In relation to the provisions of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, the Agency acted in accordance with the order of the Administrative Court
In order to fully and accurately inform the public, we point out that on January 24th 2018 the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption received the Judgment of the Administrative Court of U. No. 11171/17 of December 15th 2017, that annulled the Decision of the Agency number UPI 02-01. 289/7 of October 10th 2017, in the case of Nikola Vukčević, a member of the Council of Radio Television of Montenegro, and ordered the Agency to issue a new, legally valid decision in the renewed procedure.
Among other things, the Administrative Court pointed out that for the adoption of a new legal decision it is necessary to specify the private interest which indicates the possibility of the impartiality of the public official in the exercise of public function., as well as that the defendant (the Agency) does not give reasons in that direction, but an action that does not in itself constitute a conflict of interest, unclearly relates to the violation of the provision of Article 7 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption.
The Agency, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, and with reference to the judgment of the Administrative Court and on January 26th 2018, issued a Decision establishing that Nikola Vukčević, now a former member of the Council of Radio Television of Montenegro, as a public official violated Article 7, paragraph 5 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, in conjunction with Article 26, paragraph 1, item 5 of the Law on National Public Broadcasters of RTV of Montenegro, by fulfilling the contractual obligation from the contract concluded with "Galileo Production" DOO Podgorica, directed the film "Roma and some foreign stories ", in which way he could have come in the situation of conflict of interest as a member of the Council of RTV of Montenegro, whose competence is to adopt programming documents, work plan and report on the work of RTV of Montenegro, to decide whether the subject film will be broadcasted on television programs of Montenegro, in which way he could accomplish private material or non-material interest, in the form of author’s compensation for the exploitation of his author’s work.
This is because the Law on National Public Broadcasters of RTV of Montenegro, Article 26, paragraph 1, item 5 prescribes that Council members shall not be:
persons who, as owners of shares, shareholders, members of managing bodies, members of supervisory bodies, employees, etc., have an interest in legal entities engaged in the production of radio and television programs, so that the membership of such a person in the Council could lead to conflict of interest, and it is the activity of the company "Galileo production" DOO Podgorica, - production of films, videos and television programs.
We point out that the procedure that was conducted by the Administrative Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro was independent from the administrative procedure conducted before the Agency and was conducted on the basis of Article 42 of the Law on National Public Broadcasting Radio and Television of Montenegro in relation to Article 26 of the same law, on which the mentioned public official gave his statement in the procedure before the relevant Assembly Committee.
Bearing in mind that the Administrative Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro, in accordance with the prescribed legal competences, acted in accordance with the Law on National Public Broadcasters of RTV of Montenegro, we note that the outcome of this procedure did not require the validity of the decision of the APC as prescribed by Article 42 of the Law on prevention of corruption.
The concerned public official, performing the function of the member of the Council of RTV of Montenegro, has never provided the Agency with the Report on income and assets of public officials, and in that direction, the Agency will initiate procedures in order to determine the responsibility of the appointed public official.
Until now according to the decisions and given opinions of the Agency, more than 140 public officials were dismissed or resigned to public functions, so this case represents only one of a series of procedures in which the Agency found violation of the provisions of the Law on prevention of Corruption that refers to conflict of interest and restrictions in the exercise of public functions, mentioned data is available on the Agency's website.
We note that according to Article 7, paragraph 5 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, the Decisions and the Opinions of the Agency, whose adoption determines the existence of a conflict of interest and restrictions in the exercise of public office, are final and binding for public officials.