INTERVIEW Božović: Seizure of property according to the information of the police and ANB

If the proposals of the Ministry of Justice are adopted, the state will be able, based on data from security services, to temporarily seize the property of anyone who uses it for crime and cannot prove its origin - said the Minister of Justice in an interview with "Vijesti" Bojan Božović (Europe Now Movement), stating that all proposals will be part of public discussions and consultations.

Temporary seizure of property from suspects of organized crime is possible, under current laws, at the request of the prosecutor's office.

Božović announced that the working group for the formation of a special court for organized crime and high-level corruption will have its first meeting next week, and that the court will be formed according to the most modern standards, but also based on good practice from the region.

He assessed that corruption exists in every aspect of society and that even the judiciary, which is the most criticized, is not immune to it, but added that he does not think that corruption is more prevalent in the judiciary than in other professional activities of public importance.

"And I especially do not support and do not accept the thesis that 'all judges are corrupt' or all prosecutors, lawyers, notaries...", said Božović.

Speaking about vetting (the process of checking the assets of judges and prosecutors, their possible connections to crime), he said that this story has long been exaggerated and often used in the wrong way, and that it is "a continuous process that takes place in phases, in coordination with the European Union (EU)."

Commenting on the fact that a former high-ranking state official will Svetozar Marovic, if Serbia does not extradite him to Montenegro soon, he will be a free man - because on October 10, 2026, the absolute statute of limitations for his three and a half years in prison will expire - Božović said that the state could have done this to make Marović available to the authorities and that he hopes that the responsibility of those who made it possible for him not to be in Montenegro will one day be examined.

The Ministry of Justice recently announced that it intends to propose three models for confiscating assets acquired through criminal activity. How far has the implementation of this idea progressed, and when will Montenegro receive an “anti-mafia” law? Why do you think that the government will support this law if its adoption has failed several times since the change of government in 2020? Is it in the interest of some in the government not to adopt this regulation (to whom)?

These interventions are complex and sensitive, because on the one hand we have the views of international institutions that the passage of time has taken its toll and that some issues can no longer be raised through (criminal) proceedings, and on the other hand there is the public expectation that property should be confiscated from those who cannot justify its origin. It is true that there were certain proposals earlier, but these proposals did not even pass the test of the European Commission and Montenegro did not have an official positive opinion at the time. On the contrary. I will remind you that even the EU itself clearly suggested at the time that the process of changes should continue and that communication with international partners and the non-governmental sector should continue, but this, unfortunately, was not implemented at the time. We lost some time because of this, and all of this has disrupted the EU's trust in Montenegro, and we simply do not want and must not repeat such mistakes. That is why we have been waiting for analyses from international experts who have given us enough material to continue our work, and by the end of the year the first solutions will be presented to the public.

The intention is to introduce the best practices from the Italian model of asset seizure, which has stood the test of time and has been justified by the European Court of Human Rights. An order to conduct an investigation must be the starting point for asset seizure, and we will also propose that certain procedural actions be taken against persons who are considered by the relevant authorities to be suspicious of possessing assets that they cannot justify. Such suspicions would be confirmed by the Police Directorate and the National Security Agency (ANB), based on operational findings and checks.

Our intention is to temporarily seize the assets of all persons who are considered to be unaccountable and who are using them for criminal purposes. These suspicions would be proven by professionals from the security sector. All of this will, as I said, be part of public discussions and consultations.

When will you propose amendments to the Criminal Code that will specify the criminal offense of illicit acquisition of wealth, thus opening up space for conducting financial investigations and expanded confiscation of property? Do you expect the government's deputies to support these amendments?

Of course I expect it, and I will strongly advocate for it. All changes must pass the test with the European Commission, so that the mistake I described in the answer to the previous question does not occur. We will send our proposal to the EU soon, and after receiving a positive opinion, we will continue with the further procedure.

In the fall of 2024, you announced that in early 2025 you plan to introduce vetting in "some form", i.e. a procedure for checking the assets of judges and prosecutors, their possible connections to crime, and their professional competencies. Why has nothing been done in this regard so far? When will it be done and what model of vetting do you plan to introduce?

I think that the story of vetting has long been exaggerated and has often been used in the wrong way. First, in the last five years, almost half of the total number of judges (which was there until then) has not been in the judicial system and some other people have taken those positions. If we had started the re-election of judges and state prosecutors then, it would be difficult for us to “change” a larger number. In addition, the European Commission is following this topic with great attention, also because of certain unsuccessful practices in Europe. That is why we are approaching this matter carefully, so that we do not succumb to pressure for daily political reasons and take steps that will disrupt our European path, but also slow down the work of the institutions.

Strengthening ethical and disciplinary responsibility, initiating criminal proceedings and possibly future convictions - are the best answer for implementing vetting. Introducing a greater degree of control over public officials through the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, as well as the highest level of checks for staffing the future special court, as well. We are going step by step, introducing vetting institutionally through mechanisms that will show that it is not a matter of political "sabre" but of institutional efforts to have the best in our judiciary.

Does this mean that there will be no vetting in the classic sense?

Everything I said does not mean that there will be no vetting, but that it is a continuous process that takes place in phases, with coordination with the EU.

This year, the European Commission once again pointed out in its annual report that Montenegro is not sufficiently effective in its fight against high-level corruption and organized crime, and that there are no convictions against the "big fish". Who is responsible for this, why are there hardly any convictions in high-profile cases five years after the fall of the DPS government, why are the endless delays in trials not being prevented, etc.?

It is an indisputable fact that we all expect the completion of procedures in the field of combating high-level corruption, but there are also often objective reasons why they have not been completed to the extent we expect. First, not all procedures were opened five years ago, just as the changes in the state prosecutor's office and the judiciary did not begin immediately after the changes on August 30, 2020. In addition, we still have the Criminal Procedure Code in force, which provides certain mechanisms that have clearly been abused and which have not allowed for a greater degree of procedural discipline.

Also, some of these processes are very complex, and therefore require time. All this is also observed by the EU, and therefore it monitors our work, and as a result we see a much higher number of hearings held and resolved cases in the High Court in Podgorica, the Court of Appeal of Montenegro and the Supreme Court of Montenegro, and this trend is also present in numerous other institutions. It is up to us in the executive branch to continue creating conditions for strengthening spatial capacities, but also for creating legal regulations that will help the efficiency of the procedure.

Do you believe that the head of parliament and NSD, Andrija Mandić, has threatened the autonomy of the prosecution with his recent criticism of the State Prosecutor's Office, accusing them of wanting to become the "fourth branch of government"?

The Parliament is an institution in which sometimes we politicians use words that can consciously or unconsciously create an image of political pressure on the work of the judiciary. Sometimes it is the presentation you referred to, sometimes it is calling prosecutors “SKY prosecutors”, sometimes it is commenting on unfinalised judgments... I believe that we all must, especially now that we are very close to closing Chapter 23, refrain from these acts and enable the judiciary and the state prosecutor’s office to carry out their duties unhindered. The State Prosecutor’s Office, and especially the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (STP), is perceived by our, primarily objective, international partners as one of the most efficient and best institutions in our country and as a body that constantly delivers results, and I believe that for this reason they deserve our full support. Constructive criticism is welcome for everyone, but we must keep in mind that not all of us are politicians and that we do not all have the same arsenal for giving answers in the public media space.

In your opinion, is there corruption in the Montenegrin judiciary, as officials of some ruling parties claim? If so, to what extent and what are you doing to prevent it?

I believe that corruption exists in all aspects of society, and I am sure that the judiciary is not immune to it, but I do not think that it is more prevalent than in other professional activities of public importance. And I especially do not support and do not accept the thesis that “all judges are corrupt” or all prosecutors, lawyers, notaries... I believe that each case must be individualized, and the fact that some proceedings were initiated, without the intention of jeopardizing the presumption of innocence, also indicates that the judicial authorities, and above all the SDT, do not provide “guild” support - quite the opposite. As for the Ministry of Justice, five months ago we sent a Proposal for Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, which provides for an additional level of control over public officials, including judges. I expect that these innovations will also be part of positive regulations, and I would like to remind you that we are also preparing a special law on the protection of whistleblowers.

You recently announced the process of establishing a special court for organized crime and high-level corruption, saying that this institution could be established in the short term. By when, roughly, do you plan to establish it, and according to what criteria will judges for this court be selected? How will judges be found, if the Special Department of the High Court in Podgorica is lacking?

The topic of forming a Special Court will be part of the work of the newly formed working group. I would not prejudge the deadlines and procedures now, you will certainly be informed in a timely manner. Our intention is that the best in our society, who meet professional and ethical criteria, will be part of this court. This implies stricter criteria, but also better working conditions.

The special court will be formed according to the most modern standards, but also based on good practice from the region - specifically Belgrade. We will open a process so that those who are not judges today, but are exceptional lawyers, can also be part of that court because we need the best. The working group for the formation of this court will have its first meeting next week.

The draft amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court stipulate that judges of that court retire at the age of 66 and at least 15 years of insurance service. Why did you propose that solution, and not the one stipulated in the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance - that judges of the Constitutional Court, like those of other courts, retire at the age of 65? Does such a proposal favor judges of the Constitutional Court over judges of other courts?

This proposal arose from the fact that the need for a uniform definition of this issue and harmonization of all legal regulations has been announced several times, but also due to the fact that it is necessary to consider the need to retain experienced staff, as long as possible. These proposals have been sent to the Venice Commission and after receiving comments, they will certainly be part of the public debate, and thus the formation of a final position on this issue.

The draft also proposes that judges whose office is terminated will not be able to participate in sessions where the reasons for the termination of their office will be determined. Should judges have acted in this way even without that norm, or exempted themselves from deciding on their own case?

Unfortunately, we did not have and still do not have a clear norm that requires such action, and we certainly believe that this is the only objective and appropriate one. We hope that this proposal will come to life and be part of the new legal solution, which was certainly one of the recommendations of the Venice Commission.

How do you comment on the fact that former high-ranking state official Svetozar Marović, if Serbia does not extradite him to Montenegro soon, will be a free man because the absolute statute of limitations on his three-and-a-half-year prison sentence will expire on October 10, 2026? Could Montenegro have done anything else to prevent the statute of limitations from lapse? When was the last time the Ministry of Justice received a response from the competent authorities in Serbia regarding the Marović case, and what was it?

Montenegro could have done this so that Svetozar Marović would not be inaccessible to our authorities, and I hope that one day we will provide an answer and examine the responsibility of those who made it possible for him not to be in Montenegro and for us to have such an epilogue today. Ministers of Justice, including my own, have submitted extradition requests several times, but we have not received a formal response.

What could Montenegro have done to make Marović available, and who do you hold responsible for the fact that he is not in Montenegro?

It is clear that Svetozar Marović left Montenegro more than 10 years ago and it is clear that such a circumstance should not have happened. Serbia is not obliged to extradite Marović, nor to inform us why it does not want to do so and whether there are any obstacles (e.g. asylum). That is, simply, the standard in such international legal situations. But our obligation was to prevent this from happening, and it happened more than a decade ago, and we still do not know who is responsible for it.

Tougher gun penalties to be approved by European Commission

At the beginning of the year, after the Cetinje massacre in which 13 people were killed, you announced tougher prison sentences for unauthorized possession of weapons, but nothing has come of it yet. Why? When will these sentences be toughened and don't you think it is important that this process is not delayed?

Of course we think so and as soon as possible we prepared a Proposal for Amendments to the Criminal Code, made the threatened sanctions more stringent and these proposals were sent to the European Commission on June 18th of this year. As soon as they are "approved", they will be sent to the Parliament.

They are drafting a special law on salaries in the judiciary.

What is the Ministry of Justice doing to improve working conditions for judges?

The work of the Working Group for the drafting of a special law on salaries and other rights of judicial and constitutional court officials, which will guarantee the financial independence of these officials, is in its final stages. In addition, we would like to remind you that, at the initiative of the Ministry of Justice, amendments were made to the relevant laws in the field of justice, based on which all judges and state prosecutors are entitled to a 30 percent salary supplement.