Kuč sues the APC Council: Braletić does not meet the requirements for director, Tomović had a conflict of interest

One of the candidates for the position of Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, Mithat Kuč, has filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court against the Council of this agency over its decision to appoint Kristina Braletić as Director of the APC. Kuč argues that a conflict of interest existed during the decision-making process, according to unofficial information provided to ETV Portal.

The lawsuit is based on the fact that Mladen Tomović, a member of the APC Council and a lawyer, voted in favor of Braletić's appointment, despite what the plaintiff considers to be a conflict of interest.

Kuč filed the lawsuit seeking the annulment of the Decision on the Appointment of the Director of the APC dated April 17, 2026.

In the reasoning of the lawsuit, reviewed by ETV Portal, Kuč states that Council member Mladen Tomović participated in the selection process despite circumstances that objectively called his impartiality into question.

Specifically, Mladen Tomović had previously represented the selected candidate, Kristina Braletić, in proceedings before the Administrative Court of Montenegro. The plaintiff states that he possesses evidence of this representation, which will be submitted to the court.

The existence of a prior professional relationship between a Council member and the candidate who was later selected as Director constitutes a circumstance that would create justified doubts about the impartiality of the decision-making process in the eyes of any objective observer.

Despite this, Tomović neither recused himself from the proceedings nor did the Council consider his recusal, even though Article 10 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption provides that:

Uprkos tome, imenovani se nije izuzeo iz postupka odlučivanja niti je Savjet razmatrao njegovo izuzeće, iako je članom 10 Zakona o sprečavanju korupcije propisano:

„If a public official participates in discussion and decision-making within a public authority on a matter in which the official or a person connected to the official has a private interest, the official is obliged to immediately refrain from taking any action for which there is a risk of a conflict of interest and, no later than three days after becoming aware of such circumstances, submit a written statement regarding the existence of a private interest or risk of conflict of interest and inform both the authority and the other participants in the discussion and decision-making process.“

According to the lawsuit, these actions violated the fundamental principles of objectivity, impartiality, equal treatment of candidates, and legality of the procedure.

This is particularly significant because the appointment concerns the head of an institution whose primary function is the protection of the public interest and the fight against corruption, where standards of integrity should be higher than in other procedures.

Tomović previously represented Braletić before the Administrative Court

ETV Portal previously reported that Tomović, who voted for Braletić's appointment, had earlier represented her interests before the Administrative Court in proceedings initiated against a decision of the APC itself.

Attorney Veselin Radulović stated before Braletić's appointment that he clearly recognized a conflict of interest and warned that Tomović's participation in the vote could affect the legality of the Council's decision.

- In my opinion, these circumstances impose an obligation on the Council member to recuse himself from the decision-making process concerning the appointment of the APC Director. Otherwise, his participation and vote could seriously compromise the entire process and affect the legality of the Council's decision - Radulović told ETV Portal at the time.

Tomović: I do not see a conflict of interest

Tomović, however, maintained that he did not recognize any conflict of interest or issue regarding impartiality.

In a statement to ETV Portal, he said that he had withdrawn his power of attorney in the case in which he represented Braletić after becoming a member of the APC Council.

Drago Kos also reacted

Following Braletić's appointment, independent anti-corruption expert Drago Kos of Slovenia also commented on the matter.

- Although I have repeatedly stated that Mr. Mladen Tomović cannot be a member of the Council of the Anti-Corruption Agency, I have nevertheless continued cooperating with the APC until now. After yesterday's Council session, I am completely abandoning that cooperation. What happened yesterday is the worst image the APC Council could possibly present of itself - Kos told ETV Portal.

The lawsuit further argues that the contested decision is unlawful due to the incorrect application of Article 96, Paragraph 3 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption.

At its session on March 30, 2023, the Government of Montenegro appointed Kristina Braletić as a member of the Coordination Body for Monitoring and Managing the Policy for the Prevention and Suppression of Irregularities in the Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Union (the AFCOS Network). On May 8, 2023, the APC issued Opinion No. 02-01-1595/2 concerning that appointment. That opinion was subsequently challenged before the Administrative Court of Montenegro by Mladen Tomović acting as Braletić's legal representative in case U. No. 10098/23, which remains pending.

Article 96, Paragraph 3 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption provides that a person cannot be appointed Director of the Agency if, during the five-year period preceding the appointment, that person held a position or membership in a body appointed by the Government of Montenegro that constitutes a legal obstacle to such an appointment.

At the time the contested decision was adopted, the legally prescribed five-year period had not elapsed since Kristina Braletić's appointment by the Government of Montenegro.

Nevertheless, the Agency's Council did not establish the existence of this legal impediment, nor did it explain in its decision why it considered the candidate to satisfy the requirements under Article 96 of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption.

By doing so, the Council allegedly misapplied substantive law and appointed a person who did not meet the legal conditions required for the position of Director of the Anti-Corruption Agency.

Since this is a mandatory legal provision governing eligibility for the position of Director, its violation renders the contested decision unlawful and constitutes an independent ground for its annulment.