For 11 years, the Markuš family has been "fighting the battle" over the restitution of the 5.125-square-meter plot of land near the Church of Christ's Resurrection, on which the "Normal company" and "Cijevna komerc" buildings were built.
The representative of the family, Aleksandar Markuš, told "Vijesta" that his family is not asking for the demolition of those buildings, but compensation for damages from the payers of restitution - the Capital City and the companies "Normal Company" and "Cijevna Komerc" in the amount of the market price of the land at the time the restitution procedure was initiated. , "which was twice as high as today".
That's why they asked for help from Prime Minister Milo Đukanović, Minister of Finance Radoj Žugić, Director of the Real Estate Administration Dragan Kovačević, Ombudsman Šućko Baković, the Office of the European Commission and the US Embassy.
He explained that a smaller building "Cijevna komerca" was built on their land in Moskovska street, as well as part of the building "Normal company" and the dome.
Markuš said that the land was taken from their grandfather Milenko Markuš during the nationalization in 1959 without paying fair compensation, so in 2004 he submitted a request to the Commission for Restitution and Compensation for the return of the confiscated land.
Markuš pointed out that the Commission for Restitution of the Capital City made three decisions to return the property to the family, but that they were annulled by the Appeals Commission, so the procedure is still ongoing.
Markuš pointed out that after submitting the request in 2004, the Commission for Restitution did not immediately inform the Real Estate Administration about his grandfather's request to record the restitution, but did so half a year later.
He explained that in August 2004, the authorities in Podgorica Municipality knew about the request for the return of property, but that, despite this, and grossly ignoring the request for the return of undeveloped construction land, the Municipality in October of that year, twice, announced public calls for ceding the right to use land for the purpose of building buildings, not ceding the right of ownership and that on the plots that were the subject of the request for restitution.
Markuš pointed out that after the completion of the public bidding procedure, the land was given to the companies "Normal kompani" and "Cijevna komerc", which were informed about the submitted requests for restitution.
"I am in a situation where I cannot do anything until I get a solution, whether it is good for me or bad. If I were to initiate court proceedings, I would be sent back, because the proceedings have not yet been completed. My hands are tied," he said. Markus.
The Capital City announced that the Directorate for Property is participating, as a party in the proceedings, before the Commission for Restitution and Compensation, regarding the request of the Markuš family for the restitution of land.
"As the procedure is still ongoing and has not been legally concluded, we believe that commenting on the decision of the competent state authorities is not expedient...", it was announced from the Capital City.
From the company "Normal company" it was announced to "Vijesta" that they bought the land at a public auction as the most favorable bidder. As they announced, the aforementioned legal work was carried out in accordance with the legal procedure and all contracts on the transfer of property rights with the Municipality of Podgorica were concluded on November 30.11.2004, XNUMX. years.
The regional unit of the real estate administration is, as they state, 24.12.2004. made a change of registration from the Municipality to "Normal Company" without encumbrances and registered notes.
"Only on February 21.02.2005, XNUMX ... the Real Estate Administration made a decision to record the restitution in favor of the Markuš family, now already in the title deed of the real estate "Normal Company", the company announced.
They stated that "it is a more than obvious fact that "Normal Company" is a conscientious acquirer of immovable property, and that it bought it without encumbrance and any restrictions in a legally conducted procedure and registered it in its own name as such".
As they stated, in accordance with the issued building permits, the company built residential and commercial buildings and fully brought the land to its intended purpose, in accordance with the valid DUP Business Center Kruševac, Zone B - Amendments and additions.
"'Normal Company', as an investor, has never built without the approval of the competent authorities, and especially not on other people's land," the company announced.
The company "Cijevna komerc" did not provide answers to "Vijesta".
Markuš pointed out that the regional unit of the Real Estate Administration only entered the "restitution" record after the human rights defender reacted in 2005, "which was later deleted several times at the request of the mentioned builders, and then entered again according to the complaints of Markuš".
"In all of this, what was the intention of the "actors" who stole our land? To enable private construction companies to get enormously rich, and to transfer the "Markuš case" to the burden of the budget of Montenegro through monetary compensation for that unreturned land, so that in this In this case, both the former owner and the state are injured," Markuš pointed out.
He said that after 11 years, the Montenegrin - Littoral Metropolis appears as a participant in the proceedings, whose appeal was decided by the second-instance Commission, without the applicants even knowing about it.
The expert determined that the land it was not intended
Markuš emphasized that in May 2013, they hoped to be compensated when the Restitution Commission, which included Momir Čukić, Vlajko Milićević and Uglješa Bakočević, passed a decision on restitution of the land. However, the Appeals Commission, as a second instance authority, annulled the decision of the Commission for Restitution and "without any legal basis". As Markuš said, they directed the Restitution Commission to reject their request, with the explanation that the opinion of the expert in the construction profession is unclear, that the land was not used for its intended purpose at the time of the request.
As he explained, the Commission for Restitution "removed the irregularities" and again in December 2014 obtained a decision from an expert in the construction profession that the land had not been brought to its intended purpose. However, the Appeals Commission again remarked that the expert's opinion has no influence on a specific legal matter.
"And why does the Commission consider that the expert's opinion has no influence on the outcome of this procedure? Because "the land in question was transferred to the ownership of legal entities in accordance with the law"... What can condominium owners, who are illegal and unconscionable, have to do with the restitution procedure? the builders sold the apartments, it cannot be clear to anyone...", Markuš pointed out.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
