After the Administrative Court annulled the Government's decision on the dismissal of the Inspector General of the National Security Agency, Artan Kurti, in a full jurisdiction dispute, today he addressed the General Secretariat of the Government with a submission, where he warned them "that he should continue his mandate".
In his submission, Kurti stated that the Administrative Court assessed that the contested act of the Government is illegal and that the judgment annuls it, i.e. removes it from legal circulation.
"According to Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Disputes, decisions made in administrative disputes are binding," stated Kurti and warned the Government that "non-execution of court decisions constitutes a criminal offense".
Kurti's lawyer, Vaso Bečanović, told "Vijesta" that the Administrative Court ruled on the merits of the administrative matter, so the case is no longer being returned to the Government for further proceedings.
"This means that the decision on the dismissal no longer exists, nor does the Prime Minister's proposal on the dismissal exist, and therefore Artan Kurti continues to perform the function of inspector general, with all the rights and obligations he had on the day of dismissal," said lawyer Bečanović.
After dismissing Kurti for the first time, on March 20 of this year, the Government appointed former secret service officer Predrag Burić as inspector general of ANB.
The Administrative Court stated in a statement that with their verdict, "the legal force of the Prime Minister's proposal ends."
The judgment of June 18 of this year in a dispute with full jurisdiction adopted Kurti's lawsuit and canceled the decision on the dismissal of the inspector general of ANB from April 18 of this year.
On March 4, the Administrative Court annulled the Government's decision of November 9, 2023, by which Kurti was dismissed for the first time from the position of Inspector General of the ANB, and then the case was sent back for retrial.
"In its decision, the court pointed out to the defendant the shortcomings of the reasons for explaining the contested decision, which, apart from a mere reference to the procedural laws establishing the competence of the defendant to issue a decision on dismissal, does not contain a single concrete and clear reason for the fulfillment of the conditions for the application of the provisions of Article 60, paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees. The duty of the defendant stipulated in Article 56 of the Law on Administrative Disputes, after the court's decision annulling its decision, is not exhausted by observing the deadline prescribed by paragraph 2 of the cited article for the adoption of a new decision. the same refers primarily to the obligation to respect the legal understanding and remarks pointed out by the court's judgment," the Administrative Court's announcement reads.
In the retrial, they state, "acting contrary to its legal obligation, the Government made the same decision".
"With the mere observation that the decision was made in the execution of the judgment of March 4, 2024, although the decision is affected by the same violations of procedural law and is based on an incorrectly and incompletely established factual situation. The court, once again, emphasizes that it is within the undoubted competence of the defendant to appoint and dismiss the inspector general in the sense of Article 40 paragraph 3 of the Law on National Security Agency. However, the discretionary right of the appointing authority, i.e. the dismissal of the appointed person before the end of the mandate, is a decision based only on the basis of the legal norm, and by no means arbitrary legally unrelated treatment, as it is very often misunderstood and misunderstood in practice," the court stated.
Discretionary action, it is written in the statement, "cannot mean determining, prescribing norms, nor can it mean denying and ignoring them".
"According to the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, the provisions of Article 60, Paragraph 1, the reasons for the termination of the mandate of an appointed or appointed person are exhaustively enumerated - expiration of the mandate, at personal request, termination of employment, in the case of Article 84, Paragraph 5 and Article 134 of this Law and The person referred to in paragraph 1 of this article shall be dismissed if he has been sentenced to an unconditional prison sentence, if he has been convicted of a criminal offense that makes him unfit to perform his duties in a state body, if he has been ordered to terminate his employment by an executive decision, and in other prescribed cases by a special law", explained the court.
In the case of Kurti, they state, "the authority of the authority to make a decision on his dismissal before the expiration of the term for which he was appointed does not give that authority the right to base the reasons for dismissal on facts - lack of confidence in his work and success in performing work tasks, without specifying the same".
"And which the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees, but also the Law on the National Security Agency, as lex specialis, does not recognize as a basis for the adoption of the contested decision," the explanation reads.
The court also pointed out that the allegations of the response to the lawsuit cannot compensate for the deficiencies in the explanation of the decision regarding decisive facts.
"Which is why the same, in the part of allegations about the prosecutor's previous convictions, were not appreciated when making a decision on the legality of the contested decision. All of the above was a reason for the court, after discussing the disputed legal matters as a whole, to decide on the merits, in a dispute with full jurisdiction in accordance with by the provisions of Article 36, Paragraph 1, Point 4 and Paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Disputes and invalidate the challenged decision of the Government as illegal, without returning the case for further processing and decision-making," the announcement reads.
Bonus video:
