Centre for Civic Education (CCE) assesses that the practice of assigning prosecutors with limited experience to work at the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SSPO) should be seriously reconsidered, as work on cases within the jurisdiction of the SSPO is a professional privilege, but also an enormous responsibility requiring a high level of expertise and professional maturity.
Pursuant to Article 24 of the Law on the Special State Prosecutor’s Office, the Prosecutorial Council may, at the request of the Chief Special Prosecutor, assign a state prosecutor to the SSPO for a fixed period, not exceeding two years, for the purpose of performing urgent tasks or addressing an increased workload.
Since the beginning of his mandate, the Chief Special Prosecutor has repeatedly used this possibility, requesting the assignment of at least five prosecutors from Basic State Prosecutor’s Offices. Of those five prosecutors, at least two (and possibly more) had less than two years of experience in prosecutorial work before arriving at the SSPO, meaning they had not even completed the first cycle of performance evaluation as basic state prosecutors. This means that prosecutors at the very beginning of their careers were given the opportunity to work on the most complex cases of high-level corruption and organised crime, although the question remains whether they can objectively possess sufficient experience and professional confidence for such challenges. The Prosecutorial Council approved all such requests, thereby assuming part of the responsibility for establishing and maintaining this practice.
The institute of assignment to work must be an exception, not the rule. Its purpose is to provide temporary assistance to the SSPO through personnel whose experience and expertise enable them to respond to the challenges of complex criminal cases. This is also confirmed by European standards. In Opinion No. 9 (2014), the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors clearly states that “the promotion and mobility of prosecutors should be based on transparent and objective criteria, such as competence and experience”.
It is indicative that prosecutors from the Higher State Prosecutor’s Offices in Podgorica and Bijelo Polje are not primarily selected for assignment to the SSPO, although by the nature of their work they should possess greater experience and competence for handling complex cases. This may raise questions concerning the (lack of) trust in the staff of higher prosecutor’s offices, but also regarding a possible concentration of influence and control over proceedings in cases through relationships with less experienced prosecutors.
Additionally, this practice places an extra burden on the Basic State Prosecutor’s Offices, which are already dealing with a large number of cases. Namely, positions of the assigned prosecutors cannot be filled through public recruitment while they are working at the SSPO, meaning that their workload, in addition to their own, is assumed by colleagues who remain in their prosecutor’s offices.
Finally, this practice also problematises the system of professional advancement and motivation within the prosecution service. Prosecutors assigned to work at the SSPO are entitled to remuneration equivalent to that of a special prosecutor. If the Chief Special Prosecutor resorts too frequently and inappropriately to bringing prosecutors at the beginning of their careers into the SSPO, other prosecutors may develop the impression that professional development and financial advancement depend more on the decision of the Chief Special Prosecutor than on work results and acquired experience.
CCE does not dispute the institute of assignment to the SSPO, as in certain situations it is legitimate and necessary. However, the practice whereby prosecutors with minimal experience take over the most sensitive organised crime and high-level corruption cases is, in the long term, not beneficial for the quality of investigations, the credibility of the SSPO, or public trust in the prosecutorial system.
CCE believes that the most important criminal-law cases in the country must not become a place for fast forwarded gaining of experience. A state that seeks a serious fight against organised crime and corruption must have the most experienced, rather than the most suitable or most readily available personnel working on such cases, and the fact that this area chronically lacks results only reinforces this position.
Dr Ivan Vukčević, Human Rights Programme Coordinator