The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) did not correctly and completely establish the facts when it concluded that the former advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister Filip Adzic did not violate regulations by not reporting travel to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
This is stated in the ruling of the Administrative Court following MANS's lawsuit against the ASK decision.
The decision according to which Adžić did not violate the regulations because, as it was explained at the time, "he was not officially residing in the UAE" was made at the time. Jelena Perović, but the Administrative Court overturned that position at the end of last year and ordered the new ASK management to adopt a new solution.
The Court also emphasizes that the Agency then failed to determine who, how, and for what reason paid for Adžić's travel expenses.
"ASK is acting in accordance with the ruling of the Administrative Court, and the public will be informed of all findings in a timely manner, with consistent respect for the principles of legality and impartiality," ASK, which is now headed by an acting director, told "Vijesti". Dušan Drakić.
The then Deputy Prime Minister Dritan Abazovic and his advisor Adžić visited the UAE in December 2021.
MANS initiated proceedings before the Agency in April 2022, emphasizing that Abazović and Adžić stayed in the United Arab Emirates at their own expense. Mohammed Al Shaibani, who heads the Royal Court and is the CEO of the Investment Corporation of Dubai (ICD), the company that owns Porto Montenegro in Tivat.
In the initiative, they explained that, pursuant to the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, public officials are prohibited from receiving gifts other than protocol and occasional gifts - up to 50 euros in value, and especially gifts related to the performance of public office. They also pointed out that these officials had to refuse a gift in the form of paid travel and accommodation expenses, and to prepare a written report on this, which they would then submit to the authority in which they perform public office, in this case the Government of Montenegro, or the General Secretariat of the Government (GSG).
The previous ASK leadership, led by Perović, concluded that Abazović did not violate the Law either, stating that they believed the official's allegations that "the trip in question was not related to the performance of a public function, but that it was exclusively about a private organization, and that it was unclear to him that, in addition to performing a public function, he could not have his own privacy...".
The Administrative Court, however, points out in its ruling that ASK violated the rules of procedure, and that the reasons given in the explanation of the decision are "unclear and contrary to the situation in the case files and do not refer to the decision given in the enacting clause."
"The defendant body (the Agency) misinterprets the substantive law, and the factual situation has not been properly and completely established. First of all, the court points out that the defendant body's conclusion that the Law on the Prevention of Corruption clearly defines a gift as money, securities or precious metal is erroneous, given the fact that Article 6, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Law stipulates that a gift includes a thing, right or service acquired or performed without compensation and any other benefit given to a public official or a person associated with a public official, in connection with the performance of a public function," the verdict specified.
The misinterpretation of substantive law, according to the Administrative Court, resulted in the ASK not correctly and completely establishing the factual situation "since it did not examine in more detail the circumstances related to the trip in question to the UAE, and who, in what way and for what reason paid for the costs thereof".
"Also, the defendant authority, when determining the decisive fact of whether this particular case involved a gift in connection with the performance of a public function, did not fully clarify all the circumstances. Namely, the defendant authority bases its conclusion that the appointed public official went on the trip in question in his capacity as a citizen, and not as a public official, primarily on a letter from the General Secretariat of the Government of Montenegro, from which it follows that he was not on a working visit to the Emirates in December 2021, whereby the defendant did not appreciate the printed version of the announcement - the text from the official website of the Government of Montenegro, which MANS submitted with the request to initiate proceedings, and according to which the Deputy Prime Minister of the Government Dritan Abazović and members of his cabinet visited EXPO Dubai as part of a working visit to the UAE," the Administrative Court states.
Then, upon his return from the UAE, Abazović, when asked by journalists in the Parliament of Montenegro, stated that he and part of his cabinet had been invited by Shaibani.
"It's not a watch, it's not a bowl, it's not a book, it's a gift. I have my own private trips, I haven't been informed that I need to report them to ASK. So, if I go to Sarajevo for New Year's, I need to report it to ASK. I really can't understand that. If it needs to be reported, I have nothing against it. They've invited us before, when we were in Turkey, that trip also cost the government zero euros, because the hosts informed us in advance that they would cover the costs of transportation, accommodation, etc. Maybe someone was paid per diem for Turkey, but here it was zero euros," Abazović explained at the time.
Djukanovic's travels are not a gift either
In October 2022, the agency decided that the former president of Montenegro did not violate the law when he traveled to Dubai, UAE, in March 2010, at the expense of the president of Atlas Group, Duško Knežević.
"Djukanovic pointed out that it is true that he was on a trip to the UAE - Dubai in the period from 25 to 30 March 2010, and that the travel expenses were borne by the organizer. He explained that he was invited to the trip in question with his wife for a private gathering, and that the public function he held at that moment was in no way connected to the trip," the explanation reads.
It is further stated that in this specific case there can be no question of a violation of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest, because travel does not fall under the category of money, securities or precious materials, so he proposed that the report be dismissed as unfounded.
"A review of the gift register for 2010 and 2011 determined that the trip was not included, and that no report had been made on its rejection. This is a new decision after the Administrative Court annulled the Agency's previous decision," states Perović's decision from October 2022.
Bonus video:
