The Agency for Construction and Development, the Capital City and the state did not discriminate against the company "KIPS" and its executive director Risto Drekalović due to political neutrality or because they were donors to the construction of Orthodox churches, the first instance decision was made by the Podgorica Basic Court.
The company and Drekalović sued the Agency, the Capital City and the state, claiming that they had been severely discriminated against since 1999, and that this continues to this day. They also asked the court to prohibit the defendants from further repeating the discriminatory practices.
"The claim is rejected, which sought to establish that the defendants, starting from 1 February 2, have committed direct and indirect discrimination against the plaintiffs in a serious form, which continues to this day, by restricting personal rights and freedoms and freedom of entrepreneurship and by preventing regular, usual business operations. The request to prohibit the defendants from further repeating discriminatory procedures, actions and practices is rejected as unfounded," the judge's ruling states. Ivana Žujović.
The company's representatives appealed the verdict to the Podgorica High Court.
The case of the KIPS company and its dispute with the authorities in Podgorica and the state administration over the halting of the construction of a shopping mall at the Old Airport in 2005 was finally concluded before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2020. The court found that the state refused to issue a building permit to KIPS for the construction of the shopping mall and that there was a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in relation to the duration of the administrative procedure, the right to an effective legal remedy, and the right to protection of property.
The company sued for damages of more than 30 million euros, and the Strasbourg court awarded 2018 million in mid-4,5, which KIPS appealed, explaining that the construction of the second shopping center "Cijevna", then in the territory of the Capital, did not end the violation of property rights, and that the amount of just satisfaction had to be significantly higher than the award. The European Court rejected that claim five years ago.
Judge Žujović assessed that "the prosecutors did not even make it probable that they were discriminated against."
"Therefore, it is unclear in relation to which persons or which group of persons a legal or factual difference was made in relation to the plaintiffs, and in particular the plaintiffs did not provide evidence that this was done due to political neutrality or some other personal characteristic. Namely, one of the basic elements of discrimination is a personal characteristic, given that the very concept of discrimination implies unequal treatment based on a real or presumed personal characteristic. The European Court of Human Rights, adhering to the practice of various international bodies in its judgments, in addition to the characteristics contained in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (sex, race, skin colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status) in its practice has also recognized marital status, sexual orientation, legality or illegality at birth, professional status and military status, or military rank, under other status, or personal characteristic," the judgment specified.
Discrimination, Judge Žujović specifies, occurs when a person or group of persons who are in the same or similar situation compared to other persons are treated worse, or less favorably, precisely because of some of their personal characteristics.
"However, the plaintiffs did not provide the court with evidence from which the court would draw the conclusion that they were discriminated against due to their political neutrality, or non-affiliation with political parties in Montenegro. The victim of discrimination is obliged to make it probable that there are persons who were treated more favorably, and that the only difference between them is one of the grounds from Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Discrimination Law, which is not the case in this case. Bearing in mind the above, it is clear that the lawsuit is based on assumptions, and not on proven facts, that there are persons or groups of persons who were treated more favorably, due to the alleged plaintiff's political neutrality. In essence, the plaintiffs' allegations are based on the erroneous reasoning that everything that is illegal or unfair is also discriminatory," the verdict emphasized.
Bonus video:
