No one has addressed the judge's personality, as is anxiously pointed out in the statements of the Basic Court and the Association of Judges, nor is the judge's personality the focus of interest in this story, but rather the reaction is solely to her illegal actions.
This was announced today by the legal team of former Montenegrin President Milo Đukanović, reacting to statements from the Basic Court in Podgorica and the Association of Judges.
DON'T MISS IT
"The response of the Basic Court in Podgorica, whoever gave themselves the right to present themselves in that way, to our reaction to a legally untenable verdict, with empty and stereotypical slogans, presented as collegial solidarity, as well as the reaction of the Association of Judges, with political messages 'about pressure on the judicial power, endangering public trust in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary', filled the media space late last night with superficiality and demagogic defense of the indefensible and illegal actions of that same court. By simultaneously broadcasting slogans about 'the right to public criticism of court decisions as an indisputable and protected right' and 'the right of parties to present their arguments and express dissatisfaction with the decision', which, as they state, is 'completely legitimate and expected', they wanted to create the appearance of an objective analysis of our reaction and respect for international democratic standards, while bypassing the essence of the problem we pointed out," the statement from Đukanović's legal team states.
According to them, how their colleagues imagine "legitimate and expected criticism of court decisions", without criticizing expertise and pointing out the obvious lack of professionalism in the rendering of the verdict in question, should be explained by them themselves.
"It certainly won't help them to copy entire sentences from conventions and other international documents. Instead, let them deal with public facts available to everyone," the statement said.
Djukanovic's legal team added that the facts indicate the following.
"The public statement by the legal team followed the public statement, in all Montenegrin media, of the ruling and reasoning of the verdict, with all the qualifications by the trial judge, so it is, to put it mildly, an extremely cynical instruction by Mr. Đukanović's legal representatives to stick to the institutions and to exercise their rights only through an appeal against the verdict, and the media space should probably remain with the judge for the professional play-acting of his publicly disclosed legal positions. No one dealt with the personality of the judge, as is anxiously emphasized in the statements of the Basic Court and the Association of Judges, nor is the personality of the judge in the focus of interest in this story, but rather the reaction is exclusively to her illegal actions. After all, both the Basic Court and the Association of Judges encourage the right to legitimate and expected criticism with their statements, so the question of the expediency of their advertising is raised," the statement reads.
They also said that none of their legally based claims were disputed in the statements, and that it is not disputed that they are challenging the court verdict with arguments, but, as they add, the only thing that seems to be disputed is that they did so publicly, after the ruling and reasoning of the Basic Court's verdict, which were reported by all media outlets.
"When we were learning legal science and professional legal skills, such a cardinal failure to consider the subject matter of the dispute, ignorance of the institute of maturity and failure to distinguish between a meritorious decision rejecting a claim from a procedural decision terminating the proceedings, when the court considers that the decision on the subject matter of the dispute depends on resolving a previous (prejudicial) legal issue, necessarily led to a review of the expertise of such a judge by those responsible for that. Instead, today, false solidarity and politically colored slogans about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary permeate the aforementioned statements, suggesting that citizens should have confidence in such a judiciary," the statement concludes.
Bonus video:
