The Supreme Court accepted the request for review of the court decision regarding the award of the July Thirteenth Award, overturned the decision of the Administrative Court and returned the case for retrial and decision-making.
"The proceedings were initiated following a lawsuit filed by Dragan Hajduković from Cetinje against the decision of the Ministry of Culture and Media - Jury for the award of the 13th of July Award for 2025. With that decision, the 13th of July Award was awarded to Miloš Karadaglić, Bećir Vuković and Veljo Stanišić. Hajduković challenged the decision to award the award in early July, stating that the Jury awarded all three awards within one area - culture and artistic creation, which is contrary to Article 17 of the Law on State Awards, according to which only one 13th of July Award can be awarded in one area," the Supreme Court reminds in a statement.
The Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuit as inadmissible at the end of July, reasoning that the disputed decision on the award does not constitute an administrative act deciding on the plaintiff's right or legal interest on which grounds he could acquire the right to file a lawsuit.
"The plaintiff filed a request for review of the court decision due to a violation of substantive law and a violation of the rules of procedure in an administrative dispute, which, according to him, could have had an impact on the resolution of the matter. The Supreme Court, deciding on the request for review of the court decision, determined that the conclusion of the Administrative Court cannot be accepted as correct. The court stated that the decision to award the July Thirteenth Prize was made after a public call by the Government of Montenegro, and that it is a competition as a special form of public promise of a prize, in which participants have the right to request the annulment of the decision if the prize was not awarded in accordance with the rules of the competition and applicable legal regulations."
"The Supreme Court, referring to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, stated that differences in judicial decisions are not a problem in themselves and that they represent a natural part of any judicial system. A violation of the right to a fair trial only exists if these differences are serious and long-lasting and if mechanisms for overcoming them do not exist or are not applied. In this case, the Administrative Court's reference to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court does not mean that there is established case law. Such a decision cannot be elevated to the level of a binding standard for future decision-making, nor can it limit the authority of the Supreme Court to review and correct its own legal positions," the statement reads.
They said that, based on all of the above, the Supreme Court overturned the Administrative Court's decision and returned the case to that court for a new trial and decision.
Bonus video:
