The interlocutors of "Vijesti" agree that the adoption of the plea agreement fully justifies its application, but one of them claims that the prosecution is secretly obstructing by proposing high sentences, which is why the defendants reject them.
Although these settlements with the prosecution have not been in the public spotlight for several years, this does not mean that Montenegrin courts do not apply the institute, on the contrary. They are especially represented in basic courts, which issue decisions on the adoption of agreements on the basis of which adjudication is made. The advantage of such decisions is a significant shortening of court proceedings.
Judge of the Court of Appeal Diana Radulović, explains to "Vijesti" that the Supreme Court and the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office have developed guidelines for the conduct of state prosecutors when applying the institute of plea agreements.
The guidelines, he says, are not a binding act, but they represent a certain roadmap.
"Taking into account the obligation of the state of Montenegro - a candidate for EU membership, the Supreme Court and the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office have recognized the need to adopt a common approach in order to implement a uniform application of the law by the state prosecutor's office and a uniform application of the law by the courts, and in this regard, in 2024, they developed guidelines for the conduct of state prosecutors when applying the institute of plea agreements. The guidelines do not represent a binding act, but they represent a certain guide for the prosecution and the court when applying this institute. The guidelines elaborate on the substantive and procedural rules that state prosecutors apply in their proceedings, especially in the procedure for concluding plea agreements in cases of organized crime, high-level corruption and other cases that attract increased public attention. The guidelines also provide expert and advisory support to judges in the procedure for deciding on plea agreements, all in order to ensure the harmonisation of judicial practice and the unification of penal policy," says Radulović.
Speaking about its justification, she explained that the institute of plea agreements was introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code of Montenegro in 2009...
"The original legal solution was such that an agreement could be concluded for all criminal offenses punishable by up to ten years in prison, but the amendments to the Code from 2015 expanded the range of criminal offenses for which a plea agreement can be concluded. According to the current legal solution, it can be applied to all criminal offenses prosecuted ex officio, except for criminal offenses of terrorism and war crimes. A plea agreement is concluded in writing, signed by the parties and the defense attorney, and submitted to the first-instance court, which then decides by decision whether to adopt it or reject or refuse it. When the decision on the adoption of the agreement becomes final, the court finally decides by a verdict declaring the defendant guilty," says Judge Radulović.
Lawyer Aleksandra Rogošić, agrees that the institute of plea agreements has proven to be justified, but still warns:
“The problem does not lie in the institute itself, but in its selective and restrictive application. Instead of using the institute as a lawful and legitimate means of procedural economy, it is often avoided in order to avoid the perception of leniency. I believe that the institute of plea agreements in our country has proven to be a justified and at the same time functional mechanism. Its very purpose is to improve the efficiency of criminal proceedings, shorten their duration and use judicial resources more rationally. However, recently, it seems that the prosecution, especially the SDT, has rejected this legal institute. The prosecution's restrictive approach to this institute is particularly noticeable in cases of special importance, where caution is expressed due to increased public and media attention and fear of negative reactions. The effect of this institute would be of particular importance at this very moment, given the limited spatial and technical capacities of the courts, including the fact that the number of available courtrooms is insufficient. In addition, persons who are under investigation at the time of negotiations on concluding a plea agreement would immediately begin serving their sentences, which would also loosen up that part of the system and "contributed to better organization and functionality. All this further emphasizes the need for an institute that enables faster and more economical completion of procedures," claims Rogošić.
INITIAL RESISTANCE, THEN INCREASING NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS
Judge Radulović states that regular criminal proceedings are complex - often extremely complex, and generally require both the presentation of a large amount of evidence and the engagement of many different judicial and extrajudicial entities.
"This slows down the procedure and the delivery of justice, while increasing the costs of the procedure. One of the goals of the judicial branch of government is to achieve the greatest possible efficiency of criminal proceedings, i.e. to complete the trial within a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 32 of the Constitution of Montenegro. In this context, I would say that this institute represents an important instrument aimed at improving the efficiency and speed of completing criminal proceedings, i.e. at resolving cases more quickly and reducing the costs of criminal proceedings."
According to her, in the first four or five years, the institute encountered resistance in its implementation, but the situation has changed since 2016...
"According to publicly available data, primarily from the State Prosecutor's Office, the number of plea agreements concluded has increased significantly since then. I would certainly emphasize that after submitting a plea agreement to the court, when deciding whether to adopt the agreement, which is within the jurisdiction of the first instance court, the court must take into account the fulfillment of all legal requirements prescribed by Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code, including whether the agreement is in accordance with the interests of fairness and whether the sanction corresponds to the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions. With full respect for the application of legal norms, there is no reason to doubt that this institute as a legal solution has found its place in our criminal procedure legislation for a reason. However, the use of plea agreements must be applied with the utmost care, while respecting all necessary protection measures, which is also the direction of the reports of the European Commission for Montenegro."
She added that the 2015 amendments to the Code expanded the range of criminal offenses for which a plea agreement can be concluded: "So it can be applied to all criminal offenses prosecuted ex officio, with the exception of the application of this institute for the criminal offenses of terrorism and war crimes. It is a matter of assessment and agreement between the parties and the defense attorney whether an agreement will be concluded for the criminal offenses for which an agreement can be concluded."
She also explains that the advantage of the institute is in speeding up the criminal court proceedings, by avoiding complex adversarial proceedings, which achieves the efficiency of the judicial system, i.e. respect for the constitutional and convention right to a trial within a reasonable time.
"This is certainly one of the goals of the judicial branch of government. Especially in the circumstances of a considerable number of unresolved old cases. In this way, criminal proceedings achieve an outcome that is acceptable to both the defendant and the prosecution. A significant advantage is also the reduction of the costs of criminal proceedings, which is a consequence of avoiding complex adversarial proceedings."
The judge, however, argues that the advantages of this institute must not be allowed to turn into their opposite in practice.
"It is up to the judicial authorities, after a prior analysis of each specific case, assessing the type and gravity of the criminal offense in question, as well as all other circumstances, in each individual case, to carefully assess whether the application of this institute is justified and whether it is justified to end the criminal proceedings in this way. By applying the institute of plea agreements, a trial and the presentation of evidence before a court is avoided, or the establishment of facts in this way is avoided. Having this in mind, I would like to emphasize, and due to the problems that have been recognized so far by both domestic and international bodies in the practical application of plea agreements, that the court is obliged to take into account, among other things, the protection of the interests of the injured parties, the interests of fairness, and whether the sanction envisaged by the agreement corresponds to the purpose of imposing criminal sanctions (general and special prevention), as required by the provision of Article 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With the consistent, correct and cautious application of legal norms, the conditions are ensured for the institute of plea agreements to demonstrate all its advantages in practical application."
THE ACCUSED ARE IN A MOOD, BUT...
Based on past practice, the institute of plea agreements has not shown any abuse, although in rare individual cases there may be a perception of possible abuse of this institute - states lawyer Rogošić.
Every agreement, according to her, undergoes judicial review under the law, which in itself represents a strong protection mechanism.
"Individual cases that provoke negative public reactions should not be a reason to abandon the institute that is standard in developed legal systems. There are clients who are willing to use this institute, however, in practice, we increasingly encounter a closed attitude of the prosecution, which is reflected in the fact that they often propose sentences that are assessed as too high. Such a procedure often leads to the fact that the space for real negotiations is narrowed or completely closed, which is why no agreement is concluded, despite the existence of interest on the part of the defendants."
She also said that the main motive of the defendants is to end the investigation phase as soon as possible, especially for those in custody.
"Of course, from a psychological perspective, legal certainty for the defendant is also very important. This implies a quick conclusion to the proceedings, avoiding years of uncertainty and psychological pressure, which is often more important than the amount of the sentence. The agreement allows for a controlled and predictable outcome, which is a legitimate interest of every defendant in a state governed by the rule of law."
She added that the plea agreement has several significant advantages for defendants, primarily reflected in the quick completion of the proceedings...
"Also, the agreement leads to a reduction in the sentence compared to the potential court decision, while at the same time contributing to a more rational use of judicial resources. On the other hand, the disadvantages of this institute are the limited space for negotiations, especially when the prosecution proposes sentences that are assessed as too high, which often prevents the conclusion of an agreement. A guilty plea can also be negatively perceived by the public. This institute, at least in our country, is often misinterpreted as a weakness of the system, rather than as a sign of its maturity. On the contrary, developed judiciaries most often function precisely on the basis of agreements."
"Terrorists" sentenced to five months in prison
Svetozar Marović is certainly among the most famous defendants who have entered into a plea agreement. One of the former leaders of the DPS, by court ruling, committed himself to repay 1.096.481 euros in property gains acquired by his organized crime group, to serve a sentence of one year and ten months in prison, and to pay 50.000 euros to the budget.
Marović has been on the run almost ever since.
The still ongoing "coup d'état" case, which is before the Court of Appeals, was also in focus following the conclusion of five plea agreements.
Defendant Mirko N. Velimirović admitted that he was a member of a criminal organization that planned riots on the night of the parliamentary elections in Montenegro on October 16, 2016, and concluded a plea agreement with special prosecutor Saša Čađenović, for which he was sentenced to five months in prison.
In March 2017, the High Court accepted five plea agreements for preparing a violent break-in at the Parliament - these agreements were signed with defendants Aleksandar Čurović, Nikola Đurić, Siniša Ćetković, Dejan Stanojević and Ivica Matić, to be sentenced to five months in prison for the crime of creating a criminal organization. The court accepted the agreement and stated that a sentence of five months in prison was adequate.
In addition to them, Aleksandar Aleksić, Miloš Aćimović and Perica Andrić also received five months in prison under the same agreement.
The High Court doesn't keep records of the number of agreements?!
The Higher Court in Podgorica responded to "Vijesti" that they do not keep records of plea agreements.
"This institute was introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code from 2009, through four articles, namely Articles 300 to 303. The Code stipulates that this institute can be applied in relation to all criminal offenses prosecuted ex officio, except for criminal offenses of terrorism and war crimes," said independent public relations advisor Ivana Vukmirović.
The agreement, according to her, represents a kind of "contract" between the competent prosecutor's office on the one hand and the defendant and his defense attorney on the other, which receives its confirmation before the court in the form of a verdict.
"The agreement itself can be submitted both before and after the indictment is filed, at the latest at the first hearing for the main trial before the first instance court. What is important to emphasize is that by entering into a plea agreement, the defendant fully admits to the criminal offense he is charged with, or rather, admits to one or more criminal offenses committed concurrently that are the subject of the charge, and the defendant and the state prosecutor agree on the amount of the sentence and other criminal sanctions that will be imposed on the defendant in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code, the costs of the criminal proceedings and the property claim and the waiver of the parties and defense attorney of the right to appeal against the court's decision made on the basis of the plea agreement when the court has fully accepted the agreement," she said.
Vukmirović also cites a fast and economical court process as the main advantage.
"Of course, the main advantage of concluding an agreement is the acceleration of criminal proceedings, the main trial is not conducted, and in addition, the procedural economy is not negligible. This court does not keep special records of the number of cases in which a verdict was reached based on a plea agreement. Obtaining this data would require a review of all investigative and trial, regular and special cases, which would require significant work engagement and the compilation of new information, which this court is not authorized to do for the needs of the media," Vukmirović emphasized.
Declining trend in concluded agreements
"The Basic Court in Podgorica issued five verdicts based on plea agreements in 2025," Nađa Pešić, public relations advisor at the Basic Court in Podgorica, told "Vijesti". Compared to previous years, there is a trend of decreasing verdicts.
"According to the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to conclude plea agreements, but rather they are concluded by the parties, the defendant and the acting prosecutor from the Basic State Prosecutor's Office and the defense attorney. The court, if all the conditions prescribed by the same Code are met, adopts the agreement in a decision."
Therefore, this court adopted five plea agreements in the period from 01. 01. 2025 to 10. 12. 2025. In the last three years, the Basic Court in Podgorica adopted a total of 157 plea agreements. In 2022, this court adopted 68 plea agreements; in 2023, 60 plea agreements were adopted, while in 2024, 29 plea agreements were adopted.
For criminal offenses prosecuted ex officio, except for criminal offenses of terrorism and war crimes, a proposal for concluding a plea agreement may be made to the suspect, defendant and defense attorney, or the suspect, defendant and defense attorney may propose the conclusion of such an agreement to the state prosecutor, which agreement may be submitted no later than at the first hearing for the main trial before the first instance court.
"As for the question of what the case law has shown, namely whether the institute of plea agreements has proven to be justified and what are the advantages and disadvantages for the defendant when concluding a plea agreement, we point out that the Public Relations Service is obliged to provide the media with statistical data, as well as data from the records kept in this court. In this specific case, answering the given questions implies a deeper analysis and study of the subject institute, and we inform you that we are not able to answer the inquiry in this part," Nađa Pešić, Public Relations Advisor of the Basic Court in Podgorica, told "Vijesti".
By agreement to probation
Data show that the institute is more widely applied by basic courts, among which, according to available data, the Basic Court in Bijelo Polje stands out.
Common to all decisions of basic courts that adopt concluded agreements is that a suspended sentence is usually imposed.
Among other things, the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Bar concluded a plea agreement with the defendant MS after he committed the crime of forging a document. They agreed that the local court would impose a sentence of three months in prison, suspended for one year.
The Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Bijelo Polje concluded a plea agreement with the defendant RM because, as the head of the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund - Regional Unit Bijelo Polje, she increased her husband's coefficient.
"By unlawfully abusing her official authority, she issued a temporary decision establishing the right to an old-age pension in the name of the insured person Đ. M., who is her husband, although she was obliged to discontinue work on the case and inform the body supervising the work of the public law body. Contrary to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, she unlawfully increased the length of service and personal coefficient of the insured person Đ. M., which resulted in an increase in the insured person's personal points and ultimately a higher monthly amount of the old-age pension. By doing so, she committed the criminal offense of abuse of official position."
According to that agreement, they agreed that the Basic Court in Bijelo Polje would impose a suspended sentence - a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.
Bonus video:
