Kovačević and others acquitted of charges

Former director of the Real Estate Administration, Dragan Kovačević, has been acquitted of charges. The decision was made by a panel of judge Zoran Radović of the Higher Court in Podgorica.

The verdict also acquitted: Ana Lakićević Grdinić, Danko Kovačević, Veselin Tomašević, Sanja Popović, Aleksandar Boljević, Dalibor Knežević and the company "Geo & Arh".

Judge Radović stated in his explanation of the verdict that the decision of the judges was unanimous.

The investigation and indictment of the Special State Prosecutor's Office against Kovačević were filed at a time when the prosecutor's office was headed by Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoje Katnić.

The indictment states that Kovačević committed the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization, and the defendants Ana Lakićević-Grdinić, Veselin Tomašević, Danko Kovačević, Sanja Popović and Aleksandar Boljević committed the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization. The defendant legal entity "Geo & Arh" doo Podgorica was charged with the criminal offense of creating a criminal organization.

The indictment adds that Dragan Kovačević built a house on cadastral plot KO 105/1, occupying a state-owned property of 15 square meters.

Boljević and Sanja Popović were acquitted of extortion charges.

Tomašević, Knežević and Ana Lakićević Grdinić were acquitted of charges of abuse of office.

Danko Kovačević was acquitted of charges of tax and contribution evasion.

The reasoning of the verdict points out the illogicality of the indictment, according to which Dragan Kovačević created the criminal organization in August 2011, and that the first act of execution from the criminal plan was taken in the period from December 2013 to October 2017, which would indicate the complete inactivity of the criminal organization for a period longer than two years.

"Furthermore, contrary to the allegations in the indictment, the court pointed to the principled legal position of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Su I.br. 343-2/20 of 15.12.2020, which explains under what conditions the owners of land declared by law as a maritime zone, and who acquired the right of ownership in a legally valid manner before the entry into force of the Law on Maritime Zone, and their legal successors, retain the right of ownership, and that the state can be registered as the owner of land declared by law as a maritime zone, after paying the previous owner compensation in accordance with the Law on Expropriation. Also, land owners who are registered in the cadastral register as holders of the right of use have the right, if the conditions from Article 419 and Article 420 of the Law on Property and Legal Relations are met, to be registered as holders of the right of ownership, and which principled legal position was adopted as a consequence of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 09.06.2020, in "in the case of Nešić v. Montenegro, no. 2131/18," the reasoning states.

"In addition, the court pointed out the final decision on inheritance of the Municipal Court in Kotor O.br.143/78 of 03.11.1980 and the final decision on inheritance of the Basic Court in Kotor O.br. 538/13 of 07.05.2014, which served as the basis for registering in the cadastre J. D née P., LP, MS and Lj.K, as co-users on cadastral plots 105/1 Pov=97m2 and 105/4 Pov=22m2 from LN 441 KO Bogišići, and that this did not prove that the aforementioned persons were not the owners of the property rights or users of the aforementioned real estate, nor were their legal predecessors, and that the decisions made by ALK, as the head of the Real Estate Administration of the Tivat PJ, did not transfer more rights to themselves than their legal predecessors had (the right of co-use) nor in "to a greater extent than them, with the state of Montenegro remaining the owner of these properties, and the burden of "coastal property" was transferred to the G list of properties," the explanation adds.

"The court briefly gave the reasons why, in relation to the act from item a) of the indictment, related to the criminal offense of abuse of official position under Article 416 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, but also in relation to items b), c), d), e) and f) of the indictment, it was not proven that all the accused and the accused legal entity "G&AP" DOO P committed the criminal offenses they are charged with, giving a brief assessment of the testimonies of individual witnesses and written evidence, as well as the reasons why the charge was dismissed in relation to the accused Dragan Kovačević for the criminal offense of illegal occupation of land under Article 254, paragraph 2 in connection with paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, and pursuant to Art. 372 item 3 of the CPC, given that the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had expired, before the first procedural action was taken, which would have potentially interrupted the course of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. The court specifically pointed out that the court was bound by the factual description of the offense contained in the indictment and that in certain segments of the indictment, by changing its factual substratum, it would have assumed the role of prosecutor and exceeded the limits of the prosecution, which it is not authorized to do under the CPC," stated Ivana Vukmirović, independent advisor for public relations at the Higher Court in Podgorica.