November 13, 2018 - The Montenegrin Assembly have adopted amendments to the Expropriation Act stipulating that the state may, by an urgent procedure, take away private property and enter its possession with the payment of compensation, which the Government Commission determines to be fair. The government had previously proposed amendments to the Expropriation Act that had faced strong opposition from the public and complaints from the international community and eventually withdrew from the proceedings.
Amendments to the law were proposed by the Democrat Party of Socialists (DPS) Predrag Sekulić, Marta Šćepanović, Željko Aprcović, Nikola Rakočević and Jovanka Laličić. 42 deputies voted to amend the act, while 13 voted against. The government proposed the same amendments in July this year, but then the amendments to the Expropriation Act did not come into the assembly procedure.
Amendments on the Expropriation Act Withdrawn Several Times
When in 2015, the government in the parliament tried to push for a solution to the property, even though the owner complained about it, it caused great public condemnation, with citizens protesting from the coast in front of the parliament, and even the EU Delegation in Montenegro warned the government to take care of their actions. The European Commission delegation pointed out to the Government that when proposing amendments to the Expropriation Act, they are obliged to respect the Montenegrin Constitution, international obligations, including those deriving from the Stabilization and Association Agreement and the European Convention on Human Rights, and to take into account the relevant case law of the European Human Rights Court.
DPS deputies Claims Law on Expropriation Protects Citizens
DPS deputy Marta Šćepanović said in parliament that the reasons for amending the law were the deficiencies noted in the previous application of the Expropriation Act, which primarily relates to the unjustified length of the proceedings. She said that the applicable law was a precise one, which could expropriate the immovable property and added that the norm was much sharper than the countries in the region.
"Incorrectly, this may be in the case of hotels, villas, tourist complexes," said Šćepanović. "The news that strengthens the citizen's legal certainty is that the Commission now has three members instead of five, and at least three members of that commission must be judicial experts," Šćepanović explained, and noted that the citizen is protected by the law, and cannot be refunded less than the market value of immovable property.
According to Šćepanović, in order to have possession of immovable property, the expropriation process must be legally finalized, there must be evidence of a fair remuneration paid, or proof that the owner of the immovable property was duly summoned but refused to receive a fair remuneration.
To this solution, as stated, a party is allowed to appeal, but for the sake of the efficiency of the procedure it does not delay the execution of the decision. "The essence of this is that the solution of the expropriation, which also confiscates the property and determines the level of fair compensation, is legal," said Šćepanović, adding that the owners were provided with court protection before ordinary courts.
The expropriation user may apply for the immovable property that is subject to expropriation before the expropriation decision is enforceable, but not before the execution of the decision if this is necessary due to the urgency of realizing the expropriation procedure or preventing material damage.
Is the Expropriation Act Acting Against the Constitution?
Independent deputy Aleksandar Damjanović, for the daily newspaper "Vijesti" in July this year, emphasized: "Article 58 of the Constitution guarantees the right to property unless it requires public interest with fair compensation in accordance with the law and the elements of judicial protection available according to the current laws. Attempting to take property, and not wait for the outcome of a court-based appeal procedure and to suspend the provisions of the law on out-of-court proceedings, is an attack on basic property rights and property. This introduces Montenegro to a new area where no one, even lawmakers, will own the property. Whether this is for the needs of large projects it is less important that by adopting these solutions everyone will be insecure in enjoying property and property rights will not mean anything."
