Nišavić: My professional and personal integrity and reputation were hurt in the most rude way by serious accusations

State Prosecutor and Deputy Disciplinary Prosecutor Tanja Nišavić announced that her professional and personal integrity and reputation were injured "in the rudest way" by the "serious accusations" against her work.

As she stated in the announcement, she spoke out in connection with numerous media reports related to her actions as a deputy disciplinary prosecutor in the process of dismissing the head of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, Lepa Medenica.

In the statement, she stated that the case represented a "brutal attack" on her professional integrity and on her personally.

She pointed out that she has been working in the judiciary for almost twenty years, "without a single blemish in her career".

We transmit the Nišavić announcement in its entirety:

"The proposal for the dismissal of the head of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica was submitted to me for processing by the Prosecutor's Council, which was fully aware of its content, and therefore also of the description of the actions that the head of the VDT was charged with. After the procedure, I assessed that the filing of the indictment for the actions listed in the motion for dismissal, which was submitted by the Minister of Justice, is justified. I clarify that the indictment in its factual description is identical in everything to the factual description given in the motion for dismissal, which was submitted by the Minister of Justice. This I emphasize for the reason that Article 113 paragraph 2 of the Law on State Prosecution prescribes: "The disciplinary prosecutor is bound by the factual description of the disciplinary offense for the determination of disciplinary responsibility".

Therefore, it is a provision of an imperative nature, which in this particular case means that I did not have the legal authority, nor the possibility to change any part of the factual description given in the minister's proposal for the dismissal of the manager. That the disciplinary prosecutor is bound by the factual description of the proposal for dismissal, that is, that he does not have the possibility to change it in any direction, the Minister of Justice, who submitted such a proposal, must have been informed. Regardless, from the proposal itself, one can see in an unmistakable way which event it is about, when and how it happened and to whom it refers, i.e. which persons are involved in that event. It follows from the above that I acted with all the necessary care, conscientiously, responsibly and in accordance with the law in the aforementioned procedure.

I believe that the Prosecutor's Council in the given announcement regarding the said procedure had to give an overview of the facts that I pointed out, because with the given announcement, and especially the public appearances of individual TS members, negative attention from the case that was the subject of the procedure, unfairly and unfoundedly focused on my the treatment of me personally. This is especially so if you bear in mind that I did not attend the TS session, and therefore I did not have the opportunity to present my legal position. Without the intention of commenting on the decision of the Court of Justice, I believe that in the case that it had conducted the procedure, it had the possibility to possibly change the factual description in its decision, according to the result of the procedure that would have been conducted, in the same way as the court does in court proceedings. according to the Criminal Procedure Code.

The media published statements: "The decision was made for mainly formal reasons, for which the deputy disciplinary prosecutor is responsible, who drew up the indictment, which is of poor quality", as well as captions with the content: "It is symptomatic that so many errors were found in that indictment by colleagues prosecutors, members of the TS, considering that they proposed the deputy disciplinary prosecutor to this council precisely at the session of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office. As the VDT, they should probably have a clearer picture of the quality of all prosecutors, so a logical question arises - how did you propose someone who can't even write a high-quality indictment proposal. And if she is able to do that, then VDT ​​should ask itself why it was not written in a better quality".

With such public accusations against my work, my professional and personal integrity and reputation were hurt in the most rude way, bearing in mind that I have been working in the judiciary for almost twenty years, without a single blemish in my career. As all responsibility in this way is focused exclusively on my actions, and not on the essence of the procedure, I consider it necessary to address the public in this way," Nišavić said in the statement.