By rejecting the request for a review of the decision of the Administrative Court, the Supreme Court put an end to the months-long legal battle between the owners of "Zetagradnja" and Blagota Radović against the Chamber of Notaries due to the decision to give the buyers of apartments within the state project "1000+1" an apartment purchase contract, in the form of a notary record. composed by everyone, not only the notary Lidija Klikovac, who was chosen by Radović.
The Supreme Court judged that the Administration correctly applied the laws, which one of the most influential builders from Podgorica disputed with a rejected request.
The dispute between Radović and the Chamber of Notaries arose after, at the end of last year, the Ministry of Justice ordered the Chamber to reduce notarial services for drawing up contracts by 50 percent as part of that project, and the explanation was to help the buyers of those apartments by reduce the additional financial burden.
After that, the Assembly of the Chamber of Notaries unanimously passed a "solidarity decision" on December 14, 2011, that the "1000+1" contract be drawn up by all notaries from the chamber's list. The buyers of the apartments, not the investor, were obliged to pay the money for the notary documents.
According to "Vijesti" information, in addition to the fact that the ministry's initiative received an epilogue in court, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the notary who was "chosen" by Radović and which has not yet been brought to a final decision. The owner of "Zetagradnja" insisted that all buyers of apartments do this work with the notary Klikovac, because documents related to the project were allegedly "deposited" with her.
In the verdict of the Supreme Court of October 19, the position of the Administrative Court was confirmed that the decision of the Chamber of Notaries was legal. The essence of that decision was that citizens conclude contracts with the notary to whom it belongs according to the schedule, and then the price would be 150 euros.
In the event that they do not, but want to conclude the contract with a notary of their choice, there would be no discount and the price would be 300 euros.
Radović challenged the legality of that decision of the Chamber of Notaries before the Administrative Court and later before the Supreme Court. He pointed out that, as an investor, he supported the 50 percent discount, but that the decisions that "require project users to have notarized records made at a notary according to a certain schedule are disputed and illegal because the Chamber, instead of the notary's local jurisdiction, determines their jurisdiction over the parties."
At the end of December last year, Marković said in an interview with "Vijesta" that the notary did not go hand in hand with construction and some other lobbies.
According to "Vijesti" information, Radović fought the battle of "all buyers at one notary" with the Chamber of Notaries, and outside the court, with brisk letters, after which the Minister of Justice Duško Marković, whose ministry is the supervisory body of the Chamber, intervened in the "dispute".
On April 23 of this year, on the occasion of the anniversary of the Chamber of Notaries, Marković warned that the notary is not only a business and that "it cannot be exclusively a good alternative for the household budget, as well as that the notary must start from the basic premise that he works in the interest of the state and citizens ".
"Just as we objected to companies and individuals having their own notaries as a service, we will not allow notaries to have their own companies and individuals," said Marković at the time.
At the end of December last year, Marković said in an interview with "Vijesta" that the notary did not go hand in hand with construction and some other lobbies.
The president of the Chamber of Notaries, Tanja Čepić-Mugoša, did not want to comment on the recent verdict of the Supreme Court, explaining that the problem had been overcome.
He then said that "the contract verification procedure is somewhat more complex than the simple verification of signatures, which could be used to sell an apartment in a building that has not yet been designed": "When such a contract is notarized, you must also have proof of the building, of ownership , degree of construction, building permit. Builders can no longer sell a non-existent apartment, that is now a problem," said Marković at the time.
The president of the Chamber of Notaries, Tanja Čepić-Mugoša, did not want to comment on the recent verdict of the Supreme Court, explaining that the problem has been overcome.
He offered unconvincing evidence of threatened business freedom
In addition to asking for the Chamber's decision to be annulled, the owner of "Zetagradnja" in the first lawsuit asked for compensation of 10.560 euros for the loss that "came from the calculation of the notary's invoices in accordance with the decision".
Then he increased that request to 50.000 euros. The administrative ones ruled that Radović did not prove that the decision of the Assembly of the Chamber was made to his detriment. He claimed that the adopted decision obstructed the established way of doing business between buyers and notaries, delayed the planned dynamics of concluding contracts and violated the constitutional principle of freedom of entrepreneurship and business.
The Chamber argued that he was not invited to sue because of that decision of the Chamber's authorities, and that no rights of apartment buyers were violated.
"With the disputed decision, made due to the economic and social aspects of the Project, apartment buyers were given the opportunity to use the convenience of reducing the notary fee, which, in the opinion of this court, did not violate any right or legally based interest of the plaintiff who, as an investor and seller of apartments in the specific Project , is not obligated to pay for notary services".
"Disrupting the established way of doing business and delaying the planned dynamics of the distribution of apartments by "Zetagradnja", as an investor, are not circumstances or reasons that legitimize him to file a lawsuit in this matter", ruled the judges of the Administrative Court, which is headed by Branislav Radulović. In the Administrative Court, they also assessed that Radović offered unconvincing reasons in support of the claims about the damage suffered and the threatened freedom of entrepreneurship.
I never favored anyone
The owner of "Zetagradnja", Blagota Radović, denies that he ever favored any notary.
"I have never favored anyone in business or in anything else. Why would I favor any notary, for me they are all the same because they all have licenses. It is important to me that the work is completed, and who will do it should be determined by the person who pays. When it comes to that dispute, I was of the opinion then and now that the buyer of the apartment should use his money to choose a notary," says Radović for "Vijesti".
He denies that he requested that all notary work for the buyers of his apartments be completed by the notary Lidija Klikovac.
Notary Lidija Klikovac says that the aforementioned dispute does not concern her personally
"That is not true and it was not done through one notary, but through the notary chosen by the buyer. I have been of that opinion since day one. And now I think the same and say that the one who gives money should choose a notary and his own security", says Radović.
He adds that anyone's point of view, even if it was the Chamber of Notaries, is unacceptable to him, that someone other than him should choose a notary for a citizen.
Klikovac: The Chamber cannot impose notaries
Notary Lidija Klikovac says that the aforementioned dispute does not concern her personally.
"It is about a dispute between the Chamber of Notaries and Zetagradnja, which asked to be able to choose the notary with whom to complete the work together with its parties. Parties come to the notary by mutual consent and there is only one article of the Law that leaves the possibility for the notary to return the party, if he asks for something that is illegal. That is why it is unacceptable that someone imposes a notary on someone else. The chamber should not do that either", said Klikovac.
She charged for services at a reduced price, and Radović paid her the difference from his own cash, and then sued the state to pay him that money
According to "Vijesti" information, Radović referred all apartment buyers who had purchase and sale contracts with him as an investor to the office of notary Klikovac, so she made several hundreds of records.
The clients of the other investors went to the notary from the list of the Chamber, as predicted by the education. The control that was carried out, "Vijesti" learns, found that Klikovac did not enter any indication in the records that she informed the clients about the decision of the Chamber of Notaries.
She charged for services at a reduced price, and Radović paid her the difference from his own cash register, and then sued the state to pay him that money. Due to non-compliance with the decision of the Chamber of Notaries, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Klikovac.
Gallery
Bonus video:
