A quarter of a century ago, the municipality of Danilovgrad illegally sold part of the Golotočki žrtava Square to the company "Taraš" for 36.000 German marks at the time, although it was not allowed to do so without the consent of the state.
This follows from the first-instance verdict issued by a judge of the Podgorica Basic Court. Nina Ojdanic.
The court's ruling of April 9 declared the sale and purchase agreement for 240 square meters of land, which was concluded in December 2001 between the Danilovgrad Municipal Social Fund for Construction Land and "Taraš", null and void. The real estate exchange agreement from January 2022, which was concluded between that company and the Danilovgrad Municipality, is also null and void.
The head of that municipality at the time of the signing of the first contract was Milorad Kadić, and the other Zorica Kovačević.
The lawsuit against the Municipality of Danilovgrad and the Danilovgrad company was filed by the state - the institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests in early 2023, after "Taraš" began construction on a facility in the city square, which was opposed by the residents of Danilovgrad.
"The court finds that the Municipality of Danilovgrad, during the period in which the Law on Construction Land was in force, could manage and use the city's construction land, but could not trade that land without the legally prescribed procedure and consent of the state," the verdict states, among other things.
Two decades of ignoring warnings
Judge Ojdanić points out in her verdict that “the Government of the Republic of Montenegro, at its session of 5 December 2003, adopted a conclusion on the obligation of the Ministry of State Administration, as well as the institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests, to carry out actions to examine the legality of the disposal of state property, given that the disputed real estate, according to the allegations of the State Prosecutor… was not the subject of a valid legal basis for the transferred rights”.
"From the letter of the basic state prosecutor Lidija Vukčević dated 14.6.2004. it follows that there was no administrative basis for changing the registration of the right to use and ownership of the disputed real estate designated as urban plot 97A, because it was not recorded in the cadastral register, and the change in registration was made without an appropriate decision of the competent authority. Upon reviewing the case files, the court finds that there is no valid decision on the transfer of urban plot 97A, i.e. that the contract from 2001 cannot be considered the basis for acquiring ownership rights to that plot, because the subject of the contract was not sufficiently determined," the verdict states.
Judge Ojadnić emphasizes that in this particular case, "it concerns the transfer of land that, at the time the contract was concluded in 2001, had the status of city construction land in state ownership."
"That is, property that the municipality had at its disposal, but without the authority to alienate it without the prior consent of the competent state authority. In that sense, the purchase and sale contract is contrary to mandatory regulations."
The verdict also states that the then institution of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests filed a complaint against the decision of the Real Estate Administration from 2004, which, based on the contract, registered the right of use in favor of "Taraš" on that plot.
"The court particularly appreciates the content of the letter from the chief architect of the Municipality of Danilovgrad from 2019, from which it follows that the plot in question was not shown in the planning documentation as a separate urban plot at the time of the conclusion of the contract from 2001. This is confirmed by an excerpt from the graphic part of the DUP 'City Center Danilovgrad', as well as the textual part of the planning documentation. The above indicates that the subject of the purchase contract was not determined in a manner required by the rules of the law of obligations, because the subject was not identified in either a planning or cadastral sense. The contract, therefore, could not have produced legal effect," assessed Judge Ojdanić.
The 2022 exchange agreement is also illegal.
Judge Ojdanić explains that the 2022 exchange agreement is also illegal.
"The court finds that this contract is also null and void, since it was concluded in order to 'regulate' the consequences of the null and void contract from 2001, and therefore cannot survive as an independent legal transaction. With regard to the Exchange Contract of 24.1.2022, the court finds that it was concluded between the Municipality of Danilovgrad and the defendant of the second rank ("Taraš") with the aim of 'regulating' the property-legal relations arising from the previous disposal, i.e. to exchange the plots between the contracting parties. However, since the defendant of the second rank ("Taraš") could not acquire a valid right based on the null and void contract from 2001, he could not validly transfer the right to the Municipality of Danilovgrad based on the exchange contract," Ojdanić specifies.
She emphasizes that "the court particularly appreciated the chronology of the creation and changes to the real estate in question, the content of planning documents, cadastral records, as well as all the evidence presented."
"...It follows from the same that at the time the 2001 contract was concluded, the subject of the contract was city construction land in state ownership, that the subject was not sufficiently specified, and that there was no legally prescribed consent for the disposal of that property. Since the 2022 exchange contract is legally and factually linked to the previous contract, the court concludes that both contracts are null and void."
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
