Djukanovic vs. ASK: Decision in January

The former president assessed that ASK deliberately made a decision aimed at causing him harm, affecting his honor and reputation, and that this decision violated the obligation to protect personal data.

10790 views 149 reactions 31 comment(s)
Đukanović with his lawyer and sister, Ana Đukanović, at one of the previous hearings, Photo: Luka Zekovic
Đukanović with his lawyer and sister, Ana Đukanović, at one of the previous hearings, Photo: Luka Zekovic
Disclaimer: The translations are mostly done through AI translator and might not be 100% accurate.

The court will rule in January on whether the Anti-Corruption Agency (AKS) violated the personality rights of the former president of Montenegro. Milo Đukanović by publishing a decision regarding the use of Atlas Bank revolving cards.

This was announced after the trial of Đukanović's lawsuit against ASK, in which he challenged the legality and merits of that institution's decision, ended yesterday before the Basic Court in Podgorica, but also requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 5.000 euros.

In his lawsuit, Đukanović claimed that ASK, by publishing a decision finding that he had violated the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, had damaged his reputation and honor, claiming that the institution had acted selectively and with an incorrect interpretation of the regulations.

That decision referred to the KAS's assessment that Đukanović had to report a change in assets in the amount of 16.741 euros, which his son allegedly Blazo Djukanovic paid to cancel the revolving card debt at Atlas Bank.

Djukanovic previously said that the entire case is an attempt to tarnish his reputation and portray him as a person "unworthy of the position he held in state politics."

The former president assessed that ASK deliberately made a decision aimed at causing him harm, affecting his honor and reputation, and that this decision violated the obligation to protect personal data.

During the proceedings, Đukanović's attorney emphasized that in this case it was not a matter of property within the meaning of the law, but of a loan, and that ASK had no basis to treat such an obligation as income or an increase in assets that should have been reported. ASK's legal representative maintained that the decision was lawful and based on applicable regulations, and that the Agency has a legal obligation to make decisions relating to officials available to the public.

Bonus video: