VDP: The "Telekom" case has not been legally concluded, the board was informed in a timely manner that representatives of the Prosecutor's Office would not be present

The Supreme State Prosecutor's Office (SPO) announced that the allegations made by the Chairman of the Committee for the Political System, Judiciary and Administration, Vladislav Bojović, that the Parliament had not been provided with a letter from a representative of the prosecutorial organization regarding the control hearing on the topic "Activities of the Prosecutor's Office that led to the dismissal of the criminal report for abuse of official position, accepting bribes and creating a criminal organization during the sale of the former state-owned company Telekom" are incorrect.

They said that the letter was received in the Assembly's registry on October 15th and registered under the number TU No. 434/25.

They explained, among other things, that representatives of the State Prosecutor's Office did not come to the control hearing because the "Telekom" case has not been legally concluded.

The statement also included a letter signed by Supreme State Prosecutor Milorad Marković, Chief Special Prosecutor Vladimir Novović, and Special Prosecutor Ana Perović Vojinović.

We are quoting the content of the letter in its entirety:

"Decision No. 00-63-4/25-44/1 of 3 October 2025, adopted by the Committee on the Political System, Judiciary and Administration of the Parliament of Montenegro, established a control hearing of the Supreme State Prosecutor of Montenegro Milorad Marković, Chief Special Prosecutor Vladimir Novović and Special Prosecutor in the Special State Prosecutor's Office Ana Perović Vojinović, on the topic: 'Activities of the prosecution that led to the dismissal of the criminal report for abuse of official position, accepting bribes and creating a criminal organization during the sale of the former state-owned company Telekom'.

From the very title, as well as from the content of the aforementioned Decision, it follows that this act was adopted in order to conduct a control hearing of the Supreme State Prosecutor, the Chief Special Prosecutor and the Special Prosecutor, which relates to the actions of the State Prosecutor's Office of Montenegro in a specific case, known to the public by the name 'Telekom'.

However, based on the constitutional and legal principles of autonomy and independence in the work of the prosecutor's office, or rather its special, constitutionally established position, we point out the reasons why we cannot participate in the scheduled control hearing.

Namely, the provisions of Article 11 of the Constitution of Montenegro establish the principle of the division of powers into legislative, executive and judicial (Article 1) and stipulate that legislative power is exercised by the Parliament, executive power is exercised by the Government, and judicial power is exercised by the court (Article 2). According to the provisions of Article 134 of the Constitution of Montenegro, the State Prosecutor's Office is a unique and independent state body that carries out the tasks of prosecuting perpetrators of criminal offenses and other punishable offenses that are prosecuted ex officio.

The provisions of Article 147 of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office establish that: 'at the request of the Parliament or the working bodies of the Parliament responsible for the judiciary, anti-corruption and security, the Supreme State Prosecutor and the Chief Special Prosecutor are obliged to submit special, or periodic reports on their work, within the deadline set by the Parliament or the competent working body, unless it concerns the circumstances of individual cases' (paragraph 5) and that: 'in the cases referred to in paragraph 5 of this Article, the Supreme State Prosecutor and the Chief Special Prosecutor are obliged to participate in the work of the session at the invitation of the Parliament, the inquiry committee and the working bodies of the Parliament responsible for the judiciary, anti-corruption and security' (paragraph 6). In this way, the legislator regulated the issues of the circle of persons - representatives of the prosecution who are obliged to attend the sessions of the Parliament, the inquiry committee and its working bodies ('the Supreme State Prosecutor' and 'the Chief Special Prosecutor'), as well as the cases in which this obligation exists ('after submitting special, or periodic reports on their work' and 'unless it concerns the circumstances of individual cases').

In this regard, we point out that the application of the Decision of the Parliament of Montenegro, No. 00-63-4/25-44/1, in the manner and in the case established by that decision, would constitute a violation of the aforementioned constitutional principles and provisions of the law because, among other things, it would enable a 'public debate' on the conduct of the prosecution in a specific case and potential extralegal influence on its work, regardless of whether the proceedings before the prosecution have been completed or not. In addition to the above, we are also obliged to interpret the consequences of the application of the act that the Parliament of Montenegro sent to representatives of the State Prosecutor's Office and established a control hearing in this way by international and convention rules on the independence of the prosecution and the judiciary in general.

In doing so, we point out that in the specific case mentioned, the State Prosecutor's Office, through the Special State Prosecutor's Office, acted in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Code of Montenegro, and that the professional and lay public had insight into the manner of the prosecution's actions and relevant facts, through the statements of the State Prosecutor's Office and the statement of the spokesperson of the Special State Prosecutor's Office, given in the legally prescribed procedure and scope.

Accordingly, it is not possible to participate in the work of the Committee regarding the control hearing in question.

"The prosecution will, in accordance with its constitutional and legal powers, inform the interested public about the case before the State Prosecutor's Office, known to the public as 'Telekom', which has not yet been legally concluded due to the filing of a new criminal report and the activation of new procedural actions."