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