Former President of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic sued the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (ASK), asking the Administrative Court to annul the decision that found that he violated the law because he failed to declare ownership of 11 firearms in his 2022 income and assets report, "Vijesti" learned.
Attorney-at-law of the former head of state Ana Đukanović In the lawsuit, he points out that the ASK decision is unlawful "due to significant violations of procedural rules, incorrectly and incompletely determined facts, and incorrect application of substantive law", but also claims that the law at the time "did not explicitly prescribe the obligation to declare firearms, nor did it list them as a separate category of movable property".
According to the document that "Vijesti" has access to, lawyer Đukanović, among other things, assesses that in deciding that the long-time highest Montenegrin official had violated the law, ASK simultaneously noted a violation of the provisions of two regulations - the one that was in force in 2022 and the one that was in force until recently.
At the end of June, ASK determined that Đukanović, while serving as president, violated regulations because he failed to declare 11 firearms registered in his name in his regular annual report for 2022.
According to data from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP), which the Agency referred to in the decision, nine out of 11 weapons had registered weapons licenses for possession and carrying, while two had weapons licenses for possession.
ASK confirmed to the editorial staff that they "received the lawsuit against the aforementioned decision," stating that they will respond to the lawsuit within the given deadline and submit the case files to the Administrative Court.
They also stated that the Agency makes decisions solely on the basis of the law and thoroughly collected and studied facts and evidence.
"What is important is that our decisions are adequately and thoroughly reasoned and accessible to the public. We welcome the possibility of legal review of all our decisions, as each judicial outcome further strengthens the rule of law and contributes to the development of legal certainty," said the institution he heads. Kristina Braletić.
WHAT IS NOT WRITE, IS NOT...
The former president's attorney points out that the law in force at the time of submitting the 2022 annual report prescribed the registration of ownership rights to movable property worth more than 5.000 euros or to property subject to registration, citing motor vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and the like as examples.
"Therefore, the Law does not explicitly prescribe the obligation to register firearms, nor does it list them as a separate category of movable property," the lawsuit from July 17th, which "Vijesti" has access to, states.
According to Article 24 of the then-current law, an official must, among other things, declare "ownership rights to movable property whose value exceeds 5.000 euros or for which registration with the competent authorities is required (motor vehicles, vessels, aircraft, etc.)".
Djukanovic's lawsuit also states that ASK did not determine the value of the weapons or explain why this fact was not important for the application of the legal provision.
The former president's attorney points out that the 2024 regulation, which was in effect until recently, unlike the 2016 one, explicitly lists weapons among the movable property subject to declaration.
THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS ALSO DISPUTED
Djukanovic's lawsuit also raised the question of when ASK learned of the violation of regulations.
The agency stated in its June decision that it initiated the proceedings on March 5 this year ex officio, "in connection with media allegations," after verifying assets and income.
"The contested decision does not contain any reason from which it would be possible to determine when the moment of knowledge occurred, nor on the basis of which facts the authority concluded that the procedure was initiated within the legally prescribed deadline... It is particularly important to emphasize that it follows from the decision itself that the procedure was initiated 'in connection with media allegations', but neither in that part is the media listed, the date of publication, nor the content of the allegations that constituted the basis for initiating the procedure, nor is it explained why precisely these allegations constitute the moment of knowledge of the alleged violation, although the Report on Income and Assets in question was submitted on 10.3.2023, and the data on registered weapons were in the official records of the Ministry of Internal Affairs," the lawsuit states.
"Vijesti" reported on March 3 that, according to ASK records, the former head of state had never reported having a single weapon registered in his name or received as a gift. The legal representative of his then-arrested brother announced that the former president had weapons in his name. Aca Đukanović, lawyer Nikola Martinovic, after his client was questioned at the Nikšić Basic State Prosecutor's Office on suspicion of committing the criminal offense of illegal possession of weapons and explosives.
Martinović then said that some of the weapons found belonged to Milo Đukanović, while some were inherited from their late father and, as he said, there is documentation for him. On March 13, the Ministry of the Interior responded to “Vijesti” that 12 weapons were registered in Đukanović’s name, and that the validity of the weapons certificates for two expired in 1996.
"THE LETTER FROM THE MINISTRY OF INTEREST IS NOT ENOUGH"
Đukanović also disputes the way in which ASK used MUP data.
The lawsuit states that the ASK decision was "mostly" based on a letter from the Ministry of Interior dated March 12, which the Agency accepted as sufficient grounds for establishing decisive facts.
"Namely, the letter from the Ministry of Internal Affairs represents exclusively data from the official records of that body, but does not provide an answer to the legally decisive questions in this procedure, that is, it does not represent evidence that, according to the legal provision that was in force at the time of submitting the report, there was an obligation to report the firearms in question...", states Ana Đukanović in the lawsuit.
Milo Đukanović did not dispute his ownership of the weapons during the proceedings before the Agency, but claimed that he had no intention of hiding them or avoiding legal obligations, pointing out that the property was duly registered with the competent state authorities. ASK rejected such arguments, stating that a person “who holds a high public office is reasonably expected to have a higher standard of conduct than average citizens, especially with regard to fulfilling legal obligations related to the transparency of assets, which is why this authority cannot treat the failure to declare 11 firearms as a simple oversight.”
The Đukanovićs also addressed this in their lawsuit:
"The respondent authority incorrectly applied the principle of free assessment of evidence, since it rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the failure to declare the property in question was a consequence of oversight without conducting any evidentiary analysis and without stating reasons that would justify such a conclusion."
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
