The Administrative Court has accepted the request of Vesna Vučković, former acting president of the Supreme Court, and determined her right to compensation upon termination of her position.
The decision of the Judicial Council from February this year has been annulled.
"The Administrative Court of Montenegro, in the case of business reference U.br.1943/25, by its judgment of 24.04.2025, accepted the lawsuit of the plaintiff Dr. V. V, annulled the decision of the Judicial Council of Montenegro, number 01-7633/24-6 of 26.02.2025, and accepted the request of the plaintiff Dr. V. V, former judge of the Supreme Court of Montenegro, for the determination of the right to compensation in the amount of the salary she received in the last month before the termination of her office, for a period of one year, starting from 04.12.2024 as the date of termination of her judicial office, with appropriate adjustments," reads the statement on the court's website.
The contested decision, it is recalled, rejected the plaintiff's request for determination of the right to compensation in the amount of the salary she received in the last month before the termination of her office, for a period of one year, starting from the termination of her judicial office, with appropriate adjustments.
"It follows from the reasoning of the judgment that the Judicial Council, by decision number 01-7633/24-1 of 04.12.2024, determined the termination of the plaintiff's judicial function at her personal request. The plaintiff submitted a request within the legal deadline for determining the right to compensation in the amount of the salary she received in the last month before the termination of her function with appropriate adjustment. Deciding on the submitted request, in the repeated proceedings in the execution of the judgment of the Administrative Court of Montenegro U.br.9672/24 of 04.02.2025, the defendant authority, citing the provision of Article 36 of the Law on Salaries of Employees in the Public Sector, stated that at the VI session of the Judicial Council, held on 25.02.2025 and 26.02.2025, during the vote, the plaintiff's request did not receive the required majority of votes of the members of the Judicial Council, which is why it was rejected. Finding that in this matter, in accordance with the provision of Article "Article 36, paragraph 1, item 4 and paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Disputes ('Official Gazette of Montenegro', no. 54/16 and 11/24), the legal prerequisites for deciding in a dispute of full jurisdiction were met, the court decided as in the operative part of the judgment," they said.
"The Court points out that by the judgment of this court U. No. 9672/24 of 04.02.2025, the court decided in such a way that it annulled the earlier decision of the Judicial Council of Montenegro, number 01-7633/24 of 13.12.2024, which rejected the plaintiff's request for determining the right to compensation in the amount of the salary she received in the last month before the termination of her office, for a period of one year, starting from the termination of her judicial office with appropriate adjustment, with explicit legal instructions that in this specific case the plaintiff's request for determining the right to compensation arises, which is why the reasons in the explanation of the annulled decision cannot indicate the correct application of substantive law, and therefore the correctly established factual situation, and that in the retrial it is necessary to adopt a new, lawful decision, in accordance with these findings and substantive law. In execution of the aforementioned judgment, the defendant adopted the contested decision again rejecting the plaintiff's request, whereby even in the repeated "He did not provide valid reasons for the decision, but rather relied on a legally unfounded interpretation of the provision of Article 36 of the Law on Salaries of Employees in the Public Sector, contrary to the legally binding legal understanding and remarks of the judgment of this Court, finding justification for teleological reduction in the interpretation of the legal provision of Article 36 in the draft Law on Amendments to the Law on Salaries in the Public Sector, which provides that this right cannot be exercised in the event of termination of office at personal request, and which amendment to the law has not entered into force, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment," the Administrative Court adds.
By the aforementioned action, according to the finding of that court, the Judicial Council did not act in accordance with the obligation prescribed by Article 56 of the Law on Administrative Disputes.
"The meaning of the aforementioned provision refers to the binding nature of judgments rendered in administrative disputes within the meaning of Article 8 of the same law. This principle not only means the obligation of the competent authority to fully enforce the judgment by which its act was annulled, but also the obligation to act in accordance with the legal understanding and observations of the court stated in the judgment. Since the defendant did not act according to the instructions in the judgment of this court, U. No. 9672/24 of 04.02.2025, he did not act in accordance with the legal understanding of the court expressed in the aforementioned judgment," the statement reads.
The court concludes that the state's obligation to organize a system of enforcement of judgments that is effective both in law and in practice is also indicated by the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mijanović v. Montenegro (application number 1958/06 of 17.09.2013 September XNUMX).
Bonus video:
