The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg accepted the request of the Atlas Group against Montenegro, filed due to the revocation of licenses for two banks - "Invest Banka Montenegro" and "Atlas Banka", with the assessment that the courts in Montenegro violated the rights of the plaintiff, the Atlas Group, before all state institutions to which it addressed its request against the state of Montenegro, the Atlas Group announced today.
The statement from the company, headed by Duško Knežević, added that the explanation of the ECHR decision, which was published on the court's official website, calls on the two parties to resolve the dispute peacefully, that is, for the parties to come to an agreement.
Knežević has been in custody in Spuž since April 30, 2024, after being extradited from the United Kingdom.
"To note, the European Court of Human Rights, as an international court of the Council of Europe that interprets the European Convention on Human Rights, considers applications in which it is claimed that a contracting state has violated one or more of the human rights set out in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a signatory. Having previously rejected five applications by Atlas Group against Montenegro, regularly submitted on its behalf by lawyer Milovan Milošević from Podgorica, the European Court of Human Rights has now for the first time considered the application of Duško Knežević's company – 'Application No. 16762/24 Atlas Group against Montenegro'. In the explanation of the 'subject matter of the case', it is stated that 'the applications relate to the alleged lack of access to court, given that the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court refused to examine the merits of the claims of the two applicant companies'. 'Duško Knežević was the sole founder and owner of the two applicant companies, which were shareholders of the banks 'Invest banka Montenegro' and 'Atlas banka'," the Atlas Group said in a statement.
The company also said that in December 2018, two banks were placed under temporary administration and that temporary administrators were appointed.
"In January 2019, the Central Bank of Montenegro revoked the license, opened insolvency proceedings (suspension of payment of obligations) and appointed a bankruptcy administrator in relation to 'Invest Bank Montenegro'. The applicant companies, as well as other legal entities founded and owned by Duško Knežević and the bank itself, filed lawsuits against the revocation of the license and the initiation of insolvency proceedings in relation to 'Invest Bank Montenegro', as well as the introduction of provisional administration in 'Atlas Bank'. Between March 10 and June 11, 2020, the Administrative Court dismissed the lawsuits, finding that shareholders did not have the right to challenge decisions relating to the banks, which were separate legal entities, regardless of the percentage of their shares and regardless of whether they acted separately or jointly. It also dismissed the banks' lawsuits as filed by an unauthorized person, given that their legal representative was not authorized to act on behalf of the provisional/bankruptcy administrator," Atlas Group said.
The company also stated in the statement that between April 9 and September 17, 2020, the Supreme Court upheld these decisions and in all six cases determined that only the interim administrator can appeal the decision introducing interim administration.
"The applicant companies filed a total of three constitutional complaints, complaining, in essence, about the lack of access to court. In the third constitutional complaint, they also stated that the subject of their request was not the introduction of interim administration, but the revocation of the license of 'Invest Bank Montenegro'. Between 30 November 2023 and 10 April 2024, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant companies' constitutional complaints. Those decisions were served on the applicant companies between 13 February and 2 July 2024. The applicant companies complain under Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the Convention about the lack of access to court or any effective domestic remedy," Knežević's company said.
The Atlas Group also suggests that the European Court suggests "questions for the parties":
1. Are the applicant companies' complaints under Article 6 compatible with the provisions of the Convention? ratione personae, given the ownership structure of the banks and the applicant companies’ shares in them. (see Ankarcrona v. Sweden (dec.), no. 35178/97, 27 June 2000; see also, mutatis mutandis, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991; Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey, no. 16163/90, 31 July 2003; Kin-Stib and Majkić v. Serbia, no. 12312/05, 20 April 2010; Vujović and Lipa DOO v. Montenegro, no. 18912/15, 20 February 2018; and Madžarović and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 54839/17 and 71093/17, 5 May 2020)?
2. Was the decision of the domestic courts to dismiss the applicant companies’ claims contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant companies suffer a violation of their right of access to a court guaranteed by that Article (see Baka v. Hungary, no. 20261/12, § 120, ECHR 2016; see also Vujović and Lipa DOO, §§ 39-44; and Madžarović and Others, §§ 92 and 94-95, both cited above)?
"The parties are invited to inform the Court about the ownership structure of 'Invest Banka Montenegro' and 'Atlas Banka' in December 2018, i.e. at the time when the interim administration was introduced for both banks, and to submit relevant supporting documentation in this regard. The parties are also invited to submit the decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 May 2019, to which the Administrative Court refers in the decision of the Administrative Court U. No. 361/19 of 10 March 2020," the statement reads.
The Atlas Group stated that the European Court, therefore, made itself available to the parties in the dispute in order to reach a friendly settlement based on respect for human rights established by the Convention and its protocols.
"Now it is Montenegro's turn to show good intentions in reaching an agreement and settlement with the damaged Atlas Group. After the acceptance of the Atlas Group's claim against the state of Montenegro by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the conclusion is that the Atlas Group, its owner and president Duško Knežević, as well as numerous employees, were exposed to arbitrariness and persecution by the previous political regime led by the DPS, its henchmen from the judiciary, some of whom were arrested (Special State Prosecutor Milivoj Katnić is currently in prison and the trial of him and his deputy special prosecutor Saša Čađenović, accused of creating a criminal organization, abuse of office and money laundering, has begun), and even today, scandals from an earlier period are being opened," the statement reads.
Atlas Group notes that former Chief Special Prosecutor Milivoje Katnić "took 63 million euros in cash from international clients from these two banks and to this day it is not known where that money is."
"The amount of 15 million euros from the alleged guarantee was withdrawn from the account of 'Atlas Bank' on the order of the then President of the Commercial Court Blaž Jovanić (who was in custody for abuse of office and is currently on trial together with several bankruptcy trustees). Employees of the Atlas Group and the owner and president Duško Knežević are convinced that this was a criminal conspiracy and an intention to destroy a prosperous company and two banks, 'Atlas Bank' and 'Invest Banka Montenegro'. The fact that Duško Knežević is the victim of a political process against which eight criminal charges were filed is also confirmed by court verdicts. Out of a total of four cases in which Duško Knežević and employees of 'Atlas Bank' and 'Invest Banka Montenegro' are being tried, two acquittals have been issued so far, in the cases of 'Envelope' and 'Airports'. And the fact that Duško Knežević is still being held in custody (for as long as 17,5 months) without valid arguments, is interpreted as a kind of pressure on him "which the Atlas Group suspects are being carried out by judges whom the DPS regime appointed to the judiciary during its rule and provided them with numerous privileges," said the Atlas Group.
Bonus video:
