The Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) concluded yesterday that the former director of that institution Jelena Perović did not submit an objection to the minutes of the oral hearing held at the end of June, although her lawyer and attorney Nikola Martinovic asked them to comment on that document.
That body also determined that after Perović's oral statement, "the factual situation in the case files has not changed compared to that of August 15, 8" when she was removed from the position of director of that institution.
"The Council assessed that the party's oral statement had no impact on the content of the case file and evidence that constitute the basis for dismissal... After conducting an oral hearing, the Council determined the results of the investigation procedure, which will be submitted to the party for a statement," said the president of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption yesterday. Pavle Ćupić.
He recalled that Perović verbally stated the circumstances of her dismissal during the previous session held at the end of June.
"After the procedure, it emerged that Jelena Perović decided for herself about her rights, contrary to Article 9 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption. Pursuant to Article 93, the director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption is elected by the Council," said Ćupić, adding that "the director decides whether Perović had the right to the variables."
Member of the Council Aleksandra Vukašinović She said that they received the results of the procedure late. She added that "the opinion of representative Jelena Perović should have been included."
"With the statement, we are already making a decision - if we say that, after the evidentiary procedure, it follows that Perović made decisions contrary to the Law on the Prevention of Corruption," said Vukašinović, adding "that both sides should be heard equally."
Ćupić then reminded that a decision on Perović's dismissal would be made at a special session.
Member of the Council Predrag Tomović He said that the results of the investigation contained material evidence that was presented in the evidentiary proceedings before the Agency.
He also said that during the oral argument, the party "did not offer any material evidence that would have reconsidered the decision to dismiss."
"The party believed that the grounds for dismissal and the procedure should be carried out by an authorized person, although this is, conditionally speaking, an exception," said Tomović.
Bonus video:
