Sector: Constitutional law; International law; Human Rights; EU Law
Practice Area: Dispute Resolution; White-Collar Crime
Acting for a private client in high-profile white-collar proceedings before the High Court in Podgorica, Montenegro, the firm challenged the measures which restricted the movement of the defendant. The various measures have been extended multiple times by the Decisions of the High Court in Podgorica, restricting the defendant’s movement for more than a year. The firm lodged a Constitutional Appeal on behalf of the defendant against these Decisions arguing, inter alia, that these Decisions are violating defendant’s right to freedom of movement provided by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of ECHR and Article 39 of the Constitution of Montenegro. It was found that the Courts, instead of citing specific and relevant circumstances, automatically imposed arbitrary and disproportionate measures on the defendant, which lacked adequate reasoning and violating the protected rights of freedom of movement. The Constitutional Court adopted the Constitutional Appeal, accepted our arguments and determined that these Decisions have violated the defendant’s right. Importantly, the Court found that in this particular case, the Higher Courts have cited identical circumstances in all its decisions. The Constitutional Court recalled that in a large number of the cases, the ECHR found a violation of rights where the accused were subjected to automatic and blanket determination of supervision measures without consideration and review of the justifications and proportionality and without reference to the individual circumstances. The Constitutional Court concluded that repeating and rewriting the same reasons that allegedly justify the extension of the measures demonstrates just a formal review which does not meet the quality and scope of a judicial review required by Article 2 of Protocol 4 of the ECHR. The Constitutional Court found that the High Court’s reasoning points to arbitrariness in relation to the determination and extension of these measures. It was also concluded that there was no adequate assessment of the proportionality between the stated measures and the goal that was to be achieved.
