Minister of Internal Affairs Danilo Šaranović (Democrat) yesterday filed a lawsuit against the Government in the Administrative Court due to the recent appointment of Aleksandar Radović as Acting Chief of Police.
DON'T MISS IT
Šaranović claims in the lawsuit, which "Vijesti" had access to, that the executive power, after rejecting his proposal that Lazar Šćepanović become the head of the police, illegally authorized Prime Minister Milojko Spajić (Movement Evropa Sad) to propose a new candidate, that he illegally proposed Radović and that because of this, that police official was illegally elected to the position.
The minister is therefore asking the court to annul the decision on the appointment of Radović, citing incorrect application of substantive law, violation of procedural rules and wrongly determined factual situation as the reasons for this.
Šaranović assesses that the decision on the appointment of the Acting Director of the Police Administration (UP) does not contain a regulation from which the legal basis for its adoption arises. He states that the Government bases its decision on the Law on Civil Servants and Employees (Article 61 paragraphs 1 and 2), the Law on Internal Affairs (Article 16 paragraph 4) and its conclusion of March 13, when Radović was appointed.
In the lawsuit, the minister says that the provisions of the Law on Civil Servants and State Employees cannot be applied in this case. They stipulate that in the event of termination of the mandate of the head of the administrative body, an acting representative may be appointed until the appointment or appointment in accordance with the law, for a maximum of six months. It says that the executor is determined by the appointing authority.
"First of all (the provisions cannot be applied) due to the fact that the UP is not an independent administrative body, but represents an organizational unit within the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIP), in accordance with the provisions of Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Law on Internal Affairs. Furthermore, the procedure and method of determining the acting director of the UP is fully regulated by the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 4 of the Law on Internal Affairs", said Šaranović.
He says that the decision on the appointment of Radović cannot be based on the Law on Internal Affairs either, which stipulates that, in the event of the termination of the mandate of the director of the UP before the end of the term for which he was appointed, the Government will, on the proposal of the minister, designate one of the heads of the internal affairs as acting organizational units of the police. Saranović claims that the procedure prescribed by that provision was not followed when making the decision about Radović.
"And this for the following reasons: the Government, on March 3, 3, without holding a session, based on the obtained consent of the majority of members, passed a decision on the dismissal of Zoran Brđanin from the post of director of the UP, before the expiration of the time for which he was appointed, including on March 2024, 12," the lawsuit says.
Šaranović reminds that the Government, on the same day that it dismissed Brđanin, tasked him with carrying out a public call from March 4 to 10 for the election of acting director, and to submit to it on March 12 a report on the conducted advertisement and a list of all applicants, so that the executive the government, at his suggestion, elected a temporary chief of police.
He states that he issued the invitation, submitted to the Government on March 12 a report "on the conducted analysis (polygraph test, prim. auto) of the reported interested persons... with attachments, which is marked with the level of secrecy 'internal'", as well as a list of those reported. He also submitted, he adds, a proposal with the explanation that Šćepanović should be appointed as acting director, and explains that in the accompanying act of the proposal there was a note that Radović, Zoran Braunović, Milutin Vasiljević, Petar Šestović and Miloš Peković, who also responded to the advertisement, did not candidates.
The minister claims that the Government got acquainted with the materials at the session held on the same day, and that for the third item on its agenda, only the proposal was submitted for Šćepanović to be acting
"The proposal... did not receive the necessary majority in the Government, even though not a single member raised objections to the detailed written proposal of the prosecutor. With this act, the agenda of the 20th session was exhausted," the lawsuit states.
However, Šaranović says, the government continued to work and reached a conclusion stating that he refused to propose one of the remaining candidates. She then authorized Spajić to propose one of them. He claims that this is illegal, because the act on internal affairs stipulates that the temporary chief of police is proposed by the minister. He states that the conclusion cannot suspend the minister's right established by law, nor that the authority given to the minister by law can be transferred to the prime minister.
"The government does not have the authority, stipulated by the law and the Constitution, to appoint the Prime Minister as the authorized proposer in the event that the minister's proposal for the appointment of the acting minister does not receive the required majority. In such a state of affairs, the Government's statement that the minister refused to propose one of the remaining candidates could not represent either a legal or a factual basis for granting the said illegal authorization", says Saranović, adding that after his proposal was not accepted, a new one could not be submitted because the agenda of the session was exhausted.
The lawsuit states that the proposal for the appointment of Radović was not submitted in writing, that it did not contain an explanation, that it was not considered by the Commission for Personnel and Administrative Issues, and that as an "oral proposal" it is in all respects inconsistent with the Rules of Procedure of the Government and the Law on Internal Affairs.
Šaranović also claims that the decision on the appointment of Radović does not even contain an explanation, "as an essential element of the administrative act", and that therefore the Government has also committed a violation of the rules of administrative procedure.
Radović's appointment as the head of the UP culminated in the months-long smoldering conflict between PES and the Democrats regarding staffing in the security sector. That is why the Democrats pledged their support to the Government until they receive the IBAR (Report on the Fulfillment of Temporary Benchmarks).
Dragović claimed that Šaranović abused his powers
PES MP Darko Dragović announced after the appointment of Radović that Saranović, by not proposing another candidate, "obviously decided not to use his discretion by abusing his authority..."
Dragović also assessed that Saranović tried in this way "to cause institutional chaos..."
He stated that it is the duty and obligation of the minister to propose the acting director of UP, and that the Government is the only one authorized to appoint him. The PES MP announced that it is legally permissible for the government not to accept the minister's proposal, and that in that case he is obliged to propose another person.
"I have an active ID"
Although some lawyers claim that Šaranović does not have legal standing (legal authority) to sue, but that one of the candidates who were not elected can do so, the minister states that his standing arises from the Law on Administrative Disputes (Article 10 paragraph 1). It states that the plaintiff in an administrative dispute is a natural or legal person who believes that a right or legal interest has been violated by an administrative act or other administrative activity.
"The adopted decision denied the right and legal interest of the prosecutor based on the law that the appointment of the acting director of the UP be carried out in a legal manner... This is especially because the UP is one of the organizational units of the MUP, where the director of the UP is responsible for his work to the minister ", the lawsuit says.
Šaranović states that it is not in dispute that he is a party in the administrative proceedings because the proceedings for the chief of police were conducted according to his proposal, "and the obtained status of a party in the administrative proceedings, according to already established court practice, cannot be lost in an administrative dispute".
"It cannot be disputed that the defendant (Government), as the adopter of the contested act, committed a violation of the rules of procedure, which violated the rights of the plaintiff established by law, which gives the plaintiff the legitimacy to challenge the enacted act... One must also bear in mind the provision of the Constitution which prescribed that: 'Final individual legal acts enjoy judicial protection,'" the lawsuit states.
DON'T MISS IT
Bonus video:
