Ivan Dragojević announced that the Basic Court in Danilovgrad issued a first-instance verdict annulling, as unlawful, the decision to dismiss him from the position of Director of the Professional Service of the Danilovgrad Tourist Organization.
He also provided the media with what was written in the court's verdict and reasoning.
"The long-standing dirty campaign and personal and political revenge by the Democrats in Danilovgrad has finally been put to an end, with the verdict of the Basic Court. I express my satisfaction that justice and truth have been satisfied in this way and that I have defended my honor and name from the orchestrated persecution and political persecution of this party in Danilovgrad. Namely, the Basic Court in Danilovgrad confirmed in a first-instance verdict that I was unlawfully dismissed from the position of Director of the Professional Service of the Danilovgrad Tourist Organization, due to political incompetence. After that, a director came to my place, and in the meantime, another one from the ranks of the Democrats for this short time. The verdict confirmed that the reasons for the dismissal were unclear and mutually contradictory, which led to the goal of getting rid of the incompetent at all costs. Their malicious campaign was always aimed at attacking my reputation in my city and country. While waiting for the legal resolution of the situation, I did not engage in any responses to the attacks that came from the specified address," he said.
He said that he "will not hide behind some anonymous statements, nor statements signed by any party or group, but rather his own name and surname."
"The claim is accepted, and the defendant's decision No. 074-9511 of May 29.05.2023, XNUMX, which dismissed the plaintiff from the position of director of the professional service of the 'Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad', is annulled as unlawful," the court's verdict states, as announced by Dragojević.
He also stated what the court's reasoning says.
"The plaintiff, in his complaint and arguments at the hearing, through his attorney, essentially stated that as the director of the Professional Service of the 'Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad' he was employed for a fixed term, for a period of four years, pursuant to the decision of the Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad No. 074-103/1 of 28.05.2020. The Executive Board of the 'Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad', at its session held on 17.05.2023. adopted a decision dismissing him from the duties of the director of the Professional Service of the Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad. The specific decision is unlawful given that the operative part of the decision is contrary to the reasoning and the actual factual situation, i.e. the reasons for the decisive facts given in the reasoning of the contested decision are unclear and mutually contradictory. It follows from the reasoning of the disputed decision that the Supervisory Board of the 'Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad', on 12.05.2023., proposed initiating proceedings for his dismissal, and then the Executive Board, upon the proposal of the Supervisory Board, formed a commission with the task of considering the reasons from the proposal for dismissal. On 16.05.2023., a request was sent to him via e-mail for a statement regarding the allegations from the proposal for the dismissal of the Director of the Professional Service of the 'Tourist Organization of Danilovgrad', dated 12.05.2023., to which he responded within the given deadline. In the explanation of the disputed decision, there is no evidence that a procedure to determine any liability was carried out in relation to him, i.e. the commission did not examine the allegations from the proposal for initiating the procedure at all, nor was he allowed to comment on the commission's decision on the reasons for dismissal, in accordance with the provisions of Article 48, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the 'Tourist Organization of the Municipality of Danilovgrad'. In the procedure conducted by the formed commission, the commission was not obliged to examine the allegations in the proposal for dismissal, in what way the factual situation would be established, i.e. the existence of any liability, and after the procedure was conducted, he was given the opportunity to state his opinion on the established reasons for dismissal. In this way, the commission automatically accepted the reasons for his dismissal. After a conscientious and careful assessment of all the evidence presented, each individually and in their mutual relationship, in the sense of the provision of Article 9 of the Law on Civil Procedure, it was decided as in the operative part of the judgment".
Bonus video:
