The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict of the Privredni Court in the dispute over the lawsuit filed by the company Domen against the state of Montenegro.
"In this way, the judgment of the Commercial Court, which rejected the company's claim for a determination that the .me domain registration agent agreement, concluded on February 8, 2008 between the plaintiff and the defendant, together with the annexes to the agreement, is legally valid and has legal effect until March 31, 2033," the Court of Appeal announced.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the appeal of the Domen company was unfounded.
"The plaintiff did not submit a statement of intent to extend the contract to the Government, as a contracting party, in accordance with Article 8 of the .me domain registration agent contract, but rather an email with an attachment that the plaintiff unfoundedly calls a notification was sent on the occasion of the Open with the Prime Minister event, which is in no way related to the contract or the activities that are the subject of the contract," the statement added.
As stated, the factual situation correctly established by the first instance court leads to the conclusion that in the specific case, given that the contract expired on March 31, 2023, negotiations were held between Domain and the Government before its expiration regarding the continuation of cooperation and possible extension of the contract, which were not concluded by agreement of the contracting parties.
"The plaintiff himself accepted to participate in the negotiations regarding the conclusion of a possible annex, regarding the agreement of new, better commercial terms of the contract for the Government, which he confirmed by the fact that the plaintiff's representatives participated in the meeting with the defendant's representatives on February 9, 2023," the statement added.
Since the prosecutor himself voluntarily entered into negotiations with the Government regarding the terms of the contract extension, he could count on the fact that these negotiations would not have to end with an agreement between the parties, which is what ultimately happened.
"The parties did not reach agreement on the essential elements of the contract, because the Government did not accept the plaintiff's proposed Annex IV, so the extension or renewal of the contractual relationship between the parties could not occur," the statement concludes.
Bonus video:
