The company "Roaming Montenegro" from Nikšić registered itself as the "one-through-one" owner of the former Barska Plovidba office building in Bar, which they purchased based on a controversial advertisement by Barska Plovidba, in connection with which the Special State Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation and a dispute was initiated in the Commercial Court.
The Bar cadastre responded to "Vijesti" that the note that a dispute is being conducted over the real estate in question before the Commercial Court does not affect the change in registration and does not prevent the sale of real estate, but rather serves as a warning to interested parties that, depending on the success of the dispute in question, the registration may be changed. They also say that the request to suspend the registration procedure until the dispute is resolved is not in accordance with the Law on Administrative Procedure.
The company “Admiral Holding” submitted a bid of 1,95 million euros on this advertisement on June 26, and “Roaming Montenegro” submitted a bid of 1,75 million euros. At the time of the bid opening, the commission did not cancel any bids, but did not allow the bidders to attend the opening either. Only 25 days later, when the deadline for Barska Plovidba to pay the installment for the ships to the Chinese Exim Bank was approaching, was the bid of “Admiral Holding” canceled due to an alleged error in the notarial deed for the power of attorney of its employee who inspected the building. Director of Barska Plovidba Boris Mihajlovic then he signs a contract with "Roaming Montenegro", who pay the money on the same day and begin the process of registering this five-story building with an area of 1.825 square meters.
Admiral Holding then filed a complaint with the Special State Prosecutor's Office, which formed a case and began an investigation. They also filed a request with the Cadastre Administration on July 30 of this year to suspend or postpone the registration process of Roaming Montenegro until the proceedings before the Commercial Court and the Special State Prosecutor's Office are completed.
The dispute was recorded in the real estate register on August 4th, while the new owner was registered on September 15th.
"Admiral Holding" fears that the building could now be resold, which would complicate the initiated procedure. They believe in the domestic prosecution and judiciary, but they are also ready to go to the Court in Strasbourg.
"Our legal team complied with every legal procedure from the tender itself, and later submitted everything legally and in appeals that was necessary to point out the biased and illogical decisions that accompanied this tender procedure and to prevent possible accelerated registration actions that could be a problem for everyone after the procedure is completed, and most of all for the State. We still believe in the institutions of the system, the prosecutor's office and the judiciary, because such a blatant attempt to circumvent the correct tender procedure offends common sense, let alone legal and statutory norms. We sincerely hope that this procedure will be fairly concluded within the framework of our judiciary, so that we do not have to seek arbitration in Strasbourg and go further to get what belongs to us," the company stated after registering ownership of "Roaming Montenegro".
The case was also discussed last week by the Parliamentary Anti-Corruption Committee, before which Mihajlović said that the reason for the cancellation of the highest bid was that the Admiral Holding employee who inspected the building on June 20 did not have a power of attorney from a notary at that time, but submitted it on June 26, the day before the deadline for submitting bids.
Legal representative of “Admiral Holding” Miloš Vukčević He said that according to the advertisement for the sale of the administrative building, the only condition was a higher price, and that everything else was a construction of additional conditions in order to reject the highest bidder. He stated that the interpretation of "Barska plovidba" has no legal or logical basis, asking whether someone selling private property would reject an offer higher by 200 thousand euros, citing some procedural reason that was not even a condition of participation.
DON'T MISS IT
Bonus video:
