The Court of Appeal considered and confirmed the judgment of the Commercial Court, in the case of the lawsuit filed by the Slovenian company Madras Co against Pivara Trebjesa from Nikšić, which rejected the claim in the dispute that has been going on for 16 years.
For more than a decade, the Slovenian company has not been able to collect the claim in the amount of 158,35 thousand euros even through the courts.
Madras Co and Trebjesa had a contract for the purchase and sale of "Nikšić beer" for the year 2002. The Slovenian company had the exclusive right to import that beer to the Slovenian market. At the beginning of the strike in Trebjesa in 2002, the production and delivery of beer to the customer stopped, as a result of which the main distributor, based on previously concluded contracts with end customers, had adverse consequences. The lawsuit seeks lost profits.
The plaintiff originally sought compensation for damages due to injury to business reputation, but such a possibility for a lawsuit was opened in Montenegro, only subsequently by the Law on Obligations from 2008. The former judge of the Commercial Court, Nikola Tomić, rendered two verdicts in favor of the plaintiff more than a decade ago, but they were abolished. Judge Nataša Bošković then rendered a verdict in favor of "Trebjesa" and it was confirmed by the Court of Appeal. That verdict was annulled by the Supreme Court in April 2012.
After the prosecutor's control request, the case was removed from Bošković's work and handed over to former judge Dragica Vujanović, who retired two years ago. Later, this subject was taken over by Borjanka Zogović. The prosecutor requested her exemption, but the request was rejected by the president of the Commercial Court as unfounded.
Miomir Moračanin, the founder of the Slovenian company Madras, tells "Vijesti" that during the 16 years that the trial has been going on, "he has become accustomed to all kinds of adversity, but this fifth judgment of the Court of Appeal confirming the judgment of the Commercial Court "brought something new, but unacceptable " for him.
"When it annulled the fourth first-instance verdict, the Appellate Court indicated that it was necessary to reconcile the findings of economic court experts Milenko Popović and Hamid Šabović. The appointed experts reconciled their findings before the court and before the public and confirmed the allegations of the lawsuit. Then the judge Borjanka Zogović makes a maneuver and concludes that it is not important what is written in the contract, and that my will is what the defendant's attorney says," said Moračanin.
He pointed out that "The Economic Court of Montenegro does not care what the former financial director of the defendant Trebjesa said."
"It didn't help that I said that my will is not what the defendant's attorney says," said Moračanin.
Moračanin: We will argue more
For me, as a layman, it is unacceptable that the judge of the Commercial Court, the defendant's lawyer and the judges of the Court of Appeal, with a rare exception, are all former colleagues, so in such an occasion it is difficult to expect objectivity and impartiality. But we will still argue", said Miomir Moračanin of the Slovenian company Madras.
Bonus video:
