Više od pola izrečenih kazni u posljednje tri godine, nijesu bile kazne zatvora, a od toga je više od trećine bilo povratnika ili onih koji su već prekršajno odgovarali za nasilje

Maja Boričić/Tijana Lekić

Čovjek koji je ranije već uslovno osuđivan za nasilje u porodici, u kotorskom Osnovnom sudu dobio je deset dana da radi u javnom interesu, zato što je suprugu, pred djetetom, tukao prvo pesnicama, pa gađao raznim predmetima, a onda i metalnom šipkom po glavi, leđima i ramenima. Predviđena kazna bila je od tri mjeseca do tri godine zatvora. U tom slučaju presudila je Momirka Tešić, sada sutkinja Ustavnog suda.

Ovo je samo jedna od više stotina presuda ispod zakonskog minimuma izrečenih za nasilje u porodici, od početka 2021. do kraja 2023.

Prema istraživanju Centra za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) više od pola izrečenih kazni za nasilje u porodici u Crnoj Gori, u ove tri godine, su bile uslovne i novčane kazne, kazne rada u javnom interesu, kućni zatvor ili liječenje, a više od trećine takvih kazni dobila su i ranije osuđivana lica ili oni koji su već prekršajno odgovarali za nasilje u porodici.

Crna Gora ima ozbiljan problem sa nasiljem, a crnogorski sudovi su, sudeći po pravosnažnim presudama, nastavili sa praksom neefikasnih i preblagih kazni. Ovakva kaznena politika dovodi zabrinjavajućeg broja povratnika, ali i do najtežih posljedica po žrtve.

Sudovi uglavnom izriču kazne zatvora koje su bliže zakonskom minimumu, a kaznena politika nema dovoljno odvraćajući karakter po učinioce nasilja, na što ukazuje i visok stepen povratništva u vršenju ovih krivičnih djela, potvrđuje za CIN-CG direktorka Centra za ženska prava (CŽP) Maja Raičević. 

Iz policije je za CIN-CG saopšteno da je, od početka 2021. do kraja 2023., registrovano 1273 krivična djela povezanih sa nasiljem u porodici, a u istom periodu, izvršeno je preko 6.000 prekršaja iz Zakona o zaštiti od nasilja u porodici.

Pravosuđe ne razumije fenomen nasilja, ne shvata se ozbiljnost tih krivičnih djela, ističe za CIN-CG ekspertkinja za rodnu ravnopravnost dr Kosana Beker i direktorka FemPlatz-a iz Srbije.

“ Veći dio nasilja uopšte ne bude prijavljen, a kad bude prijavljen ne bude adekvatno procesuiran. Rijetko koja žena ide na sud za prvo nasilje koje joj se desi”, naglašava Beker.

Više od pola povratnika među nasilnicima

Među nasilnicima, u ove tri godine, bilo je više od pola ranije osuđivanih lica ili onih koji su već prekršajno odgovarali za nasilje u porodici. U 467 dostupne presude koje je analizirao CIN-CG, u 244 slučaja radilo se o povratnicima.

Najveći broj povratnika bilježe Kotor, Nikšić, Berane i Danilovgrad. 

Rožaje, Plav, Kolašin, Nikšić i Herceg Novi imaju čak veći broj povratnika koji nijesu dobili ni dana zatvora, nego onih koji su osuđeni zatvorskim kaznama. 

Međutim, i u ostalim gradovima je među osuđenima polovina onih koji su ranije vršili krivična djela ili prekršajno odgovarali zbog nasilja u porodici.

U najvećem sudu u zemlji, podgoričkom Osnovnom sudu, višestruki povratnici u vršenju čak istih krivičnih i prekršajnih djela nasilja, dobijali kazne rada u javnom interesu. Tako se čovjek koji je ranije već dva puta osuđivan za nasilje u porodici (uslovno i novčanom kaznom), treći put nagodio da radi u javnom interesu 10 dana, zato što je suprugu udarao pesnicama u glavu. Sporazum je prihvatio sudija Rade Ćetković.

“ Sud je imao u vidu olakšavajuće okolnosti koje se nalaze na strani okrivljenog, činjenicu da je penzioner i lošeg imovnog stanja, kao i njegovo držanje nakon učinjenog krivičnog djela izraženo kroz potpuno i jasno priznanje koje je doprinijelo bržem i efikasnijem okončanju krivičnog postupka, te iskreno kajanje”…

Paradoksalno, isti taj sudija, koji je i član Sudskog savjeta, donio je i presudu od dvije godine zatvora za nasilje koje se, između ostalog, nastavilo u sudnici, sa potpuno suprotnim obrazloženjem istih okolnosti na strani okrivljenog. 

U toj presudi objašnjava se da “se porodične prilike okrivljenog ne mogu cijeniti kao olakšavajuća okolnost, prije svega zato što je okrivljeni oglašen krivim upravo zbog krivičnog djela protiv braka i porodice”:

“Po ocjeni suda, imovno stanje okrivljenog nije uticalo ni na jedan postupak okrivljenog, niti se njegovo nasilno ponašanje može smatrati posljedicom lošeg imovinskog stanja. Takođe, sud ne poklanja vjeru ni izraženom kajanju okrivljenog, smatrajući da se radi o neiskrenoj i prostoj verbalizaciji usmjerenoj na to da se dobije što blaža kazna”.

Ovakvo obrazloženje, koje bi, po svim standardima moralo biti praksa u donošenju ovakvih presuda, kosi sa gotovo svim ostalim odlukama donijetim zbog nasilja u porodici u Crnoj Gori. Tako se, po difoltu, okrivljenima kao olakšavajuće okolnosti uzimaju kajanje, to što imaju djecu ili što su lošeg imovnog stanja.

U kotorskom Osnovnom sudu su optuženi za nanošenje teških tjelesnih povreda i nasilje nad ženom i maloljetnom djecom dobili tri uslovne kazne, jedan kućni zatvor i jednu kaznu zatvora od 30 dana. Za ta krivična djela predviđena je bila kazna zatvora od godinu do pet. 

U Bijelom Polju je čovjek, koji je već osam puta ranije osuđivan, sada gađao ženu staklenom flašom u glavu i kažnjen da radi sedam i po dana u javnom interesu. Zakonom je bila predviđena kazna zatvora od tri mjeseca do tri godine. Sudio je Radomir Kljajević. Za ovakva krivična djela u tom sudu su izrečene četiri uslovne kazne, rad u javnom interesu i samo dvije zatvorske kazne.

Sudija beranskog suda Ivan Došljak je presudio da nasilnik, koji je već tri puta ranije osuđivan, odradi sedam i po dana u javnom interesu, zato što je svoju suprugu, između ostalog, gađao daljinskim upravljačem u glavu.

I u Beranama su sve kazne za ovako počinjeno krivično djelo ispod zakonskog minimuma, a najblaže je kažnjen povratnik-radom u javnom interesu.

„Nju treba neko dobro da izbije pa da odmori, a nakon toga da je ubije“, rečenica je koju izgovara okrivljeni, koji dobija kaznu rada u javnom interesu u plavskom Osnovnom sudu. 

Četiri mjeseca zatvora bila je najveća izrečena kazna i to za višestrukog povratnika, koji je, između ostalog, sjekirom napao svoju suprugu i sina. Sudila je Mirjana Knežević. Druga dva povratnika su za slično nasilje dobili novčanu kaznu i kućni zatvor. 

Sudija kolašinskog Osnovnog suda Arsen Popović odlučio je da okrivljeni povratnik robija kući za fizički napad na suprugu, majku i maloljetnog brata, prijeteći puškom da će ih sve pobiti. 

U pljevaljskom sudu je povratnik u vršenju nasilja (tada novčano osuđen) sada dobio uslovnu kaznu zatvora, zato što je palicom izudarao svoju suprugu. Sudila je Ljiljana Popović.

U nikšićkom sudu je sudija Igor Đuričković nasilniku koji je ranije više puta osuđivan, ali i prekršajno kažnjavan za nasilje prema svojoj bivšoj ženi, dosudio da plati 1400 eura, jer je prekršio zabranu prilaska i ovog puta, između ostalog, gađao kamenom svoju bivšu suprugu.

Sudija rožajskog suda Mirsad Mujević odlučio je da uslovno kazni nasilnika koji je suprugu izudarao drvenom letvom, iako je ona tvrdila da duži niz godina trpi nasilje i da je često puta bila „sva modra“. I ovaj nasilnik je već ranije uslovno osuđivan, ali mu je kazna brisana.

U Herceg Novom je sutkinja Vesna Gazdić odlučila da uslovno kazni čovjeka koji je već prekršajno odgovarao za nasilje i prekršio mjere zabrane prilaska. On je opet napao svoju majku i suprugu, ovaj put, između ostalog, udarajući ih stolicom, a drugog dana i sjekirom razvalio vrata.

Na Cetinju je nasilnik koji je napao svoju trudnu ženu, dok je u naručju držala dijete, dobio uslovnu kaznu. Sudila je Marija Ćupić.

Povratnik osuđivan čak 23 puta, od čega je dva puta za nasilje u porodici, u Osnovnom sudu u Baru dobio je tri mjeseca i 22 dana zatvora. Sudila mu je Snežana Dragojević.

U Ulcinju je čovjek, za nanošenje teških tjelesnih povreda svojoj ženi, dobio da radi osam dana u javnom interesu. Predviđena je bila kazna od godinu do pet godina zatvora. Presudu je izrekao sudija Amir Đokaj.

Sud u Danilovgradu je jedini sud u zemlji koji je imao gotovo sve zatvorske kazne  i to prilično visoke u odnosu na ostale sudove u zemlji. Bila je samo jedna uslovna osuda u ove tri godine.

U slučajevima ranije neosuđivanih većina žrtava je navodila da trpi nasilje godinama, ali sud je u gotovo svim takvim slučajevima dosuđivao uslovne osude.

Tri četvrtine zatvorskih kazni kreće se u rasponu od mjesec do nekoliko mjeseci robije. 

Naša država je bila među prvim potpisnicama Konvencije Savjeta Evrope o sprečavanju i suzbijanju nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici (Istanbulska konvencija).  Međutim, ni 13 godina kasnije, veliki broj važnih preporuka ove Konvencije nije ispoštovan- izrečene kazne su preblage, veliki je broj povratnika, a prilikom izricanja kazne najčešće se ne uzimaju u obzir otežavajuće okolnosti.

Žene i djeca žrtve u većini slučajeva

Oko 90 odsto presuda se odnosi na nasilje muškarca nad ženom, vrlo često u prisustvu djece ili su i djeca žrtve nasilja. Sudovi, međutim, u analiziranim presudama, okrivljenima kao olakšavajuću okolnost uzimaju to što imaju djecu, i kada je upravo pred njima izvršeno nasilje ili su i oni žrtve nasilja, što bi, po međunarodnim standardima, ali i domaćim propisima, trebala biti otežavajuća okolnost. 

Raičević podsjeća da kaznena politika ne zavisi samo od odluke suda, već i od toga kako se postupak vodi od trenutka kada je nasilje prijavljeno: “ Tako više od 80 odsto slučajeva nasilja završi u prekršajima. Naš monitoring je pokazao da su tužioci djela nasilja u porodici često kvalifikovali kao lakše djelo nego što su to nalagale činjenice u datom slučaju” 

Primijećeno je, dodaje ona, da se rijetko cijeni kontinuitet i istorija nasilja, kao i sticaj sa drugim djelima poput zanemarivanja i zlostavljanja djece.

Po praksi Evropskog suda za ljudska prava (ESLJP) se čak ističe da, u slučajevima porodičnog nasilja nad jednim roditeljem, kojem je dijete svjedok, nastavak kontakta sa nasilnim roditeljem ne može biti u najboljem interesu djeteta: “Osiguravanje kontakta sa nasilnim roditeljem ne samo da može imati negativan uticaj na dijete, nego može predstavljati ozbiljan sigurnosni rizik za žrtvu nasilnika, budući da često počinitelju daje razlog za kontaktiranje ili viđanje žrtve i nije u skladu s izdatim mjerama zabrane približavanja ili udaljavanja iz stana”.

Ono što, ističe Raičević, još više brine je činjenica da osnovni sudovi nisu izrekli nijednu mjeru bezbjednosti - udaljenje iz stana, kao  i veoma mali broj mjera zabrana približavanja žrtvi.

Istanbulska konvencija takođe predviđa strože kazne kada je žrtva dijete ili kada je nasilje počinjeno pred djetetom, kada je nasilje počinjeno od strane dvoje ili više ljudi, za ekstremno nasilje, upotrebu ili prijetnju oružjem i nanošenje teških fizičkih ili psihičkih povreda žrtve.

U ove tri godine, gotovo sve kazne za krivična djela počinjena koristeći oružje, oruđe, nanošenje teških tjelesnih povreda i nasilje prema maloljetnicima, bile su ispod zakonskog minimuma. Za takvo krivično djelo predviđena je bila kazna od godinu do pet godina zatvora.

Konvencijom je takođe, kao posebno otežavajuća okolnost, predviđena i ranija osuđivanost zbog istovrsnog krivičnog djela, ali i ranije prekršajno kažnjavanje. 

Beker ističe da je problematično i to što sud ne uzima u obzir raniju prekršajnu odgovornost, već takve okrivljene smatra neosuđivanima.

Beker podsjeća da ako imamo podatak da svaka treća žena doživi nasilje u životu, od toga ne mogu biti izuzete ni te sutkinje i tužiteljke koje odlučuju u tim procesima.

Konvencijom se upozorava da krivična djela nasilja u porodici moraju biti kažnjiva sankcijama koje odvraćaju od vršenja krivičnih djela. Odluke nadležnih državnih organa takođe ne smiju zavisiti od toga da li će žrtve povući svoje izjave i prijave. 

Grupa eksperata Savjeta Evrope za borbu protiv nasilja nad ženama i nasilja u porodici (GREVIO) je još 2018. upozorila Crnu Goru da kazne moraju biti djelotvorne i odvraćajuće i da ne štete žrtvama i njihovoj djeci. 

„ Sudije su izgleda vođene stereotipnim rodnim ulogama i poštovanjem porodice kao temeljne zajednice društva. Puni opseg otežavajućih okolnosti stoga se često ne koristi i često se kazne ublažavaju“, ističe se u izvještaju GREVIO.

Izgleda da se, ni nakon šest godina, gotovo ništa nije promijenilo.

I u izvještaju Evropske komisije (EK), za prošlu godinu, ocjenjuje se da je nasilje u porodici ozbiljan problem i „najekstremnija manifestacija rodne neravnopravnosti u Crnoj Gori“. Napominje se da, uprkos solidnom zakonskom okviru, postoji, između ostalog, nedostatak specijalizacije pravosuđa za te teme, te da su istražna i sudska praksa veoma blage. 

„Takva praksa nije u skladu sa međunarodnim standardima“, zaključuje se u izvještaju EK. 

Blage kazne dovele do ponovnog nasilja

Blaga kaznena politika prije svega dovodi do povratništva u vršenju porodičnog nasilja, ističe za CIN-CG izvršna direktorica Ženske alijanse Stana Šćepanović.

Ona podsjeća da naš zakon dozvoljava povećavanje kazni za zlostavljanje, ako neko iznova vrši krivično djelo: „Sistem bi trebalo da reaguje snažnije kada su u pitanju povratnici, ako izostaje takva reakcija, onda to mora da se mijenja“.

U Vrhovnom sudu potvrđuju da je i u krivičnim i prekršajnim predmetima nasilja u porodici kaznena politika neefikasna. Oni za CIN-CG ocjenjuju da se sudovi pozivaju na olakšavajuće, češće nego na otežavajuće okolnosti, ne pridržavajući se međunarodnih standarda. 

I Raičević ocjenjuje da sudovi, suprotno međunarodnim standardima, kao olakšavajuću okolnost, recimo, koriste činjenicu da je okrivljeni „otac“ ili „porodični čovjek“, odnosno „roditelj“, te da su oni svojim monitoringom zabilježili samo dva primjera u kojima su sudovi pravilno cijenili te okolnosti.

Iz Vrhovnog suda dodaju da u većini slučajeva sudovi ne pružaju odgovarajuće objašnjenje: “ Ostaje nejasno, kako su ocijenili da je uslovna osuda pravičnije rješenje od zatvorske kazne, ili u kom smislu je upozorenje adekvatna krivična sankcija i može poslužiti kao preventivna mjera koja je efektnija od zatvorske kazne“.

Oni takođe ističu da su svjesni da blaže kazne uslovljavaju veću stopu povrata. 

U Vrhovnom sudu navode, međutim, da su u prethodnoj godini uočili porast izrečenih kazni zatvora. Prema analizi CIN-CG i ove kazne zatvora su gotovo sve bile po par mjeseci, opet se radilo o povratnicima, a i prošle godine je bilo mnogo uslovnih kazni, rada u javnom interesu i kućnih zatvora za povratnike.

Iz najveće sudske instance u zemlji tvrde da prepoznaju potrebu da je kaznenu politiku neophodno pooštriti, te se nadaju da će izmjene Krivičnog zakonika ojačati sudsku praksu.

Nedavnim izmjenama Krivičnog zakona, iz decembra prošle godine, u Crnoj Gori su povećane su predviđene kazne za krivično djelo nasilje u porodici, pa se sada predviđa kazna od šest mjeseci do 15 godina zatvora.

Vlada je, krajem februara, obrazovala Operativni tim za borbu protiv nasilja u porodici i nasilja nad ženama. Iz MUP-a su za CIN-CG rekli da će cilj tog tijela biti efikasnija primjena propisa, ali i zaštita žrtava nasilja. Dodaju da će na prvoj sjednici razmotriti, između ostalog, i pitanja CIN-CG-a o sudskoj praksi.  

Nekoliko najdrastičnijih slučajeva nasilja posljednjih godina koji su završeni ubistvima, između ostalog, ozbiljan su alarm da se ovakva sudska praksa mora hitno mijenjati. 

Crna Gora nema zvaničnu statistiku o izvršenim femicidima (ubistvo žene). 

Iz CŽP za CIN-CG kažu da je, prema njihovoj evidenciji, za poslednjih pet godina izvršeno 15 femicida. Raičević naglašava da je, u tri od četiri slučaja ubistava žena, koja su se desila u 2021. i 2022, ranije prijavljivano nasilje u porodici.

Nedavno je Dalibor Nikolić, koji je ubio svoju trudnu ženu Zimritu Nerdu, tako što je satima tukao palicom i šakama, pred djecom, nepravosnažno osuđen na 12 godina zatvora, jer je sud zaključio da nije imao namjeru da je ubije, pa da nije u pitanju teško ubistvo. Ona je, prije tragičnog događaja, više puta prijavljivala nasilje.

Sredinom aprila očekuje se i prvostepena presuda za ubistvo Šejle Bakije, koju je, prema optužnici, Ilir Đokaj, nakon višemjesečnog proganjanja, upucao, a njenog oca ranio. Optuženi je prije toga u prekršajnom postupku oslobođen krivice za proganjanje Bakije.

“ Uslovne kazne šalju poruku ženama da neće biti zaštićene, a muškarcima šalje poruku da mogu da rade šta god hoće”, upozorava Beker.

Beker zaključuje da kada uspijemo u društvu da podignemo nivo svijesti o nasilju, da tu nema ništa privatno, te kada uspijemo da stvorimo nultu toleranciju na nasilje, tad će početi da se mijenjaju i presude.

Viši sud smatrao kaznu od 30 dana prestrogom

Osnovni sud u Pljevljima je prošle godine odlučio da odstupi od prakse davanja uslovnih osuda za neosuđivane i odlučio da kazni čovjeka sa 30 dana zatvora, zato što je psovao, šamarao, a zatim i vukao po zemlji svoju suprugu. Presudu je izrekla sutkinja Sanja Aničić. 

Viši sud u Bijelom Polju je, međutim, preinačio ovu presudu u uslovnu. Sudili su Gorica Đalović, Dragan Mrdak i Dragan Dašić.

"Osnovano se žalbom okrivljenog ističe da je navedena kazna zatvora, koju je izrekao prvostepeni sud prestroga, cijeneći sve olakšavajuće okolnosti na strani okrivljenog", piše u odluci Višeg suda u Bijelom Polju.

U tom sudu je još nekoliko kazni, tokom 2023, smanjeno za duplo, iako se radilo o povratnicima.

U regionu slično, u Italiji šest puta veća minimalna kazna

Beker je za CIN-CG navela da je sudska praksa u Srbiji, ali i ostatku regiona slična, kada govorimo o porodičnom nasilju.

Ona ističe da su u Srbiji istraživanjem nasilja u porodici uz upotrebu vatrenog oružja došli do podataka da su kazne uglavnom blage, na zakonskom minimumu, te da su vrlo česte uslovne kazne.

Ona ističe da su ovako smiješne kazne “vrh ledenog brijega” u društvima gdje je nasilje nevjerovatno rasprostranjeno, gdje je užasno teško proći kroz cio sistem kada se prijavljuje nasilje, te da ništa nije na strani žene.

U Italiji je minimalna predviđena kazna zatvora za nasilje u porodici tri godine. Ako su žrtve nasilja trudne žene, osobe sa invaliditetom, djeca ili čak ako su samo svjedoci nasilja, ako je korišćeno oružje, kazna se može duplirati.

Odgovor novinarke Centra za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) na reagovanje Uprave za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija (UIKS) na tekst:  „Možda su se neke smrti mogle izbjeći“. 

Samo činjenice

U reagovanju Uprava za izvšenje krivičnih sankcija (UIKS) ne pobija ni jednu činjenicu iz našeg teksta, koji smo radili poštujući profesionalne standarde i Kodeks, a kontaktirali smo različite izvore, pa i predstavnike UIKS-a. Koristili smo i relevantne dokumente i izvještaje domaćih i međunarodnih institucija. UIKS reaguje na naslov teksta, koji je izveden upravo iz činjenica i dokumenata do kojih smo došli u istraživanju. Stoga, ne razumijemo ljutnju UIKS-a i vjerujemo da bi bolje i značajnije za društvo bilo da, umjesto na prepiske sa medijima, rukovodstvo ove ustanove energiju usmjeri ka poboljšanju uslova u UIKS-u.  

Povodom novinskog naslova teksta na Vašem portalu DN ''Vijesti'' ''CIN-CG: Možda su se neke smrti mogle izbjeći – Neadekvatna zdravstvena zaštita u crnogorskim zatvorima'', a kako javnost ne bi bila dovedena u zabludu na osnovu naslova teksta, te u cilju pravilnog i preciznog informisanja javnosti, ukazujemo na sljedeće:

Smatramo da je naslov teksta tendeciozan i da upućuje na određene zaključke koji nijesu potkrijepljeni navodima i činjenicama datim u samom tekstu.

Zdravstvena zaštita licima lišenim slobode u UIKS-u pruža se u okviru Sektora za zdravstvenu zaštitu, koji ispunjava uslove u pogledu kadra, prostora i opreme za pružanje zdravstvene zaštite na primarnom i sekundarnom nivou.

Kako zdravstvena zaštita, kao temeljno ljudsko pravo, podrazumijeva sve oblike pružanja medicinske pomoći sa svrhom postizanja zdravlja čovjeka, UIKS kontinuirano preduzima aktivnosti na jačanju sistema zdravstvene zaštite lica lišenih slobode, kako kroz materijano- tehničke uslove, tako i kroz povećanje broja ljekara i medicinskih tehničara.

Ukazujemo da trenutno u UIKS-u ordinira optimlan broj medicinskog osoblja, koji do sad nije zabilježen, odnosno da poslove zdravstvene zaštite lica lišenih slobode obavlja 46 izvršilaca, ljekara i ostalog medicinskog osoblja. Osim jačanja kadrovskih kapaciteta kontinuirano se vrši nabavka medicinske opreme, osnove i napredne.

Napominjemo da se u okviru UIKS-a i drugih javnih zdravstvenih ustanova ovim licima pružaju razne usluge i dijagnostičke procedure koje su dostupne svim građanima na slobodi, pa čak i u znatno kraćem roku.

Kada je u pitanju broj smrtnih slučajeva i starosna dob preminulih lica ne može se donositi uopšteni zaključak da se smrtni ishod u određenim slučajevima mogao izbjeći bez sagledavanja svih činjenica i okolnosti, koje su dovele do smrtnog ishoda.

U vezi sa navedenim ukazujemo da je UIKS o svim smrtnim slučajevima, pa i o slučajevima koje navodite u tekstu obavjestila nadležne organe i dostavila im cjelokupnu dokumentaciju na dalju nadležnost i postupanje.

Tokom dosadašnjeg perioda nadležno tužilaštvo nije ocijenilo da ima osnova da je zbog propusta u sistemu došlo do smrtnih ishoda, odnosno nije utvrdilo da ima osnova za pokretanje krivičnog postupka zbog krivičnog djela za koje se gonjenje preduzima po službenoj dužnosti.

Uprava za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija je kao i do sada spremna da sagleda i prihvati sve dobronamjerne kritike i sugestije koje mogu doprinjeti poboljšanju i jačanju zatvorskog sistema u cjelini.

Smatramo neophodnim istaći da je potrebno iznositi isključivo utvrđenje činjenice i okolnosti naročito kada je u pitanju zatvorski sistem, na koji način bi se izbjeglo uznemiravanje javnosti naročito porodica lica lišenih slobode zbog objavljivanja neutemeljenih i neutvrđenih navoda.

                                                                               SLUŽBA ZA ODNOSE SA JAVNOŠĆU UIKS-A

Više istraga tužilaštva okončano bez pokretanja postupka, iako postoje indicije da je bilo fatalnih grešaka u sistemu   
Đurđa Radulović

Prije više od pet godina u Kliničkom centru Crne Gore (KCCG) preminuo je pritvorenik Istražnog zatvora u Spužu X (ime skriveno zbog zaštite identiteta), gdje je prebačen u jako lošem stanju i operisan. Preminuo je nekoliko dana nakon tri operacije. Tada je tužilaštvo pokrenulo istragu, a urađena je i obdukcija, ali krivični postupak nije pokrenut. Ipak, ni danas nije jasno šta se sve desilo u ovom slučaju.

Tokom prethodnih godina bilo je više slučajeva smrti zatvorenika, zbog kojih je Više državno tužilaštvo (VDT) Podgorica pokretalo postupke istrage, uključujući naprasnu smrt mladića od 21 godinu, ali i slučaj bosanskog državljanina koji je navodno preminuo usljed napada epilepsije. Iz VDT-a Podgorica su za Centar za istraživačko novinarstvo Crne Gore (CIN-CG) potvrdili da je nakon obdukcija u ovm slučajevima odlučeno da nije bilo osnova za krivično gonjenje po službenoj dužnosti. Iz ovog tužilaštva su odbili da dostave podatke o obdukcijama. 

U Upravi za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija (UIKS)  je  u proteklih pet godina evidentirano 29 smrtnih slučajeva, od kojih je kod osam osoba smrt nastupila unutar UIKS-a, dok je njih  21 preminulo u KCCG-u, kazali su za CIN-CG iz UIKS-a. Od navedenih slučajeva makar dva su bila samoubistva. 

Internacionalna nevladina organizacija Panel Reform International (PRI) apeluje da je smrt zatvorenika na svjetskom nivou problem koji ostaje neistražen i o kome se ne izvještava u dovoljnoj mjeri. Nedostatak podataka i transparentnosti o smrti u zatvoru je jedan od vodećih problema, a mnoge zemlje ne objavljuju zvanične informacije o ovim slučajevima, apeluju  iz PRI-ja. I Visoki komesar Ujedinjenih nacija (UN) upozorio je da su podaci o nasilju i smrti u zatvoru ključ transparentnih i efikasnih istraga. 

Dokumentacija u vezi sa slučajem pritvorenika X u koju je CIN-CG imao uvid pokazuje da postoji bojazan da je smrtni ishod mogao biti uzrokovan i zbog neodgovarajućeg pristupa zatvorskog zdravstvenog  sistema. U dokumentu koji je branilac po službenoj dužnosti predao na više adresa, od VDT-a do Vrhovnog suda, stoji da je ovaj zatvorenik ,,satima nakon pojave nesnosnog cijepajućeg bola... boravio u Istražnom zatvoru bez mogućnosti adekvatnog liječenja u neuslovnoj ambulanti istražnog zatvora u Spužu“, te da je prvi ,,put pregledan tek nakon više sati u Urgentnom centru u Podgorici“

Navodi se da se X javio zbog bolova komandiru, koji ga je odmah uputio na zdravstveno odjeljenje. Medicinska sestra je uvidjevši ozbiljnost hitno pozvala doktorku kako bi ,,pregledala pacijenta i odmah uputila pritvorenika u Urgentni centar, kao javnu zdravstvenu ustanovu u kojoj postoje uslovi za liječenje tako teško bolesnog pacijenta“, piše u dokumentaciji. Međutim, dežurna doktorka ,,ni pored upornog insistiranja medicinske sestre“ niti je htjela da izda dozvolu da se zatvorenik odvede u Urgentni centar, niti je došla da ga pregleda. Umjesto toga, naložila je sestri da mu da diklofen. X je ostao u ambulanti pod bolovima, ,,tolikim da je lupao šakama o glavu i glavom o zid“, navodi se dalje u ovom dokumnetu i ističe da je tu bio i komandir. Kada se sestra vratila zatekla je pacijenta koji je bio u tako teškom stanju da ,,nije mogao da se pomjera i imao je groznicu“, nakon čega je ponovo pozvala doktorku, koja je tek tada uputila X u Urgentni centar KCCG-a. 

Da je situacija bila ozbiljna, potvrđuje i to što je X čim je primljen u KCCG u teškom opštem stanju hitno operisan. Narednih dana urađene su još dvije operacije. Ali, bilo je kasno za X i on je preminuo. 

U dokumentaciji do koje smo došli navodi se da je ovaj zatvorenik i nakon prijema u Urgentni centar bio vezan lisicama za bolnički krevet, pa čak i nakon operacija. Zbog toga ,,nije mogao da se okrene ni lijevo ni desno, što mu je otežavalo već nesnosne bolove, zbog kojih je lupao glavom o bolnički zid“.  

Na pitanje branitelja po službenoj dužnosti, zašto je vezan, zatvorski stražari koji su bili sve vrijeme u sobi odgovorili su da ,,tako mora“. Posjeta žene, djece i rodbine nije bila dozvoljena, uprkos pisanim zahtjevima odbrane. 

Iz VDT-a Podgorica koje je tada pokrenulo istragu za CIN-CG su kazali da je nakon pribavljanja svih potrebnih podataka i izvršene obdukcije tijela navedenog lica, tužilaštvo ocijenilo da u ovom slučaju nema osnova za pokretanje krivičnog postupka protiv bilo kojeg lica po službenoj dužnosti. Oni su kazali da nalaz obdukcije ne može biti dostavljen CIN-CG-u. I Iz KCCG-a su takođe kazali da nalaz obudikcije ne mogu dostaviti zbog zaštite prava na privatnost pacijenata. 

Na istraživanje o ovom slučaju CIN-CG je bio potaknut iskazom izvora, prijatelja pritvorenika X, koji je sa njim bio u zatvoru. Prijatelj, koji je želio da ostane anoniman, tvrdi da je X preminuo zbog posljedice nemara Uprave zatvora. Iz UIKS-a tvrde da nijesu nadležni da komentarišu slučaj. Uputili su nas na tužilaštvo. 

Zaštitnik istražuje 11 smrtnih slučajeva iz 2023. 

Prošle godine preminulo je čak 11 zatvorenika UIKS-a. Iz kancelarije Zaštitnika saopštili su za CIN-CG da trenutno sprovode istraživanje smrtnih slučajeva zatvorenih i pritvorenih lica u 2023. To je, rekli su, prvo takvo istraživanje u Crnoj Gori. ,,Biće analizirani odgovori zatvorskog zdravstvenog sistema, uključujući postupunje u hitnim slučajevima i sa hroničnim bolesnicima, kao i izvještavanje zdravstvene službe zatvora o torturi“  kaže za CIN-CG Marijana Sinđić, glavna savjetnica Zaštitnika za oblast torture.

Sinđić objašnjava da je brojka od 11 smrti u jednoj godini velika, naročito kada se ima u vidu starosna dob zatvorenika.  Najveći broj lica lišenih slobode u UIKS-u u starosnoj je dobi od 25 do 50 godina, a prosječna starost lica lišenih slobode je 39 godina. Crna Gora spada u zemlje sa najnižim procntom zatvorenika starijih od 50 godina u svijetu. Preko polovine zatvorenika 2022. imalo je manje od 35 godina. 

U Crnoj Gori broj smrtnih slučajeva zatvorenih lica varira. Tokom 2022. preminule su tri osobe, 2021 - devet, a 2020 – tri. Iz Uprave za statistiku Crne Gore (MONSTAT) kažu da ne obračunavaju stopu smrtnosti zatvorenika, niti je tako nešto u planu. Evropski savjet je godinama obračunavao stopu smrtnosti zatvorenih lica za sve zemlje, uključujući Crnu Goru, ali su u poslednjem izvještaju, koji se odnosi na 2021. objavili isključivo stopu zatvorenika preminulih u zatvoru, a ne i onih koji su umrli u ustanovama van zatvora. Zbog neadekvatnog zdravstvenog sistema unutar crnogorskih zatvora, zatvorenici ugroženog zdravlja uglavnom umiru u KCCG-u. Tako je 2021. jedan zatvorenik preminuo u zatvoru, a osam u KCCG-u.  

Zbog toga je, piše u analizi Evropskog savjeta, stopa smrti unutar zatvora za Crnu Goru 2021. bila daleko niža od evropskog prosjeka. U većini evropskih zemalja zdravstveni sistemi unutar zatvora su funkcionalni, te obično nema potrebe da se zatvorenici liječe vani. 

Crna Gora se različito kotirala u ovoj analizi po smrtnosti zatvorenika u odnosu na druge evropske zemlje. Tako je 2018. imala jednu od najviših stopa, iza Islanda, Hrvatske i Litvanije. Naredne dvije godine, naša je zemlja imala manju prosječnu smrtnost zatvorenih lica od evropskog prosjeka, a noviji podaci nijesu dostupni. 

Neprihvatljivo postupanje UIKS-a u jednom slučaju samoubistva 

Svjestka zdravstvena organizacija (SZO) upozorila je u izvještaju iz 2022. da je samoubistvo jedan od vodećih uzoraka smrti u zatvorima, i navodi da istraživanja pokazuju da je rizik od samoubostva zatvorenih lica u evropskim zatvorima sedam puta veći nego u opštoj populaciji. 

CIN-CG je pitao UIKS koliko je bilo samoubistava u prethodnih pet godina, ali nijesu odgovorili.

Nakon što je jedan zatvorenik UIKS-a 2021. izvršio samoubistvo skočivši sa četvrtog sprata KCCG-a, gdje je privremeno bio smješten zbog liječenja, Zaštinik je pokrenuo istragu slučaja. Iako su Osnovno i Više državno tužilaštvo utvrdili da nema osnova za bilo koje krivično djelo po službenoj dužnosti, Zaštitnik je utvrdio niz nepravilnosti u postupanju UIKS-a. 

,,Zaštitnik je utvrdio da nakon izvršenog suicida UIKS nije sproveo ispitivanje u cilju: rekonstrukcije događaja koji su doveli do samoubistva; utvrđivanja činilaca koji su doprinijeli smrti zatvorenika... procjene adekvatnosti hitne intervencije i isticanja svih značajnih posledica ovog događaja koji bi unaprijedili buduće preventivne postupke“ , navodi se u mišljenju Zaštitnika o ovom slučaju koje je discplinski postupak UIKS-a ocijenio neprihvatljivim..

U dokumentu se ističe da je zatvorenik izvršio samoubistvo u aprilu 2021. ali je prema izvještajima zatvorskog psihijatra pokazivao sklonost ka suicidalnim mislima u periodu od januara do početka februara te godine. Međutim službenici UIKS-a su prilikom istrage isticali činjenicu da kod službenika obezbjeđenja ,,nije postojala ni najdalja sumnja, ni saznanje da bi pritvorenik mogao izvršiti suicid“. 

Zaštitnik je ovom prilikom ocjenio neprihvatljivim i izjašnjenje UIKS-a, da će ova institucija u odnosu na rezultat istražnog postupka kod tužilaštva eventualno pokrenuti disciplinski postupak protiv službenika obezbjeđenja koji su bili sa zatvorenikom. Zaštinik je naglasio da je UIKS dužan da pokrene disiplinski postpuak i disciplinske mjere prema zaposlenima, bez obzira na odluku tužilaštva o tome da li je postojala krivična odgovornost zapolsenih. 

Nadalje se ocjenjuje da je disciplinski postupak UIKS-a grubo prekršio standarde Evropske konvecije o ljudskim pravima, s obzirom na to da su za utvrđivanje činjenica korišteni isključivo iskazi policajaca zaduženih za čuvanje zatvorenika dok je bio u bolničkoj sobi. Zaštitnik posebno ističe da je zatvorenik u noći samoubistva patio od stanja koje vodi do djelimične paralize, pa su iskazi policajaca da je jednog od njih odgurnuo te trčeći otvorio vrata i izašao na balkon sobe odakle je skočio, morali biti temeljnije ispitani. 

Obično čekaju na hitne preglede 

PRI u svom izvještaju “Smrt u zatvoru“ iz 2022. navodi da je ovaj problem često povezan sa faktorima pretrpanosti, zanemarivanja i neadekvatnog pristupa zdravstvenoj njezi, uključujući dugo čekanje na pregled i odložen transfer u bolnicu, te diskriminaciju zatvorenika. 

Prema dostupnim podacima, pretrpanost je jedan od ključnih izazova i u UIKS-u. Zaštitnik je u svojim dokumentima više puta isticao ovaj problem, naročito kada je u pitanju Istražni zatvor u Spužu. 

Istraživanja organizacije Juventas, koja kreira programe za lica u UIKS-u, pokazuju da se najviše primjedbi zatvorenika odnosi na kvaliltet zdravstvene zaštite. Zatvorenici ,,naročito ističu nezadovoljstvo zbog vremena koje provedu čekajući na pregled“ navodi se u publikaciji Juventasa iz 2022. ,,Nezadovoljni su i zbog nemogućnosti da dobiju odobrenje za specijalističke preglede, usljed ozbiljnijih zdravstvenih problema. Zatim, posebno naglašavaju nedovoljno brzo postupanje zdravstvene službe u hitnim slučajevima“, navodi se dalje. „Jedan od ispitanika ističe da je mjesecima imao hronične bolove i nije znao kome da se obrati usljed neadekvatne zdravstvene njege, te je tek nakon devet mjeseci dobio adekvatnu terapiju“, navodi se u ovom dokumentu. 

U UIKS-u, međutim, imaju posve oprečno mišljenje i ističu da su lica lišena slobode privilegovana u zdravstvenom sistemu Crne Gore. ,,Oni lakše dolaze do operacija, na pregled specijaliste manje čekaju od slobodnih građana“, kaže za CIN-CG zamjenik direktora UIKS-a Nebojša Janković. 

Zatvorenici sa kojima je CIN-CG razgovarao navode da je put do ljekara često dug. ,,Danima me bolio želudac, i morao sam da čekam u ćeliji. Bilo je nepodnošljivo. Bilo je veče, dijelila se noćna terapija i rekao sam medicinskoj sestri da me boli želudac. Morao sam da čekam satima, dok ona podijeli terapiju svim zatvorenicima“, kaže za CIN-CG doskorašnji zatvorenika UIKS-a. 

Iz Juventasa naglašavaju da su zatvorenici nedovoljno informisani o samom zdravstvenom sistemu unutar zatvora, te da je slaba komunikacija između zatvorenika i zaposlenih. 

Tokom prošle godine u zatvorskom zdravstvenom sistemu bilo je 46 zaposlenih,  28 na neodređeno vrijeme, pokazuju preliminarni podaci koji se spremaju za godišnji Izvještaj Zaštitnika. Iz UIKS-a nijesu odgovorili na pitanja kakva je struktura zaposlenih, koliko je ljekara, koliko specijalista itd. 

Bez ljekara noću i vikendima 

Sva dokumenta do kojih smo došli ukazuju da je od ukupnog broja zdravstvenih radnika u ovom sistemu, jako malo ljekara. Izvještaj Zaštitnika za 2022. navodi da su radnim danima u UIKS-u bila angažovana svega dva ljekara, a u poslijepodnevnim satima samo jedan, a vikendom i noću ljekar je dolazio samo po pozivu. 

Iz kancelarije Zaštitnika kažu da se situacija u međuvremenu nije popravila. 

UIKS je tokom 2022. angažovala nekoliko specijalista sa strane: dva psihijatra, specijaliste interne medicine, radiologije, urologije i fizikalne medicine. 

UIKS je ranije imao rendgen sobu i ginekološku ambulantu, ali to više nije u funkciji. Ova ustanova je ispunila preporuku Zaštitnika iz 2022. u vezi sa hitnom nabavkom defibrilatora, koji može spasiti život kod srčanog udara. Nabavljena su dva. 

Zaštitnik u više svojih dokumenata ističe se da je problematično što pritvorena i zatvorena lica nemaju privatnost prilikom pregleda, te se svi pregledi odigravaju pred stražarima. ,,Problematično je i to što se zatvorenice ne vode na preventivene ginekološke preglede, već se ovakvi pregledi vrše uglavnom na insistiranje zatvorenica“, kažu iz ove institucije. 

Nije dobro što se biohemijske analize ne vrše po prijemu, već se uzorkovanje krvi vrši samo po potrebi i šalje u KCCG na dalju obradu. Ne radi ni skrining na prisustvo prenosivih bolesti kao što su hepatitis i AIDS, već se ova kontrola vrši samo u slučaju sumnje na bolest. Podaci organizacije PRI pokazuju da HIV globalno ima oko pet puta veću prevalencu među zatvorskom populacijom nego među opštom. 

Zdravstvo u zatvorima trebalo bi biti u nadležnosti Ministarstva zdravlja  

Crnogorski zatvorski zdravstveni sistem godinama predstavlja jedanu od najproblematičnijih karika UIKS-a. Preporuka Zaštitnika ljudskih prava, nevladinih organizacija, ali i Evropskog komiteta za sprečavanje torture je da se zdravstveni sistem zatvora administrativno prebaci pod nadležnost Ministarstva zdravlja, umjesto Ministarstva pravde.  

,,Ljekar u zatvoru mora biti nezavisan od sistema zatvora. Ukoliko je vama poslodavac ministarstvo pravde i oni vam daju platu, pitanje je da li ćete vi nezavisno postupati u odnosu na to kako je stvarno stanje“, kažu za CIN-CG iz kancelarije Zaštitnika. To je preporuka Komiteta za sprečavanje torture jer bi ljekari trebalo da budu nezavisni u odnosu na upravu zatvora i Ministarstvo pravde.  

Iz UIKSA kažu da se slažu sa idejom da se zatvorski zdravstveni sistem izmjesti pod nadležnost Ministarstva zdravlja. ,,Tako će i nama biti lakše, jer će svi protokoli biti ispoštovani“, kaže za CIN-CG Nebojša Janković, zamjenik vršioca dužnosti direktora te institucije. 

I dok iz UIKS-a najavljuju da će zgrada nove zatvorske bolnice biti gotova do 2025, iz kancelarije Zaštitnika izražavaju zabrinutost oko kadra buduće insitucije. 

,,Zgradu bolnice je lako napraviti, ali pitanje je kako privući kadar. Plate u zdravstvenom sistemu zatvora su značajno niže od plata u drugim zdravstvenim institucijama. Takođe, ovi ljekari nemaju pravo na dalje specijalizacije“, kažu za CIN-CG iz kancelarije Zaštitnika. 

U UIKS-u su, pak, optimistični. ,,Uradićemo sve da privučemo odgovarajući kadar“, kazao je Janković 

Poseban akcenat staviti na mentalno zdravlje zatvorenika 

U publikaciji Juventasa iz 2022. navodi se da zatvorena lica negativno ocjenjuju mogućnost i učestalost razgovora sa psihijatrom. Ističu da korišćenje terapija nije praćeno razgovorom sa psihijatrom. Savjetovanje sa psihijatrom na koje zatvorenici imaju pravo obično se svede samo na propisivanje terapije. 

,,Zar meni ne treba razgovor sa psihijatrom? Ja sam ovdje zbog ubistva u pokušaju, treba li ja da izađem kao nenormalan odavde? Da li to treba da se sprječava ovdje ili da čovjek još više izludi?“, navode se riječi jednog osuđenika u ovoj publikaciji.

Posebna pažnja mora da se posveti zdravstvenoj zaštiti osoba sa istorijom korišćenja psihoaktivnih supstanci i različitim mentalnim oboljenjima. 

Iz UIKS-a kažu da su u dugoročnim planovima programi resocijalizacije, psihijatrijske i psihološke podrške zatvorenicima, kada nova bolnica bude izgrađena. Iz ove institucije nijesu mogli precizirati kada se to može očekivati. 

Australijski sistem smrti zatvorenih lica - najtransparentniji na svijetu 

Australija ima možda i najtransparentniji sistem za registrovanje smrti zatvorenih lica. Na sajtu australijske vlade može se vidjeti spisak lica koja su preminula u zatvoru, zajedno sa izvještajima na svaka tri mjeseca, kao i podacima o polu, godinama i etničkoj pripadnosti preminulih. Na ovaj način vlada utvrđuje i da li postoji diskriminatoran tretman u zatvoru neke grupe. Sa druge strane, u mnogim evropskim zatvorima ne sprovodi se statistika po etničkoj pripadnosti, upravo jer se to smatra rasističkim. PRI ističe da upravo činjenica da nema te statistike doprinosi da se potencijalno nejednak tretman lakše prikrije. 

In just six months, the Nikšić businessman earned over a million euros from the sale of the administration building and land of the former mining giant, which was almost handed over to him as a gift by the bankruptcy trustee. Workers filed a criminal complaint, but there is no money to pay the outstanding salaries 

By Biljana Matijašević

The Nikšić-based company Roaming Montenegro, which purchased the administration building and land of bauxite mining company Boksiti from bankruptcy for 872,000 euros, sold that property to the German retail chain Lidl for around two million euros just a few months later, CIN-CG has learned.

Roaming Montenegro, owned by businessman Dalibor Milović, bought the Boksiti administration building covering an area of 1,652 square metres and the yard and building plots totalling about 5.9 thousand square metres at the end of 2021. Along with its plots nearby (around 2.7 thousand square metres), Milović sold the Boksiti property to Lidl in July 2022 for a total of 2.4 million euros, or at a price of 278.42 euros per square metre, according to the sales contract seen by CIN-CG.

This would mean that, excluding Milović’s plots, the Nikšić-based businessman received around two million euros for the Boksiti property, nearly two and a half times more than what he had paid. In other words, he earned over a million in just six months with this transaction.

The contract also states that the total price was reduced for costs related to meeting the requirements for the handover of the property.

Roaming Montenegro is registered as a company engaged in non-specialized wholesale trade, but it has expanded its business to include construction projects. In 2019, the company won a contract for the reconstruction of the Municipality building in Nikšić. A year earlier, it was awarded a contract for the construction of a building for employees of the Podgorica Waterworks on Stanko Radonjić Boulevard.

The company gained public attention in 2018 when around 1.6 million euros were fraudulently withdrawn from its business account by an organized group based on falsified documentation.

Milović signed a contract worth nearly 1.8 million euros with representatives of the former government in October last year for the renovation of five healthcare facilities in Montenegro.

At the time of the sale of the administrative building, Blažo Jovanić was at the helm of the Commercial Court. Jovanić is currently on trial on charges brought by the Special State Prosecutor’s Office for criminal association and malpractice in bankruptcy proceedings.

The Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Nikšić-based Boksiti at the end of 2013, at the request of the CKB bank, due to a debt totalling 1.59 million euros. Prior to that, the bauxite mining company was managed by the Central European Aluminium Company (CEAC), owned by Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Part of the Bauxite Mines’ assets from bankruptcy was acquired in 2015 by Uniprom, owned by Veselin Pejović, following his takeover of the Podgorica Aluminium Plant (KAP).

Boksiti assets sold below market value

The remaining assets of Boksiti, including the building and land, were sold at an auction in December 2021 to a company owned by businessman Milović upon the tenth attempt, as there had been no interested buyers in previous advertisements.

In the first advertisement in May 2019, the price of this property was listed at 1.55 million euros. In accordance with the Law on Bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee has the discretion to conduct each subsequent public sale with a reduction in the minimum sale price. The bankruptcy trustee of Boksiti at the time was Mladen Marković, while the bankruptcy judge was Blažo Jovanić.

In the initial advertisement, the Boksiti land was offered at 77.4 euros per square meter, and the commercial building at a slightly higher price of 662 euros per square metre. After nine unsuccessful attempts, the assets were sold below market value. 

According to data from Monstat, the average price per square metre of land in the central region, where Nikšić is located, stood at 42 euros in 2021, coinciding with the time when the property was sold to Milović for 870 thousand euros. This suggests that the Boksiti land was valued at approximately 250 thousand euros on the market. Meanwhile, the administrative building held a minimum value of one million euros, considering that the average price per square metre of an apartment in that period was around 620 euros (Monstat), and even higher within the city centre.

Milović managed to profit well from the Boksiti property sold to Lidl and achieved what the bankruptcy administration of the company could not. He managed to secure the market price for both the administration building and the Boksiti land, resulting in an outstanding profit.

The Hungarian creditor Vagonimpex also submitted an offer on the tenth advertisement. However, the bankruptcy trustee deemed it invalid, explaining that it lacked evidence of a deposit payment, proof of the legal entity’s registration with a certified translation into Montenegrin and a legally certified power of attorney for submitting the offer. Vagonimpex had proposed 800,000 euros.

“The statements in the offer that the evidence of deposit payment actually represents a claim that the bidder has against the bankrupt debtor in the amount of 800,281.54 euros cannot be accepted as valid evidence of deposit payment because such offsetting of claims in the sale process of the assets of the bankrupt debtor is not permitted and is not prescribed by the Bankruptcy Law,” wrote Marković in the explanation.

“The statements within the offer suggesting that the evidence of deposit payment equates to a claim of 800,281.54 euros against the bankrupt debtor cannot be deemed valid. This is because offsetting claims during the asset sale process of the bankrupt debtor is not permitted nor prescribed by the Law on Bankruptcy”, he added.

From the third to the first priority group and back

Former employees have been demanding payment for outstanding claims (wages and other allowances) totalling 2.1 million euros since the introduction of bankruptcy. This includes 15 earned monthly salaries before bankruptcy for about 240 employees, or the difference between the minimum monthly salary of 190 euros they were paid at the time and their full salary.

They were included in the first priority group in March 2021, when Jovanić was at the helm of the Commercial Court. Nonetheless, they did not receive any money because they were returned to the third priority group in another court proceeding.

The Commercial Court, under the leadership of its new president, Mladen Grdinić, who assumed office in April of the previous year, provided clarification on this matter when speaking to CIN-CG.

“The funds deposited by Roaming Montenegro, pursuant to the agreement on the purchase of the business building, were used to settle the claim of the bankruptcy creditor Vagonimpex KFT from Budapest, as stipulated by the final judgment of the Commercial Court of Montenegro dated 20 July 2018”, stated in the response.

As explained, after Roaming Montenegro deposited the money, bankruptcy trustee Mladen Marković made a decision on 21 January 21 2022 to deposit the money into the account of the Commercial Court, pending a decision of the Constitutional Court on his appeal from 2019 against the judgment in favour of the Hungarian company.

In response to the bankruptcy administrator’s decision, Vagonimpex lodged an objection, which was subsequently dismissed. Following this, the Hungarian company appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 13 April 2022, the Court of Appeals annulled the ruling of the Commercial Court and remanded the case for reconsideration.

“In the subsequent proceedings, the Commercial Court on 21 January 21 2022 upheld Vagonimpex’s objection and ordered the bankruptcy trustee to fully settle the claim of this creditor. Accordingly, the bankruptcy trustee made a decision on 20 April 2022 to settle the claim of the bankruptcy creditor Vagonimpex,” the court explained.

Subsequently, on 15 June 2023, the Commercial Court issued a decision to correct the final list of recognized and disputed claims by reclassifying the claims of all bankruptcy creditors, including workers whose claims were based on unpaid net wages, from the previously assigned third payment priority back to the first payment priority. However, by the time this decision was made, the funds had already been disbursed to the Hungarian company.

“So, at the time of disbursing the funds obtained from the sale of the administrative building, the employees, as bankruptcy creditors, were in the third payment priority.”

A representative of the former workers, Rašo Čivović, filed a criminal complaint with the Special State Prosecutor’s Office regarding the sale of the administrative building.

“We are waiting for a call and a meeting with the new prosecutor Nataša Bošković, who has taken over the case,” Čivović told CIN-CG.

Former Boksiti workers expected to collect their overdue wages and other benefits from the sale of the administrative building, which was the only remaining property of the company that had filed for bankruptcy ten years ago.

Čivović believes that everything regarding the sale of the administrative building was “staged” to “pay out the Hungarians.”

The Hungarian company sued Boksiti, seeking compensation for lost profits of 891,000 euros with interest due to the unilateral termination of the ore purchase agreement. The ore purchase agreement was signed several months before the introduction of bankruptcy in Boksiti in 2013 and terminated after bankruptcy was introduced.

Vagonimpex was registered in Hungary in 2006 as a company for the sale of various goods. It has one employee, director Andras Raczko, as stated in Hungarian registries.

Čivović says that the Commercial Court should have paid the workers in 2021 when it issued decisions to return them to the first payment queue. According to him, the problem is that the decisions do not bear the seal confirming their finality (res judicata clause), which, he claims, proves that everything was a game to ensure that the money went to “certain Hungarians.”

Blažo Jovanić, the former president of the Commercial Court, was released from custody earlier this year by a decision of the Court of Appeals, allowing him to defend himself at liberty. He had been held in custody since May 2022.

On 29 December last year, the court approved the proposal put forth by his lawyer, Predrag Đolević, and upheld the decision of the High Court in Podgorica to accept bail totaling 768,000 euros in real estate provided by his family.

Jovanić is charged, among other things, with creating a criminal organization in 2015 that operated in Montenegro until April 2022. The organization included other accused individuals and legal entities, as well as several other unknown individuals whose goal was “to commit criminal acts of abuse of office for illicit gain, with the operation of the criminal organization planned for an unlimited period of time and based on the application of certain rules of internal control and discipline of its members.”

Jovanić and the other defendants are being tried before the High Court in Podgorica based on this indictment. The trial began in June 2023.

As the president of the Commercial Court, Jovanić simultaneously served as the bankruptcy judge for the largest companies in Montenegro – Podgorica Aluminium Plant, Boksiti Nikšić, Radoje Dakić, Vektra Boka, Brodogradilište Bijela, Onogošt, Bjelasica Rada and others.

The Special State Prosecutor’s Office suspects Jovanić of illegally inflating the costs of bankruptcy proceedings using his position as the president of the Commercial Court, as well as his judicial role, with the assistance of certain bankruptcy trustees.

“Illicit financial gain was obtained by directing certain funds, at Jovanić’s order, from the account of the Commercial Court to the account of the bankruptcy debtor, ostensibly for the purpose of conducting the bankruptcy proceedings. Subsequently, this money was transferred to the accounts of members of this criminal group before the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings,” reads the decision to remand a part of this group into custody.

Lidl: We always comply with applicable laws

Lidl headquarters in Germany declined to comment on the situation with former employees of Boksiti, stating that they always adhere to applicable laws in all business activities.

They did not respond to inquiries regarding the opening of stores in Montenegro either.

“Montenegro is a retail market where Lidl’s concept of offering high-quality goods at the best prices resonates well with consumers. Therefore, Lidl is investing in potential store locations and warehouses in Montenegro. We kindly ask for your understanding, as at this moment we cannot comment on the extent of our activities, potential locations or possible opening dates,” Lidl told CIN-CG.

Lidl, they added, values transparent and reliable communication and will duly inform employees and stakeholders about the next steps.

The contract signed between Roaming Montenegro and Lidl states that the seller has committed not to construct, operate or manage any grocery stores, supermarkets, self-service stores or similar retail establishments with a sales area exceeding 500 m2 on its properties in Nikšić located within a radius of 1 km from the specified property, within three years from the conclusion of the contract. Furthermore, the seller will not permit third parties to construct, operate or manage such establishments on the mentioned properties.

“In case of breach of this obligation, the seller undertakes to pay the buyer a contractual penalty of 100,000 euros for each individual violation, without excluding the buyer’s right to claim damages, including lost profits,” states the contract obtained by CIN-CG under the Law on Free Access to Information through the MANS platform.

Where did Deripaska’s 17 million euros end up?

Rašo Čivović has been trying for years to determine the whereabouts of the alleged 17 million euros from Deripaska that were reportedly loaned to Boksiti a decade ago and which the Russian oligarch is now seeking in legal proceedings.

Čivović told CIN-CG that if this money had entered Rudnici boksita, the company would not have gone bankrupt because there would have been funds to repay the debt to CKB.

He requested this information from the new governor of the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBCG), Irena Radović, at the end of the year. However, the CBCG declined his request, stating that this information is confidential business information.

The court handling the trials of Medenica, Jovanović, Čađenović, Lazović, heads of drug cartels and other defendants accused of high-level corruption and organized crime is not functioning and rarely renders decisions

By Maja Boričić 

The Special Division of the High Court in Podgorica, responsible for adjudicating of corruption, organized crime and war crimes, has rendered only 19 judgments over the course of nearly four years.

These figures were disclosed to the Centre for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro (CIN-CG) following a freedom of information request submitted to the High Court in Podgorica.

Out of the 19 judgments rendered between January 2020 to October of this year, within the division handling cases initiated by the Special Prosecutor’s Office, 11 resulted in convictions, five in acquittals and three in dismissals.

According to the report’s findings, the annual caseload ranged from 109 in 2020 to 150 cases last year. Last year saw only eight judgments being issued.

In addition to the alarmingly low number of judgments for the gravest criminal offences, the problem lies in the lengthy duration of trials, whereas the number of defendants is increasing each year.

The number of old cases is also on the rise. All of this could lead to breaches of the right to a trial within a reasonable timeframe, and in some cases, even to statutes of limitations. 

As of 12 October of the current year, the Special Division of the High Court had as many as 44 cases older than three years, as per statements from spokespersons of the Judicial Council who spoke to CIN-CG.

According to the report from the Judicial Council, at the beginning of last year, the High Court in Podgorica had 1,967 pending cases, of which 661 had lingered than three years. By the end of the year, that number had increased to 3,185 cases, with the number of older cases almost doubling to 1,008.

In addition to the inefficient handling of the most sensitive cases, the High Court in Podgorica was further compromised by a recent break-in at the evidence storage facility housing evidence for the most serious criminal offenses. The extent of the missing evidence and how much this situation will further complicate the handling of cases in that court remains to be seen.

The duration of proceedings is one of the main indicators of the efficiency of the judiciary in cases of organized crime and high-level corruption, emphasizes Valentina Pavličić, Montenegro’s representative before the European Court of Human Rights, speaking to CIN-CG.

Judicial authorities must make efforts to ensure trials are conducted within a reasonable timeframe, and excuses relating to case overload cannot be accepted. “It is reasonable to expect that applications will be lodged if someone has spent three years in detention without a first-instance judgment, provided that there is no contribution on their part to delaying the proceedings,” Pavličić underscores.

The representative before the Strasbourg court notes that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has reiterated in numerous decisions that “states are required to ensure the administration of justice promptly, as delays could jeopardize its effectiveness and credibility.”

Trials against officials either have not yet begun or are in their very early stages

The efficiency of the judiciary is exemplified by ongoing trials against leaders of the judiciary, prosecution and police, as well as other high-ranking officials, many of which either have not yet commenced or are in their initial stages.

The trial of Vesna Medenica, the former president of the Supreme Court and longtime Supreme State Prosecutor, has not yet begun at the High Court in Podgorica, despite the indictment being filed a year ago. The Pre-Trial Chamber of the High Court confirmed the indictment only in February of this year. The trial was supposed to start in May, but has been postponed several times. Subsequently, the proceedings against Medenica and her colleague from the Commercial Court, judge Milica Vlahović Milosavljević, have been separated from those of the other defendants. They are being tried by the panel presided over by judge Nada Rabrenović.

The Special Prosecutor’s Office filed charges against Medenica in October last year, accusing her of being part of a criminal organization created by her son, Miloš Medenica.

The former “first lady of the judiciary” is accused of facilitating court cases to end in favour of private companies and receiving bribes for doing so.

The criminal group allegedly formed by her son is also accused of cigarette smuggling, unauthorized production, possession and trafficking of narcotics, as well as exerting unlawful influence. 

Medenica was released from custody in November last year after spending just under seven months in detention. 

Her colleague, former head of the Commercial Court, Blažo Jovanić, began his trial only at the end of June this year, despite the indictment being filed in November last year. He is accused of leading a criminal organization that engaged in malpractice in bankruptcy proceedings at the court. He is being tried by a panel presided over by judge Zoran Radović.

Special State Prosecutor Saša Čađenović was arrested in December last year on suspicion of collaborating with the ‘Kavac Clan’. The indictment was filed with the High Court in June this year and was confirmed a few days ago. He is charged with the criminal offence of forming a criminal organization and four offences of abuse of office. The trial in this case is yet to commence.

The Special State Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment in early January this year against former national security officer Petar Lazović, Radoje Zvicer, police officer Ljubo Milović, and several other individuals. Lazović has been in custody since July last year, and the indictment in this case has not yet been confirmed. He has offered multimillion-dollar bail several times in exchange for freedom, but the court rejected it.

In March this year, the Special State Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment with the High Court against six former executives of the Plantaže company, who are charged with the criminal offence of abuse of office in economic activity. The indictment has not yet been confirmed in this case either.

In the case involving the Abu Dhabi Fund, in which former high-ranking Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) official Petar Ivanović is among the suspects, the prosecution has encountered setbacks. The indictment for abuse of office was announced multiple times, but it turned out that the investigation was remanded for reconsideration due to procedural errors by the prosecutors. The investigation was initiated in early 2021. Ivanović is accused of entering into several loan agreements with domestic companies from the Abu Dhabi Fund that failed meet loan eligibility requirements, resulting in a budgetary loss amounting to eight million dollars.

The Criminal Procedure Code provides that the prosecutor must immediately inform their immediate superior prosecutor (in this case, the Supreme Prosecutor) of the reasons why an investigation has not been completed if it is not concluded within six months. The immediate superior prosecutor will take necessary measures to conclude the investigation.

Although the inquiry in this case was initiated in 2019 and the investigation began only in early 2021, significantly exceeding the deadlines, the Supreme State Prosecutor was only recently informed about it, and the Prosecutorial Council requested a report on this case only in September of this year.

Judges refuse to go to High Court

The Special Division of the High Court currently operates with only six judges, which allows for the formation of just two panels. This further complicates the situation because, among other things, a judge who participated in the decision to confirm the indictment may not participate in the trial of the accused.

Several legal experts interviewed by CIN-CG have noted that the responsibility for the situation in the High Court lies with the president of the court, who bears the responsibility for scheduling judges, as well as with the Judicial Council, which allowed judges to be appointed to multiple courts, leaving unfinished cases for the most serious criminal offences.

In October, acting president of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Vesna Vučković sent a letter to the president of the Court of Appeal of Montenegro, Mušika Dujović, and judges of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, Seka Piletić, Milenka Seka Žižić and Zoran Šćepanović, asking them to consider the possibility of sending judges from these two courts to assist in the Special Division of the High Court in Podgorica: “The president of the Court of Appeal responded that none of the judges of this court were able to be sent to assist, and the same stance was taken by the judges of the Supreme Court,” sources from the Supreme Court told CIN-CG.

The Judicial Council has clarified that at present, judges from High Courts can only be temporarily reassigned to the High Court for a maximum period of one year, with their consent being necessary for this.

Pavličić, who is also a former judge of the High Court, explains that the organization and scheduling of work in the court are certainly defined by the court’s president.

Boris Savić, the president of the High Court, declined to respond to CIN-CG’s question about whether he considers himself responsible for the inefficient operation of the Special Division, and also refrained from addressing other questions concerning the functioning of the court.

“Practice shows that the current number of active judges is not sufficient, so preventive action should certainly have been taken to prevent this situation. We are talking about the most sensitive and perhaps the most urgent category of proceedings that require more than a formal approach,” says Pavličić.

She notes that it is precisely through the handling of cases of organized crime and corruption where the strength of the court’s authority, professional knowledge and procedural capabilities is demonstrated, ultimately leading to the resolution of such cases within a reasonable timeframe.

According to reports from the Judicial Council, the Special Division of the High Court each year resolves about 20 to 30 percent of cases from January 2020 to December 2022, with the fewest being resolved through judgments.

The Judicial Council’s report cites the insufficient efficiency due to factors such as the small number of judges, the pandemic and the large number of defendants and defence counsels in most cases, which requires additional time. It is also noted that last yea “three experienced judges” left the division.

The report failed to address any potential omissions made by judges

Additionally, statistics indicate that last year, the High Court sentenced individuals to imprisonment in only 45 percent of cases where penalties were imposed.

In 2021, the Special Division of the High Court had 138 ongoing cases, with 95 remaining unresolved, representing just under 69 percent. Likewise, within the High Court, only approximately 40 percent of resolved cases resulted in imprisonment.

In 2020, there were 109 cases in progress, with 81 remaining unresolved, or just over 74 percent. Once again, only about 44 percent of cases in the High Court resulted in imprisonment.

Court efficiency has deteriorated

In its Analysis of the Application of the Law on the Protection of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time 2017-2022, Human Rights Action (HRA) concludes that the efficiency of the courts has significantly deteriorated in the period from 2017 to 2022.

The judiciary has failed to achieve the goal of reducing the number of backlog cases, as envisaged by the Action Plan for the Implementation of the Judiciary Reform Strategy. Instead of decreasing, the number of such cases surged by as much as 49.5 percent compared to the target.

They say that this deterioration was particularly evident in 2022, exacerbated by a vacancy rate of approximately 21 percent during 2021 and 2022.

“A careful analysis should explore whether other indicators may also suggest that the decline in efficiency is due to poor management of human resources and cases in the courts, compared to what was previously the case.”

HRA notes that compared to the population size, Montenegro still ranks second in Europe in terms of the number of judges, with even twice as many as the European average.

Although there are significantly more judges, it is evident that they are not well-distributed, nor efficient, especially in key cases.

No more hearings for the confirmation of indictments?

The amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, currently under consideration in the Parliament, envisage that there will no longer be hearings for the confirmation of indictments, so as to prevent unnecessary delays in the proceedings.

According to the amended provisions, it is the obligation of the court to deliver the indictment to the accused and their defence counsel, who may provide written responses.

“The court shall render a decision on the confirmation of the indictment provided that the legally prescribed conditions are met. The accused and their defence counsel retain the right to appeal the decision on the confirmation of the indictment. Once the decision on confirmation is final, the indictment becomes legally binding.”

EU also warns of the lack of judgments

The so-called non-paper by the European Commission from June this year highlights that there is a need to improve the public perception of impunity for high-level corruption and organized crime, and that it is necessary to implement a more deterring, consistent and efficient sanctioning policy for the most serious criminal offences.

They emphasize that the track record of investigations and criminal prosecutions in high-profile cases have improved, but they are not accompanied by effective trials, and that there are almost no outcomes or convictions in these cases.

The 2022 report on Montenegro adds that data on the duration of proceedings are still not available, and that statistical information on the performance of the judicial system is not systematically analysed or used for management and policy-making purposes. 

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.”