The Administrative Court annulled the ASK decision regarding Milo Đukanović's watches

The Administrative Court accepted the lawsuit of former President of Montenegro Milo Đukanović and annulled the decision of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK) from November 2025, which determined that, as former president of the state, he submitted income and asset reports with incorrect and incomplete data, because he did not declare wristwatches with an individual value of more than 10.000 euros.

This was announced today by the Administrative Court.

"The court found that the Agency incorrectly applied substantive law, because it conducted and completed the procedure initiated in 2019 by applying the 2024 Anti-Corruption Act, although the transitional provisions of that law stipulate that procedures initiated before its entry into force are completed according to the regulations in force at the time of their initiation," the Administrative Court announced.

The court, it added, found that the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption violated the rules of administrative procedure from the Administrative Procedure Act, because the decision did not contain sufficiently clear and complete reasons on decisive facts and legal issues, which made it impossible to examine its legality.

"The Court pointed out that the dispositive portion of the contested decision was not sufficiently specific, because it was not specified to which specific reports on income and assets, nor to which time period, the established violation of the Law applies. Bearing in mind that a public official was obliged to submit reports during the performance of his office, as well as for two years after its termination, and that the prosecutor held the office of President of Montenegro for two terms, the Court assessed that it was necessary to clearly indicate which reports and period the established violation applies to."

The court, it was announced, assessed that the reasoning of the decision did not provide the reasons why the Agency, after conducting the evidentiary procedure and expert examination, gave up on certain wristwatches that were included in the initiative to initiate the procedure, nor why it determined in the final decision that specific watches were not reported, while it did not provide any reasoning for the other watches that were the subject of the procedure.

"The Court also found that the Agency incorrectly applied substantive law, because the procedure initiated in 2019 was conducted and completed by applying the 2024 Anti-Corruption Act, although the transitional provisions of that law stipulate that procedures initiated before its entry into force are completed according to the regulations in force at the time of their initiation. The Court also pointed out that when making the decision, the Agency changed the content of the prosecutor's statement given in the administrative procedure, interpreting it differently from how it was given, instead of faithfully conveying his allegations and then assessing their significance in the procedure. Since it was determined that the contested decision does not meet the legal standards of reasoning, that significant violations of the rules of administrative procedure were committed, and that substantive law was incorrectly applied, the Court annulled the decision of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption," the Administrative Court announced.