Construction in Brezovica: Prosecutor seeks detention for Bratislavi with nine friends

The founding prosecutor at Ferizaj has requested the detention measure for the former head of Shrpca and nine other people who were arrested in connection with construction in Brezovica.

“Foundation Procurory in Ferizaj, the Randa Crime Department, has requested the appointment of the detention measure by the Foundation Court in Ferizaj to the B.N., D.R., D.M., H.B.S.M., R.B., R.H.,B.I., S.S., and J. K, who at the State Attorney's decision are under ban for 48 hours. According to the prosecution's request, there is reasonable doubt that the defendant B.N., from 2014 to October 2018, in Shtrpce, as official person, the head of the Shtrpca municipality, received money and gifts directly in order to act in opposition to his official duties of granting construction permits at the National Park, in the third and second zone of Brezovica area, with this would carry out the criminal act of bribery by 428 Kosovo Republic Penal Code. KPRK. The same, according to the prosecution, has misused the official duty, with the aim of profiting wealth for itself, of granting construction permits in the National Park éSharrião, in the third and second zone of the area in Brezovica, by this means would be the use of official position or authority by Article 422 par.1 of KPRK” <2>, said in the communique of the Institute Prosecutorship in Ferrey.

While B.N. is allegedly accepting gifts with the intention of influence on decision-making official persons for providing construction permits at the “National Park. Sharri” in the third area of the Brezovica area weekend.

“also, against defendants B.N., there is reasonable doubt that he has accepted gifts with the aim of exercising unjust influence on the decision of official persons to grant construction permits in Sharri National Park in the third-round area of Brezovica, with this would carry out the criminal work “The exercise of influence” by Article 431.1 of KPRK. So to the same (B.N.), there is reasonable doubt that by December 21st, 2021, in his house in Shtrpce, he possessed a gun in opposition to Article 5 of the Law on the number of weapons of 05 L-022, in that way a search warrant in his house has been found in a Crvenna Zastava type gun, two caricators and 247 rounds of 9m calibre, and an arrow that is being seized by the police, with this will have been carried out the criminal work in possession, or possession of an authorized weapon from 366 mb.

The target is said to have used the “defendants D.R., D.M. and H.B., as official persons have used official duty, with the aim of illegally benefiting rich for themselves, in a way that didn't take legal action to ban house construction without permission at National Park APUSharryw with this will have been carried out in a criminal act of office or official authority by Article 422.1 in connection with 31st CPR and March's bribery from 422-28x-4 to the 312th) KPR.

In the case of “Brezovica” is also included in the S.M. as the director of Cadastr in the municipality of Shtrpca, which has misused the official position, which is suspected to have received money and gifts in order to exercise inappropriate influence on the decision of the official person of urbanism.

“Among the defendants S.M., there is reasonable doubt that since 2011-2016, as an official person, the director of the Cadastre in the municipality of Shtrpca, has misused official duty with the aim of profiting wealth for itself, with this would have carried out the criminal work ʹKeq use of official position or authority by Article 422 par.1 of KPRK. The same, directly received money and gifts, in order to act contrary to his official duties regarding the preparation of documentation for registers of cadastral parcels, would have committed criminal work “taking bribes “from Article 428 par.2 of KPRC. Also, to the same (S.M), there is reasonable doubt that from 2011-2016, as an official person, Cadastr Director of the Shtrpce Community, has directly demanded money and gifts in order to exercise inappropriate influence on the decision of the official person ʹ the director of urbanism would thus carry out the criminal task of influence by Article 431 par.1 of KPRA. The defendant S.M. has wielded a weapon in opposition to Article 5 of the Law on 05 L-022 weapons, in that way with the case of a search warrant in his house, a T-type gun with a serial number of C-102173 and 18 bullets and a hunting rifle with a number of B-21388 with 21 bullets, which are seized by the police, with this will have been carried out the criminal work held in ownership, or unauthorized possession of arms from 366 of KPR8, in the municipality.

It further shows that “, including the R.F. defendants, there is a reasonable doubt that since 2012-2018, as the official person ʹthe chief of the Inspectorate in the Shtrpca municipality has directly received money in order not to comply with his official duties, it will have carried out the criminal work “Resignion” from Article 428 par.1 of KPRA. The same has misused his official duty with the aim of profiting wealth for himself, with this would have committed the criminal act “The use of official position or authority” by Article 422 par.1 of KPRK. And, to the R.H., there is a reasonable doubt that from 2011 to the end of 2018, it has indirectly given the official person to act in opposition to his official duties with this he would carry out the criminal work “Bribery 6.8x6> by Article 429 par.3 of KPRK and the criminal work “The same, in part, has avoided tax taxes by presenting false data to the tax administration, with this would carry out “mangia from the tax” from Article 307 par.3 related to KPRC's par. To defendants B.I., there is reasonable doubt that between 2011 and the end of 2018, he directly gave to the official person to act in opposition to his official duties, with this he would carry out the criminal work “the bribery wall” by Article 429 par.3 of KPR, “impact interpretation of Article 431.2 of KPR and criminal work “Avoiding tax” from Article 307 par.3 related to par.1 of KPRK. While there is reasonable doubt that there was a reasonable doubt for defendants S.S. and J.K at the request that during 2016, in Shtrpce, they helped the official person avoid detection of criminal acts against official corruption and office, with this they would carry out criminal work “The Office of Assistant Chiefs following the commission of criminal acts” by Article 138 par.1 concerning par.2. 2.7 KPRK”