Minister for Kosovo on disputable privatizations

Privatizations done by Privatization Agency of Kosovo should be negotiated, otherwise they should be subject of court proceedings, said minister for Kosovo. The minister told daily Politika that very little had been done regarding solving issues of Serbia’s property in Kosovo. Minister for Kosovo on disputable privatizations “Little has been done both regarding public companies’ property and publically-owned property and private property,” he said and pointed out that the government had been reacting while international presence had been dealing with ownership issues. “However, after a hasty transfer of jurisdiction to Pristina institutions and especially after unilaterally declared independence, there was literally a robbery without defining the ownership, contrary to Resolution 1244 and directly to detriment of owners, both private individuals and legal entities. Besides, not only the issue of property but also investments that Serbia directed toward Kosovo and Metohija through various funds should be addressed,” Bogdanovic explained. When asked who Serbia could turn to in the first place in order to protect its property he said that “the first address is legitimate international presence (EULEX and UNMIK), which has, at least in the field of the rule of law, kept certain jurisdiction.” “If there are no results there, it will be necessary to consider other scenarios that would include protection in the field of ownership rights of both individuals and the state. Several ministries are dealing with issues who we will sue, in what way and before which courts,” the minister for Kosovo stressed. “Privatization in Kosovo and Metohija began in 2004 even though Serbia back in 2002 got a written interpretation from UN legal office in New York that Resolution 1244 did not give the international administration right to privatize Serbia’s property in Kosovo and Metohija. That’s why nobody wanted to stay head of the Kosovo Trust Agency long, as soon as they realize what’s being done they leave the office,” he stressed. “I’m afraid that a big part of this will have to be solved through judicial institutions on an international level. Namely, there are several issues there: issue of responsibility for such transfer after which the legitimate international presence realistically lost any control over processes, as well as the issue of the damage that was incurred to the real owners of the property,” Bogdanovic explained. “Often we were not satisfied with the way PAK (Privatization Agency of Kosovo) conducted privatization even when it was under the UN mandate and Resolution 1244, and especially now after the unilaterally declared independence. In any case, one should not rule out possibility of stopping or possibly revising certain privatization processes. I think that these privatizations should be a subject of negotiations, because otherwise it would be logical for them to become a subject of court proceedings,” he emphasized.

Minister for Kosovo on disputable privatizations

“Little has been done both regarding public companies’ property and publically-owned property and private property,” he said and pointed out that the government had been reacting while international presence had been dealing with ownership issues.

“However, after a hasty transfer of jurisdiction to Priština institutions and especially after unilaterally declared independence, there was literally a robbery without defining the ownership, contrary to Resolution 1244 and directly to detriment of owners, both private individuals and legal entities. Besides, not only the issue of property but also investments that Serbia directed toward Kosovo and Metohija through various funds should be addressed,” Bogdanović explained.

When asked who Serbia could turn to in the first place in order to protect its property he said that “the first address is legitimate international presence (EULEX and UNMIK), which has, at least in the field of the rule of law, kept certain jurisdiction.”

“If there are no results there, it will be necessary to consider other scenarios that would include protection in the field of ownership rights of both individuals and the state. Several ministries are dealing with issues who we will sue, in what way and before which courts,” the minister for Kosovo stressed.

“Privatization in Kosovo and Metohija began in 2004 even though Serbia back in 2002 got a written interpretation from UN legal office in New York that Resolution 1244 did not give the international administration right to privatize Serbia’s property in Kosovo and Metohija. That’s why nobody wanted to stay head of the Kosovo Trust Agency long, as soon as they realize what’s being done they leave the office,” he stressed.

“I’m afraid that a big part of this will have to be solved through judicial institutions on an international level. Namely, there are several issues there: issue of responsibility for such transfer after which the legitimate international presence realistically lost any control over processes, as well as the issue of the damage that was incurred to the real owners of the property,” Bogdanović explained.

“Often we were not satisfied with the way PAK (Privatization Agency of Kosovo) conducted privatization even when it was under the UN mandate and Resolution 1244, and especially now after the unilaterally declared independence. In any case, one should not rule out possibility of stopping or possibly revising certain privatization processes. I think that these privatizations should be a subject of negotiations, because otherwise it would be logical for them to become a subject of court proceedings,” he emphasized.