Bjelica without the function of dean because the members of the Board of Directors were against it

The Podgorica High Court confirmed the verdict of the Basic Court and determined that the regulations were not violated by the University of Montenegro's Board of Directors (UO UCG) deciding not to elect the full professor of that institution, Duško Bjelica, as dean of the Faculty of Sports and Physical Education.

"The appeal is rejected as unfounded and the judgment of the Basic Court in Podgorica P. no. 2586/21 of 17.12 is confirmed. 2021. Each party bears its own costs of the second-instance proceedings", reads the verdict of the Podgorica High Court, which "Vijesti" had access to.

In mid-June last year, the UCG Board of Directors did not accept the proposal of the Council of the Faculty of Sports and Physical Education that Professor Bjelica be the head of that institution for the next three years.

After that, the professor of the Faculty of Sports sued UCG, claiming that everything was done illegally, and that the decision was made based on the opinion of acting rector Vladimir Božović at the time.

In the explanation of the High Court verdict, it is also stated that Bjelica filed an appeal against the first-instance verdict, which established that the regulations were not violated by not being elected dean.

"In the appeal, it is essentially stated that the first-instance court determines that the plaintiff applied for the competition in a timely manner, that he meets the requirements for election to the position of dean, that such was the proposal of the Faculty Council, that the acting rector gave a negative opinion regarding the appeal to the UCG Board of Directors for the election prosecutor, and that after that the UCG Board of Directors decided by majority vote not to elect the prosecutor as dean. The reasons of the first-instance court are contradictory, when it renders a verdict based on the negative opinion of the vice chancellor, because that cannot be a reason for the prosecutor not to be selected," states the verdict of the High Court, which is contained in Bjelica's appeal.

According to the reasoning of the higher court, he further states in the appeal that "the actions that preceded the adoption of the disputed decision were carried out legally, so the court does not give valid reasons that the defendant (UCG) made a legal decision".

"...Considering the fact that when adopting it, he took into account only the opinion of the rector. The court did not take into account article 75, paragraph 1 of the UCG Statute, which stipulates that the dean elects and dismisses the UCG Board of Directors, upon the proposal of the council of the organizational unit, as well as to state in the challenged judgment the reason why the defendant had the right to make the disputed decision contrary to the stated article of the Statute...", the explanation reads.

The higher court, however, is of the opinion that the procedure was followed - the Council of the Faculty of Sports determined the proposal and submitted it to the UCG Board of Directors, and the Acting Rector gave an opinion.

"It is not stated in the complaint that the decision of the Board of Directors of UCG was made based on the negative opinion of the acting rector, but also from the explanation of the decision, it follows that the decision was made by the majority of votes of the total number of members not to elect the prosecutor (Bjelica) as dean. Therefore, the decision was made in accordance with Article 30, paragraph 3 of the Statute - by the majority of votes from the total number of members of the Board of Directors..., and that the circumstance that does not need to be explained separately is sufficient for the non-election of the prosecutor to the title of dean, given the authority of the Board of Directors to make the election, and what means that he may not choose the proposed candidate if there is not a sufficient number of votes for such a proposal", it is stated in the judgment of the High Court.