Abazović's "boyhood dreams" are being tested again

The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, which was then headed by Jelena Perović, incorrectly interpreted the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, when it decided to clear the path of the former Prime Minister and current leader of the Civic Movement URA Dritan Abazović to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2021 was not a gift and he did not have to declare it.

This is the position of the Administrative Court of Montenegro, in the ruling they issued after the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS) challenged the Agency's decision.

Abazović, accompanied by his then advisor Filip Adžić stayed in the UAE in December 2021, and on social media, among other things, he also posted a photo from the Formula 1 race in Abu Dhabi, thanking the hosts for "fulfilling one of my childhood dreams."

"In the retrial, the defendant authority will act on the observations from this judgment and make a new, lawful decision in this administrative matter," the Administrative Court's judgment states.

The Agency told "Vijesti" that they had received the verdict.

"Immediately upon receipt of the judgment in question, the public official to whom your inquiry refers was summoned to provide a statement on the allegations from the initiative and the judgment of the Administrative Court. After the public official's statement was submitted, he was ordered to provide the evidence he referred to in his statement. The administrative procedure will continue during January, and the Agency will, acting in accordance with the deadlines prescribed by the provisions of the Law on Administrative Procedure, act in accordance with the order from the judgment of the Administrative Court," the institution, which is headed by the acting director, responded to "Vijesti" Dušan Drakić.

The former prime minister briefly told the editorial staff yesterday that he had "no particular comment".

"ASK is worse than during the time of Jelena Perović, see you in court," said Abazović.

Perović claimed that travel is not a gift

The judgment states, among other things, that the Administrative Court assessed that "the reasons given in the explanation of the decision are unclear and contrary to the state of the case files and do not refer to the decision given in the enacting clause, that the defendant body (the Agency) misinterprets the substantive law, and that the factual situation has not been correctly and completely established."

“…The conclusion of the defendant body that the Law clearly defines a gift as money, securities or precious metal is incorrect, given the fact that Article 6, paragraph 1, item 5 stipulates that a gift includes a thing, right or service acquired or performed without compensation and any other benefit given to a public official or a person related to a public official in connection with the performance of a public function. Therefore, it clearly follows from the aforementioned provision that the aforementioned Law sets the definition of a gift much broader than it follows from the interpretation of the defendant body in the contested decision, and therefore the defendant's reasoning, which represents one of the key reasons for making the decision, that in this particular case it is not a gift within the meaning of the relevant Law, is incorrect”, warns the President of the Administrative Court Council in the judgment Tatjana Krpović.

According to the court, the misinterpretation of substantive law resulted in the Agency failing to properly and completely determine the factual situation in this specific case, because it did not examine the circumstances related to the trip to the UAE in more detail.

"...It is unclear who, in what manner and for what reason paid the costs of the same. Namely, the defendant authority bases its conclusion that the appointed public official went on the trip in question in his capacity as a citizen, and not as a public official, on the letter from the General Secretariat of the Government of Montenegro dated 31.08.2022., without engaging in the investigation procedure regulated by the provisions of Article 36 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, as well as the provision of Article 107, paragraph 1 of the Law on Administrative Procedure, which stipulates that in administrative proceedings all means suitable for establishing the factual situation that are appropriate to the specific case may be used, such as documents, witness statements, statements of the parties, findings and opinions of experts, interpreters and an on-site investigation," the verdict states.

The Court also emphasizes that the Agency, headed by Perović, had at its disposal "all means of proof, so the 'investigative function' cannot be exhausted by itself, or reduced to a mere check of the records or register of gifts."

"...Especially considering the fact that the named public official is being 'accused' by the claims of not reporting a gift related to the paid expenses of the aforementioned trip," is the conclusion of the Administrative Court.

ASK: Adžić broke the law

Following a similar ruling by the Administrative Court, the Agency announced in May 2025 that it had determined that Filip Adžić had violated the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, because he had gone on a donated trip to Dubai and Abu Dhabi in December 2021, which he had to refuse or inform the foreign donor that he could not accept such a gift. Adžić traveled to the UAE with Abazović.

"It is established that public official Filip Adžić violated Article 18, paragraph 1 and Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption because, in connection with the performance of his public office, he received a gift that was neither protocol nor appropriate, which related to the payment of travel expenses on a working visit to Dubai and Abu Dhabi (UAE) in December 2021, and he was obliged to refuse it or inform the donor that he could not accept the gift," the ASK decision emphasized.

The agency made such a decision after the Administrative Court, following a lawsuit by MANS, determined that the previous management of ASK had not properly determined the factual situation.

In the decision that was challenged before the Administrative Court, Perović stated that Adžić did not violate the regulations because the trip in question was not related to the performance of a public function, but was exclusively about a private organization, and that it was unclear to him that in addition to performing a public function, he could not have his own privacy..."

After Drakić signed the decision that Adžić had violated the Law, the URA announced a lawsuit against the Agency and said that the institution had succumbed to political pressure and had used untruths.

"The persecution, spreading of lies and abuse of institutions for the purpose of dealing with political dissenters continues. It is our obligation to draw attention to the untrue and malicious claims of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK), which, due to its lack of courage to deal with officials who have caused multi-million damage to the state, is cheaply constructing a story about accommodation, food and drinks for the vice-president of the Civic Movement URA, Filip Adžić," the URA said at the time.