The Administrative Court rejected as unfounded the lawsuit filed by the former chief special prosecutor Milivoj Katnić against the decision of the Prosecutorial Council, which determined that he was terminated from the post of GST and special prosecutor.
In February of last year, Katnić was terminated from his position due to exercising the right to an old-age pension.
The Administrative Court clarified that the provision of Article 135 paragraph 5 of the Constitution of Montenegro stipulates that the head of the State Prosecution Service and the State Prosecutor shall cease to hold office and be relieved of their duties in cases and according to the procedure prescribed by law.
"Article 103 paragraph 1 point 3 of the Law on the State Prosecutor's Office stipulates that the state prosecutor's office ends when he fulfills the conditions for exercising the right to an old-age pension, while Article 104 paragraph 1 point 2 stipulates that the head of the state prosecution's office ends when his prosecutor's office ends function," the announcement states.
Katnić was terminated by the decision of the Prosecutor's Council as chief special prosecutor and special prosecutor in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 paragraph 2 of the Law on PIO, which stipulates that he acquires the right to an old-age pension when he reaches 40 years of insurance service and 61 years of age.
"The Administrative Court of Montenegro determined that in this particular case the conditions for the application of Article 17 paragraph 2 of the Law on PIO were met, because the plaintiff in the period from January 01.01.1993, 11.03.2005 to March 15, 41 performed professional military service in the Army, and in in the same period, he achieved insurance experience with an increased duration of XNUMX years and seven months, so with the undeniably achieved insurance experience, he achieved a total of XNUMX years and four months of insurance experience," the announcement reads.
The Administrative Court emphasized that the decision of the Prosecutor's Council is based on the acts of the Pio Fund, which have the significance of a public document, because, as they say, these are documents issued based on data from the official records of that body.
"As the only one authorized to keep register records of insured persons, those liable to pay contributions and beneficiaries of rights from pension and disability insurance, the legal validity of such documents cannot be challenged in the procedure of ascertaining the termination of the function of a special prosecutor before the Prosecutor's Council," the court announced.
The Administrative Court assessed that there was no obligation of the Prosecutor's Council to stop the proceedings until the end of the administrative proceedings conducted by the prosecutor in order to establish the facts about the length of insurance and the payment of contributions for the period of the achieved length of service with an increased duration, "because they are not relevant to the previous issue for the resolution of this administrative matter." .
Bonus video:
