The Administrative Court annulled the decision of the ASK Council to dismiss Jelena Perović, ordered a new decision to be made

The Administrative Court of Montenegro has annulled the decision of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) which dismissed Jelena Perović from the position of director of ASK, Vijesti has learned.

That court ordered ASK to make a new, lawful decision in the retrial.

"The defendant authority will, in the retrial, taking into account the reasons from this judgment, in accordance with the Administrative Dispute Act, make a new, lawful decision," the judgment states, according to information from Vijesti.

After her dismissal in the summer of last year, Perović sued the ASK Council, claiming that during her dismissal, the provisions of the administrative procedure were violated, the situation was incorrectly and incompletely determined, and substantive law was incorrectly applied.

The ASK Council unanimously dismissed Perović on August 15th of last year. Immediately after the decision was made, a statement from the former director was published on the ASK website, claiming that her dismissal was "politically motivated" and that "the political parties on whose behalf the majority of the Council members are implementing the plan for her dismissal are clearly promised impunity for many criminal acts."

Perović also listed the violations that, she claims, were committed by the new ASK Council.

It is alleged that the Council had to invite her to sessions, which were convened in violation of the rules, and that she was not allowed to elect a deputy president...

Today's announcement by the Administrative Court states that, deciding on the filed complaint, it assessed that in the proceedings preceding the adoption of the disputed decision, Perović was not allowed to state her position regarding the reasons why she was dismissed from her position as the director of ASK by the disputed decision.

"It is not disputed that the agenda of the Council session is determined at the session (Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption), as was done in the specific case, when the members of the Council, after reviewing the documentation on the inspection supervision carried out, concluded that there were reasons for the dismissal of the Director of the Agency from Article 98, paragraph 1, item 4, in connection with Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, which relate to the violation of the provisions of the Law and the rules on the work of the Agency and the obligation of a public official to perform his or her function in a manner that does not subordinate the public interest to the private, as well as not to cause a conflict of interest in the performance of a public function. However, since at the same session, without prior notification to the plaintiff, the procedure for her dismissal was initiated and a decision was made, the Court concluded that she was not given the opportunity to participate in the procedure for her dismissal and to state her opinion on the facts relevant to the decision, since the statement of the plaintiff, number 01-2193 of 15.08.2024., to which the defendant referred, was given in relation to the second reason for dismissal (from Article 98 paragraph 1 item 3, and in relation to the failure to meet the conditions from Article 87 paragraph 3 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption), and not the reason for which she was dismissed from her duties by the contested decision. Due to the aforementioned procedural violation, the Court assessed that the contested decision should have been annulled," the Administrative Court said in a statement.