{"id":7667,"date":"2019-09-06T15:39:25","date_gmt":"2019-09-06T13:39:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.mans.co.me\/en\/?p=7667"},"modified":"2019-09-06T15:42:24","modified_gmt":"2019-09-06T13:42:24","slug":"housing-loans-to-judges-although-they-already-had-apartments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/?p=7667","title":{"rendered":"Housing loans to judges although they already had apartments"},"content":{"rendered":"

Judges of the Supreme Court: Dragica Mila\u010di\u0107, Hasnija Simonovi\u0107, Mira\u0161 Radovi\u0107, Petar Stojanovi\u0107<\/strong> and Radule Kojovi\u0107<\/strong> received loans from the Government even though at the time they owned apartments or other immovable property. In this way, “the housing issue was solved” for some judges, even though they already owned apartments of over 100 m2 in Podgorica.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

At the end of 2017, Dragica Mila\u010di\u0107 received a \u20ac 20,000 loan from the Government,<\/strong> despite the fact that at the time of the request, she owned a 108-square-meter, three-bedroom apartment in Podgorica, where she lived completely alone. It is still unknown what the loan was spent on because to date, Mila\u010di\u0107 has not reported the purchase of a new property.<\/p>\n

Mila\u010di\u0107 is required to repay only \u20ac4,200 out of the five-year government loan, with a monthly instalment of only \u20ac70. By this, the government gave her a total of \u20ac15,800. If Mila\u010di\u0107 had taken this loan within 1000+ Phase III project (with an interest rate of 3%), she would have had to repay close to \u20ac 22,000.<\/p>\n

In 2009, Hasnija Simonovi\u0107 received a loan from the state in the amount of \u20ac20,000.<\/strong> The loan was granted even though Judge Simonovi\u0107’s family at that time owned an apartment of 94 square meters in Podgorica, 4,000 square meters plot in Podgorica, as well as a house and land in Kola\u0161in (15 ha). It is interesting that at the moment of receiving a loan from the Government, the family not only owned real estate, but annually reported income from agriculture alone in the amount of \u20ac10,000.<\/p>\n

In 2009, when he was the Minister of Justice, Mira\u0161 Radovi\u0107 received a \u20ac40,000 housing loan from the Government,<\/strong> with a repayment period of 20 years, even though he had an apartment of 83 m2<\/sup> in Podgorica at the time.<\/p>\n

Monthly instalment for this loan is \u20ac40.4, which means that he will repay a total of \u20ac9,696, just one quarter of the money taken from the state. Had he taken the same loan amount through the 1000+ project (which was realized in 2010 – 2011), where the interest rate was 5%, with the same repayment period, Radovi\u0107 would have had to pay over 22 thousand Euros for interest alone, and with a regular loan with commercial banks, even close to 28 thousand Euros.<\/p>\n

After receiving the loan, Radovi\u0107 did not report new real estate until 2014, when he entered into the property file part of the ownership of a 100-square-meter house and land of 104,148 m2<\/sup> in Kola\u0161in (inheritance from his parents).<\/p>\n

In 2009, Petar Stojanovi\u0107 received a 20-year loan, the total amount of which he did not specify, but he did state a monthly instalment of \u20ac75.75,<\/strong> so it can be concluded that it is a state loan under favourable terms. According to his card, that loan was used to buy a new 119 m2<\/sup> apartment in Podgorica. When he received the said loan, Stojanovi\u0107 already owned an apartment of 83.38 m2<\/sup> in Podgorica, allotted by the Government of Montenegro.<\/p>\n

The same arrangement had Judge Radula Kojovi\u0107 as well, whose instalment for housing loan received from the Supreme Court is \u20ac75. The loan was granted to Kojovi\u0107 in 2009, although at that moment he owned an apartment in Podgorica of 74 m2<\/sup> and a share of a 150m2<\/sup> house in Bijelo Polje. His wife, Milena Kojovi\u0107, also took a state loan (Pension and Disability Insurance Fund) in 2006 in the amount of \u20ac 15,000, out of which she is obliged to repay less than half the amount (instalment \u20ac 22.53).<\/p>\n

MANS warns that such granting of loans is in contravention of the Government’s Decision on the manner and criteria for addressing housing needs of officials. Article 6 of that Decision states: \u201cAn official shall have the right to address housing need, provided that he\/she or a member of his\/her family household:<\/p>\n

– does not have an apartment, or a family apartment building owned, co-owned or jointly owned;<\/p>\n

– has an apartment or a family apartment building owned, co-owned or jointly owned of insufficient area.<\/p>\n

MANS<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

Information on all apartments and loans to be published<\/h3>\n

MANS has already requested that all information on housing loans granted to government officials, including pre-2016, be published.<\/p>\n

Back in 2016, MANS requested from the Housing Commission of the Government of Montenegro all decisions and contracts on approved housing loans for public officials for the period from 2012 to 2015, but we were denied access to this information by the decision of the then President of the Commission, Predrag Bo\u0161kovi\u0107.<\/p>\n

MANS appealed against this decision, but even after two decisions by the Administrative Court in favour of MANS, Bo\u0161kovi\u0107 declined to release the information.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Judges of the Supreme Court: Dragica Mila\u010di\u0107, Hasnija Simonovi\u0107, Mira\u0161 Radovi\u0107, Petar Stojanovi\u0107 and Radule Kojovi\u0107 received loans from the Government even though at the time they owned apartments or other immovable property. In this way, “the housing issue was solved” for some judges, even though they already owned apartments of over 100 m2 in<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7668,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[248],"class_list":{"0":"post-7667","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-anti-corruption-policies","8":"category-transparency-conflict-of-interests","9":"tag-supreme-court"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7667","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7667"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7667\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/7668"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7667"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7667"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mans.co.me\/en\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7667"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}