The Government illegally dismissed the Inspector General of the National Security Agency (ANB) Artan Kurti, the Administrative Court ruled.
The decision on Kurti's dismissal was annulled.
"By the decision of the Government of Montenegro No. 10-104/24-2956/2 of 01.08.2024, adopted in execution of the Judgment of this court, U. no. 3752/24 of 18.06.2024, the AK was relieved of the duties of inspector general in National Security Agency, on the proposal of the Prime Minister of Montenegro no 01-100/24-2956 dated August 01.08.2024, 36. Finding that the conditions from Article 1, paragraph 4 and paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Disputes have been met, the Administrative Court, by judgment No. 5722/2024, dated November 21.11.2024, 10. decided in the dispute of full jurisdiction in such a way that he adopted the lawsuit and annulled the decision on the dismissal of the general inspector in the National Security Agency number 104-24/2956-2/01.08.2024 dated August XNUMX, XNUMX.
"The judgment of this court, U. no. 16614/2023 of March 04.03.2024, 08, annulled the earlier decision of the Government of Montenegro, number 104-23/5594-2/09.11.2023 of November 60, 2, by which the AK was relieved of the duties of general inspector of the National Security Agency and the case was returned to the defendant for retrial deficiencies in the reasons for the explanation of 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 applying the provision of Article 56 paragraph 2 of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees. The defendant's duty regulated by Article XNUMX of the Law on Administrative Disputes, after the court's decision annulling its decision, is not exhausted in compliance with the deadline prescribed by paragraph XNUMX of the cited article for adoption of a new decision, but the same refers primarily to the obligation to respect the legal understanding and remarks pointed out by the court's judgment.
"In the retrial, acting contrary to her legal obligation, the defendant makes the same decision, with the mere statement that the decision was made in the execution of the judgment U. no. 16614/2023 of March 04.03.2024, XNUMX.
"By the judgment of this court, U. no. 3752/2024 of 18.06.2024 June 08, the court decided on the merits in such a way that it annulled the earlier decision of the Government of Montenegro, number 104-24/1453-4/18.04.2024 of 01.08.2024 April 01.08.2024. year, by which AK was dismissed from the duties of the Inspector General of the National Security Agency, without returning the case to the U execution of the above-mentioned judgment, at the session held on 01.08.2024, the Supreme Court concluded that, starting from 45, the mandate of the Inspector General in the National Security Agency was submitted by the Prime Minister on the same day to the Government of Montenegro for his dismissal, which proposal the same day at the XNUMXth session the Government accepted and dismissed the prosecutor from his duties with the contested decision inspector general in the National Security Agency.
"By the aforementioned action, according to the order of the court, the defendant did not act in accordance with the obligation prescribed by the provision of Article 56 of the Law on Administrative Disputes. The meaning of the aforementioned provision refers to the obligation of judgments made in administrative disputes in the sense of Article 8 of the same law. This principle does not mean only the obligation of the competent authority to fully execute the verdict, by which his act was annulled, but also the obligation to act in everything according to the legal understanding and remarks of the court stated in the verdict.
"The Court emphasizes that the authority of the authority to make a decision on the dismissal of the appointed person before the expiration of the term for which he was appointed does not give the authority the right to base the reasons for the dismissal on the provisions of Article 27a paragraph 1 point 2 and Article 40 paragraph 2 of the Law on the Agency for National security, which provisions refer to the conditions for establishing an employment relationship in the Agency, and the condition for the appointment of the chief inspector in the Agency appointment, in which procedure the fulfillment of both general and special conditions on the part of the candidate is examined in accordance with the legal regulations valid at the time of appointment, but the decision on dismissal, in which procedure the fulfillment of the conditions for dismissal in accordance with the Law on Civil Servants and This is especially because the Law on the National Security Agency, as a lex specialis, does not provide for special conditions for the dismissal of the inspector general, which is why the position, rights, duties and responsibilities of a civil servant The agency, including the prosecutor, in accordance with the provision of Article 38 of the same law, applies the law regulating the working relations of police officers and general regulations on civil servants, unless otherwise specified by this law.
"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 the provision of Article 36 paragraph 1 point 4 and paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Disputes and annul the contested decision of the Government of Montenegro as illegal Above, without returning the case for retrial and decision. By eliminating the contested decision from the legal circulation, the legal force of the proposal of the Government also ceases, for which reason it was not necessary to decide on the merits of the proposal, as the act that initiated the procedure for the dismissal of the prosecutor, since the same act shares the legal fate of the annulled decision," reads the statement signed by the spokeswoman of the Administrative Court, judge Ivana Boričić.
Bonus video:
