The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, headed by Jelena Perović, misinterpreted the substantive law, and did not correctly and completely establish the factual situation when it decided in 2022 that the former head of state Milo Djukanovic He was not obliged to declare a trip to the fashionable resort of Saint-Tropez in France as a gift, because he was there not as an official, but as a friend of the now-detained businessman. Duško Knežević.
The Administrative Court therefore annulled the Agency's decision and ordered the adoption of a new, lawful decision.
This court assesses that "the misinterpretation of substantive law resulted in the defendant authority in the specific case not correctly and completely establishing the factual situation, since it did not examine in more detail the circumstances surrounding the trip to Saint-Tropez in France, and who, in what way and for what reason paid for the costs of the trip...".
"In examining the legality of the disputed decision, this court found that the defendant body violated the procedural rules set forth in Article 22, paragraph 7 of the Law on Administrative Procedure, because the reasons given in the explanation of the decision are unclear and contrary to the state of the case files and do not refer to the decision given in the enacting clause, that the defendant body misinterprets the substantive law, and that the factual situation has not been properly and completely established," reads the Administrative Court's ruling of May 28, which was reviewed by "Vijesti".
The Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS) appealed the decision of ASK from October 2022, which was then headed by Perović.
The NGO announced yesterday that Perović "is very energetically seeking the implementation of the Administrative Court's ruling in her own case, while she has kept the rulings of that same court that overturned her illegal decisions in the cases of high-ranking officials of the previous regime in a drawer for years."
"In the case of the former President of Montenegro, Milo Đukanović, Perović did not implement the Administrative Court's ruling at all, and now she is demanding that the ruling of the same court in her favor be promptly implemented. The current situation with Perović, five years after the removal of the previous regime, is the most vivid confirmation that the government's results in the fight against corruption are minimal," MANS said.
WHAT DID PEROVIĆ DECIDE, AND WHAT DID THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT DECIDE?
The Administrative Court's ruling states that the plaintiff - NGO MANS - challenged Perović's decision from mid-October 2022.
"...Primarily stating that the operative part of the contested decision is unclear and contradictory, because the plaintiff indicated in his request that the public official, Milo Đukanović, violated Articles 14, 15 and 19 of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest, namely the obligation to refuse gifts and record them, and the defendant decides that the appointed public official was not obliged to report travel expenses," the verdict states.
MANS also pointed out in the lawsuit that they were not allowed to participate in the proceedings and to state their views on all facts relevant to the decision in question.
The Agency reiterated that Đukanović "did not go on the trip in question as a public official, but as a friend of Duško Knežević, the organizer of the celebration."
"Nor is it a gift within the meaning of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest, which clearly defines that a gift consists of money, securities or precious metals, and therefore there was no obligation to report the gift," the Agency reiterated the decision from 2022.
The court, however, takes a different view:
"First of all, the court points out that the defendant's conclusion that the Law on the Prevention of Corruption clearly defines a gift as money, securities or precious metal is incorrect, given the fact that Article 5, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest stipulates that a gift includes money, things, rights and services acquired without appropriate compensation, as well as any other benefit given to a public official or related person, the value of which exceeds 50,00 ¤. Therefore, it clearly follows from the aforementioned provision that the aforementioned Law has set the definition of a gift much broader than it follows from the interpretation of the defendant's body in the contested decision, and therefore the defendant's reasoning, which represents one of the key reasons for making the decision, that in this particular case it is not a gift within the meaning of the Law in question, is incorrect," the judgment signed by the president of the three-member Council states Davor Stojković.
The Court also assesses that the Agency has all the evidence at its disposal.
"...Therefore, its investigative function cannot be exhausted, or reduced to a mere check of the records, or the register of gifts, especially given the fact that the named public official is precisely 'accused' by the allegations of the lawsuit of not having reported the gift related to the paid expenses of the aforementioned trip," the court concludes.
The court also recalled that it had also decided in relation to Đuaknović's trip to Saint-Tropez in September 2021, when Perović was also at the head of ASK.
The Administrative Court then pointed out that the question of whether a public official violated the obligation to provide complete information in the annual report on property income for 2010 should be assessed according to the law in force at the time when the violation, according to the claim, occurred.
WENT TO A PARTY AT A (NON)FRIEND'S HOUSE
Duško Knežević was never my friend, said in January 2019, the President of Montenegro, Milo Đukanović.
"I have a very careful relationship with my friends, I have a very strict selection of friends and he was never part of that circle," Đukanović said at the time when commenting on the allegations that he owns a house in Gorica.
The explanation of the ASK decision from October 2022 states that Đukanović stated in his statement to that institution that in 2010 he traveled to Saint-Tropez "for a celebration, as a friend of Duško Knežević."
"... The public official pointed out that it is true that he was on a trip to Saint-Tropez in the period from 26 June 6 to 2010 June 29, that the travel expenses were borne by the organizer, that he was on the trip in question for the celebration - the defense of Duško Knežević's doctoral thesis, and that in the specific case the public function he performed at that moment was in no way connected with the trip, but rather he went to the celebration as a friend of Duško Knežević," it is stated, among other things, in the explanation of the ASK decision.
A former high-ranking government official from the DPS also traveled to Saint-Tropez that year. Branimir Gvozdenović.
Perović also determined that he had not violated the regulations, that he had not gone on the trip as a public official, but as Knežević's best man.
Gvozdenović then stated in his statement "that the Knežević family, with whom he was related by blood, invited him to the trip/celebration in question."
"And the reason for the celebration was the celebration of the defense of Duško Knežević's doctoral thesis, and in particular, the public function he held at that moment was in no way connected with the trip, but rather, as a friend of the organizer of the celebration at the time, he accepted it as a friendly gesture."
MANS: Protected the former regime, did not enforce the verdicts
MANS says that there are many reasons for the dismissal of Jelena Perović from the position of director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption - from numerous court rulings that found that she continuously violated the law, protecting public officials of the former regime, to rulings that she never implemented.
"Which, both she and her lawyer claim today, constitutes a criminal offense," MANS emphasizes.
According to them, the attempt to return her is particularly worrying at the very moment when ASK is about to make one of the key decisions in the proceedings that directly concern Milo Đukanović.
"Her return would aim to obstruct these proceedings, which is why clear and decisive action by the institutions is urgently needed. We hope that this case will finally sober up the new government - it is high time to carry out a real vetting in the judiciary and institutions, and to finally cleanse them of those who protect the interests of corrupt politicians, instead of the interests of citizens and justice," MANS said.
Perović tried to enter the ASK yesterday, claiming that the Administrative Court ruled that she was the director of that institution. She failed, but announced that she would try again. The ASK Council said that it would respect the decision of the Administrative Court, which annulled the decision to dismiss Perović and ordered that body to make a new, lawful decision.
Bonus video:
