The indictment, which the plaintiff has demanded over 2m euros from the Pristina municipality, is rejected as compensation for destroying the object

Initially with the indictment exercised in 2011, the plaintiff has demanded compensation for the damages worth 400,000 euros, but on October 1, 2020, the same through the parachute has made the exact exacting of the prosecution by which the prosecution has demanded the court to approve the lawsuit's application “Bingo Benz” and to force it on behalf of the loss of May 12th 2010 to April 28, 2017, to compensate for much of 2,362,000, as well as in the long-depressed facility of 7757 euros, and on May, 127 euros.

Such a sum has been requested with the claim that this municipality in 2010 had illegally destroyed the object in Pristina, in which it exercised business activity, the pump of the derivatives “Bingo Benz” respectively.

With the conviction of December 28, 2020, the court has rejected the prosecution's request as uninstructed by the indictment, by which it had demanded a total of 2,442,982,000 euros, with legal daggers from May 12th 2010, reports “Betimi per Justice”.

According to the reasoning described in this act, rejection of the requirement has been made due to the lack of the same legal basis.

Based on this indictment, an internal administrative procedure for building permits has been reportedly developed between the parties, which has preceded the collapse of an object which, in effect, had two decisions of ignorance, with which the destruction of the object has been sought with the reason that the same one was built without permission, decisions which were cancelled by the MMPH.

In addition, this act of prejudice is said to have been annulled by the Constitutional Court's act in Pristina, the Department of Administrative Affairs on November 14th 2013, where it has since come up to the collapse of the plaintiff's object, since the Pristina Community verdict had not been annulled and declared illegal.

According to this indictment, the court has estimated that in the concrete case, the 1978 Law's provisions on Obligations Relations, which are said to have been in force at the moment of the establishment of the judicial-deserved report, as the alleged damage to the requirement occurred in 2010.

“Praising the claims of the parties, the most proven actual situation and administered evidence, the court has referred to Article 154 pars. 1, of the Law on Obligations, under which “anyone causes the damage to another, is obligated to compensate, unless it proves that the damage is born without its own guilt”, it is said in judgment.

Under this indictment, the indictment's act has not been proved to have been legally illegal and due to its guilt, because the plaintiff has failed to argue with evidence that the indicted case in the collapse of the émemat of the driver's poem has acted illegally.

Also on the basis of this indictment, the court has forced the plaintiff to compensate for the cost of the procedure in the amount of 1,690 euros, which it has based on the LPK's Article 452.1, since the plaintiff is said to have failed in the procedure.

Otherwise, in terms of this case, at the main review session, which was held on November 24, 2020, the final word was submitted in writing by the prosecution's representative, attorney Selim Nikqi, as well as by attorney Arber Istrefi.

In the indictment exercised on July 22nd 2011, the prosecution side “Bingo Benz 2”, Sh.p.k, Pristina, owned by Ukshin Mendjiqi, is seeking from the unknown, Pristina municipality, the penalty of damage he claims to have been caused in the case of ruining the derivative pump in Pristina.

According to the indictment, the plaintiff has been the owner of the facility and tenants for 99 years of contestive driving, which is located in Pristina, in which he had built the facility and two gas pumps.

The indictment reportedly had originally had a work permit, which was issued to him by the Pristina Community on January 22nd 2009, while on April 27, 2010, according to the indictment, the indictment had declared no valid permission for the plaintiff's work, only by notice, not by decision.

Always according to the indictment, the plaintiff had reportedly sought permission for the exercise of activity registered in the Ministry of Trade and Industry for retail sale of fuels and lubricants, but had not received answers from the unknown within the legal deadline.

The indictment reportedly had ordered the plaintiffs to do the removal of underground pumps and reservoirs, reportedly in the indictment, as if they were deployed without permission, and had not been given the grounds that the plaintiffs had asked permission and the indictee had not decided in connection with the request at all.

On this basis, the plaintiff is asking the court to impose the indictee on him to pay for the damage to the destruction of objects, destroyed goods and lost gain.