In the introductory part of the Judicial Council's discussion on the proposal for her dismissal, the President of the Court of Appeal, Mirjana Popović, proposed that she submit evidence and a written defense, so that the members could become familiar with her defense.
She stated that she had written a 48-page defense and that it would be appropriate for the members of the Judicial Council to be informed about everything and schedule a new hearing at which she would present her defense.
"Since I only became aware of the complainants' statements when I was submitted with the motion for dismissal. Since my defense is extensive, 48 pages long, detailed, and contains a statement on each allegation, as well as evidence, I propose that today's hearing be postponed so that the members of the Judicial Council can become familiar with all of these allegations and begin this process objectively and realistically," Popović suggested.
She explained that in this way they could end this procedure more efficiently, fairly and with respect for her rights.
The President of the Judicial Council, Radoje Korać, gave a break to decide on Popović's proposal, which was then rejected.
The discussion began with the presentation of the key reasoning of the complainant, President of the Supreme Court Valentina Pavličić.
For the sake of cost-effectiveness of the procedure, Pavličić stated that her proposal has 38 pages and that it actually contains separate statements from the complainant, judges and officers of the Court of Appeal.
All judges of the Court of Appeal and part of the administration filed a complaint against President Popović in early March, stating that they had been enduring her inappropriate behavior for a long period of time, and they also complained about the way she worked.
The President of the Supreme Court said that the first submission they received was surprising because it was the first time in the Montenegrin judiciary that all judges and almost all administration had filed a complaint against the work of the President.
Pavličić stated that statements from judges, and especially from administrative officials, were treated with special attention.
"From all the statements, the conclusion emerges that the president of the court does not accept a different opinion, after which she shouts. Her attention was drawn to the fact that decent behavior is being ignored. Work in the chambers is being made more difficult, and that any different opinion by judges is being interpreted as sabotage. She sarcastically comments on the previous practice to the advisors. That she has empathy for her colleagues when they are absent. To Judge Boljević, who comes to work during her annual leave: 'why did you come' and 'what do I care what suits you'," Pavličić read out parts of the statement that led her to submit a motion for dismissal.
When it comes to the words: "inactive", which the judges said Popović said to them, Pavličić stated that last year that court had an efficiency of up to 99 percent of resolved cases.
The court secretary was the link between the president and the other judges and employees, who later confirmed everything they stated in the complaint.
She also stated that some former advisors have left the court, and that they have confirmed that they suffered inappropriate treatment from President Popović.
"Their words are that they suffered belittling, raised voices, and that some were told to take tranquilizers, and some to go to the emergency room after working hours," Pavličić recounted.
The President of the Supreme Court also mentioned the installation of video surveillance, which Popović installed.
"President Popović submitted information that there are eight cameras in one small area. The perimeters of the cameras encompass the entrance to the offices. Since the building is managed by the President of the Supreme Court, there is no information about these works in the Supreme Court documentation from 2024," Pavličić stated.
She explained that this type of video surveillance does not exist in the High and Supreme Courts.
"The entire building is secured with 12 cameras, the hallway in the Court of Appeal with eight, and the controller of that surveillance is located in President Popović's office. These cameras, as the judges and employees said, created a feeling of being monitored," explained Pavličić.
She concluded that the law and legal framework are clear - whether the conditions set out in Article 126, paragraph 3, have been met.
"I conducted a proportionality test through four standards and came up with a proposal to dismiss Mirjana Popović due to inappropriate treatment of court employees," Pavličić read.
She also addressed media allegations about whether there might be some other motive for the dismissal, explaining that she submitted everything she had in writing in the motion for dismissal.
"There is no other motive behind the proposal than these allegations from the motion for dismissal," Pavličić emphasized, addressing journalists covering the hearing.
Mirjana Popović said that she absolutely does not feel guilty and that she wants to present her defense.
Popović said in the introductory part that she has always tried to work and live honorably, and that everything she says in defense is to protect her personal and professional integrity, not to protect the chair of the President of the Court of Appeal.
"My only privilege was that the driver came to pick me up and take me to the courthouse. I want to point out that the motion for dismissal is superficial, unfounded," said Popović.
She reiterated that she was informed of the complaint on March 3, and that she was stunned, and then managed to make a statement by 13 p.m.
Popović stated that none of the information in the complaint against her was provided to her, nor was she questioned about the allegations in the complaint.
"I believe that the complaint of March 3, 2026, in this situation, is general, and the president was obliged to submit all of it to me for clarification and to question me on all of these allegations," said Popović.
She confirmed that Pavličić confirmed her subjective position at the Judicial Council session on March 3rd.
Pavličić, as Popović said, thereby violated the right to a fair defense and protection of rights and integrity.
Because of all this, doubting Pavličić's objectivity, she requested her exemption.
Popović listed several situations during which President Pavličić allegedly commented on her work in an inappropriate manner and with gestures over a longer period of time.
Popovič stated that Pavličić had animosity towards her for a long time, and that, despite several humiliations by the President of the Supreme Court, she tried to control herself in order to continue working.
She stated that it was her fault for keeping it all quiet.
She reminded that the courts are autonomous and independent and that the Supreme Court does not have the right to control the organization and administrative decisions in lower courts.
"The applicant for dismissal has no right to question my decisions regarding video surveillance in the Court of Appeal building. I believe that I also have to anticipate what could happen, and that is why I did it," she said.
She added that the Appellate Court Union had given its consent to the installation of supervision.
"And these bizarre things about watching and following are too stupid for me to even comment on," said Popović, adding that all of these "allegations are pure fabrications."
She said that she had communicated with the secretary of the Supreme Court about video surveillance.
Popović requested that members of the Judicial Council review the performance of judges of the Court of Appeal since she took office as president in April 2024.
She considers all the conclusions of the President of the Supreme Court regarding the requests she addressed to the Judicial Council to be incorrect, as she stated.
Popović emphasized that this was an organized hunt, and that the motives were completely different.
"This complaint was submitted to me on March 3, and after that Pavličić called me to her office. She mentioned to me that she had been visited by, I think, Judge Dijana Radulović and Vukčević. Precisely because of the timing, the real reason for the complaint is the following fact. On Friday, February 27, a high-profile case regarding former president Vesna Medenica arrived at the court. The case came to us after a month, and on Friday evening, she called Judge Vukčević and said that there was a fear that Medenica was planning to harm herself, which was what the director of the Police Administration said, which is why she asked for a decision to be made and dispatched over the weekend," she stated.
Along with a lengthy explanation of what was done about the case, based on the SDT's complaint, Popović also expressed her suspicion that "she is not sure what anyone was prepared to do about the case if it had not been dispatched on Saturday."
She stated that the allegations that she had behaved inappropriately towards her colleagues over a continuous period were malicious and incorrect.
Popović called on the members of the Judicial Council to pay attention to the minutes from the sessions of the Court of Appeal, where she indicated how everything was taken care of and that she was thus exercising her powers, and not "teaching them how to work."
"The results of the work are the only realistic parameter and I urge you to publicly announce our results. We are the best court in 2025. And what does it matter if it is not the results, and if someone does not like my court color or tone, and if necessary, I will hand over my phone so that my contacts with colleagues can be seen even outside of work and working hours. My communication was not formal, and I am not a president who is untouchable, I will repeat that I am loud and energetic, but no one has ever told me that I offended them by doing so," she stated.
In her defense, she stated that she had a collegial and friendly relationship with judges and colleagues, mentioning numerous emails in which she addressed them in a friendly tone.
She admitted that she is energetic and talkative when it comes to work, but that no one has ever told her that something about her doesn't suit them.
She stated that she was open to discussion and differing opinions in the work of the council and that she expressed her views "quickly and energetically."
She expressed her views on the numerous claims made by her colleagues Vukčević and Radulović, explaining her side of the story.
"I can't help but wonder, if everything she said is true, which it isn't, why she continued to work with me on the council for these two years. In addition, Radulović complained about the council's advisors, which is why I held a meeting with them to draw their attention to how the cases must be processed," she said.
Popović explained that she provided her colleagues and judges with case law from countries in the region and the EU in certain cases, and that she did not consider this to be illegal.
She individually presented her defense to all the judges' allegations and mentioned the views of Judge Vesna Pean, with whom she was on friendly terms outside of court. She stated that Pean had even wished her a happy birthday after filing the complaint.
"Do you think it's realistic that someone would do that if I harassed them for two years?" Popović asked the members of the Judicial Council.
Popović called the judges' statements that she was monitoring them via video surveillance "nonsense," stating that she didn't even have time to eat breakfast due to her work, let alone monitor the monitor.
"These allegations are below any level," she said, asking why the judges did not express their objections at the sessions or to the council, and that everything could have been easily resolved.
"We all pointed out that we are on the verge of collapse because we are doing a great job with a serious lack of staff. Judge Tabaš stated that he did not witness any excessive situations, explaining that he states from the proposal that she was being fair with him because he is a member of the Judicial Council. That is so offensive to both me and Judge Tabaš," she said, stating that Pavličić is in a greater position of power, so he has no problem legally opposing her.
Popović individually presented her defense to the allegations of all employees and stated that she would provide all meeting minutes and emails to the members of the Judicial Council.
"Until this orchestrated hunt, I had no information that they were dissatisfied with my work and behavior," she said.
She also mentioned an encounter with an employee in the elevator, after the complaint, who told her that she was ashamed to be a signatory.
"She told me that on the day the complaint was being signed, there was a rush in the court to get it over with that day," she recounted.
She also rejected allegations from colleagues that she is not empathetic towards them and their requests when they seek excused leave.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
