The decision of the AKS established that, as a former president of the state, Milo Djukanovic submitted reports on income and assets with incorrect and incomplete data, because he did not report wristwatches with an individual value of more than 10.000 euros, the Administrative Court announced.
"The court found that the Agency incorrectly applied the substantive law, because the procedure initiated in 2019 was conducted and ended by the application of the Law on Prevention of Corruption from 2024, although the transitional provisions of that law stipulate that procedures started before its entry into force are completed according to the regulations that were valid at the time of their initiation," the Administrative Court announced, as reported by Montenegrin News.
Legality
The court, it is added, established that the Agency for Prevention corruption violated the rules of administrative procedure from the Law on Administrative Procedure, because the 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 indicated that the dispositive clause of the contested decision was not sufficiently defined, because it was not specified to which specific reports on income and assets, nor to which period of time, the established violation of the law refers to. Bearing in mind that the public official was obliged to submit reports during the performance of his office, as well as two years after its termination, and that the prosecutor served as the President of Montenegro for two mandates, the Court judged that it was necessary to clearly mark which reports and period the established violation refers to," it is stated.
The court, it was announced, assessed that the explanation of the decision does not give the reasons why the Agency, after the evidentiary procedure and expert testimony, gave up certain wristwatches that were covered by the initiative to initiate proceedings against Milo Đukanović, nor why it determined in the final decision that certain watches were not reported, while it did not give any explanation for the other watches that were the subject of the proceedings.
"Also, the Court found that the Agency incorrectly applied substantive law, because the procedure initiated in 2019 was conducted and ended by the application of the Law on Prevention of Corruption from 2024, although the transitional provisions of that law stipulate that procedures started before its entry into force must be completed according to the regulations that were 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 what was as it was given, instead of faithfully conveying his allegations and then evaluating their significance in the proceedings. As it was established that the challenged decision does not meet the legal standards of explanation, that significant violations of the rules of administrative procedure were committed, as well as that the substantive law was incorrectly applied, the Court annulled the decision of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption," the Administrative Court announced.
