The Constitutional Court of Montenegro overturned the verdict of the Higher Court in Podgorica, after which that court also overturned the first-instance decision of the Basic Court in Cetinje, which had previously rejected the claim of the former advisor in the Office of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms, Dragan Radović, who claimed that he had been exposed to mobbing for a long period of time.
That court found that Radović's right to private life was violated in a procedural sense, because the courts failed to provide an effective mechanism for a full and proper investigation of his allegations of harassment at work - as pointed out by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of "Špadijer v. Montenegro".
The court stated that the lower courts had taken parts of the testimony out of context, instead of assessing it as a whole, and that such an approach did not provide adequate protection for the employee's dignity and privacy.
Radović's legal representative, lawyer Velibor Marković, told "Vijesti" that this is an "unusual, shameful and devastating situation - that employees are being mobbed in the Ombudsman institution."
Radović claimed that he Zdenka Perović, deputy of the then protector Šućko Baković, from the end of 2016 to the end of 2017, abused him at work, with a series of humiliating and harassing actions: from humiliating emails and shouting in front of colleagues, to calls to his wife alluding to his alleged infidelities.
In the lawsuit, he alleged that Perović, among other things, demanded that he falsify reports on official visits and ordered him to move office furniture himself, as well as calling him derogatory names such as "Srbko", "Amfilohije" and "blackshirt".
The Basic Court in Cetinje initially rejected the lawsuit, although, according to lawyer Marković, witnesses confirmed the existence of mobbing, and a medical expert determined that the plaintiff's mental state was "in direct causal connection with the events at work" and that he had suffered a "breakdown of adaptation mechanisms."
The Constitutional Court, however, concluded that the findings of the regular courts had no basis in a democratic society based on the protection of the right to privacy and dignity. The Court particularly criticized the assessments that “it is up to the plaintiff and his wife to fight (whatever it is)”, as well as the claim that the lack of “permanence” of the abuse meant that mobbing did not exist.
“They have no basis in a democratic society based on values that protect the right to privacy of every individual. In accordance with, supra, the standards of the European Court "Such events in connection with the applicant's professional life may indeed fall under Article 8, when they affect the way in which an individual builds his or her social identity through the development of relationships with other people," the Constitutional Court's judgment states.
Blind when the state mobs
Attorney Marković said that the extent to which the first-instance verdict was unlawful is best confirmed by the reasons stated in the explanation:
“Where the court states that from the aspect of its authority as an independent and autonomous branch of government, it has a critical attitude towards the behavior of the defendant and the intervener and that the prosecutor is not the only one who cannot understand the attitude of the perpetrator of mobbing towards work. The court adds that the way in which something is communicated to colleagues must be with full respect for human dignity, whereby personal authority is built exclusively through knowledge, work and relationships, and not through criticism and actions due to which the proceedings were initiated and conducted. The first instance court concludes that the defendant’s behavior is condemned by the court and the judge himself (judge Borko Loncar)", with the hope that the situation in that institution will be better in every sense than it was presented in the proceedings. Despite all of the above, the first instance court rejects the claim," said Marković.
According to him, there was no understanding in the appeal proceedings before the High Court, because he was "informally told that there is a directive that such requests are rejected when it comes to the state as an employer."
"Thus, the Higher Court in Podgorica, with its judgment Gž. No. 4016/21 of June 17, 2022, rejected my appeal filed against the first-instance judgment. Against the aforementioned judgments on November 8, 2022, I filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, which on June 16, 2025, issued decision U-III No. 829/22, accepting the constitutional appeal and quashing the judgment of the Higher Court in Podgorica," said Radović's legal representative.
He adds that the reasons for the aforementioned decision clearly indicate that mobbing existed, concluding that the lower courts took into account only fragmentary statements of witnesses, without taking into account the entire context of the event, indicating that they did not provide protection to the plaintiff that could in principle, in accordance with the standards of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on Article 8 of the Convention, be considered effective.
"The aforementioned decision also emphasizes that the Constitution guarantees everyone respect and legal protection of the dignity, physical and psychological integrity of a person and their privacy and personal rights. Human dignity is a key element of the concept of human rights and duties. Every human being has dignity by the very fact that they belong to the human race. In human dignity, everyone is equal in their rights and obligations that arise from human nature. Judicial protection therefore encompasses the intimate sphere of an individual, that is, their private life," said Marković.
Marković: What to expect from others?
Radović's legal representative explained that the Higher Court in Podgorica, acting on the decision of the Constitutional Court, overturned the first-instance verdict in mid-September.
"That court referred to the decision of the Constitutional Court which accepted the constitutional appeal, stating that the first instance court took into account only fragmentary statements of witnesses, without taking into account the entire context and that the courts failed to provide protection to the applicant. It was specifically stated that in the specific circumstances, the manner in which the civil law mechanisms were applied in the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's case, in particular the lack of assessment of all witness statements and the failure to consider the entire context, including the possible 'chilling' effect, were deficient to the extent of constituting a violation of the courts' obligations under Article 8 of the Convention," said lawyer Marković.
He said that it was unacceptable for the Ombudsman, whose constitutional and legal obligation is to protect the freedoms and rights of man and citizen, to engage in mobbing of employees.
"In such a state of affairs, the question arises of what to expect from others when such an institution violates the freedoms and rights of citizens," he said.
The courts did not understand the concept of vertical mobbing.
The Constitutional Court further pointed out that lower courts did not understand the concept of vertical mobbing, which encompasses situations where a superior systematically abuses subordinate workers, one by one, creating an atmosphere of fear and humiliation...
"The court's finding that 'the actions were not directed only at the applicant, with the aim of mobbing, as best proven by the problems experienced by witnesses S., J. and R.' is not in line with the definition of vertical mobbing, which implies a situation where a superior abuses one employee at a time until he destroys the entire group (strategic mobbing, bossing)," the Constitutional Court's decision states.
The Constitutional Court judges note that lower courts held that “the defendant's actions and events were the result of conflicts and poor relations between employees” and “that it is a personal matter for each employee how they can cope in the workplace in this environment.”
"The courts, in doing so, did not take into account all the circumstances of this specific case, since one of the employees, witness JJ, contacted the Ombudsman with information about possible mobbing on 8 June 2016, which information was never recorded in the institution's protocol books, nor did they assess the statements of witnesses TR and JJ about possible mobbing and the overall working atmosphere at the respondent through the concept of the right to privacy in a broader context, as required by the application of Article 8 of the Convention. Therefore, the Constitutional Court qualifies the aforementioned court findings as court findings that may have a deterrent, so-called 'chilling' effect, on potential victims of mobbing, if they are not examined in an appropriate manner, taking into account all the circumstances of the case," the judgment states.
Bonus video:
