Three judges of the Administrative Court heard the case according to the complaint Jelena Perović against the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption due to the dismissal in the summer, was confirmed by the "News" in that institution.
According to Perović's lawsuit, an administrative dispute was initiated in the Administrative Court against the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in order to annul the decision number 00-2188/6 of August 15, 2024, when it was unanimously decided to remove her from the position of director of the ASK because "public interest subordinated to private".
The Administrative Court told "Vijesta" that the lawsuit changed three judges - reporters.
"Using the method of randomly assigning cases, the reporter judge was initially in charge Lidija Novović. However, after the request for disqualification was submitted by the prosecutor, the president of the court issued a decision that accepted the disqualification request, so judge Lidija Novović was exempted from performing judicial duties as a judge reporter in that case," the Administrative Court wrote in its response.
They clarified that the president of the court Miodrag Pešić accepted the request for exemption, because it was determined that Judge Lidija Novović filed a criminal complaint against Perović for the criminal offense of tax and contribution evasion from Art. 264 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro.
"That circumstance, in the opinion of the president of the court, may raise doubts about the judge's impartiality, so in order to preserve the standard of impartiality and objectivity, the case was assigned to another judge using the method of random assignment of cases," explained the answer.
After Judge Novović, using the method of random allocation, the case, which was filed in the court under the business code U.br.6009/24, assigned the report to the judge. Svetlana Radosevic, but Perović again submitted a request to remove that judge from the case.
"The plaintiff submitted a new request for exemption, for the reason that as the director of KAS, she made a decision by which she established that the judge, as a public official, violated Article 23 paragraph 2 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption. The aforementioned request for exemption was adopted by the decision of the president of the court, for the reason that the aforementioned circumstance creates legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the judge-reporter, which is contrary to the guarantees of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention", writes the answer, which is signed by the secretary of the Administrative Court Nina Lalatović.
After two requests and approved exemptions, according to the Administrative Court, the case reached the judge using the method of random allocation Tamara Bulajić.
The ASK Council unanimously dismissed Perović on August 15. Immediately after that decision was made, the Agency's website published a statement by the former director in which she claimed that her dismissal was "politically motivated" and that "the political parties on whose behalf, as she claims, the majority of Council members are implementing the plan for her dismissal, obviously have the promise of impunity for many crimes".
Perović also listed the violations that, as she claims, were committed by the new Council of the Agency. He alleges that the Council had to call for meetings, which were convened against the rules, that he was not allowed to elect a deputy president...
The former director of KAS has been under house arrest since mid-April because the Special State Prosecutor's Office accuses her of abusing her official position and damaging the state budget by more than 100.000 euros, through the allocation of variables to herself and a selected circle of officials, as well as compensation for work in the Agency's working bodies. overtime and holiday work...
After being dismissed, Perović asked the Council of the Agency to allow her to receive compensation for another year upon termination of office, the so-called official compensation in the amount of the salary she received in the last month before the termination of her position, which she was granted.
Bonus video:
