The Institution of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms (Ombudsman) recommended to the Directorate for Inspection Affairs to respond in writing without further delay to the initiatives for the initiation of inspection supervision that it submitted more than a year and a half ago Dennis Hot.
"The management is obliged to inform the protector about the measures and actions taken to implement the given recommendation within 30 days from the day of receipt of the opinion", it is stated in the document signed by the deputy protector Snezana Mijušković.
According to the document that "Vijesti" had access to, in April 2021, Hot submitted several initiatives for the initiation of inspection at the company "Čistoća" from Podgorica. Then, in June of the same year, he sent an urgent request to obtain information about the results of the submitted initiatives.
This former manager in "Čistoća" and whistleblower stated in his complaint to the institution of the Protector that he was not answered by the Management.
The Institution of the Protector requested a statement on the allegations from the complaint from the Administration. Since the request was not answered, nor were the reasons why it was not acted upon or it was not possible to respond, the institution of the Protector sent an urgent request to the Administration, but it was also ignored.
"The Protector reminds the constitutional obligation of state bodies or organizations that exercise public powers to respond to citizens' requests and addresses. Therefore, the right to appeal is inseparable from the right for the citizen to receive an answer in the manner prescribed by law, which implies an active and up-to-date attitude of the administrative authorities towards the performance of tasks within their scope and the lawful performance of those tasks", states Mijušković's opinion.
Deputy protector Nerma Dobardzic at the end of last year, she issued another opinion in the case of Hota, which concerns the competition for the position of assistant director in the same city company "Čistoća".
He complained that the notification on the selection of the assistant director did not contain an explanation with relevant and sufficient reasons that guided the management of the company when it was adopted.
"With the unreasoned decision on the appointment of the assistant executive director, the complainant was prevented from getting to know the reasons why he was not appointed, and thus possibly exercising the effective right to use legal remedies, even though the legal instruction was stated in the decision. The aforementioned deficiencies led to a violation of the right to a reasoned decision and may call into question the realization of her right to use effective legal remedies," Dobardžić's opinion states.
Summarizing the case, Dobardžić states that in this particular case, by delivering to the complainant only notices for the competition, the capital city, i.e. "Čistoća", violated the right to a reasoned decision, as one of the segments of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective legal remedy from the Constitution of Montenegro and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Dobardžić then recommended the Capital City/"Čistoća" to deliver the appointment decision to the complainant without further delay.
She also instructed that in all future similar situations, when making decisions on the appointment of candidates, the reasons for the decision should be explained in a reasoned manner and allow those applying for the competition to familiarize themselves with the essential reasons on the basis of which the decision was made, so that they could eventually exercise their right to filing an effective remedy.
Bonus video:
