack of prosecution of judges and prosecutors”

“For five consecutive years, the Special State Prosecutor’s Office has not undergone any control by the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office, and delays in control by higher authorities over lower ones have also been common.”

She also underscores that during the seven years of operation of the Complaints Commission regarding the legality of the work of prosecutors and heads of state prosecutor’s offices, a total of 667 complaints were filed, of which only 39 were found to be justified.

“Over the past seven years, only 10 disciplinary offences (punished with the lowest sanctions) and six cases of violation of the principles of the Code of Ethics, which cannot directly impact work assessments, have been identified. It is clear how effective and successful the control system itself is.”

European officials also highlight the differing practices of the Judicial Council and the Prosecutorial Council regarding the inaccurate reporting of assets to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.

They explain that the disciplinary committee of the Judicial Council failed to impose sanctions on judges for this type of improper behaviour, while the Prosecutorial Council sanctioned prosecutors by reducing their salaries by 20 percent.

“The independence, accountability and professionalism of the judiciary must be enhanced”, concludes the European Commission.

Popović Kalezić emphasizes that the control is best illustrated by the fact that only one prosecutor in Montenegro has received a three, while all others have been rated with the highest grade, which allows them to advance further. She concludes that legislative changes regarding control and accountability in the judiciary are necessary.

Prosecutorial Council awaits legislative changes

Stevo Muk, a member of the Prosecutorial Council, says that the decision-making regarding disciplinary responsibility should be returned to all members of the Prosecutorial Council, as this currently mostly lies within the Disciplinary Board of the Prosecutorial Council. Muk emphasizes that this is a bad practice that needs to be overcome “with a little goodwill, which has been lacking in the leadership of the Council over the past year and a half.”

He also emphasizes that amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office are necessary, both in terms of the procedure for establishing disciplinary responsibility and in the description of disciplinary offences.

“It may be necessary to expand the circle of initiators of disciplinary proceedings or possibly lay down that anyone may submit an initiative for establishing disciplinary responsibility. Ultimately, the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings would remain with the disciplinary prosecutor,” Muk told CIN-CG.

He explains that it is a misconception that it is the Prosecutorial Council that takes decisions regarding disciplinary responsibility.

“The only such case was the initiative for the dismissal of the head of the High State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, Lepe Medenica, which was suspended before the Prosecutorial Council had the chance to ascertain the facts and make a decision,” Muk said.

According to the Law on the State Prosecution, proposals for establishing disciplinary responsibility may be submitted by the head of the State Prosecutor’s Office, the head of the immediately superior state prosecutor's office, the Supreme State Prosecutor, the Minister of Justice and the Commission for Monitoring the Application of the Code of Ethics of State Prosecutors.

Incompetent and negligent performance of prosecutorial duties is deemed to have occurred when a state prosecutor: fails to achieve at least 50 percent of the workload results without justified reasons, unless they provide valid reasons for not achieving the results; starts performing parliamentary or other public functions or professionally engages in another activity; receives an unsatisfactory rating twice in a row; receives disciplinary sanctions twice for serious disciplinary offenses; commits a serious disciplinary offence causing significant damage to the reputation of the State Prosecutor’s Office.

Speaking to CIN-CG, acting Supreme State Prosecutor Tatjana Begović highlighted that work is underway on amendments to the Law on the State Prosecution: “Representatives of the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutorial Council, members of the working group, are striving to contribute with concrete proposals to further specify certain norms concerning disciplinary responsibility.”

Begović emphasizes that the State Prosecutor’s Office recognizes only perpetrators of criminal offences in its work, regardless of their position or profession: “If there is suspicion that someone has committed a criminal offence that is prosecuted ex officio, they are treated in the same manner, regardless of whether they are a state prosecutor, judge or representative of any other profession.”

Regarding state prosecutors against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated, Begović explains that the Prosecutorial Council, in the current stages of the proceedings, has made the only possible decisions, which are decisions on suspension: “The Law on the State Prosecution stipulates that if a state prosecutor is convicted of an offence that makes them unworthy of performing prosecutorial functions, this constitutes the most serious disciplinary offence.”

However, this is not the only way for a prosecutor to be dismissed. According to the law, this can also be done due to incompetence and negligent work. According to the decisions of the Prosecutorial Council, there have been no such cases in Montenegro.

Vesković: Katnić should have been given a disciplinary penalty

Legal advisor at the Human Rights Action Marija Vesković told CIN-CG that disciplinary prosecutors should be empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Additionally, she emphasizes that the 2015 suggestion of the Venice Commission should be taken into consideration, as it proposes that a person outside the prosecutor’s office should be appointed as a disciplinary prosecutor, thereby increasing democratic legitimacy and credibility in determining accountability.

As an example, she mentions the case of former Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoje Katnić, who was never held accountable for releasing statements containing excerpts from transcripts obtained through surveillance measures, which constitutes a serious disciplinary offence. Katnić disclosed information he acquired in cases and used his position to further his private interests.

“Neither the then acting Supreme State Prosecutor Ivica Stanković nor Minister of Justice Vladimir Leposavić took any action, although they had the legal authority to initiate proceedings against Katnić.”

Govor mržnje u Crnoj Gori dominantno izazivaju političari, političke partije i državni zvaničnici, a takav govor pravni sistem ne kažnjava, neki su od zaključaka izvještaja Centra za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG).

Autorka izvještaja Ana Nenezić je istakla da je monitoringom medija, od aprila 2022. do decembra 2023. konstatovano 100 incidenata, najviše od strane političara i medija.

„ Utvrđeno je da su najčešći narativi mržnje u odnosu na polne, etničke, vjerske ili ideološke razlike, te da je primjena regulative u praksi neefikasna“, navela je Nenezić.

Direktorica CIN-CG Milka Tadić Mijović je dodala da su opasne poruke sve dostupnije, kao i kanali kojima se šire, te da je u pozadini uvijek mržnja koju podstiču političke elite.

Ona je dodala da je CIN-CG, tokom četvorogodišnjeg praćenja ove oblasti konstatovao više stotina incidenata i dao veliki broj reakcija na govor mržnje, čija su meta bile etničke i religijske grupe, manjinske zajednice, žene, posebno one u javnoj sferi, pripadnici različitih seksualnih orjentacija, kritički orjentisani pojedinci... Zabrinjavajuć je i porast bujanja nacionalizma, dodala je Tadić Mijović, ali i retorika pojedinih religijskih lidera, te relativizacija ratnih zločina iz devedesetih.

Ministarka kulture i medija dr Tamara Vujović je naglasila da se nada da će novi set medijskih zakona biti usvojen u aprilu, te da će ova regulativa pomoći u borbi protiv govora mržnje.

Ministarka i generalni direktor za medije u Ministarstvu Neđeljko Rudović su pojašnjavali da je medijskim zakonima i strategijom predviđeno značajno više sredstava za Fond za pluralizam, od preko 2,5 miliona eura, čija će nova tema biti borba protiv govora mržnje i kao podrška onima koji se drže profesionalnih standarda. Takođe, planira se formiranje Mreže za borbu protiv govora mržnje, SOS linija za žrtve takvog govora, ali i da hitan sudski postupak može pokrenuti i meta govora mržnje, a ne samo tužilac.

„ Najvažnija aktivnost će biti formiranje ove Mreže koja će javno osramotiti one koji nas lažu i šire govor mržnje“, istakao je Rudović.

On je dodao i da će novčano biti kažnjavani neregistrovani mediji, te da neće postojati mogućnost oglašavanja u takvim medijima.

Doskorašnja zastupnica Evropskog suda u Strazburu Valentina Pavličić je istakla da pravosuđe mora biti brana govoru mržnje, te da sudski organi ne primjenjuju pravilno standarde u toj oblasti: „Govor mržnje je otrov sistema društva“.

„ Kada budemo imali jednog političara u Crnoj Gori osuđenog zbog govora mržnje, onda će i drugi razmisliti kako će reagovati. Govor mržnje je danas mnogo perfidniji i teži za prepoznavanje“, zaključila je direktorica Agencije za elektronske medije (AEM) Sunčica Bakić.

Konferenciju je organizovao CIN-CG, u završnici četvorogodišnjeg međunarodnog projekta „Mreža za izvještavanje o različitosti“. Nosilac projekta je Media Diversity Institute iz Londona, a projekat je finansijski podržala Evropska komisija.

Competent institutions assert that the state will crack down on one of the most lucrative illegal businesses in Montenegro, while shifting the blame for failure onto one another

By Maja Boričić and Dražen Đurašković

Piles of gravel everywhere, machines operating right by the shore, the riverbed expanded, and landslides on both sides of the riverbed, disrupting biodiversity... This is how the riverbed of the Morača River has been devastated for years by uncontrolled and illegal gravel exploitation. But similar scenes can also be found on other rivers in Montenegro. Despite the fact that these constitute criminal offences, the judiciary has failed for years to respond adequately to this crime.

As revealed by the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG), out of 25 criminal proceedings initiated for illegal gravel exploitation over the last five years, only five have been completed. Two were dismissed, while three resulted in symbolic penalties – two fines of 1,700 and 800 euros respectively, as well as one suspended sentence.

The threatened penalty for the offences that the prosecution charged the defendants with is imprisonment ranging from three months to five years and a fine. Therefore, even those few valid judgments consistently fall below the legally prescribed minimum.

Although the Government banned gravel exploitation six years ago, it rendered the moratorium decision meaningless by leaving the possibility for exploitation to continue through the so-called riverbed regulation. Reckless exploitation has continued along the Morača River and other Montenegrin rivers, causing the state to suffer multi-million losses.

According to Irma Muhović of the Montenegrin Ecologists Society (CDE), a combination of state determination, strict law enforcement, institution strengthening, improved coordination and alignment with international standards are essential factors in overcoming the issue of illegal gravel exploitation.

Speaking to CIN-CG, she underscores that the lack of effective justice enforcement and punishment for those responsible for illegal gravel exploitation sends a negative signal and undermines efforts in combating this issue.

“Insufficiently harsh penalties or a low rate of convictions will not only fail to deter offenders, but may also encourage further unlawful activities,” she warns.

To address this problem, she concludes, it is crucial for the state to demonstrate determination and enforce strict sanctions. Strengthening institutions and ensuring adequate resources and capacities for the effective implementation of judicial processes are also necessary.

“Establishing an effective monitoring and control system for gravel exploitation, coupled with rigorous punishment for lawbreakers, can be of great assistance in combating illegal gravel exploitation,” she underscores.

Two deferred prosecutions and one suspended sentence

Two cases initiated before the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office ended with deferred prosecution. Predrag Maraš and his company PE Mar were fined 1,700 euros for the criminal offence of “unauthorized engagement in economic, banking, stock exchange and insurance activities.”

Milivoje Mugoša was fined 800 euros for two criminal offences. In addition to the offence charged to Maraš, Mugoša was also convicted of “unlawful occupation of land,” which, according to the law, is liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to one year.

In both cases, the prosecution was represented by the current prosecutor of the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, Vukas Radonjić, who used to be a prosecutor in the Basic Prosecutor’s Office back then. In the meantime, he transitioned to work as a special prosecutor.

Deferred prosecution may be applied to criminal offences liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to five years. Such a penalty is solely decided by the prosecutor handling the case.

The only prison sentence, namely a suspended three-month sentence, was imposed on Danilo Petrović, the owner of the Cijevna komerc company, for the same criminal offence for which Mugoša received a fine – “unlawful occupation of land.”

The court deemed Petrović’s lack of prior convictions, older age and being married with four children as mitigating circumstances.

The institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro joined the criminal prosecution against the defendant, but the court did not consider this as an aggravating circumstance.

Last July, he was given a suspended sentence, meaning he will not go to prison if he does not commit another offence within the next year. The trial was presided over by Judge Ivana Becić of the Basic Court in Podgorica.

The prosecution charged Petrović with the mildest form of that criminal offence, even though the verdict established that the cadastral parcel in question is a river. The more severe form of that criminal offense is “if the occupied land is part of a protected forest, national park or other land with a special purpose, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of three months to three years.” According to the Law on State Property, rivers fall under natural resources.

In addition to these five cases, the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Podgorica is currently conducting preliminary investigations in another 12 cases.

The Special State Prosecutor’s Office is considering charges in three cases involving gravel exploitation – two against the Podgorica-based company Montenegro Petrol, one of which was transferred to the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office, and one against Cijevna komerc, with preliminary investigations being underway. CIN-CG has not received a response regarding whether there has been progress in these two cases.

The Basic Prosecutor’s Office in Kolašin dismissed charges against CRBC, a Chinese company that constructed the motorway, as well as against Montenegro Petrol for the theft of a protected natural resource. The other two charges against the Chinese company ended up in court.

Proceedings are underway against CRBC and the chief executive officer of the Chinese company Hei Shiqiang. In one case, they are being tried for the criminal offence of unreported construction activity and incomplete construction documents in conjunction with environmental damage.

“In one indictment, the accused caused environmental damage to a greater extent and over a wider area by excavating gravel material from the bed of the Tara River without having established environmental protection measures beforehand,” one draft indictment reads.

In the second case, they are charged with the destruction and damage of a protected natural asset. The draft indictment reads: “By exploiting the riverbed sediment 100 metres upstream from the plot […], the accused caused destruction to the Tara River, a natural resource, whose basin is included in the biosphere reserve under the UNESCO programme and enjoys national protection.”

The Prosecutor’s Office blames inspection bodies and inspection bodies blame the judiciary

Regarding responsibility for the lack of an adequate response from the state, the authorities are unable to reach a consensus and instead shift the blame onto one another.

The Prosecutor’s Office asserts that the effective handling of criminal complaints concerning illegal gravel exploitation largely depends on the actions of inspectors, who need to identify the owners of the machinery found in the riverbeds and seek police assistance... It is also noted that upon reporting to the police, a relevant prosecutor should also be notified of each case. The Prosecutor’s Office stresses that this is important, because “it usually takes several months from the date of inspection to the date of filing a criminal complaint, which further complicates the process of proving.”

At the initiative of Stevo Muk, a member of the Prosecutorial Council from the non-governmental sector, the Prosecutorial Council recently requested and received information from the prosecutor’s offices about what has been done in cases initiated due to gravel exploitation. However, that is all the Prosecutorial Council has done so far in respect of that issue.

“The work of state prosecutor’s offices in these cases should be intensified. There needs to be better coordination among inspections and expedited delivery of field reports to the police or the prosecutor’s office,” Muk emphasized in a statement to CIN-CG.

He added that there are too many cases that have been underway for a long time, with few of them reaching a conclusion.

Muk underscores that the head of the prosecutor’s office in Kolašin, during a session of the Prosecutorial Council, highlighted the importance of timely action by relevant inspection bodies. Among other things, they need to urgently provide field reports to the police and the prosecutor’s office so that police-related and prosecutorial activities can be undertaken to identify individuals and gather evidence.

“Without this, effective action by the police and the Prosecutor’s Office is often impossible,” says Muk.

In response to questions from CIN-CG, the Administration for Inspection Affairs said they were surprised by the prosecutors’ stance. They claim that they have not received any feedback from the prosecutor’s offices indicating that they have not done something well or that they need to take additional measures. They attribute the problem in the penal policy of the courts and the quality of the investigative actions conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office.

“Quality investigation, clear instructions from prosecutors to the police and evidence collection are not the responsibility of inspectors, but their own,” says Ana Vujošević, the director of the Administration.

Inspector Radulović: Prosecutors and judges devalue our work

Her colleague, water inspector Miodrag Radulović, emphasizes that prosecutors and judges are unwilling to do their jobs. “The track record of prosecution is very poor and greatly devalues our work,” Radulović notes. He also points out that the lenient penal policy of the courts further undermines the efforts of inspectors.

Inspector Radulović gives an example of gravel exploitation in Berane. After establishing that 5,000 cubic meters of material worth around 100,000 euros were stockpiled, they forwarded the case to the competent prosecutor’s office, which found that no criminal offence had occurred.

He adds that they appealed to the High State Prosecutor’s Office, which remanded the case to the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office for reconsideration.

“This is economic crime, and they are angry with us for filing complaints, for having to do their own job,” says Radulović.

The second case is even more dramatic and speaks to the attitude of the Misdemeanour Court towards exploiters. Radulović says that he filed misdemeanour charges twice against the Chinese company CRBC. In the second report, he indicated that the company repeated the same criminal offence. The court merged these two cases into one and fined CRBC 800 euros.

Inspectors can impose a minimum fine of 1,200 euros on the spot. If they assess that the illegal economic gain is higher than that amount, they should initiate proceedings before the court.

Miodrag Radulović says that inspectors most often assess that the case should go to court, but the court imposes fines below 1,200 euros.

“In this way, our work is completely devalued. What’s even more important is that those involved in gravel extraction have no reason to stop when they see what punishment they could face,” explains this water inspector.

The director of the Administration for Inspection Affairs, Ana Vujošević, confirms the story of her colleague. She claims that the situation is not much better in the Misdemeanour Court, adding that predominantly suspended sentences are imposed.

“For those who pocket hundreds of thousands of euros, the least of their concerns is a mere six-month suspension of their activities,” Vujošević said. She emphasizes that inspectors always act urgently, that their phones are never switched off, adding that they are available at night, after working hours, during holidays...

“I have repeatedly told them to call me and I will make sure to dispatch an inspector within 20 minutes at any time, but they have never reached out to me,” Vujošević underscores.

She adds that over 1,000 inspections have been carried out in the course of two years, more than 50 criminal complaints have been filed, and over 100,000 euros in fines have been collected.

“The only tangible result has been achieved by the inspection authority,” Vujošević concludes.

While the authorities blame each other, there remains hope that the rivers are not irreversibly lost and that the judiciary will finally embark on the fight against this ‘scourge’. This is the only way to curb crime.

Still no environmental department in the State Prosecutor’s Office

Veselinka Zarubica, the Chief Environmental Inspector, points out that that the determination of the extent of devastation falls within the responsibility of an expert witness, not an inspector. “There need to be traces of theft of state property and significant environmental devastation,” she says.

She explains that prosecutors justify their inaction on environmental issues by asserting that it falls outside their area of expertise, and that there should be specialized departments dealing with environmental crime. “But we have been discussing this for 30 years already,” Zarubica concludes.

Miodrag Radulović, the Chief Water Inspector, says that his inspectorate conducted 174 checks on illegal riverbed exploitation since the beginning of the year until 24 May.

“Two criminal complaints and one supplement to the criminal complaint have been filed, three penalty charge notices of 1,600 euros have been issued, and four case files have been submitted for assessment of the existence of a criminal offence," explains Radulović.

He adds that in one case, a measure prohibiting the disposal of the material that has been exploited was imposed. In one case, the case files were submitted to the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro, and in two cases to the agricultural and forestry inspectorate.

The Prosecutorial Council has not come forward with the reports it receives

Stevo Muk, a member of the Prosecutorial Council, told CIN-CG that the Prosecutorial Council has not made any conclusions or taken any other action after receiving reports about the handling of cases of ‘illegal gravel exploitation’ by the prosecutor’s offices.

He adds that he requested the Prosecutorial Council to adopt a conclusion requesting further information from relevant prosecutor’s offices regarding their handling of cases related to illegal gravel exploitation, starting from the date of the previous report on the same topic. He says that the Prosecutorial Council accepted his proposal.

“In this way, we will demonstrate a sustained interest in the actions of state prosecutor’s offices and ensure monitoring of progress in these cases. The Prosecutorial Council has not adopted a relevant conclusion, recommendation or anything similar concerning previous reports,” Muk notes.

U svijetu je pokret #MeToo prije nekoliko godina pokrenuo lavinu ispovijesti o seksualnom uznemiravanju i zlostavljanju žena od nadređenih u svijetu šou biznsa, ali i u drugim profesijima. I u regionu je otkrivano više potresnih priča u kojima su, pored žena, žrtve seksulanog zlostavljanja bile i djevojčice. Crna Gora još uvijek ćuti. Nijedan slučaj seksualnog zlostavljanja nije ovdje javno predočen. Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) namjerava da prekine ovu tišinu i da sasluša sve koji žele da pričaju. Ukoliko ste doživjele bilo koju vrstu seksualnog uznemiravanja ili zlostavljanja u školi, na fakultetu, radnom mjestu, zdravstvenoj ustanovi ili nekom drugom mjestu, molimo Vas da ispričate Vašu priču. Mi ćemo štititi Vaš identitet, možete kontaktirati CIN-CG na adresu: redakcijacincg@gmail.com, a možete ostavljati i anonimne ispovijesti na sljedećem linku:

Na Zavodu za zapošljavanje Crne Gore trenutno je više hiljada visokoškolaca, a preko 100 njih su matematičari, hemičari, fizičari... za kojima je, inače, velika potražnja

Kristina Radović / Andrea Perišić

Gdje god sam bila na razgovoru za posao, dobijala bih isti odgovor: “Ako nam bude trebao tehnolog, zvaćemo Vas”. Ali, niko me nije pozvao. Vjerujem da skoro uvijek prime nekog preko veze ili ko je politički podoban, kaže za Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) djevojka koja je prije 11 godina diplomirala hemijsku tehnologiju na Metalurško-tehnološkom fakultetu Univerziteta Crne Gore.

Posao je, ističe, tražila po cijeloj Crnoj Gori i nadala se da će to ići lakše, jer je tehnologa malo u našoj zemlji. Sad gotovo više nema nade. Već sedam godina radi van struke, u jednoj drogeriji, kao prodavačica.

Slično iskustvo ima i mladić koji je prije tri godine završio međunarodne odnose i politikologiju na Fakultetu političkih nauka, a još nema posao u oblasti za koju se školovao. I on radi kao trgovac, pošto nije prošao ni na jednom konkursu u struci.

Prema podacima Zavoda za zapošljavanje Crne Gore (ZZZCG) iz februara 2024. nezaposlenih osoba ima nešto preko 38 hiljada, od čega su oko četiri i po hiljade visokoškolci, sa završenim osnovnim, magistarskim ili doktorskim studijama.

Najviše visokoškolaca na birou je sa osnovnim studijama - malo više od četiri hiljade. Onih koji su završili master ili magistarske studije ima 268, a doktora nauka je čak 19. Zanimljivo je da u svim ovim kategorijama prednjače žene.

Od ukupnog broja nezaposlenih na birou, gotovo 20 odsto, oko sedam i po hiljada su mladi, odnosno, po važećem Zakonu o mladima iz 2019, osobe od 15 do 30 godina. Njih, po posljednjem Popisu iz 2011, ima oko 142 hiljade i oni čine oko 23 odsto stanovništva. U Strategiji za mlade za period od 2023. do 2027. godine upozorava se da je broj mladih u konstantnom opadanju. Najveća stopa nezaposlenosti je u grupi od 15 do 24 godine, od čega žene čine 32,7 odsto, a 40 odsto su muškarci, navodi se u tom dokumentu.

Međutim, ovo je samo broj onih koji su prijavljeni na birou. Stvarni broj nezaposlenih mladih osoba je mnogo veći, što pokazuju brojna istraživanja. Prema podacima Centra za građansko obrazovanje (CGO) od 2023. godine, skoro 60 odsto mladih, odnosno 84 hiljade, bez posla je u Crnoj Gori. To istraživanje je pokazalo i da čak oko 40 odsto njih želi da napusti državu, a da 62 odsto i dalje živi sa roditeljima. Oko 55 odsto smatra da su lična poznanstva i veze ili partijsko članstvo presudni u nalaženju posla.

Istraživanje ZZZCG-a iz 2022. o nezaposlenosti mladih pokazalo je da je od 2017. do 2021. godine trend zapošljavanja mladih bio vrlo nepovoljan. U te četiri godine mladi su se gotovo četiri puta manje zapošljavali nego u periodu ranije.

“Mladi uglavnom imaju pesimističnu sliku o društvu u kojem žive, ali to smatraju ‘greškom’ cijele sredine i posljedicom malog broja prilika koje se otvaraju za njih. Nezadovoljni su prvenstveno lošim sveukupnim kvalitetom življenja, a žele da napuste pojedine opštine zbog naglašenih društvenih tenzija”, ističe se u Strategiji.

I UNICEF je, za potrebe ove strategije, prošle godine sproveo istraživanje o položaju mladih. U tom istraživanju najveći broj njih, preko 90 odsto, smatra da su nezaposlenost i ekonomija jedni od ključnih ili veoma izraženih problema u državi, a oko 90 odsto korupciju i kriminal navode kao najveći problem.

Zanimljivo je da gotovo pola mladih, 48 odsto, od čega su većina žene, želi da radi u javnom sektoru, kao i da najviše povjerenja imaju u vjerske organizacije - gotovo svaki četvrti ispitanik.

“Sklonost ka radu u javnom sektoru može biti rezultat rodnih uloga koje nameće patrijarhalno ustrojeno društvo, gdje se od žene očekuje da ima najveću ulogu u odgajanju djece, brizi o porodici, domaćinstvu, starijim članovima/icama porodice, dok se njenom ekonomskom osnaživanju i ostvarenju na profesionalnom planu postavljaju mnoge barijere”, navodi se u istraživanju UNICEF-a.

Prema istraživanju Mreže za omladinski aktivizam Crne Gore (MOACG) iz 2023. godine 84 odsto mladih je razmišljalo o tome da napusti Crnu Goru u potrazi za poslom. Oko 60 odsto njih vjeruje da je mladoj osobi veoma teško ili nemoguće pronaći posao u Crnoj Gori.

“Položaj mladih u Crnoj Gori je prilično nezahvalan, budući da svega skoro šest odsto mladih smatra da ih je proces formalnog obrazovanja u potpunosti pripremio za tržište rada”, kaže za CIN-CG predsjednik MOACG-a David Vukićević.

Prema njegovim riječima, oni nijesu zadovoljni mogućnostima za zapošljenje, napredovanje i lični razvoj.

“Obrazovni sistem je zreo za ozbiljnu reformu, kako bi im pružio mogućnost za sticanje znanja potrebnih za savremeno tržište rada. Mladi treba da se bore za kvalitet života znanjem i posvećenošću, a ne nepotističkim, korupcijskim i partitokratskim akcijama”.

Velika potražnja za matematičarima, hemičarima, fizičarima… a na birou preko 100 njih

Ekonomista i pravnika najviše je među nezaposlenima - 557 ekonomista i 517 pravnika, od čega su u oba slučaja više od pola žene.

U Podgorici nezaposlenih ima nešto više od šest hiljada, a od tog broja njih 1.006 je završilo osnovne studije, 78 je mastera i magistara, a šest doktora nauka. Ali mnogo veći procenat nezaposlenih u odnosu na broj stanovnika je u gradovima sa sjevera: Rožajama 4.749, Beranama 4.231, Bijelom Polju 3.544. Mnogo je onih bez posla i u Nikšiću - njih 3.745. U gotovo svim gradovima najviše je nezaposlenih žena.

Iz ZZZCG-a za CIN-CG su kazali da je najviše potražnje u proteklom periodu bilo za visokoškolcima koji su završili prirodno-matematički fakultet, odnosno za nastavnicima i profesorima matematike, fizike, hemije i biologije.

“Traženi su još i kozmetičari, vozači, razni medicinski radnici, farmaceuti, nastavnici zdravstvene i biotehničke struke, muzičkog obrazovanja i društveno-humanističkih oblasti. Osim njih, velika je potražnja i za elektroničarima, nastavnicima tehničko-tehnološke struke, informatičarima, defektolozima, vaspitačima, kao i za raznim zanimanjima iz oblasti ugostiteljstva i građevine (pripremač pica, servir, točilac pića, pomoćni kuvar, konobar, armirač, tesar, zidar, betonirac, fasader…)”, navode iz ZZZCG-a.

Interesantno je, međutim, da su na ZZZCG-u registrovane čak 104 osobe koje su završile fakultete iz prirodno-matematičkih oblasti (matematike, hemije, biologije i fizike), a da petoro njih ima doktorat iz tih oblasti.

Od njih 104, matematičara je na birou trenutno osam. U Ulcinju - jedna osoba je završila osnovne studije matematike i računarskih nauka, u Plavu je jedan matematičar, u Rožajama jedan nastavnik i jedan profesor matematike i diplomirani matematičar-informatičar. U Bijelom Polju ima jedan specijalista matematike i računarskih nauka, a u Podgorici isto jedan matematičar. U Tuzima je takođe jedan nezaposleni profesor matematike.

Na Zavodu se skoro svakog mjeseca objavi konkurs u kojem se traži nastavnik/ca ili profesor/ca matematike. Oglase obično raspisuju osnovne i srednje škole širom Crne Gore.

Na konkursu OŠ “Daciće” u Rožajama za nastavnika matematike, gdje se kao poseban uslov traži poznavanje albanskog jezika, nema prijavljenih kandidata, kaže za CIN-CG direktor te škole Ševćet Dacić.

“Poznato mi je da, u nedostatku kadra za matematiku, u jednoj rožajskoj osnovnoj školi radi nastavnik matematike u penziji”, naveo je Dacić.

Iz podgoričke Gimnazije “Slobodan Škerović” kazali su da nema dovoljno nastavnika matematike sa licencom za rad u vaspitno-obrazovnim ustanovama.

“Većina škola se snalazi tako što angažuje inženjere građevinarstva ili mašinstva”, istakao je za CIN-CG direktor OŠ “Boško Radulović” Aleksandar Vukićević.

U JU Sred nja stručna škola u Bijelom Polju časove matematike pokrivaju nastavnici koji su apsolventi na matematičkom fakultetu.

Iz Udruženja nastavnika matematike Crne Gore za CIN-CG kažu da se od kolega svakodnevno može čuti da postoji veliki problem pronalska stručne zamjene ako neko od zaposlenih nastavnika otvori bolovanje.

“Nerijetko se dešava da nastavnik koji je zaposlen u jednoj školi, gdje nastavu obavlja u jutarnjoj smjeni, bude angažovan i na polovinu norme u drugoj školi”.

Iz ovog udruženja upozoravaju da su na mjestima profesora i studenti matematike na završnoj godini, ali često i oni koji su na fakultetu tek godinu ili dvije.

Upisna politika na fakultete ne prati potrebe tržišta

Janko je završio Fakultet političkih nauka (FPN) u Podgorici prije dvije godine, ali i dalje traži posao.

“Poslodavci uglavnom traže ljude sa iskustvom, ne vole početnike. Zbog toga je dosta mladih koji su fakultetski obrazovani, a ne mogu da nađu posao”, kaže on za CIN-CG.

Nije čudno, ističe on, vidjeti omladinu koja radi u kladionicama, pekarama i na sličnim mjestima, gdje je poslodavci obično drže na minimalcu.

“Zbog svega toga jasno je zbog čega se, dijelom, dešava odliv visokoškolskog kadra. Mladi i obrazovani odlaze u inostranstvo da nađu bolje poslove i zarade”.

Na poznatom sajtu za zapošljavanje “Preko veze” najčešći oglasi su iz oblasti ugostiteljstva, administracije i prodaje. Na dnevnom nivou ovaj sajt posjeti oko četiri hiljade ljudi. Najviše je zainteresovanih za pozicije prodavaca, administrativnih radnika, vozača ili menadžera.

Na sličnom sajtu, “Zaposli.me” najviše je oglasa za konobare, kuvare, sobarice, pomoćne radnike, prodavce i vozače B i C kategorije.

Iz Ministarstva prosvjete, nauke i inovacija za CIN-CG kažu da je uzrok velikog broja visokoškolaca na birou neadekvatno planiranje upisne politike.

Objašnjavaju da je u pripremi Strategija razvoja visokog obrazovanja za period od 2024. do 2027. godine.

“Taj dokument predviđa unapređenje upisne politike na ustanove visokog obrazovanja koja će razmatrati potrebe savremenog tržišta rada, nacionalne prioritete i individualnosti”, navode iz ovog Vladinog resora.

Planirano je da se dalje razvijaju mehanizmi za organizovanje praktične nastave u visokom obrazovanju, koja po Zakonu o visokom obrazovanju mora biti obavezan dio studijskog programa.

Iz Ministarstva rada i socijalnog staranja CIN-CG do objavljivanja ovog teksta nije uspio da dobije odgovore na brojna pitanja.

I Vukićević iz MOACG-a ističe da ponuda i potražnja nijesu usklađene.

“Poslodavci, posebno u posljednje dvije godine, neprestano traže radnu snagu, a mladi ipak ostaju nezaposleni. To je, između ostalog, i rezultat činjenice da poslovi i zarade ne odgovaraju afinitetima mladih, zbog čega se nerijetko odlučuju i da pođu u inostranstvo”.

Njegovo iskustvo u radu sa mladima, kako navodi, pokazalo je da oni uglavnom nijesu voljni da stiču praktično iskustvo, kroz volontiranje.

“Poslodavci očigledno nijesu u prilici da povećaju naknadu za rad, posebno ne mladima, koji često nemaju poslovno iskustvo u struci za koju su se u procesu formalnog obrazovanja opredijelili”.

Pojedini na birou i preko 30 godina

CIN-CG je za potrebe ovog istraživanja sproveo onlajn upitnik oko nezaposlenosti u Crnoj Gori. Anketirano je oko 160 osoba. Rezultati su pokazali da najveći broj ispitanika, gotovo 60 odsto, ima visoko obrazovanje, a od toga osnovne studije ima njih 71, magistriralo je 19, a doktoriralo - četvoro. Višu školu završio je sedmoro, a srednju 59 ispitanika.

Najviše anketiranih visokoškolaca završilo je ekonomski i pravni fakultet, a potom prirodno-matematički i arhitektonski. Najveći broj njih, čak 136, ne radi u struci.

Interesantno je da su mnogi od ispitanika dugi niz godina na birou, njih 16 čak preko 10 godina, a nekoliko i preko 30 godina.

Velika većina je istakla da im iz ZZZCG-a uopšte ne nude poslove na redovnim mjesečnim sastancima, a 135 anketiranih je navelo da nikada preko Zavoda nije dobilo posao.

Na pitanje da li razmišljaju da napuste zemlju zbog nedostatka posla, čak 60 odsto, 94 osobe, potvrdno je odgovorilo. Dosta je i onih koji iz drugih razloga žele da napuste zemlju i oni navode lošu ekonomsku situaciju, nepoštovanje zakona, zapošljavanje preko veze…

“Ne mogu od partijskih podobnika dobiti mjesto na rang listi na javnim konkursima”, kaže jedan od učesnika upitnika.

Druga učesnica navodi da bi napustila Crnu Goru zbog nebezbjednosti, kako u školama tako i na ulici generalno.

“Vladavina prava u ovoj državi je misaona imenica. Obrazovni sistem i zdravstvena zaštita su loši. Raditi i odgajati djecu veoma je izazovno, da ne kažem nemoguće”.

Crna Gora, uz Bosnu i Hercegovinu, prednjači po stopi nezaposlenih u regionu. Iako se u prethodnoj godini nezaposlenost smanjila za oko četiri i po odsto, i dalje je ta stopa previsoka, 13,38 odsto.

Stopa nezaposlenosti u Srbiji je, prema podacima Republičkog zavoda za statistiku iz 2023. godine, devet odsto. U Hrvatskoj je, pokazuju podaci Državnog zavoda za statistiku iz januara 2024, malo manja od sedam odsto, dok je u Albaniji, sudeći po Zavodu za statistiku ta stopa 10,7 odsto u 2023. U Bosni i Hercegovini, prema zvaničnim podacima iz 2021. godine, 17, 4 odsto, ali se mora uzeti u obzir da se slika nezaposlenosti u toj državi vjerovatno promijenila do danas.

Ujedinjene nacije (UN) razvile su Strategiju za mlade koja predviđa razne ciljeve koje treba postići do 2030. godine. Jedan od njih je da se do tada značajno poveća broj mladih koji imaju relevantne vještine, tehničke i stručne za zaposlenje, pristojne poslove i preduzetništvo. Ovim tempom, Crna Gora, teško da će to postići.

Žene češće nezaposlene, čak 10 doktorki nauka bez posla

Podaci sa Zavoda za zapošljavanje Crne Gore (ZZZCG) pokazuju da je više nezaposlenih žena od muškaraca u gotovo svakoj oblasti i na svim nivoima obrazovanja.

Od 4.394 nezaposlenih sa visokim obrazovanjem žena je 2.863 ili 65 odsto, od 268 onih sa magistarskim studijama žena je 178, a od 19 sa doktoratom, 10 je žena.

Podaci Uprave za statistiku Monstat pokazuju i da žene više završavaju fakultet. U 2022. na visokoškolskim ustanovama u Crnoj Gori osnovne studije završilo je 2.430 osoba, od čega su oko 60 odsto žene.

U Crnoj Gori je u toku vakcinisanje protiv HPV (humana papiloma virus) infekcije. Vakcina je  namjenjena djeci i mladima od devet do 26 godina. Cilj ankete Centra za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) je da provjeri kolika je zainteresovanost mladih do 26 godina da se vakcinišu protiv HPV, kao i kolika je zainteresovanost među roditeljima da vakcinišu svoju maloljetnu djecu.

U Crnoj Gori zdravstvene institucije koriste informacione sisteme koji bi trebalo da olakšaju pristup zdravstvenim uslugama pacijentima, kao i posao ljekarima. Cilj ankete je da se utvrdi koliko pacijenti koriste informacione sisteme zdravstvenih institucija, a koliko oni i na koji način olakšavaju rad ljekarima.

Jedan od najvrednijih ugovora koje je gradonačelnik Budve potpisao iz Spuža je onaj sa kompanijom Carat, na čijem je čelu Dragan Perović, sa kojim Božović ima lične i poslovne veze - na Dubovici, gdje Carat gradi infrastrukturu, obojica su suvlasnici zemljišta i stambenog prostora

Predrag Nikolić

Predsjednik Opštine Budva Milo Božović je iz zatvora sa Draganom Perovićem, izvršnim direktorom budvanske kompanije Carat, potpisao ugovor vrijedan četiri i po miliona eura. To je urađeno 28. jula prošle godine, tri i po mjeseca nakon što je Božović priveden u Spuž.

Prema više izvora, Božović i Perović su kumovi. Draganov brat Radovan Perović uhapšen je početkom oktobra prošle godine. Njega, Bojana Ojdanića i Vjekoslava Lambulića Specijalno državno tužilaštvo (SDT) sumnjiči da su počinili krivična djela stvaranje kriminalne organizacije i neovlašćenu proizvodnju, držanje i stavljanje u promet opojnih droga. Njihovo hapšenje uslijedilo je kao proširenje istrage koju SDT vodi protiv Božovića.

Ovo je samo jedan od ugovora vrijednih preko 12 miliona eura, koje je prvi čovjek Budve potpisao iz istražnog zatvora, ali je posao sa kumom pojedinačno najvrijedniji, 4.499.181 eura. Ugovor sa firmom Carat odnosi se na radove komunalnog opremanja za izgradnju tri saobraćajnice u zahvatu DUP-a Dubovica 1. U ugovoru se navodi da će se finansirati iz više budžetskih godina. Za prošlu godinu iz budžeta je za ovo bilo opredijeljeno 400.000 eura.

Božovića sa Perovićem ne vezuju samo lične veze. Oni su i poslovni partneri. I to baš na Dubovici, gdje je Božovićeva đedovina. Tamo su on i Perović suvlasnici zemljišta i stambenog prostora. Na preko hiljadu kvadrata zemljišta svojinski udio ima osam vlasnika, Milo Božović posjeduje pola, a Perović 24/480 zemljišta. U drugoj parceli od 1.738 kvadrata Božović ima pola udjela, a Perovićeva firma Carat šesnaestinu, isti odnos je i u vlasništvu nad trećom parcelom od 320 kvadrata.

Odnos jedna polovina i jedna šesnaestina vlasništva između Božovića i Carata je i u slučaju stambenog prostora na Dubovici od 824 kvadrata. Prema dokumentima u koje je Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) imao uvid, u februaru i martu prošle godine Carat prodaje više stanova u ovom objektu.

U isto vrijeme kada i ovaj, u julu 2023, Božović i Perović potpisuju i ugovor o radovima na izgradnji saobraćajnice A 75-75 u Bečićima. Vrijednost ovog ugovora je 346.813 eura, a podugovarači Carat-a su Ving, Pljevlja, La Collina, Podgorica, Geo Plus, Podgorica i Hidromont Inženjering, Podgorica.

Božović je tokom prošle godine iz zatvora u Spužu potpisao još ugovora po javnim nabavkama, ukupno preko 10 miliona eura. Ta praksa nastavljena je i tokom ove godine. Za samo prva dva mjeseca Božović stavio potpis na javne nabavke vrijedne dva miliona eura.

Milo Božović uhapšen 13. aprila 2023. rano ujutro. Specijalno državno tužilaštvo podiglo je optužnicu u kojoj ga terete za stvaranje kriminalne organizacije i šverc droge. I dok je pred Višim sudom još kontrola optužnice, isti taj sud je odobrio Božoviću da iz zatvora potpisuje opštinska dokumenta i vodi Opštinu.

TENDERI DOSTUPNI NAKON INTERESOVANJA NOVINARA

Na sajtu Opštine Budva, pod rubrikom Tenderi i javne nabavke, zainteresovanoj javnosti nijesu bile dostupne informacije o svim ugovorima. Tek nakon pitanja koje je CIN-CG uputio, krajem februara, tenderi i javne nabavke su ažurirani i sada su dostupni.

Bemax je drugi veliki partner Opštine Budva. Sa ovom kompanijom Božović je potpisao ugovor za jednu od najznačajnijih investicija - rekonstrukcija dvije ključne ulice u centru grada - 22. novembar i Mediteranske - i njihovo pretvaranje u bulevare sa izgradnjom kružnog toka.

Uz dozvolu Višeg suda, Božović je u spuškom Istražnom zatvoru, krajem prošle godine potpisao ovaj ugovor, da bi ga 12. januara potpisali i izvršni direktor Bemax-a Miladin Mijajlović i ovlašćena zastupnica ove kompanije Sonja Novaković. Vrijednost posla je blizu tri miliona, odnosno 2.924.681 eura. Naglašeno je i da će se ova investicija finansirati iz više budžetskih godina, a za ovu godinu je opredjeljeno 1.650.000 eura. Bemax-ovi radovi u centru grada dočekaće ove sezone turiste jer je rok za izvođenje radova 160 dana od uvođenja izvođača u posao.

Sedmicu nakon potpisivanja ovog ugovora, pripadnici Specijalnog policijskog odjeljenja uhapsili su Aleksandra Aca Mijajlovića, jednog od doskorašnjih suvlasnika kompanije Bemax. On i još pet osoba lišeni su slobode zbog šverca cigareta, odnosno sumnje da su počinili krivično djelo stvaranje kriminalne organizacije i produženo krivično djelo krijumčarenje.

Podugovarač Bemax-u u ovom poslu je BB Solar, biznismena Blaža Đukanovića, sina nekadašnjeg premijera i šefa države Mila Đukanovića. Ugovorom je precizirano da je Đukanovićeva firma zadužena za izvođenje elektrotehničkih radova. Za to je sljeduje procenat od 16,27 odsto, ili 488.000 eura.

Božović je početkom ove godine parafirao i milionski ugovor o izgradnji puta u naselju Blizikuće iznad Svetog Stefana. Ugovor vrijedan 1.249.637 eura je sklopljen sa konzorcijumom SBM, koga zastupa Vladimir Mirković.

Mirković je izvrši direktor Asfalt-beton gradnje, Podgorica, koja je nosilac ponude u ovom poslu u koji su još uključeni - firme Đurković, Nikšić, sa učešćem od 32,23 odsto, Tofi, Rožaje, 6,81 odsto učešća, Breznamont, Nikšić, 5,48 udjela, Hidromont, Podgorica, učešće od 4,31 odsto i Geotin MNE, Podgorica, učešće 0,96 odsto.

Pored pola miliona eura koje će Asfalt-beton gradnja zaraditi u ovom poslu, oni su neposredno prije nove godine sa Božovićem zaključili ugovor o održavanju gradske infrastrukture, koji je vrijedan 389.871 eura. Asfalt-beton gradnja je i tokom prošle godine održavala gradsku infrastrukturu za istu svotu, a potpisan je i ugovor o sanaciji postojećih saobraćajnica, vrijedan preko 400 hiljada eura.

U gorepomenutom kapitalnom poslu od četiri i po miliona eura, čiji je nosilac Carat, učešće Asfalt-beton gradnje je 21,65 odsto.

Saradnja sa ovom firmom nastavljena je i ove godine - 21. februara potpisan je ugovor o radovima na komunalnom opremanju zemljišta, za 35.829 eura.

NASTAVAK CAREVIĆEVE PRAKSE

Potpisivanjem pet ugovora u kojima je uključena Asfalt-beton gradnja, a koji su vrijedni preko dva miliona eura, Božović je nastavio praksu svoga prethodnika Marka Carevića, takođe kadra Demokratskog fronta.

MANS je u maju 2020. podnio Specijalnom državnom tužilaštvu krivičnu prijavu protiv Carevića okrivljujući ga što je asfaltiranje saobraćajnica dodjeljivao firmi Asfalt-beton gradnja, kako bi njegova firma Carinvest, kao podizvođač, obavljala milionski posao. Iz MANS- su tada tvrdili da je Carević sa kompanijom Asfalt-beton gradnja zaključio 11 ugovora, ukupne vrijednosti od skoro dva miliona eura. U oktobru 2020. SDT na čijem je čelu bio Milivoje Katnić odbacilo je ovu krivičnu prijavu.

Od brojnih ugovora koje je Božović potpisao po visini iznosa ugovora, od preko tri miliona eura, izdavaju se i one koje su sklopljene sa firmom Inženjer Gogić iz Podgorice. Sredinom januara ove godine sa ovom firmom Božović potpisuje ugovor o izvođenju radova na izgradnji donje ploče kanala ispod mostovske konstrukcije u Bečićima i povezivanje sa postojećim kanalom, cijena 47.632 eura.

U februaru prošle godine sa firmom Inženjer Gogić, Božović je potpisao tri ugovora: za izgradnju ulice sa kompletnom infrastrukturom uz potok Slatava u Buljarici - 1.638.757 eura, radove na regulaciji Bečićkog potoka - partija 1: 1.075.555 eura, partija 2: 470.760 eura.

Ugovore je sa Božovićem potpisala Zerina Idrizović izvršna direktorka preduzeća čiji je osnivač i vlasnik Miljan Gogić. U CRPS registru se navodi da Gogić ima udio od 90 odsto, dok 10 odsto pripada Društvu za trgovinu i usluge, export-import Koti group, Tuzi. Osnivač, izvršni direktor i ovlašćeni zastupnik ovog preduzeća čija je djelatnost - nespecijalizovana trgovina na veliko je Veljko Lakočević.

Lakočević je bio većinski vlasnik Inženjera Gogić do marta 2021. Godinu ranije on je, preko ove firme, kupio ogromnu staklenu zgradu u centru Podgorice, preko puta Njegoševog parka.

MANS je u decembru 2021. objavio istraživanje po kojem je Uprava za imovinu, umjesto da zbog nepravilnosti prekine tender za navedenu zgradu, zaključila ugovor sa kompanijom Koti nekretnine na iznos od oko 8,7 miliona eura.

U vrijeme sporne transakcije vlasnik kompanije Koti nekretnine bila je kompanija Inženjer Gogić. Lakočeviću je, u septembru 2019, svoj udio u toj kompaniji prenio Vladan Ivanović, i to bez naknade.

Vladan Ivanović je i vlasnik kompanije Master Inženjering, a bio je i u vlasničkoj strukturi firme Novi Volvox njegovog brata od strica Milana Ivanovića. Ivanovići su biznismeni navodno bliski porodici Đukanović.

Duško Knežević je nakon afere o ničijoj kući na Gorici, izjavio:

"Cijela Crna Gora zna da je to Đukanovićeva kuća, iako se vodi na njegovog prijatelja Vladana Ivanovića".

Prema Planu javnih nabavki Opštine Budva, od 31.1.2023, njihova ukupna vrijednost te godine trebala je da bude 26 miliona eura. Prema dostupnim ugovorima, plan nije ostvaren - potpisani su ugovori za radove, usluge i nabavke oko 15 miliona eura.

Plan javnih nabavki za ovu godinu je preko 19 miliona eura, dakle ostalo je još 17 milona.

Nakon što je Božović uhapšen strahovalo se da se neće moći realizovati ni jedan postupak javne nabavke, kao ni ostali pravni poslovi. Dodatni problem je bio to što Božović prije hapšenja nije imenovao potpredsjednike Opštine. Tražila se Božovićeva ostavka da bi Opština mogla nesmetano da funkcioniše. Pravne dileme je riješio Viši sud u Podgorici koji je odobrio Božoviću da u zatvoru potpisuje sva pravna akta.

I dok pravni i drugi haos u Opštini Budva traje, iz Ministarstva javne uprave su napokon najavili da su krenuli u preispitivanje zakonitosti rada pritvorenog predsjednika Božovića.