In the process of European integration, concrete results are expected from Montenegro’s judiciary in the fight against corruption, especially at a high level. Official statistics and reports on the results of the judiciary and the State Prosecutor’s Office have been assessed as unreliable and inconsistent for years, and it is not possible to find out from them what level of corruption was the subject of court proceedings, i.e. whether there are proceedings against high officials and what are their outcomes.
Courts post verdicts on their websites, but corruption-related cases are not singled out. Thus, from this it is also not possible to get a clear picture of the results of the judiciary in this area.
Thanks to the support of the European Union, MANS monitors the work of the judiciary in the fight against corruption, and the goal of our monitoring reports is to provide a clearer insight into the results of the judiciary and the State Prosecutor’s Office. MANS is monitoring and analyzing all cases of corruption that are within competence of the Special State Prosecutor’s Office for corruption, organized crime and war crimes, i.e. of the High, Appellate and Supreme Court.
In this publication we have analyzed, from multiple aspects, the results of the judiciary in the fight against corrupton. The first part relates to analysis of the legal framework in which the State Prosecutor’s Office is to prove a criminal offense, and the courts are to render a judgment and punish perpetrators.
In this section, we pointed to the key shortcomings of the existing legal framework, but also gave concrete proposals for improving the Law based on comparative practice.
In the second chapter, we have analyzed statistical data on the results of the judiciary over the last five years based on the information from publicly available final judgments. This chapter provides a clear overview of the structure of the persons accused and convicted of corruption, with emphasis on the data about public officials.
The data on penal policy in ordinary proceedings are presented separately from the data on agreements on the admission of guilt, and the data on duration of the proceedings, the most common reasons for rejecting charges, and other data of importance for understanding the work of the judiciary in the fight against corruption, at the general level.
The third part contains various case studies in which specific cases that reached the final judgments were analyzed. First we have analyzed the practice of concluding agreements on the admission of guilt and proceedings against the so-called criminal group from Budva, as well as the seizure of their property.
Separate studies relate to ordinary proceedings before courts and decisions of second-instance courts, as well as the use of secret surveillance measures in proving corruption. Various case studies given in this chapter refers to judgments rejecting the charge, and withdrawals of the State Prosecutor’s Office from prosecution and the statute of limitation for the institution of prosecution of corruption. At the end of the chapter, through specific cases we have compared the penal policy in ordinary proceedings and in the agreements on the admission of guilt.
In the fourth part, in relation to responsibility of the courts and the State Prosecutor’s Office, we have analyzed the current and previous legal framework, data on the results of the proceedings conducted in the last five years, as well as concrete case studies that point to problems in law enforcement.
The last chapter refers to the access to information on the work of the judiciary that is necessary for the analysis of their work. This chapter contains case studies that point to the limits of public control over the work of the judiciary.
Complete publication download HERE (PDF)
