N17.T6 – Judge’s election questioned due to her husband; prosecutor candidate challenged over his parents
HRA NEWSLETTER 17 – TOPIC 6
The Basic Court in Berane received reinforcement in February, but Democratic Montenegro is questioning the election of one of the two judges because her husband was convicted of the most serious crimes. On the other hand, the Judicial Council responds that they have no legal basis to check the families of candidates for judges.
Due to the case of the judge, the President of the Parliamentary Club of Democratic Montenegro, Boris Bogdanović, spoke out and stated that her election is an alarm for the judicial system.
“The knowledge that only a few days ago, a judge was elected to a judicial function whose spouse was legally convicted of the most serious crimes, including attempted aggravated murder and criminal acts of illegal possession of weapons and explosive materials, and that according to media reports, he is a leader of one of the criminal groups, represents an alarm for the entire judicial system and opens questions to which the authorities must provide an urgent, clear, and unambiguous answer,” Bogdanović announced.
He raised the question of passing security clearances, and whether potential reputational and institutional risks were analyzed during her selection.
“Precisely because of such cases, we demand an urgent, comprehensive, and uncompromising thorough screening in the judiciary. We cannot build a state on closed eyes and silenced facts. Someone must start performing serious, in-depth checks of judges and prosecutors,” said Bogdanović.
The Judicial Council responded that they conduct the election of judges in accordance with the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges and the Rules of Procedure of the Council.
“The Judicial Council emphasizes that neither in this election nor any other does it check eventual security and reputational risks regarding family members. The law regulating the election of judges and candidates for judges does not recognize the procurement of such data and assessments.”
They also claim that they were not aware that a security risk existed during the election of the judge.
“The members of the Council were not aware that any security risk or obstacle existed in this specific case. Whether such a normative framework is good will be decided by the legislator, and the Judicial Council will, as before, implement the law consistently and transparently. Eventual security or reputational risks do not represent any of the general or special conditions or criteria for election, and therefore they are not checked in accordance with the Law.”
The Judicial Council additionally clarifies that they do not possess operational data from security authorities regarding family and other relationships of any candidate for judges.
Criticism of employees in the judiciary did not stop with the case of the judge from Berane. The legal team of the fugitive Aleksandar Mrkić, whom the Special State Prosecutor’s Office identified as the organizer of a criminal group that operated on the territory of Montenegro, sent a letter to the Prosecutorial Council asking how it is possible that an associate in the Special State Prosecutor’s Office and a candidate for prosecutor in the Basic State Prosecutor’s Office, Miloš Pipović, passed security clearances, considering that his father, Milivoje Pipović, has multiple godfather relationships with Mrkić. In addition, they point out that his mother was convicted in the first instance for illegal possession of automatic weapons.
“Prosecutors should be persons of impeccable biography, security-unquestionable, and that is certainly not the situation with candidate Miloš Pipović,” states the letter sent to the Prosecutorial Council.
The Prosecutorial Council has not yet spoken out regarding these allegations.
As a reminder, according to the indictment of the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, Aleksandar Mrkić created a criminal organization in 2018, of which the then director of the Police Administration and, later, advisor to the President of Montenegro for defense and security, Veselin Veljović, became a member, among others.
And while the integrity of individuals in the judiciary is being questioned in public, the non-governmental organization Institute Alternative proposed, during the work on amendments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office, the introduction of additional integrity and property checks during the election and promotion of state prosecutors, but those solutions were not included in the text of the draft law that is currently under public discussion. Following the example of the proposal of Institute Alternative, Human Rights Action, as a member of the working group for amendments to the Law on the Judicial Council and Judges, also proposed the introduction of additional property checks for judges during election, which will be discussed at the next meetings of that working group.
The proposals of Institute Alternative primarily related to the introduction of security checks for candidates before election to the function of state prosecutor. According to the proposed model, the Prosecutorial Council would officially request a security check from the body competent for national security affairs (National Security Agency), while a candidate who does not undergo the check or refuses to provide the requested data would be considered to have withdrawn from the application. The final decision on eventual security obstacles would be made by the Prosecutorial Council.
At the same time, it was pointed out that such a solution is currently not possible to fully implement, because the valid Law on Data Secrecy stipulates that the National Security Agency submits only an opinion, without the content of the report, which limits the possibility of the Prosecutorial Council to independently assess the existence of security obstacles. For its implementation, amendments to existing regulations or the adoption of a special law on security checks would be required, such as the one that exists in Germany and the Republic of Croatia, for example.
Institute Alternative also proposed a mandatory check of income and property of candidates already in the phase of applying for a public advertisement, as well as in-depth control in promotion procedures, through cooperation with the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, for the purpose of early determination of eventual risks of corruption or conflict of interest.
In addition, it was proposed to introduce an obligation for state prosecutors to report events and circumstances that may endanger their independence, impartiality, or integrity, including attempts at pressure, contacts with persons against whom proceedings are being conducted, offering gifts, or establishing financial and business relationships that may call into question public confidence in the work of the prosecution.
Although these solutions were not included in the current draft law, they are expected to be the subject of further consideration during the process of amendments and additions to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office.
English