The state was neither the holder of the right of use nor the owner or legal successor of the Saltworks land; thus, the registration was invalid due to lack of legal grounds. The ruling by the Administrative Court is binding and clearly establishes that this is not merely a procedural error but rather an unlawful appropriation of property. Any subsequent attempts to downplay this issue signal an institutional negligence towards rights and indicate that the state is unwilling to uphold the rule of law.

This assertion comes from the response of Solana shareholders regarding the statements made by the Protector of Property and Legal Interests of Montenegro, Bojan Ćirović, asserting that the Saltworks land is undoubtedly state-owned, a claim previously endorsed by the Privatization Council, which stated that no market compensation was made for the real estate belonging to that company.

In an interview with “Vijesti” this week, it was clarified that the case was not remanded for a new trial to convert ownership, as that procedure has already been legally resolved, but to rectify irregularities concerning the cadastre registration.

“Concerning the assertion that the Solana land is ‘state-owned’, and the significance ascribed to the Privatization Council’s position, shareholders and their legal representatives highlight legal facts that contradict this – in order to safeguard legality, legal certainty, and constitutionally protected property rights,” stated the shareholders’ response, which emphasizes their commitment to protecting the state from institutional abuse.

“The land belonging to the Saltworks was never state property. The ‘Bajo Sekulić’ Saltworks was legally using social property, with rights under Article 419 of the Law on Property and Legal Relations (ZOSPO). The state had no usage rights nor any legal basis for acquiring ownership; there was no judgment, expropriation, consent, or legal transaction. On April 28, 2025, the Administrative Court annulled the state’s registration decision, clarifying that there was a substantive law misapplication, not a mere clerical error,” the response detailed.

It is reiterated that social property is distinct from state property, emphasizing that this issue is fundamentally legal rather than rhetorical.

“Solana was a socially owned, not state-owned enterprise. There was no registered holder of social property; only a registered user existed. The state never held a registered right of use. No legislation grants the state automatic rights to that property. Solana submitted a request for conversion back in 2011, compliant with the law,” the response continued, arguing that the Privatization Council does not possess authority to create rights.

Shareholders assert that the Supreme Court ruled that the Council’s opinion is not an administrative act and cannot generate legal effects for individuals who were not holders of the right of use.

The role of the Council is auxiliary, not foundational, and leveraging that opinion for state registration represents institutional misconduct.

“If, despite the verdict, the law is continually disregarded, it will send a clear message to investors and international partners that court rulings in Montenegro hold no weight. Shareholders will pursue measures, including international arbitration, protection under investment treaties, and appeal to EU institutions,” the response indicated.

Shareholders questioned the protector of property and legal interests about the veracity of claims that the Privatization Council disregarded the Study from the Faculty of Economics regarding the comprehensive restructuring of the DP Solana “Bajo Sekulić” – Ulcinj. They assert that the Study identifies the land as an integral component of Solana’s property and was subsequently relied upon by shareholders during share purchases on the stock exchange.

“Does the protector acknowledge if issuing shares without collateral by the State constitutes a criminal offense? 30,000 of us are asking her whether she is aware that the body she represents, within the civil proceedings pursued in the Commercial Court, which were halted pending the Council’s opinion, took an entirely different stance than what she presented in the media on June 19, 2025. The position articulated during the civil proceedings contradicts her media statement and treated the aforementioned Study as a pivotal piece of evidence in the transformation process of DP Solana ‘Bajo Sekulić’,” the shareholders asserted.

News