Basic Court in Podgorica: Without the court, there would be no evidence, we did not obstruct the case against Laković

The Basic Court in Podgorica did not obstruct the case against Podgorica resident Andrija Laković, or any other, but acted in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

This was stated by that institution, in response to allegations by "Vijesti" journalist Jelena Jovanović, who yesterday, at a hearing at the prosecutor's office as an injured party, said that the Basic Court, under the patronage of President Željka Jovović, tried to prevent the truth from being found in the case.

In their response, they state that the investigating judge of the Basic Court, in the case against Laković, who is suspected of committing the criminal offense of endangering security to the detriment of journalist Jovanović, ordered the suspect to be detained due to the risk of flight.

"In the same case, the investigating judge of this court acted intensively and issued several orders, namely: to search apartments and other premises, then to communication service operators, in order to verify and submit data on the identity, duration and frequency of communications, and in connection with which orders the state prosecutor came to evidence with which he provided reasonable suspicion against Laković. In September 2025, the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica requested the court to issue an order and thus request from the communication service operators 'One', 'Crnogorski Telekom' and 'M-tel', which telephone numbers were active on 13. 9. 2025 in the period between 18.30 and 18.40, in the geographical area marked with four GPS coordinate points. It was also requested to submit data on the listing of telephone communications for outgoing and incoming calls for the established numbers of sent and received messages and internet communications, with the identification of A and B numbers, as well as data on base stations," it is written in reacting.

They said that the investigating judge of the Basic Court expressed disagreement with the prosecutor's proposal, explaining in detail his decision in terms of violating the right to privacy.

"This is because, in accordance with the law, the prosecutor did not specify who the registered owner or user of the telecommunications device is, who committed, is committing or is preparing to commit the criminal offenses for which he is being prosecuted ex officio, but rather the submission of data was requested for the entire communication traffic generated through the base station of the mobile operator 'One' under the name 'FARMACI_G_1296_0' in Podgorica, for a ten-minute period. Issuing such an order is inadmissible, not only under the provisions of the Constitution of Montenegro and the Criminal Procedure Code of Montenegro, but also under the provisions of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as according to the position of the European Court of Human Rights, and the recommendations of the Council of the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data," the Basic Court added.

They said that for the reasons stated, the panel of that court confirmed such a decision of the investigating judge, which, among other things, included the court president Željka Jovović.

"For the purpose of objectively informing the public, we are obliged to point out that this court did not obstruct in this particular case, nor in any other, but acted in all respects in accordance with the Constitution and the Law. In addition, it acted independently, without any influence from anyone, especially not the president of the court, Željka Jovović, as in any other case. We especially emphasize that the actions of this court are in accordance with the law, even the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office, which in its act of 1 December 2025, informed the Basic State Prosecutor that the court acted correctly when it did not issue an order, which journalist Jelena Jovanović is passing through the media as 'obstruction of the court', for which reasons there was no basis for raising a request for protection of legality. Due to all of the above, we believe that it is inappropriate to publicly express the personal position of individual participants in the proceedings, in a manner that misleads the issue of the legality of the court's actions, especially those whose word is important to the public, which in this case is the injured party, "Jelena Jovanović is a journalist by profession. Lack of understanding of the law and institutions does not justify any expression of a personal position that misleads the public about the work of the court and leads to the violation of citizens' trust in this branch of government without any basis," the response reads.