The country is Dusko Saric owes almost 15 million euros for alleged material damage to his former construction company "Mat Company" while it was under state control, at a time when he was accused of money laundering, according to the verdict of the Pljevlja Basic Court, signed by a judge at the end of February. Sanja Anicic.
The Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro filed an appeal against that non-final decision, claiming that the Pljevlja court incorrectly and incompletely determined the factual situation.
"The plaintiff's claim is accepted and the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff a total amount of 14.703.177,337 euros in compensation for material damage, with statutory default interest on that amount starting from 21.02.2025 until final payment, as follows: 4.685.842,21 euros in compensation for lost profits and 682.254,37 euros in return for the fruits of the seized property, 6.683.577,547 euros in compensation for material damage due to the decrease in the value of the property at the time of return compared to the value of the property at the time of seizure, 2.651.503,21 euros in compensation for material damage due to the decrease in the value of the property resulting from unpaid work and material costs," the verdict, which "Vijestii" had access to, states.
The Pljevlja-based construction company “Mat Company” changed its name to “Level ing” five years ago. The verdict states that Šarić is the executive director, while the website of the Central Registry of Business Entities states that the position is held by Šarić's close friend. Jovica Lončar, who is the founder and authorized representative of the company “MATENIKO LLC” - USA.
Duško Šarić, a native of Pljevlja, brother of the accused Darko Šarić, was arrested on 15 November 2010 in Pljevlja, after the Italian authorities issued a warrant for his arrest in the international operation “Loptice”. Lončar was arrested in May 2011 in Podgorica, and the indictment charged them with having conspired between 24 July 2006 and 28 February 2011 to conceal the origin of money, which they knew to have been obtained through the alleged sale of drugs, in the total amount of 21.353.879,22 euros, through banking and financial transactions. The indictment against them was filed in 2012 by special prosecutor Đurđina Ivanović.
Both men denied the charges from the beginning, and after three convictions, the Court of Appeal acquitted them in September 2017.
Šarić and Lončar previously sought tens of thousands in damages from the state due to unfounded detention.
He sought damages for terminated contracts.
"The conclusion of the first instance court was based entirely on the evidence proposed and submitted by the plaintiff, while all proposals for the presentation of evidence by the defendant's representative were rejected without any explanation, which is unacceptable in the defendant's opinion. The contested judgment does not contain a valid explanation, but is based on an exhaustive list of the evidence presented during the proceedings and what follows from them, with the conclusion that the defendant is liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff, without giving any reasons for its decision," the Ombudsman's appeal, submitted to the Bijelo Polje High Court, emphasized, referring to case law - judgments of domestic and international courts in similar cases.
The Ombudsman emphasizes that Judge Aničić's verdict is "based largely on the findings and opinions of construction and economic-financial experts who could not represent a valid factual basis for deciding this legal matter." He claims that the findings of the financial experts are "neither economically nor legally, nor logically founded."
"...And especially not in relation to the 'key' on the basis of which the expert finds the amounts in question. The first instance court did not at all appreciate the defendant's objection that the expert should not have calculated the possible projected business income under the contract with the Coal Mine from the moment of its termination, until the expiration of the contract in 2014, given that it was indisputably established earlier that the said contract was terminated on 25 March 2011, and that by the decision of the High Court of 27 July 2011 the plaintiff's property was temporarily seized, therefore the property was seized several months after the said contract with the Coal Mine was terminated...", the appeal states.
The situation is similar, claims the Protector, with the business cooperation agreement between "Montenegro Cement Company" and "Mat Company", which was concluded in September 2008, but the French investor withdrew in 2010.
"In this specific case, both contracts were terminated before the property was temporarily seized from the plaintiff, and therefore the realization of any potential profit was not prevented by any action of the defendant, and the cause of any potential damage to the plaintiff here is not events that can be attributed to the defendant," the appeal specified.
They didn't see the damage when their property was returned to them.
The Protector also points out that the Pljevlja court unfoundedly adopted the claim for compensation for material damage due to the decrease in the value of the property at the time of return compared to the value of the property at the time of seizure.
"Namely, the value of the property has not been reduced, which is particularly indicated by the fact that the Record on the Return of Temporarily Seized Property of 17.05.2018. stated that the condition of the immovable and movable property, after the inspection, which was also attended by the prosecutor's representative Jovica Lončar, had not changed compared to the time of handover or previous temporary seizure. During that handover, he did not raise any objection in the section 'comment on the condition of the property by the owner'. This indicates that the Property Administration treated the seized property with the care of a good host, and its value would have been the same if it had been in the plaintiff's ownership the entire time," the Protector points out.
It also points out that "the mere established difference in the value of the property according to the reports from 2011 and 2018 does not automatically constitute a basis for compensation for damages."
"It has not been proven that the decrease in the value of the property is a consequence of the defendant's actions. The defendant is not responsible for changes in value that are a consequence of depreciation and other factors. Determining the difference is a technical issue and does not prove the damage claimed by the plaintiff. The property was seized due to the conduct of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff, and the Property Administration could not control or influence any changes in its value, which occurred due to the passage of time, depreciation, technical or aesthetic condition, or obsolescence compared to new standards. In order to determine the damage, the court should have established a causal link between the defendant's possible actions and the decrease in the value of the property, which was not done in this case," the appeal of the Protector of State concludes.
Bonus video:
