According to requests received by the National Security Agency (ANB) last year, only 25 citizens of Montenegro believed they were subject to secret surveillance measures (SSM). The secret police confirmed that in eight instances this was warranted. However, while these individuals were informed they were under “measures,” they did not receive direct access to the gathered materials. The agency claimed that sharing this information could “complicate certain tasks” within their jurisdiction.

From January 2020 to December 31, 2024, only one citizen has been granted access to documents and collected data. In contrast, during the same period, citizens were denied access to materials obtained at the request of state prosecutors, with the approval of investigating judges.

Article 18 of the Law on the National Security Agency mandates that the agency must inform citizens, upon written request, if measures have been taken to collect data about them. They are also required to provide access to related documents within 30 days of the request. However, Paragraph 3 states that the ANB is not obligated to disclose this information if doing so would hinder the agency’s operations or threaten another individual’s security. In such cases, the agency must notify the applicant in writing within 15 days.

Geographically, most requests to the ANB came from coastal municipalities. Bar submitted three requests, while Tivat and Baošići submitted two each. Budva, Sutomore, and Ulcinj each submitted one. From the rest of Montenegro, Podgorica accounted for three requests, Nikšić for two, and Danilovgrad and Andrijevica for one each.

Lawyer Igor Ćetković stated that the ANB confirmed that a person from the Republic of Kosovo, currently residing temporarily in Ulcinj, is recorded by the agency “for providing an opinion on obtaining temporary residence permits” in Montenegro.

The ANB indicated that a favorable opinion was sent to the relevant authority in this instance.

Attorney Nikola Angelovski, representing several clients, submitted three requests but received identical responses. The agency acknowledged that the individuals in question were indeed under surveillance, yet it maintained that they could not allow access to documentation as it would complicate the agency’s tasks.

“My motive is straightforward; this action was taken solely at my clients’ request due to well-founded concerns about their potential harassment linked to the ANB’s surveillance and abuses,” Angelovski explained. He noted that his clients were labeled as enemies of the state and accused of espionage and attempts to undermine Montenegro’s constitutional order on the “Udar” portal. The ANB’s statements regarding the requests were later utilized as evidence in legal proceedings.

Angelovski emphasizes the troubling nature of these surveillance cases, which predominantly involved journalists and members of the Serbian Orthodox Church, including a former high-ranking officer of the Montenegrin Army.

“This indicates that the security agency has likely misused its authority against these individuals, as it appears they were unlawfully monitored and that information about them was disseminated on the Udar.me portal,” the lawyer stated.

In 2021, the ANB responded to 35 requests, stating that no measures had been taken in any of these cases. In four instances, the agency referenced Article 18, paragraph 3. One individual in Podgorica was granted access to documents, while a request from Belgrade reportedly went unanswered without explanation.

The following year, 66 individuals inquired whether they were “under measures.” In 2022, the ANB informed three citizens that it “could not comply with their requests as it might hinder the execution of certain tasks within its jurisdiction.” One case from 2022 remains unresolved, while another request was not acted upon without explanation. A request from Subotica concerning the late Ž. Z. revealed that the ANB did not possess the desired information.

In 2023, there were 17 requests. Of the 29 requests submitted, 14 were effectively acknowledged by the agency, confirming that the applicants were under surveillance, yet their requests could not be honored.

“Vijesti” gathered information for this article through the MANS’s “Ask Institutions” application.

Reasonable Lustration

“To safeguard Montenegrin citizens against institutional abuse by the ANB and to categorize Montenegro as a civilized state, reasonable lustration is essential, involving the opening of secret files post-referendum,” asserted Nikola Angelovski.

The lawyer noted that the President of Montenegro, the Government, and twenty MPs have the authority to propose such a referendum.

“This presents an opportunity for the public to discern which leaders genuinely wish for us to confront our dark history through this legal process. Alongside the ANB’s secret files, it is critical to open the records of the secret service of the Yugoslav People’s Army (KOS), making it another issue for the referendum, as emphasized repeatedly by our European partners in annual progress reports for Montenegro,” Angelovski underscored.

Remove the “SECRET” Label from the Peruničić and Pavićević Trials

Nikola Angelovski has submitted two requests to the President of the Supreme Court, advocating the removal of the “SECRET” label from ongoing trials involving Dejan Peruničić, former head of the ANB, alongside Srđan Pavićević.

“I have issued two requests to lift the ‘SECRET’ mark from case files associated with case KS.br.17/21, as well as a request for full television coverage of the trial against defendants Dejan Perunić and Srđan Pavićević. Both requests were denied, and I leave it to the public to assess whether the lack of transparency in this trial could undermine the rule of law and fairness,” Angelovski explained.

He argues that there are no compelling reasons preventing the trial from being public, nor blocking access to all materials once the “SECRET” label is lifted for the affected witnesses and their attorney.

“These materials were unlawfully acquired by the former ANB leadership, including the director, through illicit monitoring, recording, wiretapping, and harassment. This is particularly significant because the European Court of Human Rights has never permitted a right to emerge from an injustice, meaning that the current proceedings and related materials cannot be rightfully classified as secret due to their illicit acquisition,” emphasizes Attorney Angelovski.

News