President of the Court of Appeal Mirjana Popović claims that she was targeted because she insisted that the detention case be concluded on Saturday Vesne Medenica, after hearing that there were fears that the former Supreme Court president was planning to harm herself and that police were searching her house for weapons she could use to do so.
This is stated in her response to the Judicial Council, to which the head of the judiciary Valentina Pavlicic filed a request for dismissal of Popović.
The Judicial Council will decide on her dismissal today. They will decide by majority vote.
Previously, judges, advisors and officials accused her of insolent, arrogant and humiliating behaviour, claiming that she shouted at colleagues, belittled employees and created an atmosphere of fear and pressure.
Popović, however, denied everything and in her first statement stated that she was "more than surprised, taken aback and shocked" by the complaints, that no one had previously pointed out to her that she was behaving inappropriately and that she had only insisted on legal, prompt and efficient work.
The complaints state that the president did not accept opinions that differed from her own, that she reacted violently and in a raised tone at council meetings, and that she perceived disagreement as working against herself.
As one of the most serious examples, the judges cite a situation in which, after being outvoted in a case, a female judge Daniel Vukcevic said: "You are sabotaging me," claiming that colleagues were colluding in advance to work against her.
The President of the Court of Appeal, however, denies that she exerted any pressure on the judges and claims that anyone who alleges this is "telling an absolute lie."
It's not right for them that I called them.
Popović writes a 47-page response to the request for her dismissal and states that the real reason is that she asked her "college colleagues" on Friday, February 27, to come on Saturday and decide on the detention case. Vesne Medenica which arrived to them that day.
She recalls that on February 27, the court received a case formed in the process of deciding on appeals filed against the decision of the Higher Court in Podgorica, which refused to order detention: "This is the case of the defendant Vesna Medenica, in which I, as the president of the panel of this court, cannot act, because I am exempted by the decision of the Supreme Court, considering that I was heard as a witness in that criminal case."
He explains that the SDT and the defendant's defense attorneys appealed against this decision and notes that "the public is more than aware of the circumstances surrounding the multiple administrative referral of this case between the High and Appellate Courts, which lasted almost a month, I think, and was publicly described as ping-pong between these two courts."
"And on Friday evening, I called the judges who, as members of the panel, were supposed to make a decision in this case and told them that the case had to be concluded on Saturday (28 February 2026). I will explain: I called Judge Danijela Vukčević, it is true, late in the evening... after working hours, but my colleague is ready, I told her that I had been informed of the information that, as I was told, was presented by the director of the police - that there was a fear that the defendant Medenica was planning to harm herself, which they concluded from a poster she had given, that her house was being searched, because they were looking for weapons with which she could do this, that a nurse from an earlier period when the defendant was in a similar situation was being questioned. I also told her that I did not know whether that was true or not, that I could not find that poster, but that, considering everything, and that she and her colleagues were 'ready', they should come to court tomorrow (Saturday) and conclude the case."
She claims that she then called her colleague. Mirjana Vlahović and briefly said: "Miro, that case has to end tomorrow"... and then to Dijana Radulović, the rapporteur in that case: "First I sent her a message apologizing for being late, but that it was urgent and that we had to talk, so we talked, basically, I repeated to her what I had told Judge Vukčević, and she told me that she didn't know if she could come, because she left work early on Friday, because she was feeling bad, and when I said that we were still ready, she replied that we were ready, but what if someone was sick, and that, if she felt better, she would come to work in the morning."
Despite everything, it says, the colleagues came on Saturday and the case was completed in two hours and sent out of court.
"From the way my colleagues talked to me, I felt that it was not 'right' for them to call them, I felt from the manner and tone of the conversation that they were 'bothered' by me calling them and demanding that they come to work on Saturday and finish the case. I think they were revolted by my actions, which they probably perceived as pressure, and that is why they initiated all this and the complaint in question"...
I spoiled something for someone.
Popović states that in the meantime, a bizarre situation has also occurred with the disappearance of the key to the office used by advisors working in the "Kvž" council, where, according to some established course of events, the Medenica case would have been located over the weekend: "Which additionally raises my suspicions about what could have happened over the weekend if the case had not been dispatched from the court on Saturday and reinforces my belief in the correctness of the requirement that judges who are paid for their preparedness and on-call work should also complete their work, which cannot be delayed."
She assessed that she would again be responsible if the case or something from it had disappeared from the court over the weekend: "And as long as I can foresee various situations and take measures prescribed by law to prevent them, I really will not allow it at any cost."
He states that he does not want to take such risks and recalls that the police and prosecutor's office have been informed of this situation:
"And actions are being taken within the jurisdiction of those bodies, so I believe that the much-mentioned video surveillance in the corridors of the Court of Appeal will also be useful. And I would say from this perspective, that I doubt that by insisting that this case be concluded and dismissed from the court on Saturday, February 28, 2026, I have 'ruined' something for anyone," she says.
I can't look at you.
In their complaints, the judges also claim that the atmosphere in the chambers was so tense that the judge Diana Radulović At one point, she had to tell the president: “Please, behave decently, because I behave decently.” They say that only then did Popović lower her voice.
In another situation, according to their statements, Radulović was called into the office, where the president stood by the table and shouted about unsigned cases, until the judge told her that she would not speak in that manner.
The President, on the other hand, claims that no one has ever brought to her attention that she is addressing anyone sarcastically, ironically, or disparagingly.
The statements further state that Popović was able to sarcastically comment on the court's previous practice in front of advisors and judges, with messages like - "I see how you worked before...", and that she said that everyone had "learned to be lazy" and that she would "bring them into order."
The judges claim that this was not strictness in the work, but a pattern of belittling and a demonstration of power.
Popović responds that such allegations are untrue and that the only dissatisfaction she felt was related to the volume of work, which she could not influence.
Particularly serious accusations come from the registry office - the registry manager Nada Đikanović She states that she had been thinking about reporting mobbing for a long time, but that she did not have the courage due to fear.
She claims that the president told her: "Don't come in, I can't look at you or talk to you," that such scenes caused her to go to the emergency room due to high blood pressure, and that she considered quitting her job at the age of 60 just to, as she says, end "this terror."
Employee Irena Ristić claims that the president even commented on her breathing, and then told her: "Turn on your brain, if you have one, you crazy person"...
“More than obvious animosity”
Popović assesses that the President of the Supreme Court acted contrary to the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Council, which directly violated the principle of transparency and prevented her from adequately responding to the allegations of the complainants.
She points out that she was not provided with the statements of the judges and the court secretary, nor was she questioned about these circumstances, which violated her right to adversarial proceedings and the principle of "equality of arms".
According to her, the factual situation in the proposal was determined unilaterally, by exclusively accepting the allegations of the complainants, without providing them with the opportunity to refute them with evidence, which she considers a gross violation of the right to a fair trial and protection of personal integrity.
The response emphasizes that this behavior is not a formal omission, but an attempt to influence the members of the Judicial Council and public opinion in order to early form an opinion about her guilt, while the significance of statements in her favor is offensively downplayed.
He claims that such moves by Valentina Pavličić are not accidental, nor are they the result of ignorance of norms, but rather the result of "more than obvious animosity" that she has been displaying over a long period of time.
“In conflict with 100 percent of the collective”
The President of the Supreme Court notes that there has been a complete loss of professional trust within the team, which was determined through an analysis of the extent of distrust, the continuity of the problem, and the impact on the functioning of the court.
In the motion for dismissal, Popović states that the expressed conflict is not limited to individual cases, but is widespread and is estimated to be almost 100 percent of the collective. It is emphasized that inappropriate communication and management have resulted in damaged relations between the president, judges and employees, with a perception of general dissatisfaction.
It is added that communication with judges is described as inappropriate, with the use of a raised and offensive tone, which leads to humiliation and violation of the dignity of judges while performing their duties, going beyond the framework of professional disagreement.
The conflict thus established, it says, is not of an ad hoc nature, but rather there is a continuity of problematic leadership which, according to statements, began with the election of Popović to the position of court president.
It is warned that such a situation has broader implications, because public trust in the judiciary is closely linked to the trust that judges have in their own institution and the professional authority of its head.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
