Đukanović: Seferović's right to appeal rendered meaningless due to court delays

The Supreme Court extended Igor Seferović's detention for another three months before the Court of Appeals even decided on the defense's appeal against the previous extension of detention, so his defense attorney, attorney Željko Đukanović, claims that this practically renders the right to effective and timely judicial review of the deprivation of liberty meaningless.

Đukanović told "Vijesti" that he filed the appeal on July 23, while the case files were only submitted to the Court of Appeals almost two months later, after the Supreme Court had already issued a new decision leaving Seferović behind bars in the Supša prison.

Seferović was arrested in an investigation by the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) on suspicion of participating in money laundering, or concealing the origin of money that the prosecution claims originated from criminal activity.

In mid-June, acting on a criminal complaint filed by the Special Police Department (SPO), the SDT initiated proceedings against Seferović and the brothers Vukašin and Darko Hrnjez for creating a criminal organization, drug trafficking and money laundering. The SDT charges the trio with smuggling at least 20 kilograms of cocaine from Croatia to Montenegro as members of a Kavača cell of a Balkan drug cartel led by fugitive Radoje Zvicer.

"After my client was initially ordered to be detained for one month, the pre-trial panel of the Higher Court extended his detention for another two months. I filed an appeal against that decision of the Higher Court with the Court of Appeal of Montenegro within the legally prescribed period (July 23.07.2026, 2026). However, the appeal has not been decided for almost two months, and the case files were only submitted to the Court of Appeal today, after almost two months. In the meantime, the Supreme Court, within its legal jurisdiction, on September 9, 9, issued a new decision extending the detention for another three months.

"This has led us to an extremely absurd procedural situation - that the Supreme Court is issuing a new decision to extend the detention for three months, while the Court of Appeal, as the instance competent to decide on the defense's appeal, has not yet had the opportunity to decide on my appeal against the previous extension of detention, because the case files were only submitted to it today," said Đukanović.

He emphasized that he especially wants to point out that the Constitutional Court has emphasized on several occasions that, when it comes to human freedom, very strict standards of urgency for judicial review apply.

"In its recent decision U-III No. 1049/25, the Constitutional Court assessed that even a period of 19 days after the appeal was filed was not in line with the requirement for an urgent review of the legality of the deprivation of liberty. In our case, we are talking about almost two months. That is precisely why I believe that this case in practice represents a blatant example of a serious, if not the highest level of threat to the right of a detained person to the application of legally prescribed procedural guarantees when his status, or rather his freedom, is at stake. How will the defendant's right be truly protected if for almost two months a decision has not been made on his appeal against the previous extension of detention, and in the meantime the Supreme Court issues a new decision extending his detention for another three months? In my opinion, a fundamental right has been denied here - the right to a timely decision on a legal remedy, in this specific case on the defense's appeal," said Đukanović.

He added that a particular question arises as to what happens if the Court of Appeal accepts the defense's appeal and determines that the previous extension of detention was unlawful, while in the meantime the Supreme Court has already issued and made final a new decision extending detention for another three months.

"A later decision of the Supreme Court cannot retroactively make lawful a detention that was previously unlawful, but the decision of the Court of Appeal itself would not automatically invalidate the decision of the Supreme Court. This is precisely why a serious question arises as to the real effect and effectiveness of the defence appeal, i.e. how the appeal can have a practical effect if it is decided only after a new decision on detention has been made in the meantime. And therefore the question must be asked how it is possible for the courts to claim that the legality of their actions is undisputed if the higher court, the Supreme Court, now makes a new decision on the extension of detention for three months, and the Court of Appeal, which is the only procedurally competent to decide on the previous appeal of the defence, has not yet made any decision. The right to appeal against a decision on the order or extension of detention should not be a mere formal right that exists only on paper. Its essence is that the competent court should promptly and efficiently examine the legality of the deprivation of liberty. And if the appeal is not decided while the disputed period of detention is ongoing, but a new decision is made in the meantime extending the detention again, then a serious question arises as to whether the very purpose of the legal remedy is thereby rendered meaningless," he said.

Seferović's defense attorney added that detention is not just a formality.

"When a person is deprived of his liberty, judicial review must be real, urgent and effective. The fact that a new decision on detention has been made in the meantime cannot render the previous delay in deciding on the appeal legally invisible. I do not claim that there was an intention to violate my client's rights, but the consequence is undeniable – he was denied a timely decision on a legal remedy that was specifically intended to review the decision on his deprivation of liberty. If 19 days in the specific case was too long for the Constitutional Court, then it is quite legitimate to ask how it is possible that in the case of a person in detention, the decision on the appeal has been waited for almost two months. This is not a question of formalism, but a question of whether the right to liberty and the right to effective judicial protection in the specific case were actually, and not only formally, ensured. And finally, I must almost ironically ask the question: what is the point of the right to appeal against the decision on ordering or extending detention, if that appeal is not decided on a timely basis, but only after a new decision has been made in the meantime, which renews the detention prolongs? If an appeal against a decision depriving a person of their liberty will be resolved only after that decision has practically ceased to have effect, then the question must be asked whether such a right to appeal is real and effective or has been reduced to a mere formality. We are not talking here about a simple procedural error or formal omission. We are talking about a person's right to liberty and the court's obligation to consider his appeal urgently, really and efficiently. After all, it was the Constitutional Court of Montenegro that pointed out in its case law that such conduct can practically render judicial control of detention meaningless.

"That's why the question I'm asking is very simple: if the appeal is not decided for almost two months, and in the meantime another, higher-instance court makes a new decision to extend the detention for another three months - where is the real, and where is the only formal protection of the defendant's rights?" he asked.