Special prosecutor Sasa Cadjenovic he was disciplined 11 years ago, because, as a prosecutor of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office (ODT) in Podgorica, he arbitrarily took away a case assigned to another prosecutor. Čađenović is currently in prison on charges that he was part of a criminal clan.
In the decision Prosecutor's Council (TS) from 2012, in which Center for Investigative Journalism of Montenegro
(CIN-CG) had insight, Čađenović was fined 15 percent of his salary for three months, for improperly performing the prosecutor's function:
"So that 24.10. In 2012, he demanded from the technical secretary of the ODT Podgorica VM to hand over the case to him, which is the basic state prosecutor in Podgorica LJ. K. assigned IP to the deputy prosecutor, and then, without the knowledge of the prosecutor and the case handler, he prevented the forwarding of the decision that the handler made and with which decision the state prosecutor previously agreed, drafted another decision without authorization, signed as the handler and handed it over to the prosecutor for control. .
Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT), 11 years later, indicted Čađenović for the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization and six criminal offenses of abuse of office.
Čađenović is accused of becoming a member of the "Kavački Klan" criminal organization in mid-2020, with the task of not undertaking criminal prosecution and not initiating proceedings against the organizers and members of that criminal organization as a special prosecutor. Čađenović prevented the detection of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes, to order their detention, removed from the file the reports submitted by EUROPOL, as well as the criminal reports filed against them by the police, the indictment says, among other things.
No prosecutor has ever been dismissed since the beginning of the work of the Court of Justice in Montenegro. She's just a prosecutor Romina Vlahovic was fired due to unprofessional and negligent work, but was soon reinstated, because the decision of the Supreme Court on her dismissal was annulled.
In the last ten years, there were not even fines in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the TS, except for the prosecutor of the ODT in Podgorica Nikola Boricic, but that decision was also annulled, so the prosecutor was acquitted in the retrial.
Many prosecutors, however, resigned before the initiation of the dismissal procedure, thereby preventing disciplinary proceedings. Proceedings were not even initiated against some who made serious mistakes, and some, in the meantime, have made progress.
If there are criminal proceedings against prosecutors and judges, they usually drag on for years and often end "ingloriously". In the disciplinary proceedings, at best, symbolic punishments were imposed - a reduction in salary for a few months.
In the last unofficial document, the so-called non paper of the European Commission (EC), it is emphasized that there is practically no progress when it comes to determining the responsibility of judges and prosecutors:
"Promoting and implementing professional standards and ethics of judges and prosecutors continues to be a challenge. Limited results and lack of proactivity by both Councils”.
The TS blames legal solutions for this, which, they say, are not good because they leave room for free interpretation.
Recently, proceedings have been initiated against some of the leaders of the judiciary, including the former president of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica, president of the Commercial Court Blaž Jovanić, special prosecutor Saša Čađenović...
"How shaky the foundation of justice and justice in Montenegro is, the best evidence is the cases of arrests of those who shared it, with caution on the tendency towards selective justice, which is unfortunately not an exception for Montenegro, but rather the rule", points out the director of the Center for Civil Liberties ( CEGAS) Marija Popović Kalezić.
She assesses that for further reform, it is necessary to fill all positions in the judicial and prosecutorial organization with the highest quality personnel, but also to consider the introduction of "veting".
The director of CEGAS emphasizes that the TS, as well as the Judicial Council (JSC), should do significantly more, in order to bring about key changes as soon as possible:
"The functionality of both councils, as well as transparency, must be increased and lead to concrete results".
Vlahović was dismissed and returned to work
The only decision of the Supreme Court on dismissal against Romina Vlahović was later annulled and she was reinstated.
The prosecutor of the Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, Romina Vlahović, was dismissed in disciplinary proceedings in April 2013 due to unprofessional and negligent performance of the prosecutorial function. In that decision, it is written that the prosecutor made illegal decisions in certain cases, that, without justifiable reasons, she did not act in the cases assigned to her, that she kept the cases at home and refused to return them at the prosecutor's request. That she did not consider the cases with enough attention and expertise and delayed the procedures, it is written in the explanation. Her actions led to the fact that criminal charges had to be dismissed in some cases, says the annulled decision of the Supreme Court.
A few days before this decision was made, Vlahović submitted her resignation, however, the TS judged it to be "pointless".
Criminal proceedings were also initiated against Vlahović before the disciplinary one - in January 2013 for the theft of two creams in the "Cosmetiks Market". The first-instance verdict found her guilty, but the High Court overturned that decision. The case was sent back for a retrial, which was suspended due to a change in the law that the prosecution of thefts with a value of less than 150 euros is undertaken by a private lawsuit. The store owner did not prosecute Vlahović.
In addition to being reinstated, she also received compensation of 21.000 euros for wages that were reduced or not paid to her from February 2013 to August 2014, as well as unpaid rent for that period.
The prosecutor of the same prosecutor's office, Nikola Boričić, was accused, in the disciplinary proceedings, that his failure to act led to the statute of limitations in 13 criminal cases, and because of this, the Supreme Court punished him symbolically - 20 percent of his salary, for three months. The Supreme Court annulled that decision, with the explanation that there was no evidence that the actions of the prosecutor affected the statute of limitations of the case, so the TS Disciplinary Council absolved him of responsibility.
Boričić claimed that this procedure was retaliation by the head of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office Beautiful Medenice and the former acting VDT Drazen Burić, because he refused to act according to their illegal orders, and especially after he refused to act illegally in the case known to the public as Belivuk - Miljković, that is, he did not want to participate in the lifting of the ban on the entry of those persons into Montenegro.
Because of that case, disciplinary proceedings were recently initiated against Medenica, which also ended ingloriously. The Court of Justice refused to discuss the proposal for the dismissal of Medenica, because the indictment was not properly drawn up. And this decision, according to CIN-CG's knowledge, will be found in the Supreme Court (SC).
Deputy disciplinary prosecutor Tanja Nišavić she submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court, requesting that the decision of the Supreme Court be annulled and the case returned for a new decision.
The prosecutor accused of usury is awaiting the High Court
The TS, at the request of the CIN-CG to submit all decisions on the dismissal and temporary removal of the prosecutor, said that data has been published on the website since 2015, when the Secretariat of the TS has been functioning, and that they currently do not have access to the archive of that institution, because it is not yet in electronic form.
There are only three decisions on the temporary removal of Saša Čađenović on the website, Gruja Radonjić i Lidija Mitrović.
The Basic Court in Kotor informed CIN-CG that the case against the suspended prosecutor of the Higher State Prosecutor's Office, Grujo Radonjić, has been in the High Court for a year, based on an appeal against the first-instance verdict.
The proceedings against Radonjić were initiated in 2018. In April of last year, he was sentenced in the first instance to a minimum sentence of one year in prison for prolonged greenwashing and 1.000 euros. Accused of having "earned" about 44.000 euros by charging interest. According to the Criminal Code (CPC), a fine and a prison sentence of one to eight years are provided for greenwashing.
SDT prosecutor Lidija Mitrović was accused of abusing her position in the "Klap" case, because she enabled the five defendants to avoid prosecution.
In the "Klap" case, the SDT accused 19 people of tax and contribution evasion, which damaged the state budget by 2,6 million euros.
CIN-CG previously wrote that most of the accused are members of criminal groups that have embezzled millions of euros, including the persons from the "Klap" case, who were sentenced by agreement to only suspended sentences and to pay a few thousand euros each. All these agreements were approved by the judge Boris Savić, and most of the agreements were made by prosecutor Mitrović.
Prosecutor Srđa Jovanović from Kotor resigned, after the procedure initiated against him by the SDT, thereby avoiding disciplinary proceedings. The SDT initiated proceedings against Jovanović more than a year ago due to the suspicion that he committed the criminal offense of abuse of official position. The SDT did not answer at what stage this procedure is, and whether an indictment has been filed against the former prosecutor.
The Basic State Prosecutor's Office in Nikšić told CIN-CG that the case against prosecutor Vukas Radonjić, due to suspicions of domestic violence, is still in the investigation phase.
The SDT prosecutor was reported by his wife for domestic violence back in May, but the Nikšić prosecutor's office has not made a decision on whether to prosecute Radonjić for three months.
There is no progress in the accountability of judges and prosecutors
European officials also point out that Montenegro needs better supervision over the work of the judiciary, including more thorough and unannounced inspections:
"Ethical commissions of the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council are not effective and consistent enough in dealing with cases".
CEGAS Director Marija Popović Kalezić for CIN-CG assesses that the (non)implementation and (non)functioning of the internal control system, as well as the external one, is the key reason for the non-prosecution of judges and prosecutors:
"For five years in a row, the Special State Prosecutor's Office has never had control from the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office, and delays in control by higher authorities over the basic ones were also not new."
She also emphasizes that in the seven years of work of the Commission for deciding on complaints regarding the determination of the legality of the work of prosecutors and heads of state prosecution offices, 667 complaints were submitted, of which only 39 were declared founded.
"In the last seven years, only 10 disciplinary violations (punished with the lowest sanctions) and six cases of violation of the principles of the Code of Ethics, which cannot directly affect the evaluation of work, have been determined. It is clear how effective and successful the system of control itself is."
European officials also note the different practices of SS and TS when it comes to inaccurately reporting assets to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK).
They explain that the SS disciplinary commission did not sanction the judges for that type of misconduct, while the TS sanctioned the prosecutors by reducing their salary by 20 percent.
"The independence, responsibility and professionalism of the judiciary must be improved", the EC concludes.
Popović Kalezić points out that control is best illustrated by the fact that so far only one prosecutor in Montenegro has received three, while all the others have been rated with the highest rating, which gives them the opportunity for further advancement. It concludes that legal changes are necessary regarding the control and determination of responsibility in the judiciary.
TS is waiting for legal changes
Member of TS Stevo Muk assesses that the decision on disciplinary responsibility should be returned to all members of the TS, because now this responsibility and right is mostly in the TS Disciplinary Council. Muk points out that this is a bad practice, which must be overcome "with a little good will, which was not present at the head of the Council in the past year and a half".
And he emphasizes that changes to the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office are necessary, both in the part that prescribes the procedure for determining disciplinary responsibility itself, and in the part that describes disciplinary offenses:
"It is possible that it is necessary to expand the circle of initiators of the disciplinary procedure or possibly determine that anyone can submit an initiative for determining disciplinary responsibility. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings would ultimately rest with the disciplinary prosecutor," says Muk for CIN-CG.
He explains that it is a misconception that TS decides on disciplinary responsibility.
"The only such case was the initiative to dismiss the head of the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Podgorica, Lepa Medenica, and it was stopped before the Prosecutor's Council had the opportunity to determine the truth and make a decision," says Muk.
According to the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, a proposal for determining disciplinary responsibility can be submitted by the head of the State Prosecutor's Office, the head of the immediately higher State Prosecutor's Office, the Supreme State Prosecutor, the Minister of Justice and the Commission for Monitoring the Implementation of the Code of Ethics for State Prosecutors.
Unprofessional and negligent performance of the prosecutor's function is considered if the state prosecutor: without justified reasons does not achieve at least 50 percent of the results in terms of the quantity of work, unless the state prosecutor does not give valid reasons why he did not achieve the results; begins the performance of a parliamentary or other public function or the professional performance of another activity; is evaluated twice consecutively with an unsatisfactory grade; has a disciplinary sanction issued twice for serious disciplinary violations; committed a serious disciplinary offense that caused significant damage to the reputation of the State Prosecutor's Office.
Acting VDT Tatjana Begović pointed out for CIN-CG that work on amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office is underway: "Representatives of the State Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Council, members of the Working Group, are trying to contribute with specific proposals to further strengthen certain norms that also refer to disciplinary responsibility specify".
Begović emphasizes that the State Prosecutor's Office recognizes only perpetrators of criminal offenses in its work, whoever they are and whatever function they perform: "If there is a suspicion that someone has committed a criminal offense that is being prosecuted ex officio, they are treated in the same way, without regardless of whether it is a state prosecutor, a judge or a representative of any other profession".
In relation to state prosecutors against whom criminal proceedings have been initiated, the Court of Justice in the current stages of the proceedings, Begović explains, has made the only possible decisions, which are suspension decisions: "The State Prosecutor's Act stipulates that if a state prosecutor is convicted of makes him unworthy to perform the function of a prosecutor, it represents the most serious disciplinary offense".
However, this is not the only way for the prosecutor to be dismissed. According to the law, this can also be done due to unprofessional and negligent work. Judging by the decisions of the Supreme Court, there were no such cases in Montenegro.
Vesković: Katnić should have been disciplined
Legal advisor of Action for Human Rights Marija Vesković assesses for CIN-CG that the disciplinary prosecutor should be given the authority to initiate the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Also, she points out, the proposal of the Venice Commission from 2015 to choose a person from outside the prosecutor's office as the disciplinary prosecutor should be taken into account, which would increase the democratic legitimacy and credibility of determining responsibility.
As an example, he cites the case of the former Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoj Katnić who was never held accountable for publishing a statement with excerpts from the transcripts of material obtained through the application of secret surveillance measures, which constitutes a serious disciplinary offense. Katnić presented the information he learned in the cases and used the position to pursue his private interests.
"Not even the then acting VDT Ivica Stankovic, nor the Minister of Justice Vladimir Leposavic they did nothing even though they had the legal authority to initiate proceedings against Katnić".
Bonus video:
