Bratić is "clean" and the directors get paid

Being the former Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports Vesna Bratic dismissed a number of school directors on the same day, including one deceased, do not prove that she acted intentionally or with extreme negligence, is the position of the Podgorica Higher Court, which thus confirmed the recent ruling of the Basic Court that this former official does not have to compensate the state for the illegal dismissal of the heads of educational institutions.

In mid-December, the Basic Court ruled that Bratić was not liable to compensate more than 15.000 euros, which were paid in 29 cases due to the unlawful dismissal of directors. The state appealed this ruling, but the High Court rejected the appeal of the Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro less than two months later - on February 6.

Bratić was arrested on February 17th, as part of an investigation by the Special State Prosecutor's Office, for the damage caused by the dismissal of more than 140 kindergarten, primary and secondary school directors. She was initially ordered to be detained for 30 days, but an extra-judicial panel of the Higher Court in Podgorica, chaired by Judge Zoran Radovic, lifted the detention on February 21st.

The Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests responded to "Vijesti" that it would file a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court regarding the latest verdict of the High Court.

"The High Court Council is composed of judges who themselves participated in the cases and determined that the decisions of the minister and her team were unlawful. Now, these same judges are arguing that the minister was right, and are awarding compensation to the same directors, even though that compensation, which the High Court also confirms, is an incorrectly applied substantive law. The Protector will file a constitutional appeal, so that we can also check the position of the Constitutional Court," the institution responded to "Vijesti".

Even a death certificate is not proof.

In the judgment of the High Court, signed by the judge Aleksandar Stojanovic, it is emphasized that “intention or gross negligence are not suitable to be the subject of presumption, but always require to be the subject of proof”.

"This court is of the opinion that the plaintiff's allegations... that a number of directors were dismissed on the same day and that the defendant, among other things, dismissed a deceased person, do not prove that the defendant acted intentionally or with extreme negligence in this case. This court, based solely on the aforementioned allegations, and without a single legally relevant piece of evidence, could not draw the conclusion that the defendant was aware or could have been aware that the decisions it was making were illegal, or that it did not show the minimum degree of care when making them," the verdict, which "Vijesti" has access to, states.

Bratić, Stojanović claims, had no legal knowledge, and "she signed the relevant decisions based on the opinion of the legal team."

"...Whereas she read the position of the lawyers who presented such an opinion to her in the decisions themselves, and therefore she was convinced that the decisions she made were legal. The above indicates that the defendant showed elementary standards of care, which were expected of her as a manager, and which is why it cannot be said that the defendant was extremely careless when making the disputed decisions, and therefore all of the plaintiff's appeals claiming the opposite are considered unfounded," is the position of the Higher Court.

She had confidence in the legal team.

The High Court also assessed that the state had not proven that "in this case, it was the defendant's intention or her extreme negligence when making the disputed decisions, and thus that she caused damage in the form of incurred litigation costs due to intention or extreme negligence."

The ruling recalls that 29 lawsuits, included in the state's lawsuit, were conducted based on lawsuits filed by former directors, and "finally ended with final judgments that annulled those decisions as illegal."

"...While here the plaintiff (the state) is obliged to pay the litigation costs, which were paid. From the explanations of the decisions that exist in the aforementioned cases, it followed that the directors were dismissed because they did not perform their work tasks, or because they violated their work obligations," it is stated.

He also recalls Bratić's testimony before the Basic Court:

“…The defendant essentially stated that as the then Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports, she acted in accordance with her legal powers in everything, and that the amendments to the General Law on Education, on the basis of which the aforementioned decisions were made, were not proposed by her, but by a group of deputies. She stated that her legal team, in which she had confidence, was informed of the amendments to the Law, explaining that she was informed of the amendments to the Law through cooperation with her legal team, and that the legal team prepared the relevant decisions, so that she would read them afterwards. She pointed out that all directors were dismissed at the same time because, in the opinion of the service, they did not perform the necessary actions… She considered the decisions to be legal, which is why she did not even think about the possible damage that could arise as a result of their illegality.”

Bratić will continue to defend himself from freedom in the SDT investigation. This decision by the High Court's pre-trial chamber came after Montenegrin President Jakov Milatović asked the Ministry of Justice to "urgently act in accordance with the law", by initiating proceedings ex officio and collecting information from other authorities, and then submitting a reasoned proposal for pardon to the president, "so that the president can exercise his constitutional and legal decision-making function".

On the same day, the government department unofficially told "Vijesti" that Justice Minister Bojan Božović would not interfere in the work of the Special State Prosecutor's Office and that he would not prepare a proposal for the release of the former minister from criminal prosecution at Milatović's request.

Previously, some politicians condemned the handcuffed arrest of Bratić, and a protest was organized in front of the High Court.