XXI P.no. 2389/99

With regard to the charges pressed by the claimant the business association "Association of Independent Electronic Media" (ANEM) in Belgrade, 22/XI Makedonska street, represented by lawyers Branislav Zivkovic and Nebojsa Samardzic from Belgrade, 37 Kralja Milutina street, against the defendant Aleksandar Nikacevic from Belgrade, Youth Council of Belgrade, 22/VI Makedonska street, who is represented by Vojo Beslac from Belgrade, 24 General Zdanova street, over the usurpation of property, judging on the proposed provisional measures, the First Municipal Court in Belgrade, judge Vera Petrovic, as individual judge, on April 14, 1999, outside the court hearing passed the

DECISION

TO DISMISS as groundless the motion by the claimant that the court pass the provisional measure of instructing the defendant Aleksandar Nikacevic from Belgrade urgently to turn over the round rubberstamp of the claimant with the inscription "Business association ‘Association of Independent Electronic Media’ (ANEM) Belgrade" and the keys to the premises on the 10th and 11th floor of the Dom Omladine building in Belgrade, Makedonska 22 street, to the claimant, the Association of Independent Electronic Media from Belgrade, into the hands of the claimant’s authorised representative, chairman of the business association Veran Matic from Belgrade, on pain of enforced execution.

JUSTIFICATION

..

[Page 3, paragraph 3]

Given that the defendant, the new general manager of "Radio B92" Aleksandar Nikacevic was, on the grounds of the decision by the Belgrade’s Commercial Court no V-Fi 2790/99, inaugurated into the duties of the general manager of this radio station in the procedure of execution of this decision lead by the official of the Belgrade’s Commercial Court, there are no illegal elements in the doings of the defendant. The procedure minutes of April 2, 1999 demonstrate that the keys and the rubberstamp are in the defendant’s possession according to the ruling of the Belgrade’s Commercial Court and furthermore according to the Law on Enforcement Procedure. This is further baked by the fact that the defendant unlocked the premises on the 10th and 11th floor [of the Dom Omladine building] in the presence of the authorised representative and the claimant, who did not provide any proofs that the keys to the disputed premises have gotten into the defendant’s possession in an illegal way, i.e. that the defendant had taken them from the claimant without legal grounds and in a forceful manner.