The Basic Court in Podgorica rejected as premature the claim of the former President of Montenegro Milo Đukanović against the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK), in which he sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage due to alleged violation of honor, reputation and dignity, in the amount of 5.000 euros.
The first-instance verdict, issued by the judge Valentina Vuković, Đukanović is also obliged to pay the Agency 500 euros for procedural costs.
The court concluded that the lawsuit was premature, because the legality of the ASK decision, on which Đukanović bases his claims of violation of personal rights, is the subject of an administrative dispute pending before the Administrative Court of Montenegro.
In the lawsuit and during the proceedings, Đukanović claimed that the Agency acted illegally by issuing a decision of February 10, 2025, which determined that as a public official during 2019, he did not submit a report on income and assets in the event of an increase in assets, which, as stated in the decision, resulted in him not reporting the amount of 16.741,24 euros.
According to the ASK decision, this is a debt based on the use of an Atlas Bank Visa revolving card, which was settled by his son. Blazo Djukanovic, which the Agency treated as income that had to be reported.
Đukanović claimed that such a decision "presented him as a criminal and arrogant person, unworthy of the office and reputation he enjoys in society and Montenegro", and that the Agency acted "with a clear and unequivocal intention to violate the prosecutor's personal rights".
The verdict, which "Vijesti" had access to, states that Đukanović also claimed that the ASK decision was made despite the fact that the Agency, as he stated, had access to evidence showing that the debt did not exist, but "deliberately ignored it."
He specifically challenged the public publication of the decision and its reasoning, claiming that this violated regulations on the protection of personal data and banking secrecy, and that by publishing it, the Agency "enabled manipulation and unauthorized actions aimed at discrediting."
The lawsuit also states that he is a member of the ASK Council. Mladen Tomović, in an interview given to "Vijesti" on February 13, 2025, commented on the decision and announced the forwarding of the case to the Special State Prosecutor's Office, which Đukanović assessed as an excess of authority.
The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption disputed the allegations in the lawsuit, emphasizing that it is an administrative act whose legality is examined exclusively in an administrative dispute, and that the civil court is not competent to assess the legality of the decision.
ASK stated that it acted within its legal authority, in order to ensure transparency, and that the decision did not publish data that should not be available to the public.
The response also pointed out that Đukanović himself stated in the proceedings before the Agency that his son had paid the disputed amount, which, according to the ASK, confirmed the existence of a change in the assets that he was obliged to declare.
In the reasoning of the verdict, the court stated that, according to the Law on Obligations, liability for damage arises only if there is an unlawful act, while the Law on Civil Procedure stipulates that the court will reject the claim as premature if the act has not been committed by the conclusion of the main hearing.
"Given that the legality of the defendant's decision, which the plaintiff refers to as the basis for his claim, is being examined in an administrative dispute pending before the Administrative Court of Montenegro, this court finds that the claim is premature," the verdict stated.
The court emphasized that a civil court cannot independently assess the legality of an administrative act, because it would "indirectly assess the legality of an administrative decision, which is not permitted."
"The principle in the legal system of Montenegro is that an administrative act produces legal effects until it is annulled or declared unlawful by a final decision of the competent court," the explanation states.
Therefore, as assessed, there is no due claim, because "the obligation to pay cannot arise until the illegality of the administrative act, as a constitutive element of liability, is finally established."
The court also rejected as premature the part of the claim that related to the public announcement of the ASK decision and the statement of a member of the Agency's Council, stating that this alleged damage was also "substantially and causally related to the contested decision itself".
The judgment states that the publication of the decision and the statement made “cannot be viewed in isolation from the fact that at the time of publication the contested decision was a valid administrative act producing legal effect”.
The Basic Court pointed out that this verdict did not decide on the merits of the case, and that there was no obstacle for Đukanović to file a new lawsuit for damages.
"The plaintiff has the right, after the final conclusion of the administrative dispute or the possible annulment of the contested decision, to re-file a claim for damages, if he believes that there are grounds for doing so," the verdict states.
ASK confirmed to "Vijesti" that they will not appeal the verdict.
Bonus video:
