The decision of the Pljevlja Basic Court which Dusko Saric The award of compensation of as much as 15 million euros due to the losses of his company during his detention, unequivocally confirms that the Montenegrin judiciary urgently needs a verification of professionalism and responsibility, as well as assets through the vetting process.
This was stated yesterday by the director of the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS) to "Vijesti". Vanja Ćalović Marković.
"Instead of those responsible for these omissions, prosecutors and judges, bearing the consequences of their mistakes, the citizens of Montenegro will pay for the millions in damages," said Ćalović Marković.
She emphasized that the recent verdict of the Pljevlja court is "the result of serious and unforgivable failures in the work of the Special Prosecutor's Office and the High Court in Bijelo Polje."
"Key errors included filing and confirming indictments for acts that were not defined as criminal acts by the Criminal Code at the time of their commission, and in the farcical court proceedings, the prosecution did not even attempt to prove that Šarić's money was obtained from crime. Due to these errors, Šarić was acquitted of all charges, and he can never be tried again for the same acts," Ćalović Marković warned.
"Vijesti" reported yesterday that the Pljevlja Basic Court ruled that the state should pay Šarić almost 15 million euros for alleged material damage to his former construction company "Mat Company" while it was under state control, at a time when he was accused of money laundering.
DON'T MISS IT
The Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro filed an appeal against that non-final decision with the Bijelo Polje High Court, claiming that the Pljevlja court incorrectly and incompletely determined the factual situation.
Property of Šarić and his friend Jovice Lončar was under state control at the time they were accused of money laundering. The indictment against them was filed in 2012 by a special prosecutor Đurđina Nina Ivanovic, and after three convictions, the Court of Appeal acquitted them in September 2017. The same prosecutor also led the case "Kalić", where the three defendants were finally acquitted by the Court of Appeal in 2016.
"Without reform, we will pay for Medenica, Lazović..."
Ćalović Marković emphasizes that vetting is "a step without which Montenegro will not be able to restore citizens' trust in the judiciary and prosecution."
"If this is not done, the corrupt judges and prosecutors who are still in the system will continue to make deliberate mistakes and omissions that will allow criminals to escape justice," Ćalović Marković emphasized.
She specifies that this is especially important considering the significant cases currently pending before the courts.
"Including cases Vesna Medenica, Milivoj Katnić, Zoran Lazović, Veselin Veljović, but also many others that have yet to be initiated. Therefore, the state must urgently initiate a vetting or lustration process in the judiciary and prosecution, which would cleanse these institutions of incompetent, incompetent or corrupt individuals. Without such a reform, the practice of paying for judicial errors not by those responsible for them, but by the citizens of Montenegro, in millions of dollars, will continue," concludes Ćalović Marković.
In the appeal to the Bijelo Polje High Court, the Protector, among other things, emphasizes that "the contested judgment does not contain a valid reasoning, but is based on an exhaustive list of the evidence presented during the proceedings and what follows from them, with the conclusion that the defendant is liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff, without giving any reasons for its decision". He also notes that the conclusion of the first instance court "is based entirely on the evidence proposed and submitted by the plaintiff, while all proposals for the presentation of evidence by the defendant's representative were rejected without any reasoning, which in the defendant's opinion is unacceptable".
Protector: Impartiality of the proceedings questioned
Šarić and Lončar sued, and the Pljevlja court ruled that they were right, seeking compensation for material damage due to the decrease in the value of the property at the time of return compared to the value at the time of seizure.
The Ombudsman also emphasizes in his appeal that the court rejected the state's proposal to hear members of the Property Administration Commission as witnesses.
"...Who would have commented on the circumstances of the condition of the plaintiff's property at the time of return, since they were members of the property return commission, and which witnesses have direct knowledge of this, but the first instance court exclusively rejected the proposal of the defendant's representative, without any explanation, which is unacceptable in the defendant's opinion. At that moment, the court accepted the plaintiff's proposal to hear the appraiser witness, which obviously disrupted the balance in the presentation of evidence and brought into question the impartiality of the proceedings," concludes the Protector.
It specifies that "the value of the property has not been reduced, which is particularly indicated by the fact that the Record on the Return of Temporarily Seized Property dated May 17.05.2018, XNUMX, stated that the condition of the immovable and movable property, after the inspection, which was also attended by the prosecutor's representative Jovica Lončar, had not changed compared to the time of handover or previous temporary seizure."
"During the handover, he did not raise any objections in the section 'comments on the condition of the property by the owner'. This indicates that the Property Administration treated the seized property with the care of a good host, and its value would have been the same if it had been in the plaintiff's ownership the entire time," the Protector points out in the appeal.
In his opinion, the verdict of the judge of the Pljevlja Basic Court Sanje Anicic "is largely based on the findings and opinions of experts in the construction and economic and financial professions who could not represent a valid factual basis for deciding on this legal matter."
He claims that the financial expert's findings are "neither economically nor legally, nor logically founded."
"...And especially not in relation to the 'key' on the basis of which the expert finds the amounts in question. The first instance court did not at all appreciate the defendant's objection that the expert should not have calculated the possible projected business income under the contract with the Coal Mine from the moment of its termination, until the expiration of the contract in 2014, given that it was indisputably established earlier that the said contract was terminated on 25 March 2011, and that by the decision of the High Court of 27 July 2011 the plaintiff's property was temporarily seized, therefore, the property was seized several months after the said contract with the Coal Mine was terminated...", the appeal states.
The court, the appeal states, also considered another terminated cooperation agreement. This was the agreement between "Mat Company" and "Montenegro Cement Company" and "Mat Company", which was concluded in September 2008, but the French investor withdrew in 2010.
The Protector emphasizes that given that the contracts were terminated before the company's assets were temporarily seized from Šarić and Lončar, the state could not have been the cause of the damage, for which it was ruled that it must pay.
Bonus video:
