The Basic Court reacted to today's allegations by the legal team of former President Milo Đukanović, also published on the Vijesti portal.
"The disputed text raises the issue of the professionalism of the acting judge, Valentina Vuković, and her understanding of both the lawsuit and the institute she applied in the first-instance verdict. Although in every court proceeding, the parties have the right to present their arguments and express dissatisfaction with the decision made, which is completely legitimate and expected, it is unacceptable to write public complaints on media portals and, due to dissatisfaction with the court's decision, to give offensive qualifications at the expense of the acting judge's expertise. A judge performs his or her job in accordance with the Constitution and the Law, independently and according to his or her judicial conviction, while every decision is subject to review by the immediately higher court according to the legal remedies available to the dissatisfied party," the response reads.
They say that criticism of court decisions is always permitted, but that it would be useful if they were made within the framework of legally prescribed instances, "and not through public accusations that can undermine citizens' trust in institutions, without basis."
"The legal system clearly provides mechanisms for cases in which a party believes that the court has made a mistake — primarily the right to appeal. If the legal team believes that the verdict is based on an incorrectly established factual situation or incorrect application of the law, there is a procedure before the Higher Court in Podgorica, where these allegations can be considered and verified in detail. This ensures a two-tiered procedure and an additional guarantee that the final decision will be based on the law and facts. Therefore, it is inappropriate and unacceptable to present the personal position of the dissatisfied party on the subject of the dispute through the prism of the issue of the expertise of the acting judge and to give offensive connotations," they add.
That is why it is important, they point out, that all objections and doubts about the correctness of the verdict be expressed through institutional channels, "because only in this way can we strengthen trust in the judicial system and ensure that every procedure is resolved in a transparent and lawful manner."
"The judiciary must remain independent of political and public pressure, and it is the responsibility of all participants to respect this principle, regardless of whether a decision is in their favor or not," the response reads.
DON'T MISS IT
Bonus video:
