Vukčević: No one gained any benefit, I expect the proceedings to be discontinued

I pointed out to the panel that, in my opinion, it was wrong for the Special State Prosecutor’s Office to refer to judgments from a completely different country - Croatia. Had they referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which is binding in Montenegro, or the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg, that would have made sense. But referring to the practice of a country whose legislation is different makes no sense, in my viewc- said attorney Miloš Vukčević, one of the defence lawyers for former counterintelligence chief Drago Spičanović, yesterday at a hearing to review the corrected indictment.

In addition to Spičanović, the indictment names businessman Aleksandar Mijajlović, police officers Milovan Pavićević and Vladan Lazović, senior state prosecutor Andrijana Nastić and politician Predrag Bošković.

At the hearing on 31 July, which had been scheduled to consider the amended indictment against Mijajlović, prosecutor Jovan Vukotić, on his own behalf and on behalf of his colleagues Ivana Petrušić-Vukašević and Miroslav Turković, requested the recusal of judges Zoran Radović and Boris Savić and Judge Vesna Kovačević, stating that he had doubts about their impartiality. Vukotić referred to the case law of Montenegrin courts as well as cases in Croatia, pointing out that indictments involving similar factual circumstances had been upheld. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for the recusal of the judicial panel as unfounded.

Attorney Vukčević said that he had nevertheless reviewed the case law of Croatian courts, from the Supreme Court down to the County Courts, and had found that it reflected a completely different approach, which, in fact, showed that the SSPO was wrong.

- In those cases, the material benefit obtained by members of a criminal organisation was clearly specified. For example, one person requested information as to whether they were listed in the Interpol database, where the benefit was clearly defined as being informed that they should not cross the border because they were in the database. In another case, a person sought information about the identity of a police officer who was an undercover investigator and then disclosed that information to the person whom the undercover investigator was investigating, thereby obtaining a non-material benefit for that person. These are precisely examples from Croatian courts showing how a non-material benefit is specifically defined, something the prosecution has failed to specify even in this amended indictment, for one simple reason - neither Mijajlović nor Spičanović, nor any of the other defendants in these proceedings, obtained any material or non-material benefit - attorney Vukčević stressed.

As he explained, merely possessing information or data cannot be considered a non-material benefit.

- The High Court made that point clearly when it returned the indictment to them and instructed them to specify the non-material benefit. However, they did not do so - Vukčević pointed out.

He added that if the prosecution was relying on Croatian case law, it should explain why it did not refer to the practice in Sweden, where information about vehicle registration plates and vehicle owners is publicly available and any citizen can determine who owns a vehicle simply by searching through an application.

- Far from there being any grounds for criminal liability… I am saying all this to demonstrate just how benign this indictment is, how weak it is, and why I genuinely expect that, given that it is obvious that the Prosecution has failed to comply with any of the instructions issued by the High Court’s panel, the proceedings will be discontinued and the court will determine that there are no grounds for confirming such an indictment - Vukčević concluded.

Mijajlović is accused of allegedly forming the group by using Montenegrin media outlets, namely M Portal, TV E, as well as the CdM, Standard and Portal Analitika websites, Antena M, and the daily newspaper Pobjeda, in order to „shape public opinion and create a media narrative solely for the purpose of suppressing competition“.

Montenegrin legislation, just like European legislation, does not recognise „influence over the media“ as a criminal offence. Nor is there a criminal offence of creating public opinion.