Dr. Marijan Premović, a representative of the University of Montenegro (UCG) on the Council of Radio Television Podgorica (City) and a full professor at the Faculty of Philosophy, was rehabilitated in 2016 after receiving a suspended prison sentence three years prior for forging an educational document.

This information is derived from the Podgorica Basic Court’s response to inquiries from “Vijesti,” following a call from the non-governmental organization Media Center for the City Council to initiate dismissal proceedings against Premović, should he not meet the legal requirements or if he provided false information during his appointment.

“We wish to inform you that an inspection of the electronic records of this court (PRIS) revealed that on November 14, 2016, Premović Marijan… submitted a rehabilitation request in accordance with the court judgment K.br.218/13 dated June 24, 2013, which was partially modified by the Higher Court in Podgorica under judgment Kž.br.1429/2013 dated November 11, 2013. On November 23, 2016, the Basic Court in Podgorica issued decision Kv.br.16/962, confirming that the legal rehabilitation of the convicted Premović Marijan had occurred as per the aforementioned judgment. The court’s decision Kv.br.16/23.11.2016 became final on December 6, 2016,” states the response from the Basic Court.

The media center “Vijestima” submitted the verdict from the Basic Court, in which Premović was convicted in June 2013 for the criminal offense of forgery under Article 412 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro. This verdict was affirmed by the Higher Court in Podgorica and became final in November of the same year.

THIS WAS NOT A NEW PROCESS, BUT A REHABILITATION

Premović did not provide direct answers to “Vijesti”‘s inquiries about whether he had utilized the document for which he was convicted 12 years ago during his tenure at the University of Montenegro, or if the administrations of the Faculty of Philosophy and the University were aware of that verdict.

Nonetheless, in reply to the Media Center’s statement, he expressed that “under full material and criminal liability, I assert that the aforementioned diploma with a technical error was not used in my professional career.” He also mentioned that “upon discovering the error in the diploma, I promptly informed the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš and requested a duplicate due to the technical error. Following their guidance, I destroyed the incorrect diploma and invalidated it in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 94 of December 10, 2010. A new diploma was issued to me on January 19, 2012.”

In his response to “Vijesti,” he lacked specificity regarding his diploma:

“There is no information about my conviction in the criminal records of the Ministry of Justice – Prof. Dr. Marijan Premović, which can be easily proven. In this regard, I am submitting two Certificates issued by the Ministry of Justice of Montenegro (No. 02/2-7441/16 dated December 14, 2016, and No. 2016/05-2-72/2913, dated March 19, 2019). I consent to publish these certificates, provided that all personal data contained within are protected as per the Personal Data Protection Act.” Premović continued.

He cautioned that “any misinterpretation of the information regarding my ‘convictions’ would violate my professional integrity, reputation, honor, academic, and personal dignity.”

“This would result in non-pecuniary damages as described above, and I would be compelled to defend my rights before the competent court. Article 52 of the Media Law stipulates that it is prohibited to publish information that harms honor and reputation unless such information is accurate and of public interest. I would also like to remind you of the obligation to respect the Code of Journalists of Montenegro,” Professor Premović asserted.

Before submitting his response, he claimed during a meeting in the editorial office that due to new circumstances, the case had been reopened, and he was acquitted of the charges. When pressed by journalists to provide the verdict, he stated he did not know its whereabouts but would attempt to find and submit it. Instead, he sent a response with attached certificates of non-conviction issued by the Ministry of Justice in 2016 and 2019.

When journalists reminded him via phone messages that he had previously stated he would look for the verdict regarding his acquittal in a retrial, and they inquired again if he possessed that verdict, he responded that “everything regarding convictions and non-convictions can be found in the certificates that I sent.” When questioned about the fact that certificates do not encompass everything, especially after legal and judicial rehabilitation, he did not respond.

The Criminal Procedure Code permits the possibility of reopening a criminal case that has concluded with a final judgment under certain circumstances, including if “new facts or evidence are presented that may lead to the acquittal of the convicted individual or to a more lenient conviction.”

“Rehabilitation erases the conviction and all its legal consequences cease, rendering the convicted individual unconvicted,” states the Criminal Code.

WHAT IS STATED IN THE JUDGMENTS?

According to the verdict reviewed by “Vijesti,” Premović was convicted in 2013 for using a falsified public document—a diploma indicating completion of undergraduate studies at the Faculty of Philosophy in Niš—as part of his evidence when applying for a position at the Historical Institute of Montenegro for a researcher role in the field of the Middle Ages, which required candidates to have completed undergraduate studies with an average grade of 8.5 or higher. Premović was aware that the information contained in the diploma was false, specifically that the average grade of 8.78 was inaccurately recorded, and he submitted this document to an authorized personnel at the Institute, subsequently gaining employment based on it.

The verdict highlights that Premović stated to the court that he submitted a diploma confirming his undergraduate studies, which indicated an average grade of 8.78.

“In his application for the position, he did not reference the average from his undergraduate studies; he received his diploma four years post-graduation in Niš and did not scrutinize the content of the diploma or the reported average. The defendant indicated that the faculty in Niš sent a letter dated November 16, indicating that a technical error in the diploma resulted in the average grade being recorded as 8.78,” the verdict states.

The Basic Court established in the proceedings—as not disputed between parties—that the defendant submitted an application to the Historical Institute of Montenegro for a job advertisement requiring, among other things, a diploma of completed undergraduate studies, stating an average grade of 8.78. He was hired based on this application; however, once it was confirmed that the average was reported incorrectly (7.78 instead of 8.78), the Institute revoked his employment offer. The court dismissed Premović’s claim that he overlooked the error in his diploma, stating he should have reported the discrepancy when the Institute’s decision affirmed he met the competition’s requirements with the reported average of 8.78.

“The defendant was acutely aware of his average study grade, and its importance in his professional career is evidenced by correspondence from the University of Sarajevo dated November 28, and another letter dated March 26, which confirm that he had to both submit an application for a qualifying exam and take the exam before the Commission on December 3, 2012, given that the certificate issued by the Faculty in Niš reflected that his average study grade was 8.25, which contradicts the defendant’s claims that he had never undertaken any qualifying exam,” the verdict asserts.

The Basic Court adjudicated a security measure against Premović, demanding the confiscation of a certified photocopy of diploma No. 5260, which constituted the object of the criminal offense. He was sentenced to a suspended prison term of six months, conditional on not committing a new criminal offense within two years.

The Higher Court modified the Basic Court’s ruling concerning the criminal sanction and instead imposed a suspended sentence, stipulating a prison term of 45 days should he commit another criminal offense within two years.

News