The verdict from the Pljevlja Basic Court, which awarded Dusko Saric nearly 15 million euros as compensation for his company’s losses incurred during his imprisonment, clearly indicates the urgent need for a thorough evaluation of professionalism and accountability within the Montenegrin judiciary, particularly through a vetting process.

This assertion was made yesterday by the director of the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS), Vanja Ćalović Marković, during an interview with “Vijesti”.

“Instead of those accountable for these failures—prosecutors and judges—facing the repercussions of their errors, the citizens of Montenegro will bear the financial burden of millions in damages,” said Ćalović Marković.

She pointed out that the recent ruling from the Pljevlja court is a result of serious and unacceptable lapses in the operations of the Special Prosecutor’s Office and the High Court in Bijelo Polje.

“Significant mistakes included the filing and confirmation of charges for actions not classified as criminal offenses by the Criminal Code at the time they took place. In the absurd court proceedings, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that Šarić’s funds were obtained through criminal activity. Consequently, Šarić was acquitted of all accusations and can never be retried for the same offenses,” warned Ćalović Marković.

“Vijesti” reported yesterday that the Pljevlja Basic Court ruled that the state must compensate Šarić nearly 15 million euros for alleged material damages to his former construction company, “Mat Company,” while it was under state control during the period he was accused of money laundering.

The Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro has lodged an appeal against this non-final ruling in the Bijelo Polje High Court, arguing that the Pljevlja court incorrectly and incompletely assessed the factual situation.

At the time they were accused of money laundering, the property of Šarić and his associate Jovice Lončar was under state control. A special prosecutor, Đurđina Nina Ivanovic, filed the indictment against them in 2012, and after three convictions, they were acquitted by the Court of Appeal in September 2017. The same prosecutor also handled the case “Kalić,” from which the three defendants were ultimately acquitted by the Court of Appeal in 2016.

“Without reform, we will pay for Medenica, Lazović…”

Ćalović Marković stresses that vetting is a necessary measure without which Montenegro cannot restore citizens’ trust in the judiciary and prosecution.

“If this step is not taken, corrupt judges and prosecutors already operating within the system will continue to make intentional mistakes and omissions that allow criminals to evade justice,” emphasized Ćalović Marković.

She highlighted the pressing significance of this issue, especially in light of major cases currently awaiting adjudication.

“This includes cases involving Vesna Medenica, Milivoj Katnić, Zoran Lazović, Veselin Veljović, among others that are yet to be filed. Therefore, it is imperative for the state to launch a vetting or lustration process within the judiciary and prosecution, purging these institutions of incompetent, ineffective, or corrupt individuals. Without such reform, the existing practice of citizens of Montenegro paying millions for judicial errors, rather than the accountable parties, will persist,” concluded Ćalović Marković.

In the appeal to the Bijelo Polje High Court, the Ombudsman highlights that “the challenged ruling lacks valid reasoning and relies solely on a comprehensive list of evidence presented during the proceedings. The court concluded that the defendant is responsible for the damages inflicted upon the plaintiff without providing justifications for its decision.” Furthermore, he points out that the first-instance court’s conclusion “is entirely based on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, while all evidence presentation proposals from the defendant’s representative were rejected without any reasoning, which the defendant considers unacceptable.”

Protector: Impartiality of the proceedings called into question

Šarić and Lončar filed a lawsuit, and the Pljevlja court ruled in their favor, seeking compensation for material damages due to the drop in property value upon its return compared to its value at the time of seizure.

The Ombudsman also notes in his appeal that the court dismissed the state’s request to hear members of the Property Administration Commission as witnesses.

“These individuals were poised to comment on the condition of the plaintiff’s property at the time of return, as they were members of the property return commission and had direct knowledge of the situation. However, the first-instance court exclusively rejected the defendant’s representative’s proposal without explanation, which is seen as unacceptable. Conversely, the court did accept the plaintiff’s proposal to hear the appraiser witness, thereby disrupting the balance in evidence presentation and calling the proceedings’ impartiality into question,” concludes the Protector.

The appeal clarifies that “the value of the property has not diminished, as indicated particularly by the Record on the Return of Temporarily Seized Property dated May 17, 2018, which stated that the condition of the immovable and movable property, after inspection attended by the prosecutor’s representative Jovica Lončar, remained unchanged from the time of handover or previous temporary seizure.”

“During the handover, he raised no objections regarding the property’s condition in the section ‘comments on the condition of the property by the owner’. This suggests that the Property Administration managed the seized property with due care, and its value would have remained consistent had it remained in the plaintiff’s possession throughout the entire period,” the Protector emphasizes in the appeal.

In his assessment, the verdict from the judge of the Pljevlja Basic Court, Sanje Anicic, “relies heavily on the evaluations and opinions of construction and economic experts who cannot provide a valid factual basis for deciding on this legal matter.”

He argues that the financial expert’s findings are “not grounded economically, legally, or logically.”

“…Especially not concerning the ‘key’ on which the expert derived the disputed amounts. The first-instance court entirely disregarded the defendant’s objection that the expert should not have calculated potential projected business income from the contract with the Coal Mine starting from its termination until the contract expired in 2014, given that it was already indisputably established that said contract was terminated on March 25, 2011, and that, by the decision of the High Court on July 27, 2011, the plaintiff’s property was temporarily seized, several months after the aforementioned contract had been terminated…”, the appeal states.

The court, the appeal adds, also considered another terminated collaboration agreement—the one between “Mat Company” and the “Montenegro Cement Company,” which was signed in September 2008, but the French investor withdrew from it in 2010.

The Protector emphasizes that since these contracts were terminated before the state temporarily seized the company’s assets from Šarić and Lončar, it follows that the state was not the cause of the damages for which it was ordered to pay.

News