The office of the Deputy Prime Minister for the Political System, Judiciary and Anti-Corruption, Momo Koprivica, responded to the reaction of the Uniprom company.
We transmit the response in full:
"Uniprom's response has not legally or factually challenged any of the claims from our statement, nor has it refuted any of the findings of the independent Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, which, through a comprehensive analysis, determined that the allocation of emission credits was a threat to the public interest, indicating the existence of corruption. However, we are addressing this issue due to the public's right to the truth, with the aim of preventing the spread of the fog regarding the illegal damage to the state in the amount of at least 17 million euros. Moreover, a careful analysis of Uniprom's response and comparison with the facts from the documentation unequivocally concludes that they carried out trade with EPCG when it was not legally possible. In addition, Uniprom's response clearly confirms that in the harmful deal with EPCG, which caused immeasurable damage to state resources, the norms of the Law on Obligations were blatantly violated, because the offsetting they are talking about, which is provided for by the famous Agreement, according to the express provision of that Law, can be carried out when it comes to due claims. both sides, which was not fulfilled here, but in the obvious race for easy and fabulous profits it was forgotten, to the detriment of the state.
It is not clear to us on what basis Uniprom and its owner give themselves such importance that they doubt that they have ever been the subject of attention or conversations between the Vice President of Koprivica and anyone who would know anything about their labor relations, but this speaks more about their ambitions than about the priorities of the Vice President of Koprivica. We certainly understand the attempt to shift the focus from the essence and the field of legality to acquaintances by insinuation, but the fight for legality does not depend on that and it is a measure of a responsible attitude towards the state, which we are obliged to serve, not to rob.
It is not difficult to dispute all the allegations in Uniprom's response in turn. To begin with, the Regulation in question entered into force on 22.02.2020, not 21.02.2020 as stated in Uniprom's response, and no material right can be acquired by virtue of the Regulation. This untrue claim by Uniprom is not an innocent mistake about a day, but is very relevant and points to a legal scandal, given that the "allocation" of emission credits was carried out on 21.02.2020, i.e. the day before the Regulation they are referring to entered into force, so it is a kind of nonsense and a legal scandal: that something is being allocated under the Regulation before the Regulation itself enters into force. If the goat lies, the horn does not lie: the Ekofond register contains official information that the registration of emission credits, which Uniprom had at its disposal, was carried out on 21.2.2020, and since there is no decision by the competent authority on the allocation, which is a special example of illegal conduct and acquisition, the information on the date of registration is clearly displayed in the public register.
Neither allocations nor transactions could even be carried out at all, because pursuant to Article 37, paragraph 1 of the Law on Protection from the Negative Impacts of Climate Change, the operators of the facilities did not submit applications and obtain appropriate permits, nor could they be carried out at all, bearing in mind that the Rulebook on the content of the greenhouse gas emissions monitoring plan from the facilities, pursuant to the provisions of Article 14 of the Rulebook, without which the entire procedure for the allocation of emission credits and their transactions is impossible to implement, has been applied since the date of Montenegro's accession to the European Union. It was only with the new Rulebook, which entered into force on 4.2.2022, almost two years after the Agreement between Uniprom and EPCG, i.e. significantly after the disputed actions, that its entry into force was not conditioned by Montenegro's accession to the European Union.
During this period, it was not possible to obtain free emission credits because the Commission that conducts the free allocation procedure, which also conducts the auction, has not been established.
It is undeniable that it was not possible to trade in the freely allocated credits because, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, paragraph 11 of the Regulation, trading required the prior formation of a Commission by the Government, whose jurisdiction is first to allocate free emission credits, and then to conduct the auction. Therefore, in this legally unrecorded scandal and farce, Uniprom sold freely allocated emission credits that were "allocated" to it by a non-existent body, which at that time did not exist in the legal system as registered, all before the Regulation they are referring to came into force, and to make matters even more absurd, the register of the Ecofund, and only subsequently, after its establishment, records that the allocation was made on 21.02. 2020. If there is anything positive in this harmful operation, it is precisely that it can serve as a good example for future generations of lawyers to understand what legal confusion looks like.
It is worth adding that the facilities did not gain the right to free emission credits, but rather the opportunity to have them awarded to them, if they meet the stipulated conditions and criteria, because the law clearly stipulates that emission credits "can be awarded if...", and Uniprom's incorrect claims and interpretations fall into the water.
Furthermore, the facility to which the Regulation indicates that the possibility of granting emission credits belongs belongs to KAP in bankruptcy, not Uniprom, which in the reference period 2005-2008 did not function as a facility in the sense of the law, so we remind you that KAP in bankruptcy was "alive" until 14.10.2021 and that it was only then deleted from the CRPS (which represents an opportunity for that legal entity, if it meets the conditions from the reference years, to acquire emission credits), and UNIPROM did not purchase KAP as a company, but rather the assets in bankruptcy, which is a crucially important legal fact in terms of acquiring rights and obligations.
DON'T MISS IT
Upon reviewing the Agreement between Uniprom and EPCG dated 28.02.2020, regarding which Uniprom states that the ministry's letter represents a confirmation of the status of emission credits on 28.02.2020 for Uniprom and EPCG, and the letter clearly refers to procedures that will yet occur, but not to the status on that date. Therefore, another untrue claim was made in Uniprom's response.
We further remind Uniprom that on February 22, 2022, it submitted an application for a permit for an aluminum billet factory, and that it submitted an application for electrolysis on February 15, 2022, so it is unusual that these facts do not distinguish, but what is important is that it only then became visible to the system and that it was only from that moment that a decision could be made on the allocation or not, because there was no monitoring plan and permits, and as for verification and submission of reports, since it did not have a permit, it was not obliged to report for 2020 and 2021, because there were no developed and adopted Regulations according to which it would have to compile reports, because reports are not compiled at anyone's discretion, but according to regulations, and otherwise the reports themselves are particularly debatable, so the Verifier Reports will be a subject before the competent authorities in the EU, and it is justified for the independent prosecutor's office to deal with it.
If we take into account the reference period 2005-2008 and the production of the plant during that period, as well as the defined methodology from the annex to the Regulation, it is unequivocally concluded that Toščelik was recorded with many times fewer emission credits than he was entitled to according to that methodology, and this was clearly established by the independent Agency for the Prevention of Corruption. Therefore, Toščelik was knowingly and illegally deprived in order to induce EPCG to buy emission credits from Uniprom, and this is a well-designed and organized activity on a larger scale, with the aim of favoring one company and getting business from EPCG.
We must also emphasize that the shown production from the aluminum billet factory and electrolysis are absolutely not the same, and represent a confusion of facts.
In addition, it is worth mentioning a fact that disputes a set of claims from Uniprom's response, namely that the Ministry of Ecology certainly does not allocate emission credits as they claim, but rather a government commission does, and the ministry is responsible for administrative matters, and we would like to point out here that ignorance of the law is harmful, and that strict compliance with procedures and the role of each actor is the basic prerequisite for legality.
The fact that EPCG had no objective need or legal obligation to obtain emission credits also indicates that this is a harmful business, because the legal framework was not even close to being complete in 2020, which is also evident from the dates of adoption of the set of secondary legislation, as well as the fact that EPCG received the emission permit only on May 4, 2022, more than two years after concluding the agreement with the Uniprom company.
Crucial evidence that the deal was rigged, regardless of legal regulations, is letter no. 34/20 dated 17.01. 2020, sent by Uniprom doo to the executive director of EPCG AD Nikšić, Mr. Igor Noveljić. Namely, only twenty days after the entry into force of the Law, a few weeks before the Regulation, to which Uniprom so significantly refers, was even considered and adopted by the Government, and a whole month earlier than the date (22.02.2020) of its entry into force - the transfer of emission credits between Uniprom DOO and EPCG as a model for repaying the electricity debt had certainly already been agreed in detail! It is completely clear that according to the law, all these "value letters without an address" could not have been created, except perhaps with the use of a time machine, a crystal ball or some other "appropriate means" unknown to human logic and the laws. Are these the "progressive steps" that a company is ready for?
It is unnecessary to waste too many words on the shortcomings of the normative process of adopting the Regulation, which was adopted without obtaining the opinions of the Competition Protection Agency, the European Integration Office and the Ecofund (whose opinion was even requested before it was registered), nor did they attempt to dispute them, and this fact speaks of an undertaking against the state interest and therefore the objective opinion of the ASK that there was a threat to the public interest, which indicates the existence of corruption, is not in the least surprising.
"On this occasion, we clearly emphasize that the fight for legality is not a personal matter, and if someone wants to present it as such, it does not mean that they should be helped in that. Perhaps some companies have become accustomed in the past to things revolving around acquaintances, but now the time has come when things must be based solely on the law. If face is the only currency that does not devalue, that currency should finally be invested, instead of being kept as a collector's item for press releases. It is time for everyone to understand that today even the law is not a currency that devalues, and the competent independent institutions will also remind us of its firm course," the reaction reads.
Bonus video:
