The saga surrounding the election of the Assistant Secretary for Property Protection of the Municipality of Budva, which has been going on for a full year and a half, will apparently not be over yet, as the Appeals Commission of the Government of Montenegro has overturned the decision of the current Acting Secretary for the third time. Vlada Ivanovic.
The State Appeals Commission, citing the Law on Civil Servants and Employees, the Law on Local Self-Government and the Law on Administrative Procedure, accepted the candidate's appeal. Blanke Đurašević, and annulled the decision of the Municipal Secretariat for Property Protection.
As stated in the decision, which "Vijesti" had access to, the case was returned to the first-instance body for a new procedure and decision.
"The appealed decision decided that no candidate from the list for appointment will be selected based on the public competition for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Secretariat for the Protection of Municipal Property," the explanation states.
This municipal department published a public advertisement for the filling of an assistant position at the beginning of April 2024. Blanka Đurašević and Đorđe Zenović and the decisions made three times so far have been overturned by the state commission, based on appeals filed by both candidates.
The last decision of the Acting Secretary for Property Protection was challenged only by Đurašević.
“In the appeal, Đurašević states that by the decision of the Secretariat for Local Self-Government of May 29, 2025, a Commission for the Verification of Competences, Knowledge and Abilities of Candidates was established, and that it conducted a testing procedure. The first-instance body, acting in a repeated procedure, formed a new Commission on June 18, 2025, which, after the procedure for verifying the candidates' abilities, prepared a report, and then the Acting Secretary of the Secretariat for the Protection of Property of the Municipality of Budva made a decision not to conduct the selection. Đurašević points out that only after more than six months, and after the inspection, was she informed that the verification of candidates would be held on July 23, 2025, before the newly established Commission for the Verification of Candidates' Abilities. She pointed out that there was a legal obligation for the head of the body to interview the candidates from the list for selection before making a decision and to make a record of it, which was not done in this case. The question arises as to how the explanation was given that both candidates did not have a clear vision of how their work could help the Secretary "in managing the work and performing tasks and duties, when the acting secretary did not interview the candidates," the explanation of the state commission's decision states.
Đurašević, as emphasized in the decision, stated that if the acting secretary came to this conclusion, he had to take into account the previously conducted conversations, or interviews.
"It is contradictory that the earlier knowledge test is no longer relevant due to the passage of time, and that previously conducted oral interviews are considered relevant. Đurašević points out that the decision was not made within the legally prescribed deadline, which is no later than 10 days from the receipt of the report and the list for selection. Ultimately, Đurašević believes that the reasoning behind the decision is not understandable, that the allegations are contradictory and conflicting, which is why the decision is legally untenable," the state commission's decision states.
As it is emphasized, based on the submitted new reports and the list for appointment, deciding in the retrial, the Acting Secretary issued a decision on August 21, 2025, according to which, following a public competition for the position of Assistant Secretary of the Secretariat for the Protection of Municipal Property, no candidate from the list for appointment is selected. Examining the legality of the appealed decision, in the opinion of the Commission, the contested decision has no basis in the case files, nor in the reasoning of the contested decision, which indicates a violation of the rules of procedure from Article 22 of the Law on Administrative Procedure. Namely, first of all, the reasoning of the decision, or the allegations on which the Acting Secretary of the Secretariat for the Protection of Property bases his decision not to select any candidate from the list for appointment, is unclear.
Specifically, and what is justifiably objected to in the appeal, the question arises as to how the head of the authority concluded that both candidates demonstrated an unsatisfactory level of expertise, knowledge and competences required to perform the duties of assistant secretary. This is especially because there is no evidence in the case files that the candidates from the list for appointment were interviewed before making such a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Local Self-Government," the State Commission's decision states.
As it is emphasized, "the situation in question is further confused by the fact that the case files contain the Minutes of the oral interview with the candidates from the list dated June 14, 2024, which only stated that both candidates had been interviewed, and that after the interview, the candidates would be selected, which was done by the head of the authority in the previous proceedings."
"So it is unclear how he now decided to make a decision not to elect. It should also be noted that it cannot be concluded from the content of the aforementioned minutes which questions were asked to the candidates, or what answers they gave, nor were the minutes signed by the candidates," the decision of the State Appeals Commission emphasizes.
The Commission also determined that the overall scoring was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on the criteria and detailed methods of conducting the examination of knowledge, abilities, competencies and skills for work in state bodies.
Bonus video:
