Is justice stalling at "Telekom"? The case is now in the hands of the Supreme Court

If high-level corruption cases end with statutes of limitations, procedural maneuvers, or legal interpretations that lead to evasion of responsibility, then citizens rightly lose confidence in the judiciary.

This was told to "Vijesti" yesterday by the MP of the Civic Movement URA and the Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for the Political System, Judiciary and Administration. Zoran Mikić, commenting on the decision of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office to file a request with the Supreme Court for protection of legality against the decision of the Higher Court in Podgorica in the case known to the public as "Telekom".

The High Court announced the day before that the case was not absolutely time-barred and that it was relevant, according to the decision signed by Zoran Radovic, to the part that deals with the criminal offense of accepting bribes, for which the former President of Montenegro is charged Milo Djukanovic, his sister Ana, as well as former representatives of Telekom, HLT Fund, the company "Monte Adria" and Hungarian Telekom - Oleg Obradovic, Veselin Barovic, Damjan Hosta i Tomas Marvai.

The Ombudsman's Office initiated criminal prosecution in the case in October as a subsidiary prosecutor on behalf of the state, after the Special State Prosecutor's Office dismissed the criminal complaint filed by the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS) last summer, claiming that the statute of limitations had expired. The decision was made by the Special State Prosecutor Ana Perović Vojinović, and confirmed by the prosecutor at the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office Veljko Rutović.

In early October, the government tasked the Office of the Protector to undertake criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor on behalf of the state, but the investigating judge rejected the proposal to conduct evidentiary proceedings - to hear the actors in the "Telekom" case, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

What if the Supreme Court (does not) reject the VDT's request?

Lawyers consulted by the editorial team say that by accepting the request of the institution headed by Milorad Marković, the Supreme Court would finally put an end to this case.

It is questionable, they believe, what the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of the State could possibly do if the Supreme Court rejects the prosecution's request and confirms the position of the High Court.

"In that case, the prosecutor's office would have to take over the prosecution instead of the Ombudsman's Office, that is, take action in relation to the criminal offense of accepting a bribe, for which, according to the High Court, there is time until 2036," explained one of the editorial team's sources.

A similar position was expressed in a statement issued yesterday by the legal team of Milo and Ana Đukanović.

They claim that the key question in this case is who is the injured party. They also claim that "the state of Montenegro and its organs have not acted as injured parties for almost two decades - because they could not have been."

"The actions in question relate to the period after the privatization of 'Telekom', when the state was no longer the owner of the company. More importantly, Telekom itself has never claimed to have suffered any damage," the statement said.

They also say that this is not a regular legal procedure.

"Therefore, the Government 'ordered' criminal prosecution, and this has never happened in Montenegro before. This is not a regular legal procedure. This is an attempt to replace the decision of the State Prosecutor's Office with a political decision. The Constitution of Montenegro is clear: the State Prosecutor's Office is the body that carries out the work of prosecuting perpetrators of criminal offenses. The Government does not have the authority to initiate, order or renew criminal prosecution against any individual," the legal team of Milo and Ana Đukanović wrote in a statement.

What about the ex officio case?

The Supreme State Prosecutor's Office did not want to answer additional questions from "Vijesti" yesterday, including whether they are still adamant in their stance that there is no room for the prosecutor's office to reopen the "Telekom" case.

"As we indicated in the press release, the request for protection of legality was raised in accordance with the law, and the Supreme Court will rule on it."

In that statement, they said that a request for protection of legality was filed against the decision of the Higher Court in Podgorica, explaining that they were doing so because "the criminal pre-trial chamber of the Higher Court assessed the actions taken in another case, and not the case formed against certain persons for certain criminal offenses based on the criminal report of MANS from 2019, so the law was violated and the conditions for filing a request for protection of legality were met."

That institution did not respond to the editorial team's questions about the case that the prosecutor's office formed ex officio in the "Telekom" case.

The High Court did not want to comment on the moves of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office either.

"The Higher Court in Podgorica will not comment on the submission of a request for protection of legality by the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office, and the court expressed its position on the legal matter in question in decision Kvs.br.900/25," they said.

The decision, however, clearly emphasized that "after numerous actions taken in the case that was formed ex officio, the prosecutor's office did not make a decision in full, but rather the proceedings were separated in 2015 and information was sent to the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office that the factual situation had still not been resolved to the extent necessary for making a decision."

"The court conducted a detailed review of the aforementioned case files and did not find in them a decision in the form of a ruling or, indeed, an official note in the Ktr case that would potentially end this procedure, except for the official note stating that in that part it is necessary to await the outcome of the procedure conducted before this court against the then defendants OO and MI, with the statement that the criminal report relates to the same criminal event...", it was emphasized, among other things, in the decision of the Higher Court.

The Council is of the opinion that this is a single criminal-legal event, and that the actions taken to uncover the criminal offenses and perpetrators cannot be viewed separately in the case formed by the prosecutor's office ex officio and the case formed upon the criminal report of MANS.

"It should also be noted that in order to interrupt the statute of limitations on criminal prosecution through procedural actions, it is not necessary to know which criminal offense is in question, nor who the suspect is, since Article 125 of the Criminal Code stipulates that the statute of limitations on criminal prosecution is interrupted by any action taken to detect a criminal offense or to detect and prosecute the perpetrator for a committed criminal offense," the decision states.

The legal team of Milo and Ana Đukanović disputes the court's position.

"The explanation that the statute of limitations was interrupted by procedural actions taken in another proceeding, against other persons, is also unacceptable. Milo Đukanović and Ana Đukanović were not defendants in that proceeding. Procedural actions against certain persons cannot subsequently be used as a basis for extending the prosecution against other persons. We remind you that in the same case, two Montenegrin citizens were exposed to criminal proceedings, public pressure and media lynching for years, only to be finally acquitted. Instead of learning from that experience, the same mechanism is now being tried to be started again," said the legal team of Milo and Ana Đukanović.

Mikić: The doors of justice are closing again

Zoran Mikić points out that "the information that the case, or rather the 'Telekom' affair, is not absolutely obsolete after all has pleased all those who want to shed light on the controversial and corruption affairs of the previous regime from the period of DPS rule."

"Considering that this is one of the largest corruption scandals in the modern history of Montenegro, I believe that the decision of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office to file a request for protection of legality against the decision of the High Court in the 'Telekom' case is not a good message for the public, for the rule of law, or for Montenegro's European path. At a time when the possibility has opened for one of the most important cases of high corruption to finally be fully elucidated, such a move objectively goes in the direction of closing the door to justice," Mikić told "Vijesti" and reminded that the URA GP is committed to shedding light on all the circumstances surrounding the "Telekom" affair and for the case to receive a legal and judicial epilogue.

"Without the desire to influence or put pressure on the judiciary or prosecutor's office, while appreciating their autonomy and independence in their work, we believe that judicial bodies must prove that the law applies equally to the common man and the most powerful individuals in the state," said the MP.

According to him, the "Telekom" case is not an ordinary court case.

"It is a symbol of a captured state, political power, privatization under suspicion and decades of impunity of the highest officials. That is why it is completely unacceptable for citizens that justice should once again stumble over legal and procedural formalities, while the essence of the case - whether there was corruption, who took the money and who politically protected such deals - remains beyond the reach of institutions. This is not the justice that citizens expect, nor the standard required in Chapters 23 and 24. In addition, our European partners have repeatedly emphasized in their reports that as a country we lack final court verdicts for high-level corruption. I do not prejudge anyone's guilt, but I insist and expect that such cases should not be closed without the full institutional truth and a final judicial epilogue," Mikić concluded.