Monday, April 28, 2008
Montenegro for Sale (Part II)
As Ulqin and other heavily populated Albanian towns throughout Montenegro are being snapped up by Russians and other preying tycoons, fear is echoing off the walls of Parliament in Podgorica to the point where the DPS and SDP are worried that real estate is slipping away.
Many Albanians are not ignorant to what is happening here: with cash on hand, Albanian lands are being bought off by Russians and others in a real attempt to tip the ethnic balance to the point of forced emigration. Just read between the lines in the following article and make up your own minds:
Montenegro balks at opening up real estate market
28/04/2008
Worried that too much property will be snapped up by foreigners, Montenegrin leaders have not been able to agree on removing restrictions on the country's real estate market.
By Nedjeljko Rudovic for Southeast European Times in Podgorica -- 28/04/08
Two years after Montenegro gained independence, fears that Russians and other foreigners could buy up large amounts of land are fueling a heated debate over liberalizing real estate laws in the small Adriatic country.
The larger ruling coalition party -- Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic's Democratic Party of Socialists -- favours complete liberalisation of the real estate market. But its coalition ally, the Social Democratic Party, has joined the opposition in urging continued restrictions in order to keep the country's attractive coastline in Montenegrin hands.
Because of the quarrel over the issue, the government withdrew a bill on property rights for foreigners that had been up for discussion during parliament's spring session. Under the constitution, a two-thirds majority would be needed in order to push such legislation through.
Under current law, foreign commercial entities can purchase property in Montenegro, but individuals from abroad cannot. In actual practice, many foreigners -- usually with assistance from Montenegrin contacts -- are able to get around the limitation by registering a business, then liquidating it after they have bought the property.
A Montenegrin administrative court has ruled that "a foreign private person not pursuing an economic activity in Montenegro cannot claim ownership over land". It remains unclear, however, whether this ruling has been implemented.
Statistical data drives home the significance of the issue. During an 11-month period, 53% out of a total 900m euros in Foreign Direct Investment went towards acquisition of real estate. At the same time, capital outflows amounted to 450m euros – three thirds of that being invested in real estate.
Montenegrins who sell their inherited property appear to be buying real estate outside the country -- often in Belgrade or Novi Sad -- or simply using the proceeds for consumption, instead of for new investments that could minimize the foreign trade deficit and increase employment.
Deputy Prime Minister Gordana Djurovic, who handles international economic relations, declined to sign onto the government's proposed property law, saying it "does not envisage the conditions of reciprocity".
She put forth a similar opinion regarding a draft law on state property, arguing that coastal areas and forests ought to remain state property. "The law should instead stipulate certain special rights to utilization of these public goods through concessions, leasing, rent and similar contractual arrangements," Djurovic said.
However, Association of Lawyers Secretary-General Branislav Radulovic believes that the insistence on reciprocity is not a "particularly strong argument".
"With 13.812 sq km of territory, one would wonder whether reciprocity is sufficient to defend Montenegrin interests. With regard to Russia, for instance, this principle is perfectly senseless," Radulovic says.
"Montenegro can promote concessions as a way of attracting foreign investments, like Bulgaria did," he suggests. "Bulgaria did not sell off its property -- instead, it concluded agreements on concessions with the foreign investors allowing them to use and manage the property for 99 years. Thus it avoided losing its ownership over land, but also prevented manipulations and fictitious agreements."
The president of the Employers' Union, Predrag Mitrovic, warns that the state should be attentive to the comparative experiences of European countries and other states in the region.
"In practice, it happened that countries with so-called liberal legislation find themselves besieged by 'economic terrorism', by giving up their land for money coming from the gray and black economies abroad," he says. "Such liberal laws are particularly dangerous for small states like Montenegro and I believe the state should proceed more cautiously."
By contrast, finance ministry councilor Predrag Stamatovic argues that the state has no business limiting individuals' rights to private property, including the transference of rights to another individual.
"Who has the right to prevent further development and inflow of foreign capital?" he asks, pointing out that taxes on property transfer contributed 40m euros to the state budget last year.
During the negotiations that led to the signing of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the EU last year, Montenegro pledged to open its real-estate market for citizens of EU member states.
Implementation of the SAA is expected to start in 2010, after all the parliaments of all 27 EU members ratify the agreement.
Once Montenegro becomes an EU candidate, negotiations will begin on all chapters of the acquis communitaire. As it conducts an initial screening of Montenegrin laws, the European Commission will evaluate the extent of harmonization with EU criteria. Property rights for EU citizens will come under the chapters on free movement of goods and capital. These chapters have, in the past, proven among the most difficult for candidate countries that do not want to relinquish the right to manage their real estate.
For example, Croatia has not been able to conclude negotiations on the free movement of capital chapter. During the screening two years ago European Commission experts concluded Croatian legislation is not in line with European standards.
In spite of EU warnings, Croatia has been slow to adopt the substantial changes that would allow EU citizens "the necessary rights that would enable them to acquire real estate in Croatia", as the EC put it. But according to SAA and other documents, Croatia should complete the liberalisation of its real estate markets by 2009.
