Čađenović awaits the decision of the Disciplinary Council

The Disciplinary Council of the Prosecutorial Council decides whether a suspended special prosecutor Sasa Cadjenovic committed a serious disciplinary offense because he did not act within the legal deadlines in the "Telekom" affair, which is why the case was sealed last summer due to the absolute statute of limitations for all reported criminal offenses, "Vijesti" has learned.

According to the same information, the disciplinary prosecutor submitted the indictment to the Disciplinary Council at the end of 2025, but the case is still ongoing.

The report on the work of the Prosecutorial Council and the State Prosecutor's Office states, among other things, that "in one case, the disciplinary prosecutor, after conducting an investigation, submitted an indictment proposal against the special prosecutor to the Disciplinary Council, because it was determined that due to the failure to act in the cases within the legally prescribed deadlines, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had expired, thereby committing a serious disciplinary offense under Article 108, paragraph 3, item 1 of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office."

It was specified that this proposal was submitted on December 29th of last year.

When asked by "Vijesti" which prosecutor and case they were referring to, the Prosecutorial Council replied that "pursuant to the provisions of Article 42a, paragraph 2 of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, it is stipulated that the public is excluded from discussions in the procedure for determining the disciplinary liability of heads of state prosecutor's offices and state prosecutors."

According to the Law, if it is determined that a serious offense has been committed, the state prosecutor may be fined, banned from promotion, or dismissed.

The proposal to establish disciplinary responsibility for Čađenović was submitted to the Prosecutorial Council in September last year by the Chief Special Prosecutor (GST). Vladimir Novović.

"Vijesti" then announced that the proposal to establish more severe disciplinary liability relates to the criminal offenses of accepting bribes and accepting bribes by aiding and abetting in the "Telekom" case, which was prolonged by prosecutor Čađenović in the period from March 1, 2019 to mid-May 2021, when the statute of limitations also expired for that part of the criminal complaint of the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS).

After more than six years, the "Telekom" scandal finally reached an epilogue in the summer of last year - special prosecutor Ana Perović-Vojinović dismissed MANS's criminal complaint against the former head of state. Milo Đukanović, his sisters Ana Đukanović and several other individuals, whom the NGO suspected of abuse of official position, accepting bribes and creating a criminal organization.

In her explanation, Perović-Vojinović stated, among other things, that the statute of limitations for some of the criminal offenses for which MANS charged Đukanović and others had expired 15 years ago, while some had expired a little over 4 years ago.

MANS asked the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office to review the decision, but the institution headed by Milorad Marković announced that the SDT had made a correct and lawful decision with sufficiently clear reasons for dismissing the criminal charges.

They also announced at the time that the statute of limitations for the crime of accepting a bribe and accepting a bribe by aiding and abetting had expired due to the previous processor and the former GST Milivoj Katnić.

"For the criminal offenses of accepting a bribe and accepting a bribe by aiding and abetting, which are also the subject of a criminal report, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution expired on May 15, 2021, but the responsibility for this lies with the previous case handler in relation to the one who made the decision and the previous head of the Special State Prosecutor's Office," the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office announced.

They pointed out that once the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution has expired, the special prosecutor cannot, by law, take any procedural action to verify the allegations in the report or determine its merits.

In December 2022, two days after his arrest, the Prosecutorial Council made a decision to temporarily suspend prosecutor Saša Čađenović, because an investigation had been launched against him for an act that makes him unworthy of performing the prosecutorial function.

The investigation, and then the indictment against Čađenović, was filed due to accusations by the SDT that he covered up the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, that is, he did not initiate criminal proceedings against the leaders of the Kavač clan, as well as former secret agent Petar Lazović.

Former GST Katnić was relieved of his duties in February 2022, and has been in custody since April last year due to SDT charges of creating a criminal organization and abuse of official position.

According to the TS report, during the past year, four proposals were submitted to establish disciplinary liability of state prosecutors and heads of prosecutor's offices - one by the immediately superior prosecutor's office for a serious offense, two by unauthorized applicants, and one against the special prosecutor.

It is emphasized that the disciplinary prosecutor and his deputy submitted four proposals to the Disciplinary Council, two of which were rejected as unfounded because they were submitted by unauthorized persons, while one procedure is still ongoing.

In the reporting period, the document states, five cases were filed before the Disciplinary Council. In one case, it states, after a decision by the Supreme Court and repeated proceedings, the indictment proposal against the special prosecutor was rejected due to the existence of circumstances that permanently exclude disciplinary prosecution. In two other cases, the proposals were rejected due to an unauthorized applicant, while one procedure is still ongoing.

It is recalled that after the expiration of the mandate of the previous convocation, the TS formed a new Disciplinary Council on November 28, 2025, in accordance with legal amendments that provide that its president comes from among reputable lawyers.

Out of 135 complaints against the work of prosecutors, 89 were unfounded

The report on the work of the TS states that the Commission for Reviewing Complaints about the Work of State Prosecutors and Heads of State Prosecutor's Offices issued opinions on a total of 135 complaints last year.

"The Prosecutorial Council decided at its sessions that 89 of them were unfounded... 15 complaints were founded, while two complaints were founded in part," the report states.

It was specified that out of 135 complaints considered, 95 related to the work of basic state prosecutors' offices, nine to the work of higher state prosecutors' offices, 12 to the Special State Prosecutor's Office, and five to the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office.

They also state that five complaints related simultaneously to the work of basic state prosecutors' offices and higher state prosecutors' offices, three to the work of the Higher and Special, and one complaint to the work of all state prosecutors' offices.

"Out of 135 complaints, 108 of them related to the work of state prosecutors, while 23 of them related to the work of heads of state prosecutors' offices, and seven simultaneously related to the work of state prosecutors and heads of state prosecutors' offices. Out of 15 complaints for which the Prosecutorial Council gave an opinion that they were well-founded, 12 complaints related to the work of state prosecutors in basic state prosecutors' offices, and three to the work of special prosecutors.

"Of the two partially founded complaints, one complaint related to the work of state prosecutors in the Special State Prosecutor's Office and one complaint related to the work of a state prosecutor in the Basic State Prosecutor's Office," the document states.