Perović will have to return 58.539 euros: Verdict confirmed in state lawsuit against former ASK boss

The Higher Court in Podgorica has upheld the verdict of the Basic Court, which sentenced the former head of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption Jelena Perović obliged to pay the state the difference between the market value of the apartment and the amount she paid under favorable terms, because she sold the property and did not remain in judicial office for at least five years from the conclusion of the contract.

The Higher Court dismissed Perović's appeal as unfounded and confirmed the position of the Basic Court judge. Mirza Ademović, which obliged the former head of ASK and the Cetinje court to pay the state 58.539,70 euros for failing to fulfill her obligations under the contract to purchase an apartment under favorable conditions.

The verdict was delivered on May 7 by the High Court Panel of Judges, presided over by Judge Nina Radunović, while the members were Snezana Dragojević i Dragisa Baletic.

The dispute against Perović was initiated by the state - the Protector of Property and Legal Interests, following an initiative by the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS), at the end of November 2022. MANS then appealed to the Protector institution to request compensation for damages on behalf of the state for failure to fulfill contractual obligations when purchasing an 87-square-meter apartment at a price of 31.960,30 euros, which Perović then sold for 73.000.

Perović was recently sentenced to two years and two months in prison by a first-instance verdict of the Higher Court, among other things because the Agency's money was used to pay for the mobile phone bill used by her daughter, as well as the business trips of Nikola Lekić, who was not employed by ASK but hired under a service contract.

Her former assistant Nina Paović was sentenced to six months of house arrest because the court found that she participated in obtaining illegal material benefits for Lekić. In that verdict, Perović was also ordered to pay the state 19.825,19 euros in property-related claims, while Paović is to pay 7.417,69 euros.

Judgment

Judge Radunović did not support Perović's position in the appeal that it was a preliminary contract that "does not constitute the rights and obligations that are the subject of the main contract."

"Namely, in this specific case, it is a notarial record of a contract for the sale of real estate under favorable conditions that contains all the elements of the contract... so that it obliges the contracting parties to fulfill what is stated therein... Since the contract provided for the return of the benefit reflected in the purchase of an apartment under favorable conditions if the condition is not met - remaining in the judicial position for at least five years from the date of conclusion of the contract, that provision of the contract is binding regardless of whether it was a preliminary contract or a contract," the Radunović judgment states.

The first-instance verdict had ruled that interest would run from May 17, 2019, but the Higher Court reversed that, stating that Perović did not breach her contractual obligation at that time, but that the obligation to compensate for the market value of the apartment arose from the moment her judicial function ceased before the agreed deadline.

According to the verdict, Perović disposed of the apartment she acquired based on a contract for the sale of real estate under favorable terms, by assigning the right from that contract to a third party.

"...So it cannot be argued that this contract does not create any obligation except for the conclusion of the main contract, when the plaintiff had the right from that contract and realized the benefit, so she cannot ignore the obligations from such a contract, which is to remain in the judicial position for at least another five years...", the verdict states.

Radunović believes that Perović baselessly invoked in her appeal that the provisions of the Rulebook on the method and criteria for resolving housing issues of judges are not relevant for deciding in this dispute.

"The fact is that the defendant concluded the Contract for the Sale of Real Estate under Favorable Conditions UZZ No. 05/2018 of 11. 1. 2018 with the Basic Court in Cetinje as the seller. However, the defendant acquired this right based on the advertisement for solving the housing needs of judges of the Basic Court in Cetinje by purchasing apartments built in a public-private partnership, which was published by the Judicial Council on 29. 9. 2017, and in accordance with the Rulebook on the Method and Criteria for Solving the Housing Needs of Judges," emphasized Radunović.

"Since these allegations from the defendant's appeal did not cast any doubt on the reasons for the first-instance verdict in the main claim, the appeal should have been rejected as unfounded, and the first-instance verdict should have been upheld in this part," the verdict concluded.

Violated the law that was supposed to protect

Because of the same apartment, Perović violated the law it was supposed to protect because she did not report the increase in property within the legal deadline, nor the possible existence of a conflict of interest, the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption assessed at the end of last year.

According to that decision, Perović was required to report, within 30 days, changes in property that occurred in 2019, when she sold an apartment in Cetinje measuring 86,45 square meters and a storage room measuring 7,74 square meters for 73.000 euros.

The agency assessed that this resulted in an increase in movable property, and that Perović did not submit a separate report on income and assets as required by law.

The agency, it is alleged, came to the conclusion through the investigation that Perović violated Article 25, paragraph 3 and Article 10 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption - she did not report the monetary income generated from the sale of property, nor did she refrain from actions that could cause a conflict of interest.

It is specified that the former official failed to submit to the Agency a written statement on the existence of a private interest in connection with the conclusion of the contract, although she was legally obliged to do so.