Citizens of Germany, Belgium, Great Britain, France, Netherlands and Spain can acquire real estate in Croatia based on reciprocity agreements. The procedure, however, can take up to two years due to administrative red tape. As a result, many would-be property owners resort to a practice similar to that found in Montenegro, establishing businesses and then acquiring real estate without restrictions.
All the new EU members tried to limit the sales of real estate to the foreigners in their negotiations with EC, whether the issues at question were the secondary residences or economically significant areas. Malta's attempt was the most successful. No person who has not lived in Malta for at least five years has the right to buy a secondary residence, and this also applies to Maltese citizens who live abroad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
So, it's a huge conspiracy set forth by the Serbs and Russians to ethnically cleanse Montenegro by selling beautiful beachside property to foreigners. Right.
Don't forget Montenegrins, primarily (since they do consider themselves seperate non-Serbs now).
The beachside property in question is ULCIN -- where legal documents (that are available for public consumption) clearly identify the demarcation line where the state is seizing off-shore prperty and lebeling it as "State-owned" for national security purposes. In doing so they are claiming land that has been traditionally and legally owned by Albanians (100% ownership) for centuries, and this siezure extends 6 kilometers from the shoreline.
IS this legal? Look at the laws of border controls -- where in all other parts of Montenegro, the state only owns a freaction of off-shore land used for such security, whereas in Ulcin it extends well beyond that.
To complicate matters more, the siezed land is now under contract with foreign investment firms to build resorts and hotels all along the beaches.
First of all, this is occurring all along the Montenegrin coast, so I can't fathom how you can say with a straight face that this is an attempt at ethnic cleansing of Albanians. It's inane.
Secondly, about half of Montenegrins do NOT consider themself Serbs. And that number is growing.
Thirdly, if Albanians are so against losing their land, why are they coming IN DROVES from the US to sell it off and make a quick buck? Nobody is forcing them, they are ethnically cleansing themselves.
Fourthly, who the hell are you people to speak with such authority when it seems you hardly have a deep and balanced picture of the facts.
I can fathom alright, and my straight face sincerely claims that Ulcin, and Ulcin exclusively, is undergoing government siezure of property BASED ON the Registers Office in Podgorica.
When you have time (now I'm assuming you are claiming residence somewhere in Mont), take the bus to this office and request the deeds of this territory.
What you will find is state controlled land some six kilometers in from teh sea, ONLY in Ulcin.
Do your homework, then call me back and we can chat.
COA!
"First of all, this is occurring all along the Montenegrin coast, so I can't fathom how you can say with a straight face that this is an attempt at ethnic cleansing of Albanians. It's inane.
Secondly, about half of Montenegrins do NOT consider themself Serbs. And that number is growing.
Thirdly, if Albanians are so against losing their land, why are they coming IN DROVES from the US to sell it off and make a quick buck? Nobody is forcing them, they are ethnically cleansing themselves.
Fourthly, who the hell are you people to speak with such authority when it seems you hardly have a deep and balanced picture of the facts."
i think i know who you are and if im correct, arent you the same man very interested in getting his own land in ulqin and ive noticed you have been writing articles/ comments on other albanians expressing problems they have faced in ulqin basically discrediting them in fact you have wrote these comments on montenegrian website kissing up ... i bet youve even went out to diner with a few montenegrian "diplomats" here in the states! thosr are the facts!
^---Nope. I know who you are referring to, and while I often agree with that man, I am not him.
I am want to believe this, but there is so little material proof presented!
Lack of material proof? I assume you are eluding to the article? If so, then you may perhaps be right, because "material" proof is hard to present when formal complaints are not filed.
Often times, these incidents just happen without any recourse; visitors would rather just pay a fine/bribe and go on their merry way than have to haggle with the defunct judicial proceedings.
I remember a friend who simply asked a police officer for a receipt for the traffic ticket he was writing and being harrased. The polic officer demanded to know "WHY" did she want a receipt. After responding that its procedural for a polic officer to provide a receipt, the officer retracted the ticket and let her go with a warning. This proves that the charges that were levied againt the driver were false, just a ploy to get some easy cash.
Let's be honest here, we all know this type of shit happens all teh time, but without attention to teh matter, and a corrective action to follow, it will continue. I'm certain more stories will be shared after this summer in Crna Gora ...
- Nik
Nik, thanks for the response. I've gotten pulled over there for not having lights on, other times for no reason, but have never been fined or anything. I don't speak Serbian but a mix of the few words I know, plus English and Albanian and I was asked not to do it again (lights) and let go. Could it be because my name on my passport (they asked for ID) ends in -ic? Could be. Haha.
"I remember a friend who simply asked a police officer for a receipt for the traffic ticket he was writing and being harrased. The polic officer demanded to know "WHY" did she want a receipt. After responding that its procedural for a polic officer to provide a receipt, the officer retracted the ticket and let her go with a warning. This proves that the charges that were levied againt the driver were false, just a ploy to get some easy cash."
I think everybody should be coached to deal with these situations in the exact same way. If anyone wants to charge you money, just ask for a receipt:
Daj mi racun, please.
GEE, thanks for the tip!
Post a Comment