Former judge of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi, Jovan Stanković, said today that he "gave in" under pressure from former President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Vesna Medenica when he wrote a verdict in favor of the company "Carina", even though the lawsuit was not served on the defendant, but on his wife.
He said this today at the Higher Court in Podgorica, where he testified in the continuation of the Medenica trial.
In the prosecutor's investigation, Stanković stated that he "became mute" when writing the verdict.
The trial was adjourned around 15 p.m. because Vesna Medenica fell ill.
Judge Stanković stated that he made the decision in favor of "Carin" in March 2022 and that this decision was preceded by a meeting with Medenica in a bar in Herceg Novi.
"Medenica was receiving treatment in Igalo and sent me a message to meet, which I accepted. Her godmother, whose name I don't remember, was with her. She then told me that I should 'take a look' at another case, but that she didn't know the number. I said that I would see if it was ripe for an appointment. A day or two after the meeting, I sent her a message to send me the case number. I said that the complaint for the statement of claim had been received by the defendant's wife and I asked her: What do you want from me? I hoped that she would say to do what I thought because I had emphasized to her twice that the complaint had not been served on the defendant. She sent me a message: 'write', which I did. I felt pressured and sent a message: 'I'll write it well,'" the judge said.
He stated that he was afraid that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him because he had a lot of cases in his work, he thinks about 600, and in some of them he exceeded the appointment time.
Although Medenica has not been at the helm of the Supreme Court for more than a year, Stanković believes that she had influence over people in the judiciary and that is why he "succumbed" to the pressure. The witness said that he made two key mistakes, one by allowing Medenica to get close to him and the other by not saying "No".
All of this forced him to resign because he could not appear before his colleagues and citizens.
Lawyer Zdenko Tomanović, defense attorney for Medenica, presented the witness with a statement he gave at the SDT, in which he stated that he "often made decisions with a limp" and "over his knee."
Stanković said that he was under a lot of stress at the SDT, and when she said that she makes decisions with a twist and "over her knee," he meant based on the judge's conviction and when one element is missing to be sure of her decision.
"In essence, this is a true statement in the SDT as well. Believe me," Stanković said. Lawyer Zdravko Begović then said that he did not believe him at all, while Medenica told the court that 50 percent of Stanković's decisions were overturned and that his attention was drawn to this while she was at the head of the Supreme Court.
Vesna Medenica is still a powerful person
In the explanation of the indictment, the SDT states that the testimony of witness Stanković Jovan indicates that he was elected as a judge of the Basic Court in Kotor in 2012, and has held the position of judge of the Basic Court in Herceg Novi in the civil division since 2014. For all the years of his work in the judiciary, the defendant Vesna Medenica held a management position, and she was unpleasant towards him on several occasions, telling him that he was incompetent, ignorant, and that he did not need a judge's job, or clearly and publicly expressing criticism of his work even though he had quite good work results and was free from criticism from the judge who controlled his cases.
In mid-March 2022, he met Medenica at the "Do Do" cafe bar on the Square in Herceg Novi, where the defendant Medenica Vesna was sitting with another woman whom she introduced as her godmother. Stanković assessed the conversation as friendly and was partly about the state of the judiciary after her departure, and in that conversation the defendant emphasized that she constantly sees people in high positions, which is why he got the impression that she wanted to let him know that she was still a powerful person, which he had no reason to doubt because she had indeed been the President of the Supreme Court for a long time and the epicenter of everything in the judiciary.
He explained that he was mildly afraid of what the defendant might do to him if he resented her in some way because he did not believe in a friendly attitude towards him, given that there was no reason for such a relationship.
Defendant Medenica Vesna called him about another case, telling him "look at that case, it's for my best man" and he knows that he sent the defendant a message on the same day asking her for the case number because he didn't remember it, to which the defendant replied and it turned out that it was a case between the prosecutor "Carina" and the defendant Pavle Popović.
He stated that she asked him to see how far it had come, and he looked at the case and determined that DOO "Carine" was represented by her colleague Tamara Durutović, while the defendant Pavle Popović was not represented by anyone, that the subject of the dispute was a debt arising from a loan, where the lender was DOO "Carine" and the borrower was the defendant Pavle Popović, and that a loan agreement was submitted with the lawsuit, which was signed by an authorized person from Carine and certified with their seal, and on the other side was signed by Pavle Popović.
That loan amounted to 20.000,00 euros, interest-free as far as he could remember, and the repayment deadline was set at the earliest possible date, i.e. upon the lender's call. He further stated that, in addition to that contract, a pre-litigation warning was also submitted with the lawsuit, which was sent by the plaintiff's attorney, i.e. DOO "Carina" to the defendant Popović, and proof was submitted that the pre-litigation warning was duly served on him in the form of a delivery note, which was addressed to the same address as the lawsuit itself.
He explained that the lawsuit in that case was sent to the defendant for a response with the usual letter that is sent with the lawsuit, that there was no response to the lawsuit, that it was not delivered, that the 30-day deadline for responding to the lawsuit had expired, but that the return receipt for the delivery of the lawsuit, as far as he could see, was not signed by the defendant himself, but by his wife.
Since the defendant Medenica Vesna was interested in the case, he presented it all to her via message, telling her what it was about, that in his opinion everything was legally clear, that the conditions for a verdict due to omission existed, but that there was a problem with the delivery, that is, that the signature on the delivery receipt was not that of the defendant, but that it stated that the complaint had been received by his wife, and he emphasized this to the defendant several times in his correspondence.
Vesna Medenica said that two details in the case files would be made mute.
"The defendant Medenica Vesna suggested to him that he should issue a verdict due to omission. He further explained that at that time he felt a slight pressure from the defendant that he was being pushed in that direction, but since he was not sure what the defendant Medenica Vesna actually wanted from him, he asked her whether to schedule or issue a verdict due to omission, to which the defendant Medenica Vesna explicitly told him to issue a verdict due to omission. At that moment, he found himself in a very awkward position because he believed that the defendant would resent him if he refused and that it would open the door to further pressure to end the case. Because of all this, under the pressure he felt through direct communication and fear of the consequences of resenting the defendant, he made a mistake and issued a verdict due to omission. In the communication, he told the defendant Medenica Vesna that he would be made mute in two details in the case files, but he did so because he wanted to free himself from her influence and pressure, because he never felt comfortable in the company of the defendant." it is stated in the explanation of the indictment.
Bonus video:
