Commerciality to Pristina 32 million, NPB complaint denied

It is a damage costing the Pristina municipality no less than 32m euros, as a result of the Komercia's recent decision.

A judicial decision has obliged the National Public Company to pay over 32m euros on behalf of the missing “profit” against three private companies, “M ADE GROUP CONSTRUCTION” S.P.K., “ARCOS” S.P.K., and MIKOS” S. The KB has raised serious concerns about the financial consequences in Pristina's budget and how this issue is addressed in the justice system.

According to the Comercial Court Act, these companies have gained the right to compensation in the total amount of 32,571,952.82 euros, with the majority, over 32.3m euros, is known as the lost “”. In addition, another 80 thousand euros have been included for the architectural project and over 160 thousand euros for bank guarantees, while over that amount is estimated by legal interest of 8 percent per year, starting with a 2024 indictment date.

“DETIRATE indictee “Binary Public Enterprise” U.S.A., that plaintiffs: 1. “S.P.K., 2. “Arkos” S.P.K. and 3. “Madekos” S.P.K., which because of its failure to meet the contract No. North 4791/2021, no. The reference 995/2021, dated 17,05,2021, paid the compensation sums as follows: On behalf of real damage, for paying the architecture studio for drafting and finalising the Master Project on the basis of which construction has been granted to implement the Project, amount of $80,000,000; on behalf of the payment for bank guarantees of 160,149.34, as well as on behalf of compensation of material damage in the form of lost profit, as a result of the project's realisation under the LRRR. 4791/2021 and Ref.nr. 955/2021, dated 17,05.2021 for the Joint Construction of the Afarist Trust, sum of 32,331,803.48; in the total amount of 32,571,952.82 (thirty of two million and ten hundred and seventy-seven thousand and nine hundred and two euro eighty-two euro and two cents), along with legal interest of 8 per year, ranging from the date of the indictment, 12.20, to the definitable of 7 days, from the total sentence of this sentence, to the full nine-eight-day sentence, to the constitutional times.

This decision relates to a 2021 contract for the construction of a bane-afarist facility in Pristina's Lakqak area, on several sizeable cadastral parcels. The contract was linked between the National Public Company and the consortium of private companies, but for years it had been blocked due to legal disputes and alleged illegality. In an earlier phase, it was also overturned by the Court of Appeals and suspended under a criminal procedure.

“COMM IT IS reported that the LRP No. North 4791/2021, no. A reference to 995/2021, dated 17,05,2021, for the joint construction of the banese-afarist facility, on cadastral bases: No. No. 74390-2, covering 4,007 m2; No. 7493-3, measuring 1,164 m2 and No. 07493-7, with a surface of 1,000 m2, the Cadastral Pristina Zone, the Laktine location”, is said to be away.

Despite these developments, the Commercial Court in the retrial has ruled that the contract is considered breakaway and has obliged public enterprise to compensate private companies for the alleged damage, including lost profit, although the project has never been implemented and has not been implemented in practice.

Against this act has been filed a complaint, which in detail has argued that the verdict is illegal, unfair and unsupported in a complete analysis of the facts and the law. According to the complaint, the financial damage to the public company and indirectly, the citizens of Pristina, is unproportional and unbased, especially given that it is a project that has never been launched.

The complaint points out that the court has not provided clear reasons for the fundamental elements of the decision, including the legal basis of responsibility, the moment of the contract's secession, and the causer connection between the actions of the company and the alleged damage from companies. According to the complaint, the lack of these elements makes the act unexaminationable and legally unstable.

One of the key claims relates to the fact that the court has exceeded the requirement, consisting of the contract's secession, even though it was not directly sought by the plaintiffs. According to the complaint, it constitutes a violation of the fundamental principle of the conflicting procedure, under which the court should decide only on the basis of requirements submitted by the parties.

The complaint also mentions that the judgment itself is contradictory, since in some parts the contract is treated as disconnected, while in other parts as incomplete or refused to be met. This, in the complaint, creates serious confusion and directly affects the way the damage is calculated.

Another important element is the issue of contract legitimacy. It argues that the contract has been contested and that there is yet another judicial procedure for its popularity. According to the complaint, the court has had to terminate the procedure until the settlement of this preliminary issue, as if the contract is invalid, then the basis for compensation falls.

In terms of evidence, financial expertise on which the lost profit count has also been disputed. According to the complaint, the expert has not had the competence needed to make such an assessment, and the court has given no reason why he has rejected these objections.

The complaint has also raised concern about the rapid development of the judicial process, which has ended in just 7 days and two sessions, for an issue worth over 32m euros. According to him, such a procedure has not enabled complete and fair consideration of all circumstances.

The Pristina Community has also intervened in this process as an intrusive party, supporting the public company's stance and rejecting the demand of private companies. According to the complaint, however, the bias does not clearly reflect this interest in decision-making.

Despite these detailed arguments, the complaint filed has failed to change the outcome at this phase of the procedure. The court has rejected claims and has put into effect the act that imposes the Public National Company to pay the amount of money to , “M ADE GROUP CONSTRUCTION” S.P.K., “ARCOS” S.P.K., and MIKOS” S.P.K., /Periscopi/

Tahiri: Kurti's oligarchs risk tïa receive 32m euros in Pristina, on behalf of lost profit