Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption Jelena Perović she will have to return EUR 58.539,7 to the state, as well as default interest from May 17, 2019, because she sold an 87-square-meter apartment that she got on favorable terms, and she did not fulfill her obligation and remained a judge for five years.
This is stated in the first-instance verdict issued by the judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica Mirza Ademović, according to the state's claim for damages.
The state initiated the dispute against the director of the Agency after the initiative of the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS), at the end of November 2022. MANS then appealed to the institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests to request compensation for damages on behalf of the state due to non-fulfillment of the contractual obligation when purchasing an apartment on favorable terms. .
Perović has been under house arrest since mid-April because the Special State Prosecutor's Office accuses her of abusing her official position in the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and damaging the budget for more than 100.000 euros.
What does the verdict say?
The verdict states that Perović, as a judge and president of the Basic Court in Cetinje in the capacity of buyer with that court - seller, concluded a contract for the sale of real estate under favorable conditions on January 11, 2018, and that it is an apartment on the first floor with an area of 86,45 ,7,74 square meters and a storage area of XNUMX square meters.
"The apartment in question was assigned to the defendant on the basis of the Decision of the Judicial Council - Commission for solving the housing needs of judges... The defendant, in the contract in question, in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 paragraph 3 and 4 of the Rulebook on the method and criteria for solving the housing needs of judges, undertook to to remain in the position of judge for at least five years from the date of conclusion of the contract, and if she voluntarily terminates the position of judge before the expiration of that term, she undertakes to return the apartment or compensate for its market value that was valid on the date of conclusion of the contract," the verdict reads.
It is stated that the representative of the state - the institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests emphasized in the lawsuit that Perović did not comply with this obligation, considering that her position ended, of her own volition, in July 2020, when she was appointed as the director of the Agency.
The state demanded that Perović pay 58.539,7 euros, which, according to the expert opinion, is the difference between the market value of the apartment and 31.960,3 euros - the price at which Perović bought the 87-square-meter property on favorable terms.
Judge Ademović states that "The Rules on the Method and Criteria for Solving the Housing Needs of Judges prescribe that contracts concluded with a judge who has less than 10 years of judicial experience must contain a provision that the judge is obliged to remain in the judicial position for at least five years from the date of conclusion of the contract ”, and that otherwise he is obliged to return the apartment, loan or land or compensate the market value.
"In the Agreement on the sale of immovable property under favorable conditions dated January 11.01.2018, 24.07.2020. year, the defendant undertook that, in accordance with the mentioned article from the Rulebook, she will remain in the position of judge for at least five years from the date of conclusion of the contract, and that if her position as a judge ends at her will before the expiration of that period, she will return the apartment, or compensate the market value. However, the defendant did not comply with the contractual obligation, but was given on 25.07.2020. on the basis of her will, the function of a judge ceased, about which she informed the Judicial Council, and already on 12.01.2023. was appointed as the director of the Agency. The defendant's thesis about a different calculation of the five-year term is not acceptable, but, in the opinion of this court, in order to avoid the consequences of returning the apartment or paying for it at market value, she had to remain in the judicial position from the moment the contract was concluded at least until January XNUMX, XNUMX. year, which she did not do", it was emphasized in the verdict, which "Vijesti" had access to.
Defense
For judge Ademović, the allegations of the defense of Perović that she did not even acquire the right of ownership over the real estate, because the apartment was not registered in her name in the real estate cadastre, are of no importance.
"However, the fact that the plaintiff was not registered as the owner of the apartment does not influence a different ruling... The fact that the defendant, as an assignor, transferred all her rights regarding the matter in question to the JR before she was registered as the owner, because the apartment was still under construction, she does not excuse the same obligation she assumed under the Agreement on the sale of real estate under favorable conditions...", the judgment emphasized.
The thesis of the defendant, it is stated, was that the Agreement on Sale on Favorable Terms is a pre-contract in its content...
"If the pre-contract in question does not produce legal effect without the conclusion of the main contract, as stated by the defendant, the question arises as to how she could then transfer the same apartment to a third party and transfer the rights and obligations to that person, i.e. give consent that the buyer can to be registered in the real estate cadastre, and finally, if that legal reason of the defendant stands, the question arises - how would the defendant collect the purchase price from the buyer", the judgment specified.
According to the verdict, the court accepted the findings and opinion of the expert and based the decision on the amount of damages on it.
"The court also awarded the plaintiff legal default interest on the awarded amount, starting from May 17.05.2019, 305. as the date of conclusion of the Agreement on the Transfer of Rights and Obligations UZZ no. 19/284, and according to the provisions of Art. 1 st. XNUMX of the Law on Obligations", concludes Ademović.
Perović is the second public official who was sanctioned by a first-instance verdict to compensate money for the damage she caused to the state budget. Recently, he is a judge of the Basic Court in Podgorica Sanela Efović established that the former chief special prosecutor Milivoje Katnic he must return 11.525,67 euros to the state, with legal interest, because in 2017 he was responsible for the damage caused by the violation of the lawyer's personality rights Goran Rodić, Siniše Gazivode i Marije Radulović.
The state is currently in court asking that the former Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports compensate for the damage to the budget. Vesna Bratic, which signed dozens of dismissals of directors of educational institutions in 2021. Most of them sued the state, and the courts ruled that the decisions on their dismissal were illegal, due to which, it was previously estimated, the state will suffer damages of around 300.000 euros.
The judiciary must protect the public interest
Director of the MANS Research Center Dejan Milovac he told "Vijesti" yesterday that the verdict was expected "given the amount and solidity of the evidence presented by the office of the Protector in this case".
"We hope that after the judgment becomes final, it will become part of the regular court practice, which will ensure that a good part of the money that was illegally stolen from the budget will eventually be returned to the citizens of Montenegro. Jurisprudence that protects the public interest is something that is expected from the Montenegrin judiciary in the process of EU integration. Precedents like this should and must serve as a warning to all those public officials who are suspected of illegally taking advantage of the state budget, that justice takes time, but that it is a process that must continue," Milovac said. .
I Marija Popović Kalezić from the NGO CEGAS expects that "these judgments will be indicators and initiators of new procedures for determining responsibility and possible guilt for omissions in work and behavior, through the judicial system, precisely through the competent prosecution and courts".
"These verdicts and these indictments must be seriously addressed by the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council. We must put an end to selective justice, political, criminal and interest influences on the judiciary and prosecution, as well as abuses of official duties by those who must be the bearers of the rule of law," she stressed.
According to Popović Kalezić, "the verdicts we are witnessing are not surprising, if we take into account the decades-long entrapment of institutions by the partitocratic regime".
"But I'm afraid that they won't stop there, and that as a state and society, in strengthening the judicial system, we haven't done what is necessary, so that similar things don't happen again. It is clear that the damage to the state is more than great, both in legal and material sense. According to the Law on Obligations as well as the Law on State Prosecution, we can hardly believe that the state can be charged from those who are guilty of apparently unexecuted and poorly charged acts, if we take into account that the scope of the amount of damage caused will be large. The performance of criminal procedural actions, outside the basic principles and rules provided for by the CPC, by authorized persons (search, confiscation of items, wiretapping of telephone conversations, public publication of illegally collected information), can hardly be understood as an omission in regular work. This should have long been an alarm, both for the Judicial Council and the Prosecutor's Council, to use their competences and mechanisms at their disposal to enter into the essential control of the case, from their own ranks," Popović Kalezić assessed.
Indiscriminate control and clear determination of responsibility, she says, can show willingness to reduce the consequences, if not finally stop them.
Bonus video:
