The Ministry of Tourism, Ecology, Sustainable Development and Development of the North, headed by Vladimir Martinović (Democrat), annulled the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which did not give consent to the Elaboration of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the quarry on the Milosevo Karst in Cetinje and ordered it to to decide on that request again.
This is written in the decision made by this Ministry in mid-April, which "Vijesti" had access to.
On March 11, the EPA initially rejected the request for consent to the study submitted by the concessionaire "Inženjering put", but there was a possibility of appealing that decision. This company later filed a complaint, through its lawyers Darko Dragović and Jelena Tadić Palibrk.
Locals of Bokovo, Đinovića, Kosijer and the surrounding Cetinje villages have been contesting the construction of a quarry on Milosevo Karst for some time, due to the danger of dust, exhaust gases, heavy machinery, noise and the destruction of the local road. They said that it is not surprising that the EPA's decision was overturned, because there is always a chance that the second-instance authority in the administrative procedure will overturn or confirm the decision of the first-instance.
"The concessionaire, "Inženjering put" has a new lawyer, that is Darko Dragović, a member of the "Europe Sad" Movement in the Parliament. Was he hired because of his expertise in administrative law or because his name on the concessionaire's complaint gives it special weight? Does the Ministry, managed by the Democrats, coalition partners of PES, decide on the appeal of the concessionaire on the basis of professional work, or are there certain pressures and political-financial interests? We wrote to Minister Martinović and his associates twice, asking for his admission in order to clarify our arguments against the quarry. There was no answer", said the locals.
They pointed out that later, in a telephone conversation, they agreed that the department would inform them in a timely manner, but that the decision was made four days after that. They claim that someone is trying to work behind their backs again, which is why they have hired a new lawyer. They emphasized that canceling the decision only postpones the inevitable, and that these three villages and the Capital of Cetinje will continue the fight, and that there will be no quarry in their area.
"Vijesti" expects an answer from Dragović to the questions addressed to him regarding this case.
In February 2022, the government passed a concession act for detailed geological research and exploitation of mineral raw materials for the Milosev Krs quarry, after which a tender was announced and in August of the same year, a concession contract was signed with the Podgorica company "Inženjering put". Then, in August 2023, this company submitted a request for approval for the study prepared by the company "Medix".
The EPA commission for the evaluation of the study then determined at the end of 2023 that the evaluation of that document cannot be given until approvals have been obtained, namely for the relocation of the transmission line that passes through the planned quarry and for the use of the local road. "Inženjering put" later asked for an additional extension of the deadline for submitting these permits, which the Commission did not agree with, because as they stated at the time, the company had to have consent after submitting the study. That is why they proposed its rejection.
In the decision of the Ministry of Tourism, it is stated that "Inženjering put", among other things, complained because the EPA's decision does not contain reasons on decisive facts, that it is unclear and contradictory, that there are already urban planning and technical conditions issued by the Capital, that there is no the decision to prohibit the use of the local road, that it is not clear why the approval for the relocation of power lines and the reconstruction of the road affect the quality of the submitted report...
"That the competence and scope of the Commission's work is clearly defined by the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, and that accordingly the Commission has neither the right, nor the obligation, nor the authority to request the addition of documentation by obtaining consent for actions and activities outside the exploration-exploitation area", it says , among others, in the solution.
Bonus video:
