Court: Bratić was not careless

Former Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports Vesna Bratic does not have to pay compensation to the state due to, as previously determined by Montenegrin courts, the unlawful dismissal of directors of educational institutions.

This follows from the first-instance verdict of the Basic Court in Podgorica, which “Vijesti” had access to. According to the editorial office, the Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests will appeal the verdict to the High Court. Nikola Bošković.

According to the verdict, he rejected the lawsuit's request that Bratić be obligated to pay the state 15.281,12 euros, with interest, which the state requested for litigation costs it paid after the dismissed directors won disputes before basic courts throughout Montenegro.

The verdict states that Bratić was a minister in the 42nd Government from December 4, 2020 to April 28, 2022, and that on July 12, 2021, as the relevant minister, she issued decisions dismissing directors of public institutions. The court notes that the proceedings involved 29 court cases, in which the legality of these decisions was examined, and that they were annulled in these disputes, and the state was obliged to pay the costs of the proceedings to the dismissed directors.

The state claimed in the lawsuit that Bratić dismissed the directors “knowingly and intentionally or due to extreme negligence,” which led to the courts later overturning the decisions and the state bearing the costs of litigation and forced collection. It believed that these costs constituted the damage that the former minister should compensate for.

Bratić, on the other hand, disputed the request, stating that she acted within her legal authority, that it was an interpretation of regulations, and that she did not participate in the litigation in which the costs that the state is now claiming arose.

In the reasoning of the verdict, the court specifically pointed out that the subject of the dispute did not relate to the lost earnings of dismissed directors, but exclusively to the costs of litigation that the state paid after losing the disputes.

As stated, these lawsuits were brought by dismissed directors against the state, while Bratić "was not a party - participant in the proceedings".

Therefore, the court concluded that in this case there was no causal link between the actions of the former minister and the costs that the state is now seeking to reimburse her for.

"The defendant's actions are not causally related to the costs of the proceedings, which are now being claimed from the defendant as damages, because the defendant was not a party - participant in the proceedings to be able to influence their amount through her actions," the verdict states.

The court also points out that the state was represented in these proceedings by a protector of property and legal interests, who had the opportunity to influence the course of the disputes and the amount of costs.

The verdict states that throughout the proceedings, the state "persisted in claiming that these were legal solutions," which is why hearings were held and procedural actions were taken that, as the court notes, directly affected the amount of costs.

The court adds that the state representative could have assessed the legality of the disputed decisions and, if he considered them to be clearly unlawful, "admitted the claims or proposed a stay of proceedings until the completion of one of the proceedings", which would have avoided the costs to the extent that they were later incurred, but that did not happen.

"The court's own epilogue and the occurrence of costs depend on a number of procedural and legal circumstances, including the activities of the representative and the choice of strategy in the litigation," the court stated, concluding that this "interrupted the direct causal link between the dismissal of the director and the costs of the proceedings."

In addition, the court assessed that the state had not proven that Bratić acted intentionally or out of extreme negligence in relation to this type of damage.

"The plaintiff has not provided evidence that the defendant acted with intent or extreme negligence in relation to the costs of the civil proceedings," the verdict states.

The court also states that litigation costs are an “indirect type of damage”, which does not represent a direct or expected consequence of the decision to dismiss, but rather arose as a result of the conduct of court proceedings.

According to the verdict, the state based its claim of intent or gross negligence on the fact that a large number of directors were dismissed on the same day, as well as on the case of the dismissal of a deceased person, but the court finds that these circumstances, without additional evidence, are insufficient.

The verdict also states that Bratić had the legal authority to appoint and dismiss directors, and that she made decisions based on the interpretation of the ministry's legal team.

"The defendant made the decision to dismiss the director based on the interpretation of the Ministry's legal team, in accordance with which interpretation it acted," the court stated, adding that it cannot be concluded from this that she was aware that she was making illegal decisions or that she did not show the minimum necessary care.

In the part relating to the dismissal of the deceased, the court states that the former minister did not prepare the decisions herself, nor was she obliged to check the accuracy of all the data in the documents she signed, because that was the job of the services that drafted them, so this omission cannot be held against her personally.

The Basic Court ordered the state to reimburse Bratić for 1.237,50 euros in costs of the proceedings.