The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the president of the special council, the judge Nade Rabrenović, which fined the lawyer 800 euros Dina Šabotić due to unjustified failure to appear at the trial Vesni Medenici in the High Court in Podgorica on June 13.
Šabotić then represented the defendant Port of Bakoča.
By the decision of the High Court, the lawyer undertakes to pay the costs of delaying the main trial in the amount of 2.587,50 euros.
The Court of Appeal rejected the lawyer's appeal as unfounded Maje Turković, attorney Dina Šabotić.
In the explanation of the decision of the Appellate Court, it is stated, among other things, that the case file shows that the defense attorney of Bakoč, attorney Šabotić, submitted to the High Court in Podgorica on June 3 a submission informing the court that she is canceling the power of attorney for the accused.
"From the record of the main hearing from 13/6/2024, it follows that the defense counsel of the accused Bakoč Luka, lawyer Dina Šabotić, did not attend the main hearing of 13/6/2024 at 8.30:29 a.m., although she was properly notified of the decision with of the main trial from March 3, 2024. According to Article 325 paragraph 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the panel will fine a properly summoned defense attorney, whose unjustified failure to appear led to the postponement of the main trial, with a fine of up to 1.000 euros and obligate him to pay the costs of the postponement of the main trial," the court's decision reads.
Šabotić, however, claims that the decision of the Court of Appeal is unfounded, biased and subjective.
"Recently, a worrying trend has been noticed in which lawyers, instead of being respected as key players in the judicial system, are punished for circumstances over which they often have no influence. In my case, although the defendant's defense was fully ensured by the appointment of an ex officio defense attorney, the court still decided to punish me. It clearly shows how the facts are overlooked and how the blame is unfoundedly shifted to the lawyers. Moreover, I could not even influence the postponement of the hearing, because it was requested by the defendant's new defense attorney, not me. "Despite that, the Court of Appeal confirmed the first-instance decision with its ruling, which actually turned me into a 'sacrificial lamb' of the judicial system, which, instead of looking at all the facts fairly, defended the acting judge," she said.
The lawyer stated that such a practice seriously undermines trust in the impartiality of the judiciary and its proper functioning.
"Lawyers should not be punished for circumstances beyond their control, especially in situations where the defendant's defense was not at risk. Penalties of this kind only distract attention from the real problems, such as lengthy procedures and frequent delays, for which lawyers should not be held responsible. This is another example of how the burden of the inefficiency of the judicial system is unjustifiably shifted to lawyers, while key problems, such as the efficient implementation of procedures within a reasonable time, remain unresolved," said Šabotić.
Bonus video:
