"Opinion is solely a matter of legal interpretation"

Former Acting Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption Savo Milašinović reacted to the article "Milašinović purged property records", which "Vijesti" published on Friday, stating that it contained incorrect and incomplete information.

We transmit the reaction in its entirety:

"In relation to the specific case, which is mentioned in the text, I inform you that during the period when I was performing the duties of assistant director, the Agency took the position that the person in question is not a public official according to the definition from Article 3 of the ZSK and based on a previous review of the articles of incorporation, the statute and decisions of the said legal entity. In accordance with the above interpretation, two reports for two persons were removed from the Agency's website, and this is the only such case in the Agency's actions. Therefore, such an interpretation is taken in cases where the appointment was not made by the authorities, and the persons in question established an employment relationship through an employment contract, and such persons did not even submit reports on assets and income. As two persons had already submitted reports, and in order to establish uniformity in treatment, the said reports were removed.

The fact that the new director has a different opinion from the previous management is solely a matter of legal interpretation of the regulations, the correctness of which can be reviewed in each specific case in a corresponding administrative proceeding, that is, an administrative dispute.

As for the part of the text that refers to the termination of my employment relationship with the Agency, I inform you that the Agency never gave me a decision on the termination of employment relationship, but while I was on sick leave due to a serious health condition caused by a malignant disease, it served me with a notice that my mandate expired three months earlier, although I was never appointed to a mandate, which I am sending you the decision on my appointment. As the notification in question is completely illegal, I initiated appropriate proceedings before the competent court to cancel it and return to the workplace.

I also inform you that the Agency adopted a new Rulebook on systematization in February 2021 and assigned both assistants to new positions, so me and my colleague Nina Paović, as well as other employees of the Agency who are employed for an indefinite period. However, only I was dismissed, even though I was not assigned to any mandate in the previous decision, while the other assistant continued to work. I also inform you that the Agency had previously illegally assigned me to an official position, against which decision I filed an appeal, which was accepted, and the Appeals Committee annulled the Agency's illegal decision in its entirety and ordered it to implement a new assignment procedure within 20 days, but instead to act according to the order of the Commission and make a legal decision, I was served with a retroactive notice at the end of June 2021, that my mandate, that is, my employment, ended three months earlier on May 02.05.2021, 30. year, which is unprecedented treatment that I have not experienced in more than XNUMX years of my official career. I am attaching the notice and decision of the Appeals Commission".