[Pga_europe_process] Here is a press clip of different anti privatization issues and struggles in postYU

Zapata zapata at sezampro.yu
Fri Oct 29 01:39:39 CEST 2004

28 September 2004 (Blic)

      A penniless state and wealthy ministers

      The response of the Government regarding the ministers sojourning in 
Athens at the Olympics stipulates that all of the sojourners traveled at 
their own expense or at the expense of Yugoslav airlines, hence, there was 
no violation of the Law on conflict of interest. The Government decided to 
believe the subsequent information given by the ministers to disregard their 
first statements in the media, and even suggested that, in the future, we 
should disregard the individual statements, until the ministers reach an 
agreement. The Government statement does not offer an open explanation of 
why last statements from certain ministers and present Government statement 
differ so much. We are different from Croatia, where President of the State 
did not travel to Athens because he complained to the large expenses which 
the state did not want or could not afford, and he did not want to pay for 
himself. It seams that our neighbors have, either a poor state and 
president, or a stingy state and president, which we find more likely to 
believe. We, however, live in a penniless state donated by the ministers. It 
is not their fault that the state is so poor as to send them on a trip 
without paying the tickets, whereas they pay out of their own pocket or out 
of the pocket of the company they manage.

      After a rather cheerful letter of the Government regarding a proper 
behavior of the ministers, fun was spoilt by a following statement of the 
Government regarding the urgent implementation of the stipulated Law. For, 
as soon as the Government was advised from the press that the Deputy 
Minister for Capital Investments, Mr. Lazic was at the same time Director of 
"Mobtel", he was immediately relived of his duty. The Government had hard 
time compared to the case of Mr. Cvetkovic, who was simultaneously Director 
of the state Agency for Privatization and executive director of the private 
consulting company "CesMekon", which acted as a immediate partner in a 
demanding state affairs. The Government realized this only after Mr. 
Cvetkovic left. With Mr. Lazic things were more difficult, he was blown 
during his term. Government, obviously, regards as irrelevant the fact that 
this gentlemen had a serious conflict of interest while performing his 
duties. What will happen with the decisions from ministry and government 
prepared and made by Mr. Lazic?

      As a remainder. Deputy Minister for Capital Investments (at the same 
time Director of "Mobtel") was a member of the Government body in charge of 
determining ownership relationship in "Mobtel". The Commission made a report 
declaring it incomplete, because not only that "Mobtel" failed to present 
the documentation, but also prohibited equipment inspection. The Government, 
however, accepted the report, without bothering to check the documentation 
of the company, whose 49% are officially owned by the state. Since at first 
the state accepted that Mr. Lazic adjourned his position in "Mobtel", and 
that he already completed the mission given by Mr. Karic, the Government was 
only in a position to object to the degree of the adjournment and relieve 
him of his duty. The Government fells that some credit was gained on account 
of swift implementation of the Law against corruption. Mr. Karic, moreover, 
received everything else, as well as the ministers working for him. He may 
now finance a new campaign peacefully, not only for himself but for his 
ministers as well. Should there be any changes he will again offer the 
Government another 6% of "Mobtel", and should they object, arbitration of 
Zurich. Until he becomes a Prime Minister of the Government with capital 
ministries only.

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

22 September 2004 (Blic)

      What is going on with "Knjaz Milos"?

      Why is state suddenly skeptical regarding the capital market, instead 
of advancing its further development? Why are we advised to pay attention to 
the fact that some stockbrokers are fishing in troubled waters, do not carry 
out shareholders demands, and do not permit them to join their shares with 
the state and get richer. The prospect of selling shares outside the capital 
market, trough Share Fund or Agency, is an exception requiring a firm 
enforcement in the law, if such should be given in the first place. This 
exception facilitates dodging the share market, the only one qualified to 
estimate value of the shares. "Knjaz" shares have not yet been on the 
market, whereas offers made so far represent the sole value of the shares, 
still unverified on the market. The possibility to sell shares outside the 
market at the auction turned out to be, as the case of "Jugoremedija" 
clearly shows, a disaster, and the Government could use this example as a 
ground to motion for striking out this exception from the law, and sustain 
from its use in the meantime. If it is reliable and ready to accept its full 
accountability in the case of "Jugoremedija".

      Nevertheless, the authorities grew fond of this rule. It encourages 
chances of negotiation under a counter, far from the capital market, and 
away from public.

      Stockbrokers, it is true, are engaged in shady business, but on a 
small scale. Great masters of robbery of everything that is worth in Serbia 
hope for defeat of the procedure of share collection on the market, so that 
the state could collect the majority share package and enter the 
negotiations with the potential buyers - on the basis of open market 
(negotiators). For instance, it is a secret that a company has incurred 
debts in this year - allegedly a successful company, taking short - term 
loans each month in the amount of two million euros, mostly from "Delta 
 Bank". We do not know if the bidders are familiar with this. Next, social 
and investment programs are extremely unrealistic - asking the investor to 
invest 72 million euros in development, much more than the value of the 
company! A serious investor has to say no to this, as well as to the social 
program, and once he learns about the debts - he will definitely quit. Than 
the major creditor appears asking where his money went. The conversion is 
next. Instead of the strategic partners as, for instance,

      "Danone" and actual entry of the foreign capital in the country, the 
company will be sold cheaply, on account of the alleged debts. Already seen 
in thousands of privatization procedures in our country. That is how the 
sugar plants went, department stores, "Pekabeta", "Sever", and 
 "Jugoremedija". In the end, small shareholders will be cut off. They will 
no longer be small shareholders, but workers without shares and out of work.

      At the same time, the Government woks on the national plan to prevent 
poverty, unemployment and corruption in a hurry. If, moreover, you are left 
without shares, on account of incurred debts of the company during the 
privatization procedure, do not worry, you are bound to be in at least one 
government program.

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

20 September 2004 (Blic)

      Destroying Veterinary Institute

      Veterinary Institute represents the only producer of vaccines against 
anthrax, rabies, gangrene, and instruments for detection of brucellosis and 
cattle tuberculosis in the Balkans. It is, also, a producer of cattle 
fodder. That is why the employees and the public were pleased with the 
decision made by the Agency for privatization to privatize the company 
trough a tender, understanding that the State was interested in keeping the 
company, and finding an adequate strategic partner. Unfortunately, all hopes 
of honorable intentions of the Agency sank with the first tender. The Agency 
accepted the offer made by "Delta" to purchase the Institute for two million 
euros, whereas the company had two and a half million euros at the account 
that morning. The only thing that saved them from being robbed was the fact 
that English and Serbian version of the advertisements were different. 
Realizing that it is just another "legal" privatization in which several 
Serbian families buy everything, the employees decided to buy the company 
themselves and established a Consortium. At the next tender their Consortium 
was the only one to fulfill the conditions. The other participant was a 
Consortium "Zekstra Bankom". Since "Zekstra" is in a textile business, 
declaring it a strategic partner for the production of veterinary vaccines 
was impossible, this, however, was performed with the help of "Bankom" whose 
line of business matches, to some extent, the line of business of the 
Institute. During the tender procedure, the expert consultant recognized 
that the Consortium "Zekstra Bankom" was not established pursuant to the 
law, in other words it did not exist.

      Mr. Cedomir Jovanovic put pressure on the Tender Commission to reach 
the decision that the non existing Consortium was a first ranked bidder, 
confirmed by Minster Vlahovic in the decision to the objection of the only 
bidder fulfilling the terms - Consortium of the employees.

      The Supreme Court of Serbia annulled the decision of the Ministry for 
Economy and in a new procedure asked for a new decision, taking into account 
objections and legal interpretation of the Court. The Court especially 
insisted on questioning the objections regarding the Consortium 
"Zekstra-Bankom". Ministry for Economy, now Minister Bubalo, wrote a new 
decision, exact as a previous one annulled by the Supreme Court. New 
decision was almost a copy of the annulled one, with a new legal remedy in 
the end -acknowledging that "Zekstra - Bankom" Consortium was not 
established pursuant to the law, that it legally did not exist, but that it 
might become valid afterwards, by convalidation of the contract. Ministry 
reached the decision that the Consortium, which has not yet become one, was 
the first ranked for the tender, qualified to conclude the contract with the 
Agency and purchase the Veterinary Institute.

      Anti - Corruption Council forwarded the analysis of this problem to 
the Government, suggesting the revision of this matter at the first session, 
in order to act in due time. In the repeated decision, Ministry did consider 
objections made by the Supreme Court, which they were obligated to, 
pronounced the Consortium a legal subject, recognizing at the same time that 
it did not exist, and referred to the Law on obligations, although it was 
not a question of obligations, but a contract altering the status, that is 
establishing a new legal subject, whereas regulations on privatization of 
the company apply.

      It is the conclusion of the Anti - Corruption Council that this case 
represents either an incredible example of ignorance, or an incredible 
example of a corruption. In both cases the Government has to react.

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

15 September 2004 (Blic)

      The sprit of Seselj in the Supreme Court

      In the past three years the citizens of Zemun have been unsuccessfully 
trying to return the City Hall (18th century) taken by the Serbian Radical 
Party in 1998 to the Municipality. In 2003, The Fourth Municipal Court and 
the District Court in Belgrade, ruled the eviction of SRP from the priceless 
building, but the tenant did not acknowledge the Court. Many disgraced 
themselves in the "City Hall affair". In the first place Home Office. Mr. 
Dusan Mihajlovic, to whom no one trusted, and Mr. Dragan Jocic, in the 
legalistic Government - each failed to secure police assistance on two 
occasions, which is why rulings on eviction remained empty words. The fall 
of the former regime in 2000 did not confuse the SR Party. On 6 October they 
made an annex to the contract pursuant to which the City Hall courtyard was 
sold and 50 illegal buildings were erected. The furniture of the Zemun 
Municipality (worth 3,7 million dinars), formerly given to "Poslovni 
 prostor", was donated to SRP on 6 October by an annex of the contract. The 
Prosecutor's office took no actions regarding the criminal charge, in fear 
of Seselj. In December 2003, hopes of the return of the old authority arose. 
SRP turned to the Supreme Court requesting the revision of the ruling on 
evictions. In few days, the Supreme Court ruled the revision valid. The 
Court received 73 demands (from SRP, and some of the professors from the 
Faculty of Law), included them into the case (!) and returned them to the 
Court of First Instance. This does not represent a pressure on the Court, 
but gallows for the disobedient judges. The ruling was pronounced by the 
Panel - President Mr. Predrag Trifunovic, and members Ms Jasminka 
Stanojevic, Ms Vesna Popovic, Ms Mirjana Grubic and Ms Branislava 
Apostolovic. They have interpreted the Law on criminal proceedings at their 
own discretion, which is why the question arises whether one cultural 
welfare and whole town are being framed. The Law is restrictive regarding 
the revision. One of the terms is a lawsuit rate which is to be determined 
at the preparatory hearing, or, should it not been held, at the beginning of 
the main dispute. The Court failed to do this, although it was obligated. 
The prosecutor himself did not stipulate the lawsuit rate in the charge. The 
Court decided that the revision was good in law, although it was not 
determined whether the revision was permitted. Judge Trifunovic even states 
("Danas" , 4 June) that " lawsuit rate is determined in the charge", which 
is not true. With lack of conviction the Supreme Court also denies the 
rulings stating that City Hall, a cultural welfare, is not used in a proper 
manner. According to the Supreme Court, political party may perform 
publishing activities, which implicates the connection with the culture. 
There are still no answers to the petition submitted with the Supreme Court 
Board on 21 May. The corruption in the judiciary represents the major 
problem and a taboo subject in Serbia. Instead of independent judiciary, we 
still have judiciary independent from the anti-corruption struggle only, 
judiciary hiding behind the phrases of independence in order to remain 
corrupted, ruling in a manner which prohibits the very idea of 
anti-corruption in the judiciary. The principle of the legal validity as a 
foundation of legal security turned our judiciary into a rule for the 
protection of the corrupted judges.

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

13 September 2004 (Blic)

      Brotherhood of Ratkovo

      In 2003, a farm in Ratkovo, near the place Odzaci, was sold at the 
auction to the Consortium composed of 12 members, made by company directors, 
and individuals like wife of the judge of the Municipal Court in Odzaci, Ms 
Vesna Cvetanovic, Director of "Alfa promet" Mr. Borislav Lilic, who, in 
short time, after purchasing three cooperatives came into a possession of a 
nearly six thousand acres, Director of "Novosadska mlekara" Mr. Bratislav 
Banjanac and others.

      Ratkovo had two thousand acres of arable land, orchards, cattle and 
brickworks. Despite the advanced privatization preparation, the management 
decided to push Ratkovo into bankruptcy in order to buy it at a lower price 
with its partners. The bankruptcy was hindered by the workers, but the 
partnership snatching of the property was not. Brutality of the method is 
visible trough the contract made in 2000 when Director of Ratkovo, Mr. 
Nikola Kapetanov and Mr. Bratislav Banjanc purchased a combine harvester ''john 
deer'' trough Mr. Lilic's company for five million mercantile corn. In other 
words, a harvester worth 90 thousand euros was paid a million! The contract 
stipulated that in the course of three years, the period of time payments, 
Mr. Lilic's company rented a harvester to the third party collecting a 
profit. Who would buy a car on a hire purchase, accepting to receive it 
after couple of years, during which time the car would serve as a cab and 
bring profit to a seller!? Ratkovo is also known by a cattle slaughter and 
neglected arable land. Workers experienced the same treatment. The ones who 
spoke, got fired, even being on a sick leave, and President of the 
Independence Union got sacked too. On account of the unpaid years of service 
workers claim the incredible thousand years. Nobody reacted to criminal 
charges brought in Odzaci. Acting Director Mr. Tomislav Zonic took actions 
to push Ratkovo into bankruptcy. Although he was quickly replaced, he used 
the company seal in an unauthorized manner, and filed a petition with the 
Court of Commerce in Sombor for bankruptcy opening. Workers proved that Mr. 
Zonic was an unauthorized person and the Court refused his request.

      Everything would end well, had it not been for judge Biljana Nastic 
who sent the Court's decision to Mr. Zonic (!), instead of the auctioneers. 
And while Mr. Zonic was hiding the decision, former Director Mr. Kapetanov 
and his collaborator Mr. Milisav Mijailovic, took 540 acres of wheat to Mr. 
Dimitrije Loncar (present owner of Ratkovo as well), despite the warning of 
the Agency for privatization from Novi Sad forbidding any sale prior to the 
auction. Mr. Kapetanov handed 40 cows weighing 300 kilos each from the 
company's primary herd to Mr. Loncar. Privatization was concluded by the 
Agency in Belgrade. The Agency refused the objection of the auctioneers that 
18 acres of orchards, making 10 million dinars profit in the year of 
privatization, were rated as uncultivable land. Since the company was 
ruined, the only participant at the auction was the Consortium that crashed 
Ratkovo. The Consortium did not accept the starting price of 32 million 
dinars, but in a second round they bought it for the formerly blocked 
foreign currency savings accounts.

      Till today, the Agency did not advise the minority auctioneers on the 
selling price of their company.

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

6 September 2004 (Blic)

      Private army as a substitute for the institutions

      The agreed working minimum in the company "Jugoremedija", was used by 
the co-owner of the factory "Jaka 80" merely to get even with other 
co-owners, demanding the cancellation of the sales contract with "Jaka", 
because it violated the investigation obligation. Immediately after entering 
the factory, "Jaka" brought private security provoking conflicts with the 
small shareholders during the period of two weeks, and using one incident to 
beat up the workers on 19 August.

      In the conflict where one co-owner leads a private army, the State 
took side of the stronger one. On 19 August, police faced the unarmed 
shareholders, while behind the back of the cordon "Jaka's " security were 
breaking into the warehouses of "Jugoremedija". The police backup, emergency 
units from Belgrade, under the command of General Milivoje Mirkov, arrived 
and arrested three members of the Strike Board. Tomorrow, 26 workers and 
shareholders of "Jugoremedija" were dissmised by Director, and police 
detained the arrested stikers in the custody under the suspicion that they 
might influence the witneses.

      Eighteen shareholders went on hunger strike, still going on, demanding 
that 26 workers should be returned to work. The others continuned the stirke 
in the factory canteen, tailed by armed security. At the same time, "Jaka" 
is violating the working minimum agreed with the small shareholders, and 
under suspension threat, summons the workers among the strikers whose 
engagement was not agreed, to substitute the colleagues who were in the 
agreed minimum. The shareholders are suspecting that "Jugoremedija" is 
producing more drugs than agreed by the minimum, because the workers 
summoned to the factory work on jobs unnecessary for the minimum. The media 
in Serbia mostly reported lies regarding the true nature of the conflict. It 
was impossible to learn that the conflict in "Jugoremedija" was between 
co-owners, and small shareholders were regarded as former self-managers, 
followers of Staljin's regime, inert, worshippers, while "Jaka" was reputed 
as the sole owner of the entire "Jugoremedija", prohibited to enter property 
by the danagerous "elements"

      Since the beginning of the institutionalization promissed by the 
present Government in the election campaign, merely the authority protecting 
private property of only one owner remained, namely the one surrounded by 
the private army.

      If Mr. Jovica Stefanovic Nini, the owner of "Jaka", wins "Jugoremedia" 
by fraud and force, and supported by authority, will he realize that the 
authority is obsolete and replacive by the private army?

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

1 September 2004 (Blic)

      Local VIPs and destruction of "Agroruma"

      Five thousand acres of land (1200 irrigated acres) under orchards, 
agriculture, crop farming, hundreds of livestock and harvesteres belonging 
to the company "Agroruma" represented a tempting pray for a new businessman 
Mr. Veljko Mandic, leading participant in the "privatization" of this 
company. Mr. Mandic would not have been so lucky as to take hold of such 
treasure if he did not receive help from the local Municipal and Court 
officials in Ruma and Sremska Mitrovica. The story goes back to wartime , 
when "Agroruma" supplied the acclaimed corpus from Novi Sad,and thanks to 
the swift action of the local forces the company goes down the hill and 
falls into bankruptcy in 2003, even though it had a chance to recover.

      According to the qoutes from the petition of small shareholders of 
"Agroruma", the first trustee in bankrutcy Mr. Sinisa Todorovic worked hard. 
After him, the judge in bankruptcy, Ms Slavica Levajac appoints a new 
trustee Mr. Ivan Petakovic, who concludes a contract on joint investment, 
ment to save "Agroruma", with Mr. Mandic's "Agromerkantilija".

      It is easy to imagine how this rescuing looked like according to Mr. 
Mandic's move with fish-pond, where he caught all the fishes, sold the 
capital fund from the plantation of "Agroruma" excluding the bidding, and 
without making payments to "Agroruma" et cetera.

      Mr. Petakovic, trustee in bankruptcy, transfers 1,5 million dinars to 
"Drvni Kombinat", where he acts as trustee in bankruptcy as well, and to the 
company belonging to his son "Spectra".The chief creditor and "rescuer", Mr. 
Mandic will have to prove if he actualy made any investments in "Agroruma", 
because the leading participants are finally under investigation, and 
Municipal Prosecution has notified Minstry of Justice. At the bankruptcy 
settlement, Mr. Mandic became the owner of 56% of the company.

      The participants managing the bankrupcy were in a hurry to end this 
"privatization"as soon as posible. There was no reason to be so hasty 
because, prior to the bankruptcy, Agency for Privatization called the 
Municipal authorities to privatize major companies, "Agroruma" being one of 
them. The Municipality has been hiding this from the company, because the 
plot regarding bankruptcy has already been planed.

      The workers addressed the Commerce Court in Sremska Mitrovica, but 
since they got no answers, they pressed charges against President Ms Dusanka 
Petakovic. According to the small shareholders, Mr. Mandic has recently 
increased his property for 79% by conversion of disputable claims.

      Whoever wants to find out how to become a landowner, should act as 
state institutions did in the case of "Agroruma. Institutions do not care 
about the weed on the fields, sale of property, 650 dismisssed workers, nor 
how did one man find the way to win the only important thing for him - a 
territory. The logical question would, therefore, be - if the war is still 
going on, only with different instruments?

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

30 August 2004 (Blic)

      Control dissimulation

      Company "Duvan" from Cacak, estimated at almost 41 million, was sold 
in March 2003 by auction for 6,5 million dinars to the Consortium Milan 
Gojkovic- Dragan Topalovic. Until now, Agency for Privatization performed 
six contract observance inspections due to the numerous complaints of the 
small shareholders against "Dunav" privatization procedure. The prime 
suspicion is linked to the contractual obligation of the new owners to 
invest 3,3 million dinars in the capital fund. The employees, who hold 30 % 
of the shares, believe that majority owners made no investments. This was 
backed up with the bank statements showing that Mr. Topalovic, owner of the 
company "Top gan insurance" as well, was returning, after only two days, 
investment money paid in tranches to the account of "Dunav", into the 
account of "Top gan". The authorized auditor "Privredni savetnik - Revizija" 
from Belgrade, nevertherless, believes that the investment was fulfiled 
pursuant to the contract. The employees have forwarded the copies of the 
bank statement confirming the fraud to the Agency, but the Agency found 
nothing controversial except that money was spent on salaries (close to 70 
%) and other day-to-day business, contrary to the contract. Confirmation of 
the violation of the contract, however, does not imply any sanctions towards 
the new owners.

      At the same time, the employees doubt that the new owners have 
conveyed the profitable section of the company " Dunav" in Slatina. The 
Consortium of the owners claims that the section is not alienated, moreover, 
that the company " Duvan" founded a company " Alfa papir" together with Mr. 
Radenko Curcic (former Director who was preparing the company for the 
privatization, also councilman of the Municipal Assembly of Cacak), whereas 
Mr. Curcic invested cash and " Duvan" the section in Slatina. Agency's 
investigation could not determine if the section was sold, because the 
documentation submitted by the new owner was incomplete.

      The fifth inspection of "Dunav" privatization, performed by the Agency 
at the time when Mr. Branko Pavlovic was acting Director, determined that 
the employees were right, and that Mr. Topalovic was actualy returning the 
money from the investments into the account of the company

      "Top gan". The owners were sent a warning prior to cancellation of the 
contract with a deadline for submitting the documentation explaining the 
contraversial investment and allienation of the section in Slatina. The 
deadline was up after the dissmisal of Mr. Branko Pavlovic, and the report 
regarding the mesures taken, after the deadline was excedeed, submitted to 
the Council by the new management of the Agency brought the whole story back 
where it started. Despite the fact that the investment fraud was 
acknowledged, the Agency found, again without any explanation, that the 
investment was performed pursuant to the contract, and on 13 August a new, 
sixth inspection was sent to the buyer.

      Is there any sense, however, in sending a new inspection from the 
Agency, for even if it is determined that the new owners did not observe the 
contract, the only sanction would be a new inspection sent by the Agency?

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

25 August 2004 (Blic)

      Splendour and misery of the transition

      The Anti - Corruption Council has been publishing quotes from the 
petitions regarding privatized companies in order to contribute to the 
transparency of the privatization. Seme's workers did not have to 
demonstrate in front of the Government wearing Power of Serbia Movement 
T-shirts on account of the article "Smashing padlocks in Serbia". It would 
have been better if they had proved the allegations that Seme's business was 
flourishing. We welcome the cases which testify that privatization in Serbia 
is leading towards a brisk trade and full employment. The Council would 
consider and publish such quotes. If not, that would be the reason to shift 
blame to us. We are, however, not pleased with the validity of their qoutes. 
Are Seme's workers mistaken, or are they Ketmans of the transition?

      Are Seme's workers hoping to maintain their jobs if the boss wins the 
elections? Do they belive in the allegded conflict between the Government 
and the boss, and that Agency for Privatization, against the will of the 
Government, has accepted "the sale of business premises under excellent 
terms as a continuity of Seme's business line", moreover, that the company 
is creditworthy although it suffered a loss of 40 millions in 2003, that it 
"manufactures seeds", even after labs and warehouses were adapted into a 
studio for the television quiz "Millioner" (Makis), or padlocked for sale 
(Zemun, Krusevac, Jagodina). Or was it clear to everyone that he purchased 
the real estate? The Government has also accepted the reports claiming that 
"Mobtel", with 49 % owned by the State, has been close to running at a loss. 
Workers worry about temporary preservation of their jobs, as if the sale of 
the seed from the export, mowers and hoes in order to fake boss's 
contractual obligations towards the State does not concern them. They are, 
however, driven by the poverty they are pushed into.

      In his election campaign, the boss promised the sale of the domestic 
salad, whereas he would retain the mobile telephony, university and national 
frequence. The ones demostrating now, are out of work, however, due to the 
campaign, this announcement was withhold. Now they can apply for becoming 
billioners in the warehouses where they once packed the seed without a 
chance of getting rich. Are boss's students and laureates going to march 
against the Council in boss's T-shirts? After acknowledging todays 
demonstrators as former Seme's associates who lost manufacture and sale 
infrastructure, or as former Seme's workers who lost jobs, compensation, and 
solidarity from fellow workers, and are unrecognized by the Government and 
the public, because the "transition is a painful process", for those who did 
not get rich in Milosevic's regime, or ''handled the situation" later.

      Who is accountable for the State where "Mobtel" is possible, or where 
"Sartid" increases the production for 50 %, and "Jugoremedija's" operation 
is reduced to a minimum, where "Seme" rents real estate under "excellent 
terms", and those who stayed out of work and without shares are kept a 

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council

23 August 2004 (Blic)

      Destroying evidence

      The arrest of President of Jugoremedija's small share holders, Mr. 
Zdravko Deuric, together with two other members of this Assocciation, 
suggests that Serbian authorithies are now covering up violations of law and 
privatization contracts, otherwise sanctioned at the politically suitable 

      We remind that Share Fund allowed the buyer of the 41,93 % of 
Jugoremedija's shares, Jaka 80 from Radovis to take over the factory prior 
to the fulfilment of terms, and illegal increase of the capital fund by debt 
conversion, making Jaka the owner of 60 % of the shares. In view of such 
cirucumstances, which shareholders of Jugoremedija have been trying to prove 
for months, no one was taken into custody, not did the Government took time 
to check the allegations of money laundry and corruption in the process of 
buying and selling of the Jugoremedija's shares. At one moment, the 
Government accepted the findings of the Anti-Corruption Council, Assembly's 
Board for Privatization, and Securites and Exchange Commission that the 
procedure was illegal. Ministry for Economy performed a supervision and on 
13 May instructed the Share Fund to cancel the contarct with company Jaka. 
Although the law stupulates that this Fund should act pursuant to the 
Ministry's instructions withing the period of 30 days, it did not happen. 
When the shareholders saw that there were no reaction from the State they 
organized themselves, and now the State is arresting them in order to cover 
up the fact that the law was abandoned in favor of the idea of quick 

      During months-long blocade of Jugoremedija, on several occasions, Jaka 
tried to enter the factory on force. Each time a fight between shareholders 
and private security broke up. Director brought 50 men from the same 
security who attacked the shareholders previously. When the incident 
occurred, the shareholders, deceived once again, blocked the factory. On 
Friday three members of the Association of the shareholders were taken into 
custody due to the breach of law. At the moment they are sentenced to 
solitary confinment. On the same day 26 workers who participated in the 
strike were fired. After the arrest of Jugoremedija's shareholders, maybe 
the Anti- Corruption Council should invite citizens of Serbia to stop 
fighting against the corruption, unless they want to end up in a prison.

      President of the Council, Ms Verica Barac

18 August 2004 (Blic)

      Smashing padlocks in Serbia

      In 2003, Belgrade seed trading company, <Seme> was sold at the auction 
to the company <Astra simit>, a part of Mr. Karic's business empire. 
Irregularities in the sale appeared from the day one: consulting company 
<Ces Mecon>, headed by Mr. Mirko Cvetkovic, also Director of the Agency for 
Privatization, states in the company profile that <Seme> operates without 
losses. Nevertheless, <Ces Mecon>, appraise <Seme> by liquidation method, 
whereas approximately 20 thousand square meters (business premises in 
Admirala Geprata Street, spyderwebed labs, land, various buildings across 
Serbia, Bosnia and Slovenia) were estimated 130, and sold for 132 million 
dinars - on the average 100 euros per square meter. Although <Astra simit> 
bought the majority of the share package, 70 %, Agency did not bind the 
buyer to continue with business line of the company, mearly <to vote for 
busuness continutity>. When asked why, Agency gave no answer, and upon the 
objection made by Anti-Corruption Council, that former warehouse of <Seme> 
in Makis was now ocupied by BK television studio and <Mobtel> premises, 
Agnecy responded that the space was leased under excellent terms. 
Unsatisfied small share holders from <Seme> objected repeatedly to the 
process of privatization to former Minister, Mr. Aleksandar Vlahovic, but he 
refused these objections as unduly, because they were made by unauthorized 
persons, who did not participate in the auction. The fact that they were 
share holders protecting their private property did not seem to matter to 
Ministry and Agency for Privatization. Agency, however, was authorized to 
protect the intrest of <Ces Mecon>, Director Cvetkovic's private company, 
from the state interest.

      In his election campaign, Mr. Bogoljub Karic promises to smash 
padlocks on the factories in Serbia, but, at the same time, he closes down 
purchased companies. Workers from the company <Seme> stay out of work under 
very peculiar circumstances, signing declarations that they do it on a 
voluntary basis, and renouncing their redundancy payment. It is to be 
checked why do Serbian workers leave their jobs so willingly and renounce 
legal right to indemnity. And, it is to be determined who is responsible for 
the <mistake> made by Agency to change one term of a tipical contract, like 
privatization contract, moreover, the one prohibiting the buyer to close 
down <Seme>.

      President of the Council, Ms Verica Barac

16 August 2004 (Blic)

      Discreet charm of Valjevo's bourgeoisie

      Mr. Milos Filipovic, Director of Valjevo's Baking company ''15 
September'', is keen on keeping a low profile, which is why the company was 
privatized almost without worker's participation in stock ownership. An 
estimated value of the company was more than million euros, and, in 2002, it 
was sold to the sole buyer at the auction, i.e. Consortium of the employees 
for 227 thousand euros. The company has always been creditworthy: modern 
technology, new machines, substantial arable land, buildings, warehouses, 
silos, production lines for bread and buns, considerable vehicle stock.

      Mr. Filipovic and his friends established a Consortium of 82 
employees, headed by Mr. Filipovic and Mr. Slobodan Djukic, then Minister 
for Commerce and Tourism, one of the officials of Nova Demokratija party, 
never an employee of the company ''15 September''. Nevertheless, the 
stockholders' share puts in question the legality of the privatization 
process- Mr. Djukic alone holds 35 % of the shares, and after adding shares 
from Mr Filipovic and close associates, it is obvious that only seven 
persons hold 58 % of shares, and 300 workers the rest. After the auction, 
employees realized that they were tricked. That, however, was merely an 

      Mr. Filipovic failed to advise small shareholders to buy the second 
part of the shares on hire purchase in five annual instalments, instead he 
kept this advantage to the consortium, he even asked the small shareholders 
to declare that they did not want to participate in the increase of capital 
stock. To the Agency for Privatization, he reproted the equipment to be more 
than 50 years old, which is why workes brought criminal charges. Prior to 
the privatization, he failed to report eight buildings to the Agency, 
whereas it is to be suspected that they might be sold in order to pay for 
the increase of capital stock (warehouse in Lajkovac is sold for almost the 
same price as the price paid for the company). He did not invest 13 million 
dinars, instead he offered to build cheaper gas boiler - room.

      Also, he exercises < Staljin' s purges> on the workers (workers were 
forced to disown themselves from Mr. Kuzmanovic, President of the Union, who 
was fired). Immediately after the privatization, 160 tons of wheet were 
found missing, the value of which exceed the selling price of the company. 
In media, the scandal was associated with a member of the consortium, Mr. 
Stanko Subotic's , i.e. Cane' s kin. The Agency is aware of the 
embezzelment, but shows readiness to help the buyers. The Agency prolonged 
the dead line for the presentation of the bank guarantee two times, and, 
afterwards, changed this obligation into < presentation of payment 
evidence>, however, it is not clear where the
      '' evidence'' is, nor would anyone take actions against the illegal 

      President of the Council, Ms Verica Barac

11 August 2004

      Blurry transparency

      It is possible that former Minister for Privatization, Mr. Aleksandar 
Vlahovic, intended to speed up privatization, but that aspiration anguished 
thousands of workers' families. Quick or, better still, haste privatization 
turned out to be brutal, and that brutality could not even be concealed with 
various forms of "legality", as the case of company "Bioprotein" from 
Obrenovac, the sole ecological manufacturer of Soya flour, and one of three 
such producers in Europe, clearly shows.

      Former Director of "Bioprotein", Mr. Ivan Backovic, managed to indebt 
the company with company "Bankom" from Zemun, whose main office is in 
Republic of Srpska. Due to the inappropriate business, workers brought 
charges against him, and advised Minister Vlahovic in due time. He made no 
comments. In April 2003, three buyers participated in the auction, all in 
connection with the company '' Bankom'': one an employee, second a stock 
holder, and third debtor of the ''Bankom''. Bidders did not accept the 
starting price in the first round, and in the second one the company was 
sold to ''Bankom'' for 9, 8 million dinars bonds of the formerly blocked 
foreign currency savings accounts.

      President of the Commission, Mr. Bogdan Petrovic annulled the auction 
on the spot, due to the violation of the free competition principle. ''Bankom'', 
nevertheless, files a complaint to Minister Vlahovic, who annuls the 
decision of the Agency because they ''failed to give an explanation to the 
decision". Workers of the company "Bioprotein" respond: "Further legal 
actions were not conducted, because the decision did not contain a legal 
remedy, which led us to believe that the ruling was final". This is how, due 
to the ''sloppiness of two clerks'', one, on the spot, annulled auction 
turned into a successful one. For 126 workers hell begins. Already 36 of 
them left the company without any compensation, the rest live in fear from 
following actions of the owner who may praise the Ministry for Privatization 
for their '' formality'', so constant as to annul the heart of the 
privatization. President of the Union, Mr. Nikola Jovancic, who pointed out 
to these deficiencies was fired in July this year. The company ''Bankom'' 
threatens to dismiss more, and restructuring to reduce a number of workers 
to 49 is to be performed.

      President of the Council, Ms Verica Barac

14 July 2004

      Representatives of the Anti-Corruption Council attended the First 
Regional Conference (PACO-Impact) Program - Implementation of the anti 
corruption plans in South-Eastern Europe (Impact)

      Representatives of the Council of Europe, PACO Impact, renowned 
experts, consultants, and officers from the regional countries (Albania, 
Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia and 
Former Yugoslav Republic Macedonia) were also present. Vice-President of the 
Council, Mr. Ivan M. Lalic, spoke of the anti corruption activities in the 
Republic of Serbia.

      Ms Verica Barac, President of the Council gave her comment on the 

      "Aside from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia represents the only country 
in the region without adopted nacional anti corruption strategy, and state 
institution in charge of the anti corruption activites. On the basis of the 
attitude of the Council of Europe's representatives and other participants 
towards the problems of Serbia, it appears that our Government, i.e. 
country, is not adequatly represented, and that the neccessary relationship 
and trust beetwen the repersentatives of the Council of Europe, leading this 
projects, is not established. Albania is regarded as a country well advanced 
in the anti corruption strategy. Macedonia and Croatia receive nothing but 
credits, even Montenegro, without a real progress in the anti corruption 
struggle, has an adopted strategy and representatives who established firm 
relationship with the representatives of the Council of Europe.

      No one was familiar with the efforts made by our Government, i.e. anti 
corruption laws adopted in the past period ( Law on Public Procurement, Law 
on Financing of political parties, Law on Conflict of interst, as well as 
ammendemnts to other laws closely connected with the anti corruption 
struggle), their implementation, impacts, or failures, nor was anyone in 
possition to hear anything, because the representative of our Governement in 
this project, Ms Aleksandra Popovic, assistant to the Minister of Justice, 
and PACO director for our country, failed to address the meeting and advise 
on Government's anti corruption acctivities in the past period. It was also 
surprising that she did not take the floor at the end of the Conference, 
introducing Government's intentions in the future, particularly elaboration 
of the national anti corruption strategy and help we expect from the Council 
of Europe within this project. Instead, Ms Silvia Panovic Djurovic from the 
Office of the Council of Europe in Belgrade, reported on her behalf.

      Anti - Corruption Council belives that participation in the Council of 
Europe anti corruption projects is of extreme importance for our country and 
that representative of the Government should be a highly competent and 
experienced person, and decidedly interested in the matter. Present 
representative of the Government is obviously neither, which is why the 
image of our country and all its efforts in the matter appear to be worse 
than they actualy are.

      It is also necessary to start the elaboration of the national anti 
corruption strategy as soon as possible and advise the PACO project 
directors. It would be recommendable that the Prime Minister acts as an 
official project director of the elaboration of the national strategy, and 
that, upon adoption, Government forwards the document to the Parlament for 
its adoption.

      Apart from the representatives from the state institutions, as 
suggested by the Ministry of Justice, experts in this field should be 
included in the elaboration of the strategy as well."

15 June 2004

      On 21 June, President of the Anti-Corruption Council, Mrs. Verica 
Barac, and Vice-President, Mr. Ivan M. Lalic travel to Ohrid, Former 
Yugoslav Republic Macedonia, at the invitation of the Macedonian Anti- 
Corruption Commission. They will also attend the international meeting 
regarding anti-corruption strategies. Senor Officers of the Macedonian 
Government, headed by Macedonian Prime Minister, representatives from the 
regional countries, and Council of Europe will attend the Conference as 

10 June 2004

      Council of Europe at the meetings of the Anti-Corruption Council

      Vice-President of the Council, Mr. Ivan M. Lalic and representatives 
of the Council of Europe in Belgrade agreed that in the future 
representative of the Council of Europe's Office in Belgrade should attend 
Council's meetings as an associate member.

      Besides OEBS, Council of Europe is the second significant 
international institution which shows interest in Council's activities and 
participates in its work.

31 May 2004

      The representatives of the Anti-Corruption Council's Office 
participated in the work of the Round Table titled"Project for 
implementation of anti-corruption plans in South- Eastern Europe".

      The Round Table was organized by the Council of Europe - PACO. Our 
representatives informed the participants of the Anti-Corruption Council's 
scope of activities and future plans.

      Participation in the work of the Round Table confirms the readiness 
for establishing a thorough cooperation between the Anti-Corruption Council 
of Serbia and Council of Europe in elaboration and implementation of the 
anti-corruption strategies

30 May 2004 (Blic)

      Privatization in poverty

      Leaders of the three French Unions marched the streets of Paris on 27 
May, protesting against the privatization of power supply system. Health and 
power supply belong to nation - was their slogan.

      They have forced Minister of Finance to rectify the motion in order to 
protect the public interest. On the same day, a gathering under the name 
"Social dialog in Serbia - new beginning" was held in Belgrade, joining 
together the representatives of the Government and Agency for Privatization 
who announced new collaboration with the Union people.

      Mr. Lorens Clement, one of the organizers, said that the promises in 
the social dialog in Serbia have been tricked on many occasions. Also, that 
the representatives of the Government left the gathering after their 
presentation. The difference between us and the French: they do not look 
down on social partners and do not undertake (semi)secret actions behind the 
backs of the employees and Union.

      Our privatization is poor and greedy, tastes of war, corruption and 
party favoritism. Who will untangle the knot of so many individual and joint 
responsibility, different material and political interest often greased with 
sticky money? And not only does this include tycoons from our country but 
the ones who participate in the privatization process as "foreigners" trough 
their respective aboard companies.

      The experience of the Anti- Corruption Council is pointing to the fact 
that the privatization must be public, and have firm principles. On the 
contrary, one has improvisations where everyone is innocent and guilty at 
the same time. The Council gave grounded estimations and suggestions 
regarding the privatization and discovered many cases of corruption and 
violation of regulations. Ministry for Economy and Agency for Privatization 
accept the supervision and cancellation of such contracts, but it still not 
clear how is the Government going to solve new problems. Namely, what 
mechanisms and procedures will it establish in order to defend the public 
interest and avoid the damage from the cancellation of the contracts as 
well? Should this fail to happen, our public scene will turn into an arena 
quivered with passion.

      Ms Verica Barac

Belgrade on 13 and 14 May 2004

      International Round Table regarding anti-corruption stuggle

      Report from the International Round Table regarding anti-corruption 
methods, held in Belgrade on 13 and 14 May 2004

      The meeting was organized by Serbian and Montenegrin Employers 
Association and OEBS. The conference was attended by the representatives of 
the Association, OEBS, MOR, CU, UNDP, USAID, Independent Union of Serbia and 
Montenegro, Anti-Corruption Council of Serbia, Transparency Serbia, Ministry 
for the economic relations with foreign countries, and economic adviser of 
the President of the Republic of Serbia:

      Conclusions of the Round Table are, as follows:

        1.. Enactment of systematic law which would disable the corruption, 
for instance, Law on Funds Management.
        2.. Amendment to the Law on Public Procurements.
        3.. Amendments to the Law on Political Parties Finance would have a 
negative impact on the corruption curb.
        4.. Elaboration of national strategy for anti-corruption struggle.
        5.. Ministry of Foreign Affairs is asked to form a Council of 
Economic partners of Serbia and Montenegro, with ad joint anti- corruption 
        6.. Relevant authorities are asked to support MOR.
        7.. Closer relationship with the Anti-Corruption Council of Serbia.

      Ms Verica Barac
      The Council strived to establish institutional frame against 
corruption in public procurements, access to information, political parties 
finance, but did not have an impact analysis, particularly with respect to 
Law on public procurements. In the future, the Council will report on the 
application of these Laws. The Council wishes to open the way to 
establishment of other anti-corruption institutions. Also, to talk openly 
with the Government regarding failures of executive authorities, especially 
regarding Sartid and sugar affair, because they represent a crystal-clear 
cases of public interest denial. Controversial cases in companies whose 
privatization is questioned require post privatization check up, but such 
control can only be performed by the Agency for Privatization and 

      Ms Verica Barac disagreed that corruption scared away the investors. 
They were not scared away by the talks of corruption, but the corruption 
itself, said Ms Barac.

      Mr. Nebojsa Medojevic
      Corruption is not the responsibility of the state only. There has to 
be a general agreement about anti-corruption struggle, and it must not be 
subjected to political contest. An independent body, like the 
Anti-Corruption Council, should be instituted in order to prevent the 
Ministers from making big decisions contrary to the public interest. Its 
position should be regulated by law, and not by government decision. It is 
necessary to define the strategy of anti-corruption struggle, and determine 
the most vulnerable institutions. Mr. Medojevic reminded to the example of 
Italy, where government corruption was investigated by Prosecutor and by an 
independent institution as well. An advisory body composed of employers 
should be ad joint to the government, and an institute for evaluation of the 
contracts made by the government, in order to avoid nude contracts.

      Mr. Nemanja Kandic
      The National Assembly of Republic of Serbia was not in position to 
fight the corruption so far. Mr. Kandic believes that, in the future, the 
Assembly should establish and control anti-corruption institutions like, 
agencies, ombudsman, specialized anti-corruption bodies, and others. He 
reminded that Serbia and Montenegro is a signatory to several international 
anti- corruption documents. He announced the arrival of experts within GRECO 
program, but advised the government to establish institutions to coordinate 
the work of the state authorities. Taking into account that after the 
evaluation in Slovenia anti-corruption agency was established similar body 
should be instituted in Serbia and Montenegro as well.

      He pointed out to the upcoming amendments of the Law on public 
procurements envisaging preferential treatment of domestic bidders. Similar 
thing occurs with the Law on political parties finance now disputed. It 
seams that the Law on free access to information represents the core of the 
mechanism of the civil sector in the efficient state authorities' control, 
not only in the field of corruption but efficiency and negligence, which, 
according to him, represent a problem bigger than corruption itself.

      Ms Silvija Panovic- Djuric, Council of Europe said that they wish to 
join all reform processes, and implement CARD and PACO programs referring to 
the anti-corruption programs and strategies. It is, therefore, necessary to 
join the Serbian and Montenegrin Employers Association, Unions, NGO and 
state authorities with the program. She emphasized that Council of Europe's 
projects comprise the region of former Yugoslavia and Albania, and that, 
besides the amendments to the enacted laws envisage a reform of the criminal 
legislation and it's adjusting with European standards. PACO will, also, 
deal with anti-corruption training of Ministers of Justice and Internal 
Affairs, i.e. persons who will work on both project of the Council of 

      Mr. Ivan M. Lalic advised on Anti-Corruption Council's activities. The 
main problem is privatization and amendments to Law on privatization. Also, 
the issue of public procurements, where there is an obvious risk of 
corruption. Than judiciary, especially cases, such as bankruptcy and 
privatization of SARTID. Fourth issue represents the town planning, namely 
collaboration of state officers with mafia. Mr. Lalic suggested that the 
Round Table recommends the increase of the salaries of the employees in 
public sector to 500 euros, explaining that there are negative selections 
and corruptions within this sector. He concluded that there is an evident 
lack of political will to curb the corruption more efficiently.

      Representatives of MOR and MOP agreed that the anti-corruption 
struggle depends on the government, but made references to the significance 
of the education and business culture contrary to the corruption dogma. They 
called for the union of the organizations and employers in the 
anti-corruption struggle. They pointed out that those international 
organizations insist on basic conditions, like democracy, independent 
judiciary and ownership recognition.

      Representatives of Serbian and Montenegrin Employers Association 
criticized the fact that the Government did not show interest in the Round 
Table, but expressed their readiness to contribute to anti-corruption 
struggle. They pointed out that laws are not being obeyed, and that 
immediate application of European standards was not possible. Mr. Rato 
Ninkovic from the Serbian and Montenegrin Employers Association noticed that 
the Law on public procurements is now hiding what was obvious anyway, i.e. 
that tenders represent a "big scam". He pointed out that there is a 
connection between National Bank, Ministry for Privatization and tenders, 
and referred to this as the Bermuda triangle. He criticized the decisions of 
the Law on public procurements which facilitate damping competition and 
monopoly prices, i.e. non compliance with the rules of the world market. Mr. 
Ninkovic was explicit in the estimation that if the Government establishes 
an Anti-Corruption Council, than anti- corruption struggle is a phantom one.

7 may 2004.

      President of the Anti-Corruption Council, Ms Verica Barac met with the 
Belgrade citizens who made the petitions to the Council regarding the 
illegal housing building.

      Starting from 4 June 2003 Anti-Corruption Council received more than 
thirty petitions from the Belgrade citizens stating the problems connected 
with the illegal housing building. Council paid particular interest to the 
case of illegal housing building in Konjarnik, as a characteristic example 
of abuse of local authority rights. On 12 September 2003, Mr. Zoran 
Zivkovic, ex Prime Minister of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, 
received a suggestion from the Council to initiate the changes of the 
relevant regulations, and find way to solve the issues resulted from the 
implementation of the disputable Article 2, Law on cession of the Law on 
illegal housing building and adaptation of public premises to flats 
("Official Gazette RS", number 46/94), in compliance with the rule of law.

      On 22 October 2003, Council's analysis of these cases was sent to 
Prime Minister Mr. Z. Zivkovic, Ministry of Construction, Ministry of 
Finance, and District Public Attorney in Belgrade.

      On 7 May 2004, President of the Council, Ms Verica Barac met with the 
Belgrade citizens who made the petitions to the Council regarding the 
illegal housing building. By the end of the last year, certain number of 
citizens from the Municipality of Palilula established the Association "Curb 
the corruption", with the intention to inspire the citizens dealing with 
problems of illegal housing building to protect their rights to peaceful use 
of the private ownership, and put pressure on the local authorities to solve 
these cases.

30 april 2004.

      The Anti-Corruption Council sent a list of 88 companies with 
irregularities in the privatization process to the Ministry of Economy and 
the Agency for Privatization.

      On 22 March 2004, the Anti-Corruption Council sent the Policy and 
Privatization Process Report to the Government of the Republic of Serbia, 
Prime Minister Mr. Vojislav Kodtunica, and to the Ministry for Economy, 
President Mr. Dragan Mardiaanin, as well as to the National Assembly of the 
Republic of Serbia, Board for Economy, President Mr. Milko Dtimac.
      On 13 April 2004 the Report was sent to the Director of the Agency for 
Privatization, Mr. Branko Pavlovia.

      Together with the Report, The Council sent the list of the companies 
under privatization, namely the ones whose petitions came till 15 March 
2004, when the Report was finished.
      The petitions, made by employees, shareholders, tenderers and 
auctioneers, representatives of the local authorities, legal and financial 
advisers, were all pointing out to possible irregularities and corruption in 
the privatization process, capital assessment and in control of the 
observance of the contractual obligations in the companies privatized 
pursuant to the regulations from 2001. After the analysis of these 88 
petitions the Council's report, henceforth, made no suggestion to the
      "revision of the privatization".
      The Council recommended questioning links indicating to possible 
corruption in privatization, precisely in the interest of privatization, as 
a process whose lawful performance influence the success of the complete 
democratic transition in the state and society in Serbia.

      The conclusion of the report is as follows:

      "Present analysis shows that a successful ownership transformation 
depends on precise estimation of the failures of the Law on Privatization, 
as well as the irregularities in the existing procedures. We suggest the 
revision of all objections regarding privatization process sent to the 
Anti-Corruption Council, and decisions making regarding further procedures. 
We, also, expect to be posted of actions taken."

      1. GP Zlatibor, Uzice;
      2. Backa, Conoplja;
      3. Bezdan, Sombor;
      4. Dunav, Bezdan;
      5. Gradina, Uzice;
      6. Napredak, Ratkovo;
      7. Beogradska pekarska industrija, Beograd;
      8. Jafa, Crvenka;
      9. Bora Kecic, Obrenovac;
      10. Univerzal, Lozovik, Velika Plana;
      11. 2. Oktobar, Vrsac;
      12. Slavica-Parafarm, Subotica;
      13. Strela, Arandelovac;
      14. Ineks Stjenik, Cacak;
      15. PIK Takovo, Gornji Milanovac;
      16. Meteor, Subotica;
      17. Merkur, Backa Palanka;
      18. Morava, Cacak;
      19. Polet, Novi Pazar;
      20. Jelak, Tutnin;
      21. AU sistem, Beograd;
      22. Novitet, Novi Sad;
      23. Agrohem Novi Sad;
      24. Luka Dunav, Pancevo;
      25. Fabrika Vagona, Kraljevo;
      26. EMS KIJEVO, Obrenovac;
      27. Laminat, Bajina Basta;
      28. Duvan, Cacak;
      29. Vetprom, Sombor;
      30. Seme, Beograd;
      31. Hempro, Beograd;
      32. Argopromet, Pozarevac;
      33. Dunav, Celarevo;
      34. Nisal, Nis;
      35. INIS, Nis;
      36. Brodogradiliste Apatin, Apatin;
      37. Banini, Kikinda;
      38. Hladnjaca, Kraljevo;
      39. Biopak, Beograd;
      40. GPD Dom, Petrovac;
      41. Izolma, Raca;
      42. Nemetali, Vranjska Banja;
      43. Dunav, Novi Sad;
      44. Diskos, Aleksandrovac;
      45. Prima, Kikinda;
      46. Zdravlje, Leskovac;
      47. Timok, Zajecar;
      48. Autocentar Balkan, Subotica;
      49. Borac, Krupanj;
      50. UTP Vojvodina, Sid;
      51. Zastita, Pres Beograd;
      52. Kosmaj, Mladenovac;
      53. Tisa, Novi Knezevac;
      54. Eltek, Kovacica;
      55. Prehrana, Sombor;
      56. Vrenja, Beograd;
      57. Frad, Aleksinac;
      58. Niteks, Nis;
      59. Jugolek, Beograd;
      60. Autoprevoz, Vrnjacka Banja;
      61. Secerana Jedinstvo, Kovacica;
      62. Usluga, Aleksandrovac;
      63. Jelen Do, Jeleno Do;
      64. Izvor, Paracin;
      65. Agroseme, Sremska Mitrovica;
      66. Veterinarski zavod, Zemun;
      67. PKB Transport, Kragujevac;
      68. Litopapir, Cacak;
      69. 15. septembar, Valjevo;
      70. Uzor, Valjevo;
      71. Radnik, Nova Varos;
      72. Zupa, Krusevac;
      73. Erdevik, Erdevik;
      74. Banat, Zrenjenin;
      75. Sremput, Ruma;
      76. Avalaguma, Beograd;
      77. Sportstar, Beograd;
      78. Metalseko, Gornji Milanovac;
      79. Bratstvo, Subotica;
      80. Mehanika, Aleksinac;
      81. Atelje Stari Grad, Beograd;
      82. Tehnoservis, Beograd;
      83. Bioprotein, Obrenovac;
      84. Montaza, Beograd;
      85. 14. decembar, Sombor;
      86. Jugometal, Beograd;
      87. Podrinje, Ljubovija;
      88. SIP Nikola Nikolic, Kragujevac.

More information about the Pga_europe_process mailing list