Muk: The legal framework and previous practice indicate that the VDT and GST must respond to calls from competent committees

Referring to the protection of "circumstances of individual cases" cannot be a basis for a complete rejection of parliamentary control by the prosecution, said the president of the board of directors of the Institute Alternative, Stevo Muk.

The legal framework and previous practice indicate, he said, that the Supreme State Prosecutor and the Chief Special Prosecutor must respond to calls from competent committees and participate in their work when issues within their jurisdiction are being considered, except in the part that could jeopardize the efficient conduct of criminal proceedings.

During 2025, Muk recalls, a public debate opened between the Supreme State Prosecutor (SSP) and the Parliament regarding the SSP's obligations to respond to summons from parliamentary committees, as well as the scope of information it is obliged to provide to MPs. The dispute primarily relates, he adds, to the interpretation of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office and the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, especially in the part concerning the protection of "circumstances of individual cases" and the parliamentary control function.

"The Law on the State Prosecutor's Office stipulates that, at the request of the Parliament or its working bodies responsible for justice, anti-corruption and security, the State Prosecutor's Office and the Chief Special State Prosecutor (GSDT) are obliged to: submit special or periodic reports on their work within the deadlines set by the Parliament or the competent body; participate in the work of sessions of the Parliament, inquiry committees and competent committees, when these reports are being considered, except when it comes to the circumstances of individual cases," Muk announced.

He said that, after considering the reports, or in the event of their failure to be submitted without a justified reason, the Parliament or the competent committee may submit opinions, assessments, proposals and recommendations to the Prosecutorial Council and the Minister of Justice.

"The competent committee, in order to fully comply with the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, should formally request the submission of a special report from the State Prosecutor's Office. During 2024, the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office was amended, including a provision on cooperation with the Parliament, which could be interpreted as prescribing an obligation for the State Prosecutor's Office to participate in the work of the Parliament without a previously requested report. The amendments specify that participation in sessions is related to the consideration of reports previously requested by MPs," Muk reminds.

The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, he states, additionally provide for the possibility of organizing a control hearing in order to exercise the control function of the Parliament over the bodies that, based on the law, submit reports on their work to it.

Muk points out that the State Prosecutor's Office "undoubtedly falls" into that category of authority.

"In previous parliamentary practice, the VDP and GSDT regularly responded to invitations from parliamentary committees and participated in their work. The previous VDP and GSDT, as well as the current GSDT until the election of the current VDP in January 2024, participated in control hearings and committee sessions. Also, during 2023, the heads of other state prosecutors' offices and state prosecutors participated in the work of the committees, although the law does not explicitly oblige them," the statement recalls.

It is true, says Muk, that the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office explicitly prescribes the obligation to participate in the work of the committees only for the Supreme Prosecutor's Office and the State Prosecutor's Office, but "earlier practice indicates a broader understanding of the prosecutor's office's responsibility towards the Parliament."

"On the other hand, in the interest of good institutional communication and strengthening public trust, the VSP and GSTP could have responded to the committee's invitation, providing written or oral explanations within the limits permitted by law. Especially in cases of special public interest, the VSP is not limited to providing a consolidated chronology of the actions of state prosecutors without presenting content that would jeopardize the proceedings," he adds.

Muk said that the term "circumstances of individual cases" should be interpreted restrictively, instead of the aforementioned formulation being taken from the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office as justification for a complete restriction of information about case work.

"A limited (narrow) interpretation implies that it refers to data whose disclosure could jeopardize criminal proceedings, specific procedural actions that are ongoing or planned, and information that may make it more difficult to detect perpetrators of criminal offenses, as well as the protection of personal and business data, such as: personal data, family circumstances, business secrets, and the like."

At the same time, Muk adds, the VDT and GST have no legal obstacle to informing MPs about actions taken in a general sense, such as questioning individuals, ordering expert opinions, or sending international letters of request, without specifying the identity and content of the actions.

"Such an approach is in line with the provision of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, which stipulates that in the case of informing the public about the work in a particular case, only information about the actions that have been taken or are being taken may be provided, without specifying the names of the participants in the proceedings and the content of the actions taken. Information that could affect the conduct of the proceedings cannot be made available to the public. The aforementioned provision is already applied in press releases and statements to the media," Muk points out.

He says it is therefore justified to claim that MPs have at least as many rights as are granted by law to the general public.

"In all cases of particular importance and interest to the public and members of parliament, the State Prosecutor's Office and the State Prosecutor's Office have the right and obligation to communicate the findings they have reached within the framework of their professional supervision. This means that they can provide assurance that they have reviewed the work of the acting state prosecutor and that it has been determined that he or she is acting within the legal deadlines, or to inform that the procedure is taking longer than the legally prescribed deadline, for reasons that are known to the manager and that can be considered justified. The State Prosecutor's Office and the State Prosecutor's Office may also inform members of parliament about their professional expectations regarding the deadlines for making decisions in these cases, stating the factors on which these deadlines depend," Muk states.

He also points out that transparent and timely communication between the State Prosecutor's Office, the Prosecutor's Office and the Parliament, within the limits of the law, can contribute to strengthening trust in the work of the State Prosecutor's Office and reducing institutional tensions. The Parliament, as the body that elects the State Prosecutor's Office and part of the members of the Prosecutorial Council, has a legitimate interest in receiving basic information about the prosecution's actions in cases of particular public importance, to the extent that does not jeopardize criminal proceedings, he adds.

Muk also points out that obligations do not exist exclusively on the part of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office, but also on the part of the MPs, and that summoning the heads of the prosecution should be an exception, motivated by particularly justified reasons.

"The Code of Ethics for Members of Parliament of Montenegro stipulates that members of parliament are obliged to perform their functions exclusively in the public interest, conscientiously and responsibly, while respecting the rules on preventing conflicts of interest. This means that, when inviting the VSP and GSSP to participate in discussions in parliamentary committees and deciding on conclusions, members of parliament may not participate in discussions and deciding on issues and cases in which they or persons associated with them have a personal or private interest. Respect for these ethical standards is a prerequisite for legitimate and credible parliamentary control, as well as for preserving institutional balance and public trust in the work of the Parliament and the State Prosecutor's Office," the statement reads.