The state was neither the holder of the right of use, nor the owner, nor the legal successor to the land of the Saltworks, and its registration was null and void because there was no legal basis for it. The Administrative Court's ruling is legally binding and clearly confirms that this is not a procedural error, but an illegal appropriation of property, and any further attempt to relativize it represents an institutional disregard for rights and a signal that the state is not prepared to act in accordance with the rule of law.
This is stated in the response of Solana shareholders to the claims of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro. Bojan Ćirović that the land of the Saltworks is undoubtedly state-owned and that this was confirmed by the Privatization Council with its adopted opinion that market compensation was not paid for the real estate belonging to that company.
She told "Vijesti" this week that the case was not returned for a new trial to convert ownership "because that procedure has already been legally concluded" but rather to eliminate irregularities regarding registration in the cadastre.
"Regarding the statement that the Solana land is "state-owned", and that the Privatization Council's position is "key", shareholders and legal representatives recall the legal facts that confirm exactly the opposite - in order to protect legality, legal certainty and the constitutionally guaranteed right to property," states the response of the shareholders, who claim that they are protecting the state from institutional arbitrariness.
"The land of the Saltworks was never state property. The "Bajo Sekulić" Saltworks was a legal user of socially owned land, with rights under Article 419 of the Law on Property and Legal Relations (ZOSPO). The state had neither the right to use nor any basis for acquiring ownership - there was no judgment, expropriation, consent, or legal transaction. On April 28, 2025, the Administrative Court annulled the state's decision on registration, clearly stating that there was an incorrect application of substantive law, not a technical error," the response states.
It is recalled that social property is not state property and that this is not a rhetorical, but a legal issue.
"Solana was a social, not a state-owned enterprise. There was no titleholder in the social property, but a registered user. The state never had a registered right of use. No law gives the state automatic rights over that property. Solana filed a request for conversion back in 2011, in accordance with the law," the response states, claiming that the Privatization Council does not create rights.
The shareholders emphasize that the Supreme Court determined that the Council's opinion is not an administrative act and cannot produce legal effects in favor of someone who was not the holder of the right of use.
The Council's role, they add, is auxiliary, not constitutive, and invoking that opinion in order to enroll a state represents institutional abuse.
"If, even after the verdict, the law is ignored and administrative maneuvers continue, it will be a clear signal to investors and international partners that court decisions in Montenegro mean nothing. Shareholders will take measures, including international arbitration, protection under investment treaties, and addressing EU institutions," the response reads.
Shareholders asked the protector of property and legal interests whether it was true that when the Privatization Council issued its opinion, the Study of the Faculty of Economics, which relates to the comprehensive restructuring of the DP Solana “Bajo Sekulić”- Ulcinj, was not taken into consideration at all. They claim that the Study lists the land as an integral part of the Solana's property and that the Study was later used by shareholders when purchasing shares on the stock exchange.
"Does the protector know whether the issuance of shares without collateral by the State is a criminal offense? 30 thousand of us are asking her and whether she knows that the body she represents, in the civil proceedings conducted in the Commercial Court, which were suspended until the Council's opinion was given, expressed a completely different position than the one she expressed in the newspapers on 19. 6. 2025. The position expressed in the civil proceedings is not only opposite to the position expressed in the newspapers, but also treated the above-mentioned Elaborate as one of the crucial pieces of evidence in the process of transforming the DP Solana "Bajo Sekulić", claim the shareholders.
Bonus video:
