CIN-CG: ŽPCG has not disputed any evidence of problems with online ticket sales

In its response to the article "They charge for services that do not exist: ŽPCG introduced online tickets, conductors cannot check them," the Railway Transport of Montenegro (ŽPCG) did not dispute any of the concrete evidence on which the article was based, said the Center for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG).

CIN-CG states that the text used dated documents, photographs, screenshots, and statements given on the record, and that ŽPCG did not dispute their authenticity.

We are publishing CIN-CG's response in full;

"The CIN-CG text is based on specific, dated documents, photographs, screenshots and statements given on the record. The denial of ŽPCG, despite its volume, is not disputed by any individual piece of evidence presented in the text. The authenticity of the prices recorded on the screenshots for the Podgorica–Virpazar route is not disputed. The content of the ticket of 155,50 euros without information about the carriage or compartment is not disputed. The date and content of the instructions dated July 30, 2026, signed by Todor Tomašević, is not disputed. The letter from the Union dated July 27, 2026, is not disputed. The minutes on the handover of the Supra Informatika software dated April 25, 2025, are not disputed. The CRPS finding on the connection between Vladimir Đurišić and the company Kliker Tim is not disputed. The editorial team's test, which, by changing only the passenger's name, proved that an electronic ticket can be forged with an identical QR code and ticket number.

Rather than challenge any of this evidence, ŽPCG chooses to challenge the tone, qualifications, and intent of the author, which, by any journalistic and legal standard, is the very definition of avoiding substance. A denial that does not question any fact, but only the interpretation, is not a denial of the facts but a reaction to the inconvenience of those facts.

In its response, ŽPCG states that the text qualifies the system as "failed" and that there is a "huge difference" between that and the real situation. The sentence "the system has failed" does not appear anywhere in the CIN-CG text. What the text states in the title is that online ticket sales have failed in terms of its establishment and implementation, as a descriptive, journalistic formulation based on a series of documented failures, and not as a literal quote that ŽPCG is trying to dispute as if it was spoken or written in that form. Attributing a sentence that the editorial staff never used, for the sake of easier refutation, represents exactly the kind of tendentious presentation that ŽPCG accuses CIN-CG of.

ŽPCG claims that the headline "Paying for services that do not exist" is a "serious accusation" that creates a false impression. The headline does not create an impression, it describes a documented transaction. The ŽPCG system charged a passenger for a seat reservation on a local line on which the system itself, in its own interface, acknowledges that the reservation is "not assigned online" and that it is "not mandatory". The system charged for first class on a train that does not have first class. The system charged for a berth reservation to a passenger who ended up traveling without a berth because there was no room for him. In all three cases, money was charged for a service that did not actually exist or could not be delivered at the time of billing. This is not an interpretation of CIN-CG, it is a description of what is on the tickets themselves and in the system itself. The headline is not only defensible, it is, based on the documentation available to CIN-CG, literally correct.

Instead of answering the question of why the system charges for non-existent services, the denial offers a general claim about the "optimization phase" of every new information system. Instead of answering the question of why conductors do not have the technical means to check tickets, the denial defends the principle of ticket control in general, which no one has disputed. Instead of explaining why the finished, tested and delivered Supra Informatika system, paid for around 300.000 euros, was left inactive while an untested system from Bunny Media was put into operation for an estimated 8.000 euros, the denial raises the question of the responsibility of the former IT team, although the documentation, including the handover minutes from April 25, 2025, show that that team completed the work. This pattern, where each specific question is answered by diverting to another topic, is in itself indicative.

The CIN-CG text is based from beginning to end on primary documents, photos of maps, screenshots, and statements made on the record by Supra Informatika and Čikom, with a clear separation of what is documented from what is stated by employees under the condition of anonymity. The denial, on the other hand, does not attach a single document, a single screenshot, or a single piece of counter-evidence. Instead, it contains assessments such as "arbitrary qualifications," "insinuations," and "sensationalistic presentation," as well as the announcement of criminal charges against business partners who answered CIN-CG's question truthfully about their own, already completed, work. When one side defends itself with documents and the other with threats and labeling, it is clear which side is truly prone to sensationalism.

"CIN-CG acted responsibly: it contacted ŽPCG with specific questions before publishing, waited for a response that did not arrive, and published an article based solely on verifiable documents and statements made on the record. In its response, ŽPCG did not dispute any of these documents, but rather disputed the tone and attributed to the editorial office sentences that it never uttered. Until ŽPCG offers concrete evidence that refutes any of the stated facts, the CIN-CG article remains in its entirety, including the title," the response states.