The Administrative Court annulled the decision of the budget inspectors regarding the variables of Jelena Perović

The Administrative Court of Montenegro annulled the decision of the Ministry of Finance dated April 15, which ordered the director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK), Jelena Perović, to eliminate irregularities in relation to the decision on earnings, dated March 20, 2024.

That decision established the right to a variable part of the salary and a decision to work longer than full time (overtime), from March 20, 2024, which was brought by herself, as an unauthorized person, for the director.

In the Administrative Court, headed by Miodrag Pešić, they believe that Finance Minister Novica Vuković must first decide on the request for the exemption of female budget inspectors.

"Deciding on the filed lawsuit, the Administrative Court found that on March 29, 2024, and after the submission of the Minutes of Control Inspection Supervision dated March 26, 2024, the Agency submitted a (new) request for the exemption of female budget inspectors, which was not decided, so since, unlike other procedural laws, the Law on Administrative Procedure does not provide for the rejection of a request for exemption if it has already been decided or if it has not been explained, there was an obligation of the Minister to decide on the request for exemption from March 29, 2024." it is stated in the judgment of the Administrative Court.

The Administrative Court of Montenegro also states that in this particular case there was no place for the application of the "pointing out" institute from Article 36 of the Law on Inspection Supervision, which stipulates that, if the inspector determines irregularities in the inspection procedure, he will point out the irregularities to the subject of supervision and set an appropriate deadline to eliminate them.

"However, paragraph 2 of the same article defines the conditions under which the inspector can resort to 'pointing out', and that is if the subject of supervision agrees to it, i.e. if he declares that he does not require the adoption of a decision. Given that the prosecutor did not agree at any time with the fact that any omissions were made, on the contrary, after submitting each report, the prosecutor filed objections, denying his responsibility for any omission identified by the budget inspectors, the allegation of the lawsuit was founded that they could not point out the observed irregularities to the Agency," it says. in the announcement of the Administrative Court.

The Special State Prosecutor's Office suspects Perović of abuse of official position, which damaged the state budget by more than 100.000 euros.