Carine: Government Baosici conclusions bypass the courts

Carine d.o.o., a company based in Podgorica, sent the newsroom a statement at 10:35 p.m. on October 15, 2026, disputing the Montenegrin government’s conclusions on the building permit for the coast at Baosici, near Herceg Novi. The company says in the statement that the conclusions cannot lead to the permit being annulled, and argues that they try to settle in advance questions that are being decided by the courts.

What came before the statement?

On October 14 the Montenegrin government adopted conclusions on cadastral parcels 771, 772, 773/1 and 774 in the Baosici cadastral municipality, as the company itself notes. The conclusions rest on an information note from the Ministry of Culture and Media, which, according to Montenegrin outlets, claims that the building permit was issued without prior consent from the Administration for the Protection of Cultural Property on the project documentation. We reported on the conclusions themselves on October 15.

Montenegrin police earlier accused the company’s owner, Cedi Popovic, of organizing the dumping of fill, reinforcement and concrete pouring along the shore, and of occupying part of the waters of the Bay of Kotor, which is on the UNESCO list. Popovic rejected the accusations.

The newsroom has no response from the Montenegrin government or the Ministry of Culture and Media to the claims in the statement.

How does the company describe the orders in the conclusions?

In the statement, Carine lists five orders and recommendations:

• To the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Urbanism and State Property: to issue urban and technical conditions under the State Location Study “Sector 5 - Kumbor - Djenovici - Baosici” and to report to the government by November 1, 2026.
• To the Management Board of the public enterprise for managing maritime domain: to take steps to revoke its opinions of December 4 and 12, 2025.
• To the Protector of Property and Legal Interests: to take steps to revoke building permit number 02-3-332-UPI-2993/2025 of January 13, 2026.
• To the Municipality of Herceg Novi, specifically its Secretariat for Urbanism and Building Inspection: a recommendation to act the same way.
• To the public enterprise Morsko Dobro (Maritime Domain): after the conditions are issued, to prepare technical documentation for restoring the site to its original state, under the July 17, 2026 decision of the Administration for the Protection of Cultural Property.

The company assesses these orders as follows:

“Taken together, these orders, assignments and recommendations amount to an attempt to resolve, by an act of the executive branch, questions that are decided exclusively in administrative and judicial proceedings prescribed by law, and to do so bypassing the decisions of the competent courts and ahead of them.”

Why does the company say the permit remains in force?

Carine says it is working on the basis of a building permit that, in its words, is final and enforceable and has been neither annulled nor revoked. The permit, the company says, was preceded by a maritime domain lease agreement of November 26, 2025, concluded after a public call provided for by a decision of the Management Board of Morsko Dobro of April 15, 2025, to which the government gave its consent on April 30, 2025. The company invokes Article 58 of the Montenegrin Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, on the protection of property.

According to the statement, the Protector of Property and Legal Interests already submitted a proposal to annul the permit to the Municipality of Herceg Novi on March 17, 2026, citing Articles 139 and 140 of the Law on Administrative Procedure, and only the municipality decides on it. The company writes:

“An acquired right cannot be revoked by a government conclusion, by a recommendation of the executive branch, or by the subsequent issuing of urban and technical conditions or the ‘withdrawal’ of opinions.”

It adds: “If legal grounds for annulment exist, the authority is obliged to act even without a government recommendation. If they do not exist, a recommendation cannot create them.”

What does the company say about the court cases and UNESCO?

Carine says it is pursuing cases before the Administrative Court of Montenegro under numbers U. br. 5999/26 and U. br. 6007/26, against decisions of the Administration for the Protection of Cultural Property and the Ministry of Culture and Media that ordered work on the bathing area to stop and the site to be restored to its previous state. According to the company, the Administration’s decisions are not final, which makes the information note’s reference to a “final decision” legally incorrect. From this it draws the following conclusion:

“While the courts are still deciding, the government is now using its conclusions to produce in advance consequences that only a final court ruling could have, if that ruling were unfavorable to the company Carine.”

The company also says that the decision of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, adopted at its 48th session in Busan in July 2026, does not mention its project. Quoting the statement on that decision: “That decision contains no request to stop work, annul the building permit, remove the completed work or restore the site to its previous state.” The newsroom did not check the contents of that decision.

Damages, criminal complaints and announcements

By its own estimate, which it says is also based on an analysis by certified financial experts, the company puts the damage at tens of millions of euros or more. It announces claims for compensation before domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, as well as protection of its rights before the Constitutional Court of Montenegro and, after domestic remedies are exhausted, before European Union bodies. The statement says:

“The government’s conclusions of October 14, 2026 cannot lead to the annulment of the building permit.”

The company adds: “In other words, the consequences of unlawful decisions by individuals would be borne by all citizens of Montenegro, through the state budget.”

The statement also says Carine has already filed criminal complaints against those responsible at the Administration for the Protection of Cultural Property. In its warning to public officials the company cites Article 416, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Montenegro, abuse of official position, but does not say the complaints were filed under that article. The newsroom has not independently confirmed that the complaints were filed or what their status is.

Carine claims, citing media reports, that the responsible minister recorded a dissenting opinion on the conclusion. The newsroom has not confirmed this. The company also asks: “If the error was made by state bodies, the question arises why the legal representative of the Investor was in detention?” The newsroom could not verify the detention of the investor’s representative.

The statement ends with these sentences:

“Protecting the public interest cannot justify acting contrary to the law. Political will, even when expressed in a government conclusion, cannot replace the law or the decision of the competent court.”