He illegally dismissed the Council of the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and Free Access to Information (AZLP). Ivan Medojević from the position of director of that institution in December last year, the first-instance decision of the Podgorica Basic Court.
"According to the order of this court, the decision on the dismissal of the director of the Agency for the Protection of Personal Data and Free Access to Information No. 01-67-20081-1/23 dated 22.12.2023/21.12.2023/XNUMX. which was adopted at the session of XNUMX. is illegal, given that the prosecutor (Medojević) did not meet the conditions for dismissal", the judge's verdict emphasized Mladen Bulatović.
The reason for the dismissal was the appointment of Medojević's wife as an adviser to the Vice President of the Government of Montenegro. The Council, Medojević warned at the time, did not wait for his statement or the information requested from the Government, but decided to dismiss him.
This was stated in the judgment.
"The defendant (Council of AZLP) did not obtain official information from the Government, nor did he wait for the three-day deadline for the prosecutor (Medojević) to give a statement, but instead referred to information from the media, while appreciating that the director of the Agency made a statement in a way that he did not denied the appointment of his wife... Furthermore, what makes the decision illegal is the fact that the defendant in the decision on dismissal refers to the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act, considering that they prescribe the reasons for the dismissal of the members of the Council, and not the director of the Agency...", specified in the verdict.
Medojević's attorney, lawyer Miloš Vukčević he told "Vijesti" yesterday that it was a "gross violation of the law by members of the Council of the Agency that could not remain unnoticed by the court, which resulted in this verdict".
"This is just a continuation of the practice of public office holders who do not hesitate to break the law in order to dismiss management personnel who are not suitable for them due to personal or other reasons. In this case, too, it is about the illegal dismissal of the former director of AZLP, Ivan Medojević, who performed his duties lawfully and professionally, and was dismissed illegally only because at one point he pointed out illegalities in the work of certain members of the Council, which resulted in their anger and rage. who soon after dismissed him in an illegal manner, which was all established by the court. The sole and exclusive observance of the law should be the only criterion for the work of the members of the Council", said Vukčević.
The verdict states that during the trial, Medojević said that the AZLP Council elected him as the director of the Agency on April 27, 2020.
"...And at the end of 2022, he received certain information, from which it follows that there is cooperation of one of the AZLP employees with a certain NGO, about which he informed the members of the Council. By the way, during that period he had the authority to sign certain acts, which authority he received, however, this was questioned by an NGO and he expressed certain doubts. In further work, after receiving inquiries from the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) regarding the cooperation between AZLP and the NGO Civil Alliance, he informed the Council that there was no cooperation. Later, he received information that a working group was formed in which the Agency is headed by a member of the Council (Zoran) Vujicic, which he had no knowledge of when he previously informed the KAS, so he informed them of that fact and submitted evidence in that direction," the verdict reads.
It is also stated that Medojević pointed out that "he informed the President of the Council about everything and asked him to take steps in that direction within his competence, and by acting in that way, i.e. doing his job, he caused anger among certain members of the Council and then it started to there was talk about his dismissal, tension was felt, so he came to work under stress every day, because they announced his dismissal", he specified in the verdict.
Medojević also told the court about other pressures and tensions he suffered since February 2023.
In October, November and December last year, he again received inquiries from ASK, about which he had no knowledge, so he also informed the President of the Council. Željko Rutović and asked for his reaction.
"He pointed out that 18.12.2023 received an inquiry from a journalist regarding his wife's employment in the Government and was asked to comment on those circumstances. Also, 19.12.2023. year, the Council asked him to declare within three days the circumstances related to his wife's employment", the verdict states and adds that the court gave full credence to Medojević's testimony regarding the facts and circumstances concerning his dismissal, i.e. the manner in which he was dismissed and the reason for his dismissal.
Vukčević: The Council was in a hurry to replace him one after the other
Vukčević points out that "the members of the Council of the Agency were in such a hurry to dismiss the former director, that only four months before the end of his mandate, without respecting their own conclusions, they passed an illegal decision on his dismissal, which was annulled by the court".
"All of the above indicates that the goal of the members of the Council was not to respect the law, but that they urgently wanted to dismiss Medojević, even though the legal requirements for his dismissal were not met. The court confirmed the prosecutor's position that in this legal matter the legal requirements for dismissal were not met and that the defendant - the Agency, incorrectly applied substantive law when it referred to the provisions of Articles 54 and 55 of the Personal Data Protection Act, because the aforementioned articles prescribe the reasons for the dismissal of the president and members of the Council, and not for the director of the Agency, from which it follows that no analogy can be made with the provisions of Article 58 of the aforementioned law", explained Vukčević.
He clarifies that the Council of the Agency incorrectly applied the provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act, and it is important to add that the operative part of the decision contradicts the explanation.
"...Because in the enacting clause the reason for dismissal and resignation is the cessation of fulfillment of the conditions for appointment, while in the explanation of the challenged decision the provisions of Articles 55 and 54 of the Personal Data Protection Act are cited, which prescribe the reasons for the dismissal of the president and members of the Council. Therefore, the enacting clause states one reason - due to the termination of meeting the conditions for appointment, and the explanation states another reason - the fulfillment of the conditions for the dismissal of the president and members of the Council due to the circumstances from Article 54 of the Personal Data Protection Act".
Bonus video:
