Podgorica Jovan Boljević since 2005, he has been fighting a legal battle for the plot of land within the former "Radoj Dakić", and even after 17 years there is no end in sight.
He says that in early January 2005 he filed a claim for restitution and compensation.
"The first decision was made in 2009 (which was confirmed by the second instance authority, it became final) by which I, as the heir of the former owner and the applicant for restitution, was granted the right to restitution of the land that is in the possession, with the right to use, of the Factory" Radoje Dakić'", stated Boljević.
He claims that the recovery process is being "held up" by the Protector of Property and Legal Relations and the bankruptcy administrator of "Dakić".
Protector of property and legal relations Bojana Cirovic however, she told "Vijesta" that in this and in all other cases she acts in accordance with the laws, protecting the interests of Montenegro.
"We claim that the contract of sale with the former owner, as well as with all other owners of the land, has been concluded, because, according to the expropriation decision of the State Secretariat for Finance of the Republic of Montenegro, dated September 1, 9, only a small amount of compensation could be paid based on the Law on Expropriation. This was the reason for the intervention of the local government authorities and with the consent of the expropriation beneficiary, a settlement was made between the private owners and the expropriation beneficiary in such a way that the expropriation beneficiary made a payment in the amount of 1960 to 40 thousand dinars, depending on the quality of the land, per acre. Such an explanation is contained in a letter from the former owner Vjere Boljević On June 26, 6, to the beneficiary of the expropriation of the Industry of Construction Machinery and Iron Structures 'Radoje Dakić,'" explained Ćirović.
Boljević points out that "Dakić" was never the owner of that land and that the bankruptcy was opened only in 2016 - 11 years after submitting the request for restitution, and the plot is 5.280 square meters.
"After the finality of the solution in early 2010, I and the other land owners were invited by representatives of the Ministry of Finance to a meeting, told that they have a buyer for the entire property and to agree on the price of the land. In the meantime, administrative disputes against the final decisions have already been initiated and to my question whether the state prosecutor and 'Dakić' will withdraw the lawsuits against the final decisions, so that they can negotiate the price, I received the answer that they do not have the authority to do so, which is enough whether to draw the conclusion that all those decisions will be contested before the Administrative Court. That's what happened, the Administrative Court, absolutely without grounds and illegally, according to the model, annulled and decided on the merits of all the then existing final decisions, including my decision".
Against such a decision of the court in 2010, Boljević says that he submitted a request to the Supreme Court for an extraordinary review of the final court decision, which was adopted, and the final ruling of the Administrative Court was revoked.
"From then until today, the Administrative Court has not made any legally binding decisions, but in administrative disputes, it has annulled all second-instance decisions that have been made and returned the case to a new procedure".
In 2016, the Real Estate Administration for the first time acted in accordance with the law on restitution of confiscated property rights and compensation and registered property rights, in accordance with the final decision on restitution of land.
"An administrative dispute was initiated again and the case was returned to the first-instance Commission for further proceedings. However, in 2019, acting on the 'letter' (as stated in the decision) of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests, the same Real Estate Administration issued a decision on 1 October 10 on the deletion of ownership rights and the assignment of ownership rights to 'Radoj Dakić'. Of course, such a decision was canceled by the Ministry of Finance, however, in repeated proceedings, the Real Estate Administration made identical decisions, with an amended explanation, referring to the final decision rejecting the refund request. In the procedure, I stated that there is an ongoing administrative dispute against that decision, however, the Real Estate Administration conducted another, identical procedure, with another officer for the deletion of property rights, but this time at the request of the bankruptcy administrator 'Dakić'. And that's where the decision on erasure of property rights was issued on 2019. 19.11, which was annulled by the Ministry of Finance on 2019. 25.5 and the second solution has not been adopted to date. For these reasons, administrative disputes were initiated, due to the silence of the administration, but the decision has not been made to date".
Boljević explains that the Real Estate Administration conducts two procedures at the same time, for the same land, and makes "illegal decisions", which the Ministry of Finance cancels.
"The paradox is that in the meantime, in December 2019, the administrative dispute was completed and the final decision rejecting the request for restitution was annulled, i.e. the grounds for registration that the Protector and the bankruptcy trustee of 'Dakić' referred to ceased. Of course, I immediately informed the Real Estate Administration about the verdict, however, they also issued a fifth decision, which deletes the property right".
The Commission for Restitution and Compensation clarifies that, acting on the judgment of the Administrative Court from December 2019, on August 4, 2020, it issues a first-instance decision approving the request for restitution and compensation for the third time.
"On that decision, the Protector of Property and Legal Interests files an appeal, which the second-instance body accepts and returns the case for retrial on March 8, 3. Due to current events on the political scene, there is a change and the appointment of a new second-instance commission, which, although the first-instance decision was agreed before by the commission for unifying the procedure of the Ministry of Finance, approves the appeal of the protector and cancels the first-instance decision and returns the case to a new procedure".
Awaiting a call from the first-instance Commission, Boljević says that he learned that the Protector has initiated an administrative dispute against the second-instance decision, which accepted his appeal, in which he requests the annulment of the first-instance decision.
"After this knowledge, on May 26, 5, I submit a submission to the Administrative Court pointing out the illogicality of the initiated dispute (at that time I had no insight into the Protector's lawsuit), expecting that the Administrative Court will see the nonsense of the initiated dispute, however, the Administrative Court submits the lawsuit to me in September 2021 of the Protector for a statement, which additionally confirmed the belief that it was an obstruction of the continuation of the proceedings, because the lawsuit demanded the annulment of the first-instance decision. I submit the statement to the Administrative Court on 2021/20.9. 2021, proposing to dismiss the lawsuit. I receive information on 14.2. this year that the Administrative Court issued a decision on 10.1. 2022, in which he rejected the Protector's lawsuit as improper. As many times in these 17 years, the decision in question has not been delivered to me by the Administrative Court to this day".
Boljević claims that 10 months passed from the moment of the lawsuit, which was initially unfounded, to the court's ruling rejecting the lawsuit.
"During that time, the administrative procedure before the Commission could not be continued, which all leads to additional prolongation and delay of this procedure and entry into the 18th year of its duration... The president of the second instance Commission has not yet been appointed, who must act according to his own decision of 08.03. 2021 and the decision of the Administrative Court dated 10.01. 2022 and forward the case to the first-instance Commission for action".
Boljević points out that the Protector of Property and Legal Interests and the bankruptcy trustee of "Dakić" are demanding the deletion of property rights, denying that it is an expropriation, but a sale, even though it has been proven that it is not a sale.
Protector Bojana Ćirović clarifies that the documentation shows the confirmation of the former owner that she was paid compensation for the land, according to the contract of sale "concluded between the seller - Vjera Boljević and the buyer - the factory "Radoja Dakić", certified by the District Court in Titograd on January 6, 1 .
"According to which she sold agricultural land, namely plot 525, class VII meadow culture, area 1.140 m2 and plot no. 546, class VII meadow culture, area 6.624 m2, at the agreed price of 213.392 dinars".
In the letter, Ćirović explains, the former owner requests that she be paid compensation for the forest, around 170 acacia trees, which the buyer agreed to and issued a decision on 7.8. in 1961
"The same applies to all former owners whose land was expropriated, so that purchase and sale contracts were concluded precisely for the purpose of paying larger amounts of compensation, than the amount that could have been paid according to the decision on expropriation. In 1960, the buyer 'Radoje Dakić' made a list of land sellers for the 'Nova tvornica' of 48 names, and the former owner was entered in the 44th place of that list", Ćirović concluded.
Bonus video:
