Attorney General did not interfere with the prosecutor’s work

The State Prosecutorial Council found that the Attorney General Katarina Bergant did not interfere with the prosecutor’s independence Mateja Gončin in a specific criminal case. From the published, otherwise anonymized decisions of the Council, it follows that the proposal of the Goncin prosecutor to deal with Bergant’s actions is unfounded.

Gonchin, who is also a prosecutor in high -profile cases against the members of the Ti Kava clanNamely, the National Prosecutorial Council applied for the treatment of some of Bergant’s actions and for protection against illicit pressure.

Among other things, she accused her of being the leader of the Specialized State Prosecutor’s Office since summer 2024 Darji Šlibar He repeatedly suggested that the prosecutor Gončin should withdraw a specific criminal case in order to resolve the issue of security. According to prosecutor Goncin, Bergant suggested a proposal for a disciplinary proceedings against prosecutor Gončin if she commented on the proceedings on her criminal complaint against individuals from the leadership of the police and the Center for Security and Protection. The special department of the specialized prosecutor’s office rejected a criminal complaint against 11 of the 12 official officials employed by the police, and the prosecutor Gončin then took over the prosecution herself.

After obtaining the explanation and examination of the case, the State Prosecutorial Council notes that the execution of the law enforcement function in a specific case, which does not state, « remained in a constitutionally and normatively protected area in which the state prosecutor was guaranteed independent decision -making and the management of the allocated case. »

Namely, no complaint relates to the decision of the State Prosecutor in a specific case, as well as the expectations of Bergant’s, which related the problem of protecting the Gončin Prosecutor and the possible public commentary of the case, expressed through the leader of the SDT and did not in any way touch the meritorious Gonin prosecutor in the specific criminal case.

Was the intervention of prosecutor’s independence indirect?

The latter then also judged whether the intervention in the prosecutor’s independence may have been indirectly indirectly that the prosecutor of the gonchin had to be given pressure, which would not be completely independent in working in a specific case. However, according to the State Prosecutorial Council, this did not happen, according to the available documentation.

At the same time, the State Prosecutorial Council also concluded the decision with a general view that everyone in the prosecutor’s organization should strive for ethically high standards of professional activity and mutual relations and to ensure a fair and professional level of communication.

“In order to effectively protect the independence of the Attorney General and the protection of the reputation of the State Prosecutor’s Office and State Prosecutors, (…), it is necessary to avoid expressing positions or proposals in an informal way, through mobile applications, in the presence of other persons and the like. On the other hand, any communication (…), which has a legitimate purpose of regulating relations in the state -owned prosecutor’s organization, cannot be considered an intervention of the independence of the Attorney General, « they wrote.

In protecting such an important principle as the independence of the Attorney General, the State Prosecutorial Council expects that communication in all respects will be professional, college and correct and in accordance with the requirements and spirit of the law.

Gonchin: A legal instruction is not evident from the letter

Prosecutor Mateja Gončin stressed today that she must first study the decision of the National Prosecutorial Council, but certainly she will submit to the National Prosecutorial Council on Friday for an insight into the file, as she wants to become aware of the answer to the General Prosecutor, which she sent to the State Prosecutorial Council, she announced.

In the following, they and the Commissioner will examine the possibilities for filing a lawsuit against the decision of the State Prosecutorial Council to the Administrative Court, as it considers that his notice « is not final and cannot be final. » « There is no legal instruction from the letter from the State Prosecutorial Council, which I received, and I think that I am justified and that I can exercise a violation of my rights in the administrative court in this regard, » Gončin said.