Judge Milica Vlahović Milosavljević denied that she illegally helped Rad Arsić, the godfather of the former President of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, Vesna Medenica, in court proceedings.
She pointed this out at the trial in the Podgorica High Court, where she is accused of passing a decision in violation of the regulations, which adopted the proposal for determining a temporary measure to secure the financial claim of the petitioner Arsić.
And Medenica announced at the main trial that it was a political process against her. She denied that she pressured Judge Vlahović Milosavljević when deciding on that case.
Answering a question from Judge Nada Rabrenović, she said that she received information about this case from lawyer Željko Aprcović.
"This is anti-European Montenegro. We are not in the field of law, but of politics. I was elected, maybe not by chance - the first one, who should have been discredited by the media, and then prosecuted. The media discrediting is persistent and cruel. It is still going on. I am not guilty , I did not take any action by which I would have made Vlahović Milosavljević to act illegally. Let someone come forward if I was carrying out repression. While I was at the head of the Supreme Court, it was the temple of knowledge and the backbone of the legal system pure revanchism and smoldering hatred towards me," said Medenica.
She mentioned that special prosecutor Jovan Vukotić said at one of the previous hearings that two applications - Signal and Telegram - were deleted from her phone while she was in the police, at five o'clock in the morning, adding that she only gave the codes to the prosecutor's office.
"The evidence surrounding my messages is contaminated. Someone hacked my phone. If he deleted messages in my favor, he could have been writing to my detriment," she stressed.
As she added, there was no order for that action, but a decision by the director of ANB, which in her practice could not be evidence.
Medenica said that she is proud of her work, of her 40-year career.
"I dealt with the results, that the decisions were legal - that's what I demanded, that the citizen should come for justice and be able to expect justice, pointed out the accused Medenica. She believes that the indictment would not have been reached if the investigation had been objective.
"I have never influenced any judge. The same is true in this case. If I spoke with Vlahović Milosavljević, I am speaking based on the facts. You cannot encourage someone to make a legal decision. Where is the harm here," said Medenica.
She added that the protagonists of the new government expect judges to be administrative bodies that will implement their decisions and wishes.
"When politics enters the courtroom, people with certain qualifications are chosen. This time, a novice prosecutor was chosen. The indictment is, above all, in my opinion, a mockery of both the law and logic. The measure of truth in this courtroom must be evidence, not their wish," Medenica pointed out. .
Vlahović Milosavljević: The decision I made was legal, confirmed by the second-instance panel
In her two-hour defense presentation, Vlahović Milosavljević stated that the decision she made as a judge was confirmed by the second-instance panel of the Commercial Court.
The indictment presented that Medenica, as president of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, allegedly influenced Judge Vlahović Milosavljević to make a decision in the case in favor of her godfather Rad Arsić, to the detriment of the "Ten" corporation based in Moscow, by abusing her official position through incitement.
Vlahović Milosavljević categorically rejected the allegations of the indictment.
"I deny the commission of the criminal offense charged against me in the indictment. It is incredible and paradoxical that I was accused of passing an allegedly illegal decision on the determination of a temporary measure, despite the fact that that decision is legal and as such was confirmed by a higher competent authority - the second-instance Council of three judges. By filing this indictment, a legal and valid court decision is declared illegal, although the decision made in the first instance can be subject to review only by a higher instance, which, according to the declared legal remedy, examines the legality of the judge's actions when making the decision," said Vlahović Milosavljević.
She claims that the indictment unfoundedly accuses her that, as a judge acting in the first instance, in the case of the Commercial Court, she made an allegedly illegal decision on the determination of a temporary measure, as well as that by making that allegedly illegal decision, the Ten corporation was severely violated and caused damage.
"In addition to the fact that the act that is the subject of the accusation is not a criminal offense according to the law, I point out that there is no evidence in the files for this thesis of the accusation, so it is not clear on what basis I was accused in the first place, and even less on what basis the indictment against me was confirmed This accusation is presented in a way that does not correspond to the law, the factual situation and the evidence in the case file P. no. 564/16 and as such is legally unsustainable to the interpretation of the provisions of Article 287 and Article 288 of the Law on Enforcement and Security, and in addition, the indictment does not differentiate between the basic legal concepts, which are the right to property and property," Vlahović Milosavljević pointed out.
He claims that the decision on the determination of a temporary measure was made in full accordance with the law, which means that the decision is legal, "and it is not possible to commit any criminal offense with a legal court decision, and therefore not even the criminal offense of abuse of official position that is charged against me in the indictment on the burden".
She repeats that the provisional measure was determined not on the contrary, as it was wrongly presented in the indictment, but precisely in accordance with Article 287 and Article 288 of the Law on Enforcement and Security and that the prosecutor in the indictment ignores the fact that the decision on determining the provisional measure that was made in the first instance, after 33 days from its adoption, it became final.
"That decision is still in force, and will be in force until the legally binding conclusion of the legal proceeding, which is still ongoing. In the specific case, based on the Mortgage Agreement dated November 27.11.2013, 400.000, a mortgage was constituted on real estate owned by Arsić, and which mortgage was registered in the real estate cadastre in favor of the security opponent AD Korporacija Ten as security for a claim in the amount of 400.000,00 euros.... The fact that in the sentence of the decision on the determination of the temporary measure, the real estate properties owned by the security proponent Arsić Rad , does not mean that a temporary measure has been determined on his assets, since they are listed solely for the reason that a mortgage was constituted on them, which was registered in the real estate cadastre in favor of the security opponent AD Corporation Ten, and which mortgage the legal entity is prohibited from disposing of therefore, the claim of the security proponent is secured by the property of the security opponent, i.e. the due claim in the amount of 287 euros, which is secured by a mortgage registered in the real estate cadastre in favor of the legal entity AD Corporation Ten, which is in accordance with Article 1 paragraph XNUMX of the Law on Execution of Security"
The judge points out that the temporary measure does not prohibit Arsić from disposing of real estate registered as his property, as it was wrongly presented in the indictment, but rather, in accordance with the law, the opponent of security, AD Corporacija Ten, is prohibited from disposing of his property, including a mortgage and a claim in the amount of 400.000 euros
"... which is secured by that mortgage. This means that by a temporary measure, the opponent of the security, the legal entity AD Korporacija Ten, is forbidden in accordance with the law to realize the mortgage as a real right and to collect the claim secured by the mortgage, and that is the only legal consequence that occurred and which could have occurred with the adoption of the decision in question, since the mortgage still exists on the subject real estate, and the litigation in the case in which the temporary measure was determined is still ongoing security of Arsić Rada, the opponent of the security of AD Corporation Ten is prohibited from disposing of its assets, first of all by the right of obligation, i.e. the due claim in the amount of 400.000,00 euros and secondly by the real right, i.e. the mortgage with which it is secured due claim in the amount of 400.000,00 euros", said the defendant judge Vlahović Milosavljević.
She especially emphasized:
"The decision on the determination of a temporary measure is completely legal, given that it was adopted in accordance with Article 288, paragraph 1, point 3 of the Law on Execution and Security, which, as one of the types of temporary measures that can be determined, explicitly prohibits the opponent of security from alienating or encumber real rights registered in the real estate cadastre in his favor. In the specific case, by the decision on the determination of a temporary measure, the opponent of the security of AD Korporacija Ten in accordance with Article 288 paragraph 1 point 3 of the Law on Enforcement and Security is prohibited from alienating or encumbering his property, and that real right, i.e. mortgage, which implies that, in accordance with the law, it is impossible for the mortgagee to realize the mortgage as a real right and to collect his claim secured by the mortgage by selling the mortgaged immovable property in the judicial or extrajudicial sale procedure.
By selling real estate that is registered in the property of the security proponent Arsić Rada, and which is encumbered by a mortgage registered in the real estate cadastre in favor of the security opponent AD Korporacija Ten, the security opponent AD Korporacija Ten would alienate its property, and that real right, i.e. a mortgage registered in the real estate cadastre in his favor. Therefore, in the temporary measure in which the security opponent AD Korporacija Ten is prohibited from alienating and encumbering real estate encumbered by a mortgage registered in the real estate cadastre in his favor, a prohibition against the security opponent AD Korporacija Ten from alienating or encumbering his real right is incorporated, i.e. A mortgage," she concluded.
"I was stressed from giving birth"
Vlahović Milosavljević also spoke about the defense she gave during the investigation phase when, among other things, she said that Vesna Medenica put pressure on her and that she is uncomfortable when someone criticizes her.
She said that the statement was incomplete, because she was speaking only about the circumstances of the communication with her lover.
"For this reason, it was widely reported in the public that I allegedly confessed to the commission of a criminal offense. I clarify that due to the passage of time of three and a half years, starting from the adoption of the decision on determining the temporary measure until the defense that I presented before the prosecution on July 12.07.2022, 12, objectively I couldn't remember all the facts. This is especially because in that period of three and a half years I handled and solved almost a thousand cases. During the hearing in the investigation phase, I did not have enough time and opportunity to prepare the defense, because I was called for the hearing, which was scheduled for 2022 . July 11.30 at XNUMX:XNUMX a.m., received by the acting prosecutor the previous evening," said the judge.
She claims that she did not read the minutes before signing, that she did not dictate the statement, but that it was formulated and entered into the minutes by the acting prosecutor.
"I gave my testimony as a nursing mother, two months after giving birth, in a state of severe stress and special psycho-physical exhaustion. During the hearing, I thought and feared that I could be detained, that is, detained, and therefore separated from the newborn child I was nursing, considering that at that moment all the persons in the case were in custody. Because of all of the above, I was not able to carefully follow the process of drawing up the record, nor to understand the significance of the sentences that the prosecutor entered in the record on my behalf."
She repeated that in no case did she think that Medenica influenced the decision in any way, because the decision was made in accordance with the law, the factual situation and the evidence in the case files.
"That is the only truth. The qualification that the former president of the Supreme Court is authoritative and very inconvenient when someone criticizes her implies that she has no tolerance for lack of promptness in the work of judges, which is why, as well as due to the fact that it is a temporary measure by its nature and by law urgent, decided on the proposal for determining the temporary measure in question in the shortest possible time, more precisely on the same day when the proposal was submitted to the court (December 27.12.2018, XNUMX)".
Bonus video:
