Veljović's right to access to court violated: Ombudsman recommends that the request for medical treatment be considered without delay

The Appellate and High Courts in Podgorica violated the right of access to court of the former director of the Police Directorate Veselin Veljović, who the prosecution charges with participating in cigarette smuggling.

This was concluded by the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms, deciding on a complaint by Veljović, who claims that the competent institutions are violating his right to life and a fair trial and preventing urgent treatment, which amounts to torture and inhumane treatment.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, Veljović's lawyer states that, by decision of the Higher Court in Podgorica, he was imposed a supervision measure - a ban on leaving the apartment, that his health was seriously impaired, which was confirmed by an expert examination, and that due to the impossibility of further adequate treatment in Montenegro, the medical council of the Clinical Center of Montenegro decided on several occasions that it was necessary to refer him for further treatment in Istanbul, which is also supported by the decision of the Health Insurance Fund.

In the complaint, he claims that due to the imposed supervision measure, Veljović was unable to travel for treatment, and that his request has not been decided since January of this year, despite an urgent request to the President of the High Court and a control request to the President of the Court of Appeal.

The Protector recommended that the High Court consider the request for ensuring conditions for Veljović's treatment without delay and make a decision on it, and that the Court of Appeal respond to the submission - control request from April this year. The courts were also recommended to take all actions and measures to ensure that the procedure relating to the termination of detention and the imposition of a supervision measure - a ban on leaving the apartment against Veljović, is finally concluded, since the Criminal Procedure Code does not prescribe how many times a decision on the termination of detention can be revoked and returned for a new decision.

The Higher Court in Podgorica informed the Protector that in the specific situation, the trial panel of that court, in July last year at the main hearing, accepted the defense attorneys' proposal and terminated Veljović's detention and imposed a supervision measure - a ban on leaving the apartment. This decision, they explained, was revoked by the Court of Appeal in September 2024, and the case was returned to the first-instance court for a new decision.

The High Court, they claim, still holds the same view that the purpose of detention is achieved with a milder measure, so it issued decisions terminating the detention of the defendant and imposing a supervision measure – a ban on leaving the apartment, but these decisions were revoked by the Court of Appeal a total of six times and returned for re-determination. The High Court informed the Protector that the measure of prohibition on leaving the apartment is still in force, and since the decision terminating the detention of the defendant Veljović has not become final to this day, the president of the panel was not able to consider the possibility of terminating the supervision measure of the ban on leaving the apartment, with the possible imposition of some other alternative measure.

The Protector, however, believes that the fact that the High Court's judicial council is unable to consider the lifting of the supervision measure is not a reason to ignore the request for providing conditions for treatment for almost eight months and not provide Veljović with a response, especially considering his health condition, about which he submitted medical documentation.

"In the opinion of the Protector, the court was obliged to decide on the applicant's request (for treatment abroad) of 31 January 2025, as well as on subsequent emergencies. By failing to act and failing to provide any response, the High Court in Podgorica prevented the applicant from exercising his right to judicial protection. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that the 'right to a court' includes the right to have the party's request considered and to receive a reasoned decision, because otherwise this right remains illusory and theoretical. Therefore, such failure to act means that the applicant did not have real and effective access to court with regard to the protection of his rights, which left the accused in legal uncertainty and de facto deprived of access to court with regard to health protection," the Ombudsman concludes.

The Protector also noted the passive attitude of the Court of Appeal, which did not respond to Veljović's submission from April this year, without giving that institution clear reasons for not acting, other than claims that they "take timely action within their jurisdiction" and that they consider the complaint unfounded.

The former director of the Police Directorate has been charged with abuse of office and creation of a criminal organization, and the Special State Prosecutor's Office is charging him with aiding the head of a criminal organization with confidential information. Aleksandar Mrkić to smuggle cigarettes.

The Protector points out that the multiple annulment of first-instance court decisions (six times in total) by a higher instance court, which is the case in this case, has the characteristics of the so-called "ping-pong" practice, which the European Court of Human Rights has assessed as a systemic problem, as it leads to legal uncertainty and delays in court proceedings, since it prevents the defendant from knowing the status of his freedom.