High Court: Lawful decisions of the judges on the abolition of detention of Ubović and Ivanović, SSPO should have initiated the lifting of detention

The High Court in Podgorica issued a statement regarding the increased interest of the public in connection with the lifting of the detention of businessmen Ranko Ubović and Vladan Ivanović, explaining that any further detention of those detained would be illegal, as all witnesses have been questioned, thus eliminating the grounds for detention.

The High Court reminded that the Special State Prosecutor’s Office (SSPO) filed appeals against the decisions of the investigating judges of the High Court in Podgorica, which lifted the detention of the accused R. U. and V. I. and ordered their immediate release. Paragraph IV of the decision states that the appeal does not postpone the execution of the decision.

According to the High Court’s statement, the SDT argued in its appeals that the decision was unlawful, particularly the legal instruction in Section IV, which states that the appeal does not suspend execution. They argued that this contradicts Article 416 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prescribes that filing an appeal suspends execution unless otherwise provided by the Code.

On the other hand, Article 178 of the Code does not state that an appeal against a decision by the investigating judge to lift detention suspends its execution.

- Assessing the grounds of the appeal, the criminal panel first noted that the accused were placed in detention based on Article 175 paragraph 1 item 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and that detention was later extended for another two months on the same grounds. Since during the investigation all witnesses whose testimony determined the need for detention were questioned, the reasons for continued detention under that ground ceased to exist — which was also confirmed by the SDT in its document Kti-S. no. 23/25 of December 5, 2025. In this regard, Article 175 paragraph 2 of the Code prescribes that detention shall be lifted as soon as evidence is secured, which is in accordance with the principle of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, Article 174 paragraph 3 of the Code states that detention shall be lifted whenever the reasons for which it was ordered cease to exist. Therefore, by questioning the named witnesses, the risk of influencing them was eliminated, thus removing the procedural-legal basis for continued detention. Accordingly, the panel of this Court concludes that the investigating judges’ decisions to lift detention and release the accused were correct and lawful - the High Court stated.

Moreover, in cases where the circumstances for which detention was ordered cease to exist, the prosecution has an obligation to react and initiate the termination of detention, even when such a request is not explitcitly made by the defense, because continued detention of the accused without a justifiable reason would be illegal.

- Therefore, although the appeal insists that the designation in Section IV of the ruling that the appeal does not suspend execution is unlawful, the panel points out that this concerns a procedural matter that does not relate to the merits of the decision on detention, nor affects its legality. Thus, the panel finds the appeal unfounded and has decided as stated in the ruling, rejecting the SSPO’s appeals as without merit - the High Court concluded.

Confirmed position of the defense

To recall, Ubović’s attorney Stefan Jovanović previously stated that the investigating judges’ decision of the High Court was entirely lawful, as all parties must act based on the same procedural rules.

- Ranko Ubović was first placed in detention and then had it extended based on the ground of risk of influencing witnesses. The moment the last witness was questioned, that risk - if it ever existed - no longer existed, and the Court had only one option: To order the release of Ranko Ubović - Jovanović said, among other things.