Prosecutorial Council
President, Mr. Milorad Marković
On 3 March 2026, you submitted to the President of the Parliament of Montenegro Opinion TSP No. 26/2026 of 19 February 2026, which stated that "Andrija Mandić, President of the Parliament of Montenegro, in a statement given at the end of the parliamentary session on 16 February 2026, took an action that can be qualified as an external threat to the independence of the State Prosecutor, pursuant to Article 73a of the Rules of Procedure of the Prosecutorial Council, i.e. exerted inappropriate pressure, threat and influence which indirectly attempted to influence the independent, lawful and impartial conduct of the State Prosecutor Jovan Vukotić, contrary to his professional obligations and the law, as well as the independence of the State Prosecutor's Office."
In analyzing this opinion, contrary to what was guided by the Prosecutorial Council, which applied the Rules of Procedure of the Prosecutorial Council as an umbrella act, one should first of all refer to the Constitution of Montenegro.
Namely, Article 86 of the Constitution of Montenegro stipulates:
The MP enjoys immunity.
A deputy may not be held criminally or otherwise liable or detained for an opinion expressed or a vote cast in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties.
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against a member of parliament, nor can detention be ordered, without the approval of the Assembly, unless he is caught committing a criminal offense for which a penalty of more than five years in prison is prescribed.
Immunity, as well as that of a member of parliament, is enjoyed by: the President of Montenegro, the President and members of the Government, the President of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Constitutional Court, and the Supreme State Prosecutor.
When considering the complaint and giving its opinion, the Prosecutorial Council had to and should have read and applied precisely these provisions of the Constitution of Montenegro.
The Constitution, in paragraph 2 of the aforementioned article, stipulates: A deputy may not be held criminally or otherwise liable or detained for an opinion expressed or a vote cast in the performance of his or her parliamentary function.
To clarify, the immunity established in this way for MPs – and thus for the President of the Parliament of Montenegro, because he is also, first and foremost, an MP – represents the right of MPs to exercise freedom of speech in the performance of their parliamentary duties, without fear of sanctions, criminal or any other liability. This further implies the protection of MPs from unfounded accusations.
The immunity provided for by the Constitution has a material and procedural form. Material immunity, also called immunity from irresponsibility, has absolute effect and is valid even after the termination of the parliamentary mandate, and implies that a deputy cannot be held accountable for an opinion expressed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties.
Furthermore, Article 47 of the Constitution stipulates:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression in speech, writing, pictures or in any other way. The right to freedom of expression may be limited only by the right of another to dignity, reputation and honour and if public morals or the security of Montenegro are threatened.
The same freedom is guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which stipulates that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom to hold opinions and to impart information.
The Venice Commission, in its opinion and interpretation of this freedom, when it comes to MPs, went further and pointed out: "Freedom of opinion and speech of elected representatives of the people is the key to true democracy and that rules on parliamentary irresponsibility are found in all democratic parliaments". The Commission also explicitly pointed out that "parliamentary irresponsibility serves the legitimate aims of protecting free speech in parliament, and that it is so fundamentally important that it can legitimately go beyond the protection provided for in Article 10 of the said Convention.
Citing the practice of the European Court of Human Rights is important in order to narrow down your opinion to the right measure: what is the reason and what consequence is intended to be produced by such inappropriate influence on the legislative branch.
First of all, the motive is clear, and it is reflected in the obvious intention to silence the legislative branch.
Since in the justification of your opinion you referred, among other things, to the recommendation and opinion of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the opinion of the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors, instead of, first of all, as practicing lawyers, referring to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, for the sake of complete truth, as a member of parliament, I will have to teach you what freedom of expression in parliament means for those whose recommendations and opinions you cited.
So, specifically speaking, your opinion is not in line with the practice of this court, because you, obviously and with bad intent, interpreted your rules of procedure by ignoring the positions that this court has taken, precisely on the issue of freedom of expression in Parliament:
• In the 2015 Morice v. France judgment, the court took the position that expressing value judgments about ongoing proceedings cannot in any way affect the
the fairness of the trial, and that the conduct of criminal proceedings is a matter of public interest requiring a high degree of protection of freedom of expression, as long as the criticism does not constitute an unfounded, destructive attack or insult to the judge “on a personal level”. Furthermore, that judges should tolerate criticism because they can even be the subject of personal criticism within permissible limits, and not just criticism in a general sense, and that the limits of acceptability of criticism against them must be wider than in the case of an ordinary citizen.
