Is it proof of care when you replace the deceased?: The state asks the High Court to overturn the verdict in the Vesna Bratić case

The dismissal of the deceased, who was once a school principal, confirms the extreme negligence in the actions of the former Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports (MESC). Vesne Bratic.

This, among other things, is stated in the appeal of the Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests to the Higher Court against the verdict of the Podgorica Basic Court.

Judge of the Basic Court Nikola Boskovic last week rejected the state's claim that Bratić be obliged to return 15.281,12 euros to the budget, with interest. The state sought this in the lawsuit on behalf of the litigation costs it paid after the dismissed directors won disputes before basic courts throughout Montenegro. Bošković claims in the ruling that there is no causal link between the former minister's actions and the costs that the state is now seeking to reimburse her.

In addition, Bošković argued that the state "has not provided evidence that the defendant acted with intent or extreme negligence in relation to the costs of the civil proceedings."

The Ombudsman recalls in his appeal that among the standard decisions, with identical content, which were sent on the same day, there was one addressed to a deceased person.

"Dismissal of a deceased person is certainly not within the bounds of due care. Otherwise, the question arises as to when extreme negligence would exist," states the appeal seeking the reversal of the Basic Court's verdict, which "Vijesti" had access to.

It is specified that Bratić acted out of extreme carelessness when she issued 29 standard decisions on the dismissal of school directors on the same day, even though she had not previously appointed members of any school boards, which was her legal obligation, and then blamed her own failure on the directors, aware that such decisions had no legal basis and that there was a real risk of their being overturned in court.

"When one's own failure is transferred to others, that is not an interpretation of the law - it is at least extreme negligence in action," emphasized the Deputy Protector. Aleksandar Veljović in the appeal.

"Summarizing the above, the contested judgment, according to the plaintiff's legal representative, is unlawful, i.e. it was rendered with a significant violation of the procedure referred to in Article 367, paragraph 2, item 15 of the Law on Civil Procedure, since there were no essential reasons for the cause of the damage. In the reasoning of the judgment, the court referred only to the resulting consequence, stating that the costs of the proceedings were incurred as a result of independently conducted civil proceedings, although the conduct of the litigation was preceded by a cause consisting in the issuance of 29 decisions by the defendant on the same day for identical reasons without previously fulfilling its own obligation. In addition to the above, the court drew the wrong conclusion that in the specific case, extreme negligence in the defendant's actions was not proven, because it is clear that it arises from the circumstances of the specific case," is Veljović's position.

In his opinion, the Basic Court ignored the fact that litigation was the only legally prescribed way to challenge dismissal decisions, which is why the costs are a necessary consequence of the decisions made by the then minister.

"Filing lawsuits was the only legal way to overturn the decision to dismiss former directors of educational institutions, which is why the costs incurred are a necessary and direct consequence of the actions taken by the defendant," the complaint states.

In this context, it is emphasized that the court incorrectly identified cause and effect, reducing responsibility exclusively to litigation.

"The court reduced the issue of the cause of the damage to the consequence itself, wrongly identifying it with the cause that preceded it, even though they are not equivalent," the appeal states.

The Protector also disputes the court's position that the costs could have been avoided by the actions of the state representative in the litigation, pointing out that the costs were incurred by the very filing of the lawsuits and that the courts, not the parties, decide what costs were necessary.

"The plaintiff's legal representative could not have acknowledged the claims before the lawsuits themselves were filed, or the costs incurred, at least in the part that related to the composition of the lawsuits," the appeal states.

CCE: Three years without a reaction from the SDT in the Bratić case

The Center for Civic Education (CCE) recalled yesterday that three years have passed since the filing of a criminal complaint with the Special State Prosecutor's Office (SDT) against the former leadership of the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports, led by Bratić, for the illegal dismissal of directors of educational institutions in 2021.

CCE filed a complaint on December 23, 2022, alleging that the dismissals were carried out without individual performance evaluation, for political reasons, which also led to the dismissal of the deceased. Despite numerous warnings, including from the then Prime Minister Zdravko Krivokapić, the SDT, they claim, did not react.

The consequences, the NGO claims, are reflected in around 150 lawsuits filed by dismissed directors, and according to data from the Ministry of Education, Science and Innovation, 453.041,66 euros have been paid out by October 1, 2025, with further growth in budgetary damage.

CCE warned that the long-term inactivity of the SDT deepens the perception of selective justice, especially considering that the state's first recourse lawsuit against Bratić was also rejected, and said that this is a case of high public interest and an important test of the rule of law.

"Finally, the first instance court unfoundedly legitimizes the members of the legal team who prepared the decisions signed by the defendant as being liable for the damage caused. Namely, the passive legitimization of the defendant arises precisely from the provision of Article 80, paragraph 6 of the General Law on Education, pursuant to which the directors of public institutions are elected and dismissed by the minister. Therefore, the legal definition itself is such that in the event of unlawful conduct when adopting an individual act, its issuer is liable," the appeal states.