Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06BELGRADE1001
2006-06-22 07:14:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Belgrade
Cable title:  

2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION

Tags:  KIDE EINV EFIN CASC PREL SR MW 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0024
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBW #1001/01 1730714
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 220714Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY BELGRADE
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8856
UNCLAS BELGRADE 001001 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EB/IFD/OIA AND L/CID

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIDE EINV EFIN CASC PREL SR MW
SUBJECT: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION

REF: STATE 60294

UNCLAS BELGRADE 001001

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR EB/IFD/OIA AND L/CID

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIDE EINV EFIN CASC PREL SR MW
SUBJECT: 2006 REPORT ON INVESTMENT DISPUTES AND EXPROPRIATION

REF: STATE 60294


1. Below is the Serbia and Montenegro submission for the 2006
report on investment disputes and expropriation claims. As
requested in reftel, we have sent tracked edits to the Serbia
and Montenegro portion of the final 2006 report via e-mail to
EB/IFD/OIA James Roseli. One of the two investment disputes
reported in 2005 was resolved to the satisfaction of the U.S.
investor, and there were eight new property restitution
claims, some in Serbia and the remainder in Montenegro. In
addition, there are 28 prior cases listed below. Eleven of
these were inadvertently omitted from last year's submission
but are included in this submission. All of the
expropriation claims listed below are by U.S. persons who
were not U.S. citizens when the claims arose.


2. Begin text:

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

The Embassy is aware of one ongoing investment dispute and 33
claims of U.S. persons - who were not U.S. citizens when the
claims arose - related to nationalized property that are
outstanding against Serbia and Montenegro and/or the
governments of the member republics (Serbia, Montenegro).
Seventeen of these claims were listed in Post's 2005 report.
Post is also aware of eight property restitution claims that
were reported since submission of last year's report, which
are presented below. Post also reports on one investment
dispute that has been resolved.

INVESTMENT DISPUTES

SERBIA


1.

a) Claimant A

b) 1999

c) In 1990, Claimant A, a U.S. pharmaceutical firm,
established a joint venture to operate a pharmaceutical plant
in Belgrade. Claimant A committed to contribute USD 50
million plus licenses to drugs in development, the projected
worth of which was USD 220 million. The socially (later
converted into state) owned capital of the company was valued
at USD 90 million, giving Claimant A control of the company
with a 75 percent stake.

In 1997, the Serbian parliament passed a law requiring that
companies revalue their capital to reflect current market

conditions. The company failed to do so, and in 1998 the
Serbian government appointed an investigative mission to
review the books of the company. The auditors found that the
licensed drugs, originally valued at USD 220 million, were
not delivered. Accordingly, the Commercial Court in Belgrade
recalculated the ownership of the company, established that
it was USD 220 million lower than in the books, and gave
Claimant A 35 percent of the company, leaving the government
with 65 percent. The government then appointed new
management with close ties to that government. Claimant A
responded by filing a USD 500 million lawsuit in the District
Court of the District of Columbia. The parties also began
arbitration hearings in Paris.

In October 2000, the Milosevic regime in Serbia was deposed
and replaced by a democratically elected government.
Claimant A, with the support of private security, removed the
state supported management team and retook control of the
company. The previous decision of the Commercial Court
granting control to the government was appealed, but the
Court refused to overturn its previous decision.

In January 2001, the ownership dispute led to labor unrest at
the company as workers, fearful that falling production
signaled impending layoffs, went on strike. In response, the
Commercial Court ruled that a managing board of three
directors, one each from the state, from Claimant A, and from
the Court, would jointly manage the company. Claimant A,
however, continued to control the company until production
disputes led the government to call a general shareholder
meeting in July 2001. Claimant A boycotted the meeting,
where new managerial and supervisory boards were appointed.
The company is currently controlled by the Serbian
government.

In June 2001, the Embassy arranged a meeting between Claimant
A and the government at which Claimant A offered a sizeable
payment in cash and kind in order to secure control of the
company. The government refused. The ownership structure of
Claimant A changed in 2003, with the Founding Chairman
exiting the company and a change of name and corporate
governance structure.

The case was submitted to the International Court of
Arbitration in Paris for resolution. The arbitral tribunal
issued its ruling on November 11, 2004. The ruling declared
that Claimant A complied with its obligations under the joint
venture Foundation Agreement and that Claimant A was entitled
to the return of all rights over the four licensed drug
compounds and to repatriate its original cash contribution of
up to USD 50 million, to be effected through liquidation of
the company in Serbia. The ruling further held that if
dissolution of the company was not carried out within three
months of the ruling, then the Republic of Serbia, jointly
and severally with the Serbian Health Fund, would be
obligated to pay Claimant A the amount of USD 50 million plus
interest of LIBOR plus 1 percent from the date such a ruling
should become enforceable until complete payment. The ruling
also dismissed any other or contrary claims of the parties
insofar as they are admissible.

Claimant A met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia in
Washington on April 22, 2005, and members from the Health
Fund, Treasury and Ministry of International Economic
Relations in London on August 31, 2005 to discuss the
settlement. U.S. Embassy Belgrade facilitated ongoing
communication between the parties.

On December 14, 2005, the GOS and Claimant A reached an
agreement where the GOS would pay USD 28 million by March
2006, and an additional USD 6 million by March 2007. This
settlement is less than the stipulated USD 50 million awarded
by the International Court of Arbitration, but Claimant A
agreed to this settlement and accepted the initial payment on
March 1, 2006.


2.

a) Claimant B

b) 2004

c) On May 19, 2003, Claimant B, a U.S. travel and tourism
company, purchased 70% of a Serbian tour operator through a
privatization tender. In addition to the sale price, under
the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA),Claimant B took on
responsibilities for future investments of USD 44.33 million
and social support to workers and the community of USD 0.555
million. Claimant B agreed to invest USD 660,000 by June 30,
2004 and was also obliged to increase its performance bond
from USD 2.2 million to USD 9.7 million as a guarantee for
year two investments by July 1, 2004, according to the SPA.

In mid May 2004, Claimant B requested from the Agency for
Privatization modification of the SPA seeking a decrease of
the investment obligation for the second year based on
complications with securing financing, citing as
justification bad press about a conflict with small
shareholders/employees, other media speculation on the
financial health of Claimant B and a March 2004 announcement
by the new Serbian government that a large number of past
privatization deals (including the one involving Claimant B)
would be reviewed by the Anti-Corruption Council. The Agency
did not accept Claimant B's request for amending the SPA, and
on August 6, 2004 activated and cashed performance bonds in
the amount of USD 2.2 million. In September 2004, Claimant B
announced a breach of its SPA with the Privatization Agency
because of the calling in of the performance bonds. On March
21, 2005, Claimant B sent the Privatization Agency a contract
termination notice. In April 2005, Claimant B submitted the
case to the International Court of Arbitration in Paris.

Embassy Belgrade has actively engaged with Claimant B and the
Privatization Agency in an effort to support dialogue and a
solution. The Privatization Agency has met with Claimant B
on several occasions and has been open to discussions on a
mutually acceptable solution. Claimant B has proposed that
it return its 70% stake in the Serbian company in exchange
for return of the purchase price. The Privatization Agency
has noted that some assets of the company were sold by
Claimant B after it assumed control, complicating such a
solution. Several third parties have expressed potential
interest in purchasing from Claimant B its shareholding and
obligations under the SPA. The Privatization Agency has no
objection to such a solution, but requires official
documentation that a third party assumes Claimant B's
obligations and assets under the SPA.

On July 14, 2005, the Privatization Agency terminated the SPA
with the Claimant B due to failure to meet obligations under
the SPA. According to the Law on Privatization, when a buyer
fails to meet contractual obligations, the offered property
is transferred to the Share Fund and is prepared for
privatization again. Negotiations between the Privatization
Agency and Claimant B are still underway, regardless of the
pending arbitration.

PROPERTY EXPROPRIATIONS

SERBIA


3.

a) Claimant C

b) December 1958

c) All property is located in Belgrade. Building one: seven
ground floor stores, nine one-bedroom apartments, four two-
bedroom apartments, six studio apartments, and one separate
room, with yard. Building two: building has been demolished,
currently used as parking lot, former building consisted of
seven ground floor stores, 11 one-room apartments, four one-
bedroom apartments, six two-bedroom apartments, and one four-
bedroom apartment. Building three: seven ground floor stores,
three one-bedroom apartments, eight two-bedroom apartments,
three three-bedroom apartments; Building four: three ground
floor stores, one one-bedroom apartment, seven two-bedroom
apartments, one three-bedroom apartment, three studio
apartments; Building five: family home with yard.

All property was nationalized as a result of the Law on
Nationalization in 1958.

By appealing to the Ministry of Finance and the Privatization
Agency, the Claimant has been trying to prevent the sale of
the nationalized property as a part of the Serbian
government's privatization process. In response to attempts
to include some of Claimant C's properties in privatization
auctions, the Embassy sent a diplomatic note to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs in 2003 asking the Ministry to work with
other relevant government agencies to postpone any steps to
offer the Claimant's properties for sale until a law on
restitution is passed that provides a legal mechanism for
adjudicating ownership claims. Our understanding is that the
claimant's property, currently used as a parking lot, was
purchased by Hypo-Alpe-Adria Bank, which plans to soon begin
construction of a building on the site. The Embassy sent a
letter to the Bank showing its interest in the case.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Claimant C regularly provides updates to the Embassy on the
status of the various claims. Latest information was
received in May 2006.


4.

a) Claimant D

b) 1945

c) The property consists of the following:
Piece of land in the center of the spa resort "Divcibare",
warranty deed 166/38, which was given to the spa by the
authorities for use and occupancy. Real property in
Belgrade, located at Mekenzijeva 87, consisting of four
residential apartments, two commercial units. Real property
at Boulevard Oslobodjenja, consists of a two-story building
with five one-bedroom, two two-bedroom apartments, and two
commercial units, and another building with two apartments.

The property was nationalized from the grandfather of the
claimant.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in January 2005.


5.

a) Claimant E

b) 1948

c) All property is located in Kolari, Smederevo, comprising
an agricultural mill and 50 hectares of land.

The property was confiscated as a result of the Law of
Nationalization of private industry.

Estimate value is $1,000,000.

Last contact was in September 2004.



6.

a) Claimant F

b) 1959

c) Property consists of four-story building in Makedonska 11-
13 , a five-story building at the corner of Brace Jugovica 23
and Skadarska 2, and the building site in Lomina 10.

The property was confiscated as a result of the Law on
Nationalization.

Estimate value is $3,031,000.

Last contact was in May 2006.


7.

a) Claimant G

b) 1945

c) All property is located in Belgrade, consists of several
commercial units at Terazije 16.

The property was nationalized as a result of the Law on
Nationalization.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in March 2006.


8.

a) Claimant H

b) 1945

c) Property is located in Belgrade, on Terazije square and in
the Kolubara region.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

The property was nationalized as a result of the Law on
Nationalization.

Claimaint H regularly provides updates to the Embassy on the
status of the various claims. Latest information was
received in May 2006.


9.

a) Claimant I

b) 1956

c) Property is located in Belgrade, consists of one building
at Svetogorska 6-8; the building includes a large garage and
two small shops.

The property was confiscated as a result of the Law on
Confiscation.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in April 2005.


10.

a) Claimant J

b) April 30, 1961

c) Property is located in Belgrade, at Kralja Petra 6,
building which includes a historical Belgrade restaurant.

The property was nationalized as a result of the Law on
Nationalization.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in March 2006.


11.

a) Claimant K

b) 1961

c) Property is located in Belgrade.

The property was nationalized as a result of the Law on
Nationalization.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in April 2005.


12.

a) Claimant L

b) 1948

c) Property is located in Belgrade and the spa town of
Vrnjacka Banja.

The property was nationalized as a result of the Law of
Nationalization.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in September 2004.


13.

a) Claimant M

b) 1945

c) Property consists of a brewery located in Valjevo.

The property was confiscated as a result of the Law on
Nationalization.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in August 2004.


14.

a) Claimant N

b) 1945

c) All property is located in Belgrade, except some
agricultural properties (mostly vineyards) in Smederevo and
Paracin. Hotel QSrpski kralj was severely damaged by the
German bombings of Belgrade in 1941 and subsequently
nationalized and razed by the Communist authorities. The
remaining vacant lot, located on Rajiceva Street,
intermittently is used as a coffee terrace.

The Flour Milling Complex, encompassing half a dozen separate
buildings in downtown Belgrade, was damaged by the German
bombings in 1941, confiscated in 1945, plundered of all
equipment and remained an empty shell for almost 50 years,
used as an illicit warehouse.

Weifert Brewery, majority-owned, confiscated in 1945 and
subsequently renamed QBeogradska Industrija PivaQ, still
remains in a working condition.

Several large office and apartment buildings in the very
center of Belgrade.

Family house in Bircaninova 21.

All property was confiscated as a result of the Law on
Confiscation in 1945.

Claimant has appealed to the Ministry of Finance and
Privatization Agency to prevent the sale of the nationalized
property as a part of privatization process; Post does not
have an estimated value of the property.

Claimant N regularly provides updates to the Embassy on the
status of the various claims. Latest information was
received in May 2006.


15.

a) Claimant O

b) 1945

c) Property, the Hotel QExcelsiorQ, located in a very
favorable location in downtown Belgrade.

All property was confiscated as a result of the Law on
Confiscation in 1945.
Claimant has appealed to the Ministry of Finance and
Privatization Agency to prevent the sale of the nationalized
property as a part of privatization process; Post does not
have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in 2004.


16.

a) Claimant P

b) 1962

c) Property is located in Belgrade.

All property was confiscated as a result of a political
process against the claimant. The property consisted of a
house located at Janka Prmrla Vojka St. 6 in Belgrade,
business space in Perlez (near Zrenjanin),money, car and
gold.

Claimant has been trying to recover his property through
several court proceedings for years.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in May of 2006.


17.

a) Claimant Q

b) 1946

c) Property is a building located at Maglajska 21, Belgrade.

All property was confiscated as a result of a political
process against the father of the claimants, who was tried in
absentia by the Special Military Court IV Yugoslav Army and
sentenced to life imprisonment.

Claimants have been trying to recover the property through
several court proceedings for couple of years.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in October 2005.


18.

a) Claimant R

b) 1950

c) Property is located in Knic, near Gornji Milanovac. It
comprises a farm, on which a cold storage plant was built and
is currently occupied by the food-processing factory QTakovo
frm Gornji Milanovac.

The property was confiscated as a result of a political
process against the gandfather of the claimant, who was an
active suporter of an anti-communist movement.

It is unknwn whether the claimant has tried to recover the
property through the legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in October 2005.


19.

a) Claimant S

b) 1948

c) It is a printing and publishing house QPrivredni pregled
(aka QSlobodan JovicQ) located at Stojana Protica 52
Belgrade; and a separate building, consisting of five
apartments, at Dubljanska 82, Belgrade.

The property was nationalized, from the parents of the
claimant, as a part of the Law on Nationalization in 1948.

It is unknown whether the claimant has tried to recover the
property through the legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in February 2004.


20.

a) Claimant T

b) 1945

c) Property consists of a confiscated industrial property,
QRatko Pavlovic-NiteksQ in Nis, Serbia.

The property was confiscated as a part of the Confiscation
Law in 1945.

It is unknown whether the claimant has tried to recover the
property through the legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in May 2006.


21.

a) Claimant U

b) 1946

c) Land which is currently occupied by the AD QSokolacQ in
Novic Becej, Serbia. We do not have information on how much
land this entails.

The property was confiscated as a part of the Agricultural
Reform in 1946.

The claimant has tried to recover the property through the
legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in March of 2005.


22.

a) Claimant V

b) 1946

c) Agricultural land, at the village of Pacir in Backa
Topola, Serbia. We do not have information on how much land
this entails.

The property was confiscated as a part of the Agricultural
Reform in 1946.

It is unknown whether the claimant has tried to recover the
property through the legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in February 2005.


23.

a) Claimant W

b) 1945

c) Property is a confiscated family house located at Milosa
Obrenovica 1, Bajna Basta, Serbia.

The property was confiscated, from the father of the
claimant, as a part of the Confiscation Law in 1945.

It is unknown whether the claimant has tried to recover the
property through the legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in February 2003.


24.

a) Claimant X

b) 1945

c) The property consists of two buildings. One of them
currently encompasses the entire site where Slavija,
Makenzijeva and Prote Mateje Streets meet; the area is used
as a large open-air parking lot. The second building is a
residential building on Brace Nedica 22, Belgrade.

The property was confiscated, from the father of the
claimant, who was proclaimed an Qenemy of the stateQ.
It is unknown whether the claimant has tried to recover the
property through the legal system of Serbia.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Claimant X regularly provides updates to the Embassy on the
status of the various claims. Latest information was
received in May 2006.

NEW CASES


25.

a) Claimant Y

b) 1945

c) Property consists of three parcels in Knez Danilo Street
with a building, and what was previously large brick factory
in the area of Zvezdara in Belgrade.

The property was confiscated from the father of the claimant.

The claimant has registered the property as a restitution
claim with the Republican Property Directorate in accordance
with the Law on Registration.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in February 2006.


26.

a) Claimant Z

b) 1945

c) Property consists of a building containing office space in
Maksima Gorkog Street 13, and land in Uzicka Street 14.

The property was confiscated from the father of the claimant.

The claimant has registered the property with the Republican
Property Directorate in accordance with the Law on
Registration.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in March 2006.


27.

a) Clamant Z1

b) 1945-1958

c) Property consists of the following: entire building with
several smaller buildings and land in Maksima Gorkog St. 93,
building and land in Jovana Cvijica St. 84, buildings and
land in Kajmakcalanska St. 2 and Zarka Zrenjanina St. 33,
land in Vasina St. 16, various agricultural properties in the
vicinity of Curug in Vojvodina.

The property was confiscated, from the father and grandfather
of the claimant.

The claimant has registered the property with the Republican
Property Directorate in accordance with the Law on
Registration.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in April 2006.


28.

a) Clamant Z2

b) 1959

c) Property consists of a building containing an apartment
and office space in Bulevar JNA 221.

The property was confiscated from the father of the claimant.

The claimant has registered the property with the Republican
Property Directorate in accordance with the Law on
Registration.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was in November 2005.


29.

a) Claimant Z3

b) 1947

c) Property consists of a building and land, located in the
most prestigious area in Belgrade on Uzicka Street in
Dedinje.

The property was confiscated from the claimant's mother, late
Princess Olga Karadjordjevic.

The claimant has registered the property with the Republican
Property Directorate in accordance with the Law on
Registration.

Post does not have an estimated value of the property.

Last contact was on June 1 2006.

MONTENEGRO


1.

a) Claimant Z4

b) 1954

c) ClaimantQs property is located in Petrovac na moru,
Municipality of Budva. After World War II, one parcel was
divided by the City and Municipality of Budva into two
smaller parcels. The newly created parcel was confiscated
from the claimant in 1954 and assigned to the former Yugoslav
oil company "Nafta". The company built a six-unit apartment
building for its employees. In 1973 "Nafta" was dissolved.
The previous parcel, with the building on it, was transferred
and recorded as a property of the Republic of Montenegro.
The claimant instituted legal proceedings against the
Republic of Montenegro. The claimant addressed the issue to
the U.S. Consulate Podgorica in December 2004. At the last
court proceeding in April 2005, the court decided in favor of
the claimant and awarded him around 400,000 EUR.

As of June 2006, the claimant has not been paid. The Higher
Court revoked the decision of the District court due to
discrepancies of property valuation. The claimant's attorney
claims that the Higher Court's decision is not in accordance
with the law and that the Higher Court revoked the decision
because the amount to be compensated (400,000 EUR) was too
high.


2.

a) Claimant Z5

b) 1958

c) ClaimantQs property, inherited from parents, is located in
Budva. A great deal of the property was confiscated under
communist laws. The hunting Association QPrimorjeQ from
Budva submitted a claim to the Municipality of Budva to buy
the land in order to build a hunting club. By the claimantQs
intervention with the Municipality of Budva, the signing of
the AssociationQs request had been temporarily postponed. The
claimant's attorney addressed this issue to the U.S.
Consulate Podgorica in April 2005. The Consulate sent a
letter to the Municipality of Budva asking that it defer the
sale of the property until the claimant has an opportunity to
make a claim for restitution of the property. On June 16, the
legal representative of the claimant informed the Consulate
that the Municipality of Budva had decided to sell the
property to the Hunting Association.


3.

a) Claimants Z6 (involves three claimants; all three are
American citizens)

b) 1981

c) ClaimantsQ property, a house under construction and a
stable, is located in Ulcinj. Two of the claimants inherited
property from the father. In 1981, a part of the property
was expropriated from the father (the size of the property
was over 5,000 m2). One part of the expropriated property is
used for the CityQs bus station and parking, whereas the rest
of the property remains vacant. The claimants were unable to
use the rest of the property (which is over 3,000 m2),since
no possible access to the property was left. The father was
never compensated for facilities that were on the property.

The claimants filed a claim for restitution of the property
in December 2004 and addressed this issue to the President of
the Republic, Prime Minister of the Republic, President of
the Supreme Court, Municipality of Ulcinj, and the District
Court in Ulcinj. The claimants requested access to their
property by cars and agricultural machineries, restitution of
unused part of the property and compensation of the part used
by the Bus Station and parking. The claimants submitted a
claim to defer the proposed sale of the bus station, but a
decision has not been made.


4.

a) Claimant Z7

b) 1967

c) ClaimantQs property is located in Cetinje. The property
was confiscated in 1967. We have no information on the size
of property and no other details.


5.

a) Claimants Z8 (involves two American citizens)

b) 2004

c) ClaimantQs property is located in Lastva, Municipality of
Kotor. In March 2005 the claimant visited Montenegro with
the intent of beginning the process of building a family
vacation home on the land. An official in the planning
office in Kotor told the claimant that the land had been
rezoned within the last year as a QgreenQ belt and
agricultural area and therefore no building would be allowed.
There was a locally advertised appeal period during which
resident landowners in the affected area were notified and
did appeal and were granted building variances. The claimant
was never notified and thus was denied any possibility of
appeal. The claimant addressed this issue to the Mayor of
Kotor and to the U.S. Consulate in Podgorica.

The total land area and estimated value are unknown.


6.

a) Claimant Z9

b) 2004

c) ClaimantQs property is located in Igalo, Municipality of
Herceg Novi. Property was confiscated by the Communist
regime. The case was forwarded to the Embassy in Belgrade in
July 2004.

NEW CASES


1.
a) Claimant Z10

b) 1953

c) ClaimantQs property is located in Sveti Stefan, Petrovac
Na Moru and Buljarica, Municipality of Budva. The property
was confiscated from the claimant in 1953 and 1967. It is
now a part of Hotel Company "Budvanska Riviera" (Grand Hotel
Sveti Stefan, Villa Olive in Petrovac). These facilities are
currently an issue of negotiations for rent/sale to foreign
bidders. The rest of confiscated property is under the
jurisdiction of the Municipality of Budva (used as a soccer
playground). The claimant instituted legal proceedings
against the Republic of Montenegro and filed for
compensation. The claimant brought the issue to U.S.
Consulate Podgorica in January 2006.


2.

a) Claimant Z11

b) 2000

c) Claimant's property, inherited from father, is located in
Gusinje, Municipality of Plav. The claimant's property, a
family house, was taken in 1985 by the company AD "Plavsko
Jezero" ("The Lake of Plav") without claimant's consent. The
company opened a restaurant out of the house. The claimant
asserts that the restaurant is operating illegally without
work permits and ownership title to the house.

The claimant filed an appeal to the Higher Court in Bijelo
Polje in order to seek the return of her property and/or
obtain compensation from AD "Plavsko jezero". The Higher
Court in Bijelo Polje denied the appeal. The claimant
addressed this issue to the U.S. Consulate Podgorica in April

2006. The Consulate sent a letter to the President of the
Basic Court in Plav asking that it take necessary measures
for rapid and just solution on the dispute.


3.

a) Claimants Z12

b) 1965

c) ClaimantsQ property, inherited from grandparents, is
located in Danilovgrad. The claimant filed for property
restitution in May 2005. The case was forwarded to the
Consulate in Podgorica in September 2005.


Serbia:
Claimant A: Valeant Pharmaceuticals (formerly ICN)
Claimant B: Uniworld Holdings
Claimant C: Marko Rakocevic and Janet Kostrevski
Claimant D: Ivan Vasic
Claimant E: Milica Markovic
Claimant F: Jelena Glisovic-Rasic
Claimant G: Aleksandar Djordjevic
Claimant H: Sofija Dimic-Ilic
Claimant I: Marija Stojadinovic-Shoup
Claimant J: Vladimir Pavlovic
Claimant K: Milica Skinner
Claimant L: Dimitrije Djordjevic and Jelena Markovic
Claimant M: Nikola Djurdjevic
Claimant N: Bogdan Veljkovic
Claimant O: Mila Petkovich
Claimant P: Lazar Dragin
Claimant Q: Stefanie Avsenek
Claimant R: Radmilo Djokic
Claimant S: Boris Ivezic
Claimant T: Zora Mikler
Claimant U: Christian Sauska
Claimant V: Stevan Geza Silbiger
Claimant W: Milena Trickovic
Claimant X: Olivera Carlson

New Claims in Serbia:
Claimant Y: Zoran Cupic
Claimant Z: Nikola Vulkovic
Claimant Z1: Sanja Popovic Spinelli
Claimant Z2: Zoran Dordevic
Claimant Z3: Princess Elizabeth Karageorgevich

Montenegro:
Claimant Z4: Jefto Davidovich
Claimant Z5: Angelina Perry
Claimant Z6: Joseph Briskovic, Luc Brisku, Ibrahim Musovic
Claimant Z7: Miomir Vukmanovic
Claimant Z8: Mary Duletich Ellerd, Anne Preston
Claimant Z9: Spiro Jankovich

New claims in Montenegro:
Claimant Z10: Marko Nicholas Gregovich
Claimant Z11: Raza Sinanaj
Claimant Z12: Serge Babic

POLT