Đukanović's watches are not a photomontage: Administrative Court orders ASK to make a new decision in watch collection case

The Administrative Court of Montenegro has annulled the decision of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, which established that the former president of the country Milo Djukanovic did not report a collection of wristwatches with an individual value exceeding 10.000 euros, assessing that the ASK decision "does not contain sufficiently clear and complete reasons on decisive facts and legal issues, which is why it was not possible to examine its legality."

The court ordered the Agency to repeat the procedure and make a new, lawful decision, but at the same time found that the allegations made by the former head of state's legal team that it was a photomontage were unfounded.

"The contested decision does not contain valid and complete reasons on all decisive facts and legal issues of importance for its adoption, due to which it was not possible to examine its legality," states the Administrative Court's verdict, signed by the President of the Council, Svetlana Radošević.

The Agency told "Vijesti" yesterday that they would "act according to the reasons for the cancellation given in the Administrative Court's ruling."

"...And make a new decision, based on the law," the Agency's editorial office was told.

The ASK decision from November 2025 determined that Đukanović, during his term as President of Montenegro, but also after his termination of office, did not declare movable property with an individual value exceeding 10.000 euros in his income and asset reports.

U odluci Agencije navedeni su satovi “Breguet Classique Tourbillon Thermometer”, “Rolex Cosmograph Daytona”, “Patek Philippe Neptune” i “Cartier Pasha de Cartier Moonphase Chronograph”.

Back in April 2019, the Agency received an initiative from the Network for the Affirmation of the Non-Governmental Sector (MANS) with three hours of photographs published in the daily newspaper "Dan". The then director Sreten Radonjić rejected the MANS initiative, after which the NGO challenged this decision before the Administrative Court. In September 2021, the Administrative Court ordered the Agency to decide on this initiative again.

“It is indisputable from the case file that the administrative procedure was initiated in 2019, during the period of validity of the then Law on the Prevention of Corruption… The contested decision was made by applying the provisions of the new Law on the Prevention of Corruption. Such action is not in accordance with Article 113 of the new Law, which stipulates that procedures initiated before the entry into force of that law shall be completed by applying the regulations that were in force at the time of their initiation. The aforementioned transitional provision is of a binding nature and does not leave the possibility for the authority to apply the new Law to previously initiated procedures at its own discretion,” the Administrative Court’s ruling states. It is also added that the Agency was obliged to apply the provisions of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption that were in force at the time of initiation of the procedure when making its decision.

They could control

The Administrative Court also found that the allegations by the former head of state's legal team that the Agency was authorized to decide exclusively within the limits of the initiative of the NGO MANS were unfounded.

"The provision of Article 34, paragraph 2 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption stipulates that the Agency may initiate proceedings ex officio, based on its own findings or anonymous initiatives. Therefore, the fact that the proceedings were initiated by the NGO MANS, for certain wristwatches, did not constitute an obstacle for the defendant, if new findings and evidence emerged during the proceedings, to ex officio expand the subject of the investigation to other property that it considered to be of importance for the proper determination of the factual situation," is the position of the Administrative Court.

However, the judgment states that such an extension had to be clearly explained, stating the reasons why the subject matter of the proceedings was extended and the legal basis for such action.

"Also, the court did not accept the prosecutor's allegations challenging the probative value of the photographs, claiming that they are photomontages. Namely, the findings and opinions of the expert in the field of digital evidence show that in individual photographs, no subsequent addition of a watch, hand or other objects that would change the original content of the photograph was established. The expert explained that in a certain number of photographs, these are compositions created by merging two separate photographs into a single image, but that such processing in itself does not constitute a photomontage of adding a watch to the hand of the person depicted in the photograph," the verdict emphasized.

The Court also recalls that the expert concluded for certain photographs that the watches shown in them did not correspond to the models originally listed in the initiative, while for certain photographs he identified other watch models.

"Therefore, in the court's opinion, the aforementioned finding does not confirm the prosecutor's claims that the watches were subsequently added to the photographs, but solely points to the need for a proper assessment of the content of the photographs and the identity of the watches depicted in them," the verdict states.

Unclear period of violation

According to the court, the dispositive portion of the contested decision is not sufficiently specific and clear in the part of the period for which Đukanović was charged with violating the Law on the Prevention of Corruption.

"The operative part states that the prosecutor 'during the performance of the function of the President of Montenegro, or in the period after the termination of the function, submitted to the Agency reports on income and assets with incorrect and incomplete data', while it is not specified which specific reports, or to what time period the established violation refers. Bearing in mind that a public official was obliged to submit reports within a period of two years after the termination of public function pursuant to Article 25, paragraph 3 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, this formulation of the operative part leaves it unclear whether the violation refers to reports submitted upon assuming the function of the President of Montenegro within 30 days, during the performance of the function, after its termination, thus the operative part does not meet the requirement of specificity that an administrative act must contain," the verdict states.

This is supported by the fact that the plaintiff held the public office of President of Montenegro in two different mandates, which is why it was necessary for the Agency to "precisely indicate the period of performance of public office, or to which specific reports the established violation refers, especially considering the plaintiff's allegations that he has owned the watch in question since the 1990s."

The court also pointed out that ASK did not properly assess Đukanović's statement that he owned certain watches before assuming public office and before the obligation to declare such assets was introduced.

The Agency interpreted this statement as confirmation that he owned the watches while in office, but, according to the Court, did not state the reasons why it did not accept Đukanović's interpretation.

"Such an interpretation represents a change in the content of the party's statement, not its assessment, which is why the defendant was obliged to faithfully convey the plaintiff's allegations, and then provide reasons why he may not accept them as well-founded," the verdict states...