Lawyer Zdenko Tomanović refused, in agreement with his client, the accused Vesna Medenica, to receive the decision of January 28 via email and requested that it be delivered to him exclusively via regular mail, the Higher Court in Podgorica announced.
The court issued a statement to clarify the chronological course of the panel's proceedings in the case in which the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) appealed the decision rejecting the motion to order detention for Vesna Medenica and imposing supervision measures on her. She was sentenced to ten years in prison in the first instance before the High Court on January 28.
The Court of Appeal announced today that it has returned the case files of the accused Vesna Medenica to the Higher Court "in order to eliminate the deficiency", that is, that it has been determined that there is no evidence in the files about the delivery of the decision to Tomanović.
The Higher Court considers that, given that the accused and one of her defense attorneys duly received the court's decision, the defense in that case is indisputably represented, and that the Court of Appeal's insistence on exclusively delivering the decision via regular mail to the other defense attorney, in the circumstances of the specific case, leads to a delay in deciding on the appeal of the competent prosecutor's office.
They also indicate that Tomanović, who is based in another country, communicated with the panel via email throughout the proceedings, and that the Tomanović law firm announced an appeal in relation to certain supervision measures in the email communication.
The High Court recalls that on January 28, the court issued a verdict in the case against Miloš Medenica and others, for the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization and other criminal offenses. On the same day, a decision was issued, in paragraph one, rejecting the SDT's proposal to order detention for Vesna Medenica, while in paragraph two, supervision measures were ordered.
"The decision was duly served on the Special State Prosecutor's Office, which timely filed an appeal, as well as on the defendant Vesna Medenica and one of her defense attorneys, attorney Zdravko Begović, who did not file an appeal. The defendant's other defense attorney, attorney Zdenko Tomanović from Belgrade, did not attend the announcement of the verdict, so the decision could not be served on him in person, but was sent by mail and in electronic form," the statement reads.
DON'T MISS IT
"The president of the panel, bearing in mind that attorney Tomanović's office is located in another country, and appreciating the urgency of the proceedings due to the appeal filed by the prosecution, also delivered the decision via email, with a request to confirm receipt. The aforementioned defense attorney informed the president of the panel that, in agreement with the accused, he refuses to receive the decision via email, and that he requests that it be delivered to him exclusively via regular mail, with the announcement that he will appeal the part of the decision that imposed supervision measures also via regular mail. It is pointed out that throughout the proceedings, the aforementioned defense attorney Tomanović communicated with the panel via email, submitting submissions, proxy powers of attorney, receiving minutes from the main hearings and delivering closing arguments," the Higher Court emphasizes.
The president of the council, they add, submitted the case files to the Court of Appeal on February 6 for a decision on the SDT's appeal.
"On the same day, the Court of Appeals returned the case files by letter due to administrative deficiencies, stating that there was no evidence in the files of receipt of the decision by the defendant's other defense attorney, attorney Zdenko Tomanović, and that it did not consider receipt by e-mail to be proper delivery, with an order to wait for the delivery receipt of the decision by regular mail."
They said that the president of the panel today (February 9) resubmitted the files to the Court of Appeals for a decision on the appeal, stating that the refusal of the defendant's defense attorney to receive the decision via email, in agreement with his client, represents "a clear obstruction and delay in deciding on a matter of urgent nature."
"It is particularly emphasized that the aforementioned defense attorney communicated with the panel via email throughout the proceedings, and that refusing to accept the decision in the same manner at this stage of the proceedings constitutes an abuse of procedural rights and an attempt to obstruct the proceedings," the High Court added.
However, as they said, on the same day the Court of Appeals again returned the case files by letter due to administrative deficiencies, stating that there was no evidence in the files of receipt of the decision by the defendant's other defense attorney, attorney Zdenko Tomanović, and that the same should be awaited via regular mail.
"The Court points out that it has been indisputably established that the Special State Prosecutor's Office, the accused and one of her defense attorneys, attorney Zdravko Begović, duly received the decision of 28 January 2026, of which there is clear and verifiable evidence in the case files. The Prosecutor's Office appealed exclusively against the part of the decision rejecting the motion for detention, which the defense, by the nature of the matter, would not appeal, while the Tomanović law firm announced an appeal in its communication via e-mail regarding certain supervision measures," the Higher Court states.
They believe that the Court of Appeal's insistence on exclusively delivering the decision via regular mail to the second defense attorney, in the circumstances of the specific case, leads to a delay in deciding on the appeal by the competent prosecutor's office.
"Given that the accused and one of her defense attorneys duly received the court's decision, the defense is indisputably represented in this case. In the opinion of this court, proper service to one defense attorney (and to the other via e-mail) constitutes proper service in a procedural sense, since the defense attorneys constitute a single defense. A contrary interpretation would lead to a delay in deciding on the appeal and legal uncertainty, because the fact that the other defense attorney is based in another state and requests service exclusively via regular mail constitutes an obvious obstruction and therefore the right to defense was not violated, since the decision was duly served on the accused and one of the defense attorneys," the statement reads.
The High Court said that the public will be informed in a timely manner about any further actions in the case.
Bonus video:
