Braletić refuses to comply with Administrative Court ruling, suggests METS whistleblower sue the Anti-Corruption Agency instead?!

Less than a month after being appointed Director of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption under highly controversial circumstances, Kristina Braletić told Montenegro's public broadcaster, commenting on the case of a whistleblower from the Montenegrin Electricity Transmission System (METS), that in her !professional opinion, the Agency should comply with the grounds set out in the Administrative Court's judgment overturning its previous decision“.

- This is primarily because this is the only whistleblower protection case in which the Agency previously issued a positive opinion, and because the lawsuit was filed before the amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Corruption concerning whistleblower protection entered into force - she said, stressing that „consistent implementation of all three anti-corruption laws is imperative, and there will be no exceptions“.

A SUDDEN CHANGE OF POSITION

Braletić made those remarks on May 14. Barely a month later, however, on June 16, the whistleblower received a notification informing him that, following the delivery of the Administrative Court's judgment, „the Agency has submitted several filings informing you and your legal representatives that, following the entry into force of the new Law on the Prevention of Corruption (Official Gazette of Montenegro No. 54/24), the Agency no longer has jurisdiction to provide whistleblower protection“.

Her „professional opinion“ expressed on May 14 had disappeared within a month, and she adopted the very same position previously taken by her predecessor, Dušan Drakić.

- Braletić's actions, like those of her predecessor Dušan Drakić, are only one part of a much broader story. In addition to acting in the interests of their friend Mladen Tomović, who effectively runs the Agency, they are attempting through these unlawful actions to conceal the fact that, at the time more than €76,000 was allegedly embezzled from METS, the wife of Montenegro's current President, Milena Milatović, served as Director of the company's Financial and Economic Affairs Sector. It is probably just a „coincidence“ that Ms. Milatović, together with the company's executive director, the head of its legal department, and another person associated with her, initiated disciplinary proceedings against me and testified against me in those proceedings. After the courts ultimately annulled those disciplinary proceedings, it now appears necessary to rehabilitate Ms. Milatović's record. Unfortunately, the leadership of the Anti-Corruption Agency behaves this way because it clearly knows it enjoys the protection of the prosecution service - the whistleblower told Portal ETV.

The Administrative Court, which revoked his whistleblower protection in an unprecedented move in democratic societies, ordered the Agency to issue a new decision in the case. 

Instead, Drakić's successor advised the whistleblower to file a new lawsuit before the Administrative Court against the Agency itself because it had failed to comply with the court's own judgment?!

IGNORING THE SUPREME COURT'S POSITION

- Only after the Agency receives the Administrative Court's decision pursuant to Article 57 of the Law on Administrative Disputes will it be in a position to act upon your request - Braletić stated in her notification.

In his response, the whistleblower said he was convinced that this was yet another example of what he described as „the work of your friend Mladen Tomović - a member of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and the National Council for the Fight Against Corruption“.

- Do you really think I would be so naive as to allow you to continue obstructing this case through the Administrative Court - he wrote.

He reminded Braletić of the statement she gave to the Radio Television of Montenegro regarding his case, in which she expressed her „professional opinion“ that the Agency should act in accordance with the Administrative Court's judgment. He also referred to the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Montenegro on October 16 last year, rejecting his request for an extraordinary review of the Administrative Court's judgment. Among other things, the Supreme Court stated that the „Administrative Court, by the contested judgment, annulled the administrative act challenged in the administrative dispute and remanded the case to the administrative authority for renewed proceedings, so – consequently - there is no final court decision, which is a procedural prerequisite for filing a request for judicial review“.

- It is precisely the Supreme Court's ruling, Case No. Uvp. 81/25 of October 16, 2025, that disproves all your claims that the Agency lost jurisdiction over whistleblower protection cases under the new Law on the Prevention of Corruption. That is true only for requests submitted after the new law entered into force. You, Ms. Braletić, just like your predecessor, are knowingly, deliberately and systematically ignoring the position of the Supreme Court of Montenegro in the interest of your friend Mladen Tomović - the whistleblower wrote.

TOMOVIĆ'S FALSE AND OTHER INVOICES

The whistleblower also pointed to allegations previously reported by Portal ETV that Tomović had submitted false invoices and received payment from METS for legal services that had never been performed.

- I am confident that, following this, and in line with your „professional“ approach, you will initiate appropriate proceedings against your esteemed friend Mladen Tomović, a member of the Council of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption and the National Council for the Fight Against Corruption - the whistleblower concluded in his letter to Braletić.

Concerns over the situation within the Agency, the treatment of the METS whistleblower, and the role allegedly played by a member of the Agency's Council were also raised recently in the Parliament of Montenegro by MP Nikola Zirojević during the debate on amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Corruption.

- How is it possible that a member of the Agency's Council simultaneously acts as legal counsel for a state-owned company in proceedings against a whistleblower? Does no one see a conflict of interest here? A man's whistleblower status is revoked, and he becomes the target of persecution. Does no one find it problematic that this Council member received more than €35,000 for representing that very company? Does no one see anything wrong with the fact that the same Council member, Mr. Mladen Tomović, collected €800 for legal services he never actually provided? Those documents simply do not exist in the case file. This, unfortunately, is the true picture of Montenegro's Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. It clearly no longer serves its intended purpose but has instead become an instrument for persecuting those deemed undesirable and those who hold dissenting views. Ultimately, this is why Slovenian anti-corruption expert Drago Kos terminated his cooperation with the Agency. Is that not warning enough? If you do not believe me as an opposition MP or as the representative of my political party, is Drago Kos's assessment not sufficient - Zirojević asked members of the parliamentary majority and Justice Minister Bojan Božović.

The Centre for Civic Education (CCE) has also repeatedly raised concerns about Tomović's role. Immediately after Braletić was appointed Director of the Agency, the NGO recalled that for more than a year the institution had „failed to adopt a clear decision in the conflict-of-interest case involving Agency Council member and attorney Mladen Tomović, despite the fact that the relevant facts indicating both a conflict of interest and possible influence peddling are well known and documented“.

- Unfortunately, the newly appointed Director, Kristina Braletić, does not appear willing to address this issue as a matter of priority, particularly given the support she received from Tomović during the appointment process - the organization stated on May 11.

INSTEAD OF PROTECTION – PERSECUTION

The METS whistleblower has endured nearly five years of retaliation after reporting suspected corruption. Shortly after submitting his report, the company initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, found him responsible for alleged misconduct, and imposed sanctions. In response, the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption acted urgently and granted him protected whistleblower status in order to shield him from further retaliation within the company, including the possibility of dismissal.

In 2024, however, significant changes took place within the Agency. A new Council was appointed, including METS's legal representative, attorney Mladen Tomović, while Agency official Dušan Drakić, described by critics as both Tomović's friend and former client, was appointed acting director.

As a result, when METS challenged the whistleblower's protected status before the Administrative Court, on one side stood Tomović, representing METS as the company's lawyer, and on the other were his associates within the Agency, Drakić, serving as acting director of the defendant institution, and Kristina Braletić, who at the time headed the Agency's whistleblower protection department. These two officials, friends of Tomović, were expected to defend the Agency's decision granting whistleblower protection?!

Unsurprisingly, the whistleblower's protected status was not defended. According to the article, documentation submitted to the Administrative Court by Drakić and Braletić omitted a key Agency document dated May 24, 2022, confirming that the whistleblower's corruption report had been forwarded to the Special State Prosecutor's Office.

Portal ETV sent questions regarding the whistleblower's case to the newly appointed Agency Director, Kristina Braletić, on May 8. As of the publication of the article, no response had been received.

After everything the METS whistleblower has experienced, it is difficult to expect that others will be willing to come forward and report suspected corruption. His case demonstrates the profound vulnerability of whistleblowers when confronted with entrenched institutional interests. Instead of receiving the protection guaranteed by law, whistleblowers risk becoming targets of institutional retaliation. Laws, regulations and formal safeguards remain only on paper, while in practice corruption networks can extend even into the institutions entrusted with protecting those courageous enough to speak out.