• In the Green v. The United Kingdom judgment in 2025, where the court emphasized the autonomy of parliament, from which decision it is concluded that it is not for the courts to control parliamentary speech, recalling that most European states have broad protection of parliamentary speech: "in most member states parliamentary privilege provides absolute protection for statements made by members of parliament."
• In the Makraduli v. North Macedonia judgment in 2018, in which the court took the position that "the freedom of expression of deputies constitutes political speech in its purest form, and this judgment speaks precisely about the fact that deputies have the right to criticize the work of state institutions."
• In the Barfod v. Denmark judgment in 1989, the court emphasized that freedom of political debate is at the very core of the concept of a democratic society, and that public officials must tolerate wider criticism – which can be harsh – and that freedom of expression is protected even when statements are such as to offend, shock and disturb: members of parliament have the right to criticize state institutions, raise issues of public interest and point out abuses. Restrictions only exist when they make statements that are pure defamation without foundation and when it is a personal attack.
All of this, you believe, is less important than your Rules of Procedure, the provisions of which you did not comply with in the process of issuing your opinion.
Thus, Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Prosecutorial Council provides for the establishment of a Commission for the consideration of complaints by state prosecutors, and regarding the complaint against me specifically, as can be seen from the explanation of your opinion, this Commission did not act and did not submit a draft opinion on the complaint submitted: you adopted the opinion yourself, in violation of the Rules of Procedure and without the Commission's proposal.
And you are welcome.
You received the complaint, as you stated, on February 18, 2026, two days after my speech, which was the subject of your prosecutorial attention, and you made the decision on it, or as you call it in a strictly "business-like" way, an opinion, the very next day, February 19, 2026.
You did not, in accordance with Article 73c of your Rules of Procedure, give me the opportunity to respond to the allegations in the complaint, and you concluded that by speaking at the session of the Parliament of Montenegro, which represented my political position, I "took an action that can be qualified as and represents an external threat to the independence of the State Prosecutor, that is, I exerted inappropriate pressure, threat and influence".
The allegations that with my speech, in which I did not personally call anyone names or insult anyone, I "indirectly tried to influence the independent, lawful and impartial conduct of State Prosecutor Jovan Vukotić as well as the independence of the State Prosecutor's Office" represent an inappropriate influence of a part of the state apparatus on the Parliament of Montenegro: even further, they represent an attack on the freedom of speech of deputies in the Parliament of Montenegro and represent an attempt to most directly silence the legislative authority that, let me remind you, elects and dismisses you.
Therefore, you are not above the Parliament of Montenegro, nor above any other authority, nor do you have that right under the Constitution, and this way of addressing the Parliament of Montenegro due to the personal impression of a state prosecutor who, although not mentioned by name and surname, found himself called out, represents a dangerous signal of the power that you unconstitutionally and illegally ascribe to yourself.
You cannot limit the rights of elected representatives of citizens to think and speak freely; the Constitution, which you persistently circumvent, did not give you that right.
Instead of protecting the independence of the State Prosecutor's Office within the framework of its legally prescribed powers, you are trying to discipline and silence the Parliament of Montenegro precisely by exerting unlawful influence and pressure on me, determining what I can and cannot say as a member of parliament, thereby directly violating my constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of opinion and political action.
I have already told you personally and I will repeat it, you are elected and dismissed by the Parliament of Montenegro, and with this act you are jeopardizing the constitutional balance and the principle of separation of powers in Montenegro.
You are not and will not be the fourth branch of government, and the response to this kind of pressure on the Parliament of Montenegro, its members, and even me personally, in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 1, item 10 of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office, should be considered a complaint about your work as state prosecutors in terms of the legality of your work, and due to the external threat to the independence of the Parliament of Montenegro, about which I also expect you to respond within three days, as you have already shown that you are capable of.
