WORLD NEWS FOR MONTENEGRO DIASPORA
Choose language:
AUTHOR:M.J. GDNUS
The Administrative Court of Montenegro annulled the decision on dismissal of former ASK Director Jelena Perović and ordered a new decision. The court assessed that in the proceedings preceding the adoption of the contested decision, the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to state her position regarding the reasons for which the contested decision dismissed her from the position of Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.
"The Administrative Court of Montenegro, in case U. No. 6009/25, by its judgment of 16.05.2024, accepted the lawsuit of J. P. from Podgorica and annulled the decision of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption No. 00-2188/6 of 15.08.2024. By the contested decision of the plaintiff, the Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption was dismissed from her duties due to the fulfillment of the reasons for dismissal from Article 98, paragraph 1, item 4, and in connection with Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, because, contrary to the law, she decided for herself about her private interest when awarding a variable part of the salary and overtime to herself, thereby subordinating the public interest to the private one in the performance of a public function," says a statement published on the website of the Administrative Court.
Ruling on the filed lawsuit, the Court assessed that in the proceedings preceding the adoption of the contested decision, the plaintiff was not given the opportunity to state her position regarding the reasons for which the contested decision dismissed the Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.
"It is not disputed that the agenda of the Council session is determined at the session (Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption), as was done in the specific case, when the members of the Council, after reviewing the documentation on the inspection conducted, determined the existence of reasons for the dismissal of the Director of the Agency from Article 98, paragraph 1, item 4, in connection with Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, which relate to the violation of the provisions of the Law and the rules of the Agency and the obligation of a public official to perform his or her function in a manner that does not subordinate the public interest to the private, as well as not to cause a conflict of interest in the performance of a public function," the statement says.
However, as they state, at the same session, without prior notification to the plaintiff, the procedure for her dismissal was initiated and a decision was made, the Court concluded that she was not given the opportunity to participate in the procedure for her dismissal and to state her opinion on the facts relevant to the decision, since the statement of the plaintiff, number 01-2193 of 15.08.2024., to which the defendant referred, was given in relation to another reason for dismissal (from Article 98, paragraph 1, item 3, and regarding the failure to meet the conditions from Article 87, paragraph 3 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption), and not the reason for which she was dismissed from her duties by the contested decision. "Due to the aforementioned procedural violation, the Court assessed that the contested decision should have been annulled," the statement says.
