Press release by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for Political System, Judiciary and Anti-Corruption

Following the decision of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, which determined that during the process of the issuance and acquisition of CO₂ credits by Montenegrin Electric Enterprise (EPCG), through an agreement with the company Uniprom, damage amounting to €17 million was caused to the state-owned company, and that the public interest was endangered in a manner indicative of corruption, we note that the competent authorities have objectively and professionally identified and confirmed the existence of serious irregularities that accompanied this process. This represents a strong initial step toward the final resolution of this issue.

This decision marks an important milestone in strengthening the institutional fight against corruption and confirms the effectiveness of the work of the National Council for the Fight against Corruption, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister for Political System, Judiciary, and Anti-Corruption Momo Koprivica. Through a thorough analysis of this case, comprehensive discussions held during two thematic sessions, and an initiative submitted to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, the National Council pointed to gross irregularities, thereby reaffirming the justification of a proactive approach to the protection of the public interest and state resources.

This case, revealing that emission credits were designed as a mechanism for profit rather than for environmental protection, is a clear indicator of high-level corruption. It underscores that climate policies were not created out of genuine concern for the future, but rather to improve the financial balance sheets of private companies.

In this context, several serious irregularities that endangered the public interest have been identified. First, granted emission credits for 2020 and 2021 were allocated despite the absence of emission permits, the lack of monitoring and reporting systems, and the absence of verified monitoring plans – all of which are legal preconditions for emission credits. Thus, the issuance occurred without a legal basis and outside the regulatory framework, undermining the principles of legality, transparency, and equality among market participants.

Second, the registration of emission credits in the Eco Fund registry was completed before the Eco Fund itself was legally established, further illustrating the blatant illegality of this case and demonstrating that the true aim was to provide unjustified subsidies to a private company, rather than to promote environmental protection.

Third, there were serious deficiencies in the regulatory process, including violations of mandatory procedures for the adoption of legislation: failure to obtain an opinion from the Office for European Integration; lack of the required table of compliance with EU legislation; no record of a working group for drafting the regulation (although such a group is referenced in accompanying materials, such as the RIA form submitted to the Ministry of Finance); and a request for the Eco Fund’s opinion at a time when it was not yet registered. Particularly significant is the failure to seek the mandatory opinion of the Agency for the Protection of Competition, despite the fact that the allocation of granted emission credits constitutes a form of state aid, especially when facilities receive more granted credits than their annual greenhouse gas emissions, allowing them to sell the surplus. These findings lead to the conclusion that the regulations were drafted to enable privileged actors to circumvent them, and that high-level corruption polluted the system more than it ever did the environment itself. This is particularly concerning given that it represents a breach of the procedures for harmonization with EU law and the acquis communautaire.

Fourth, the granted emission credits for two companies (KAP and Toščelik) were calculated contrary to the prescribed methodology, favoring one company to the detriment of the other, in order to enable the privileged company to secure a lucrative deal with EPCG. Furthermore, the settlement of emission credits for 2020 and 2021 was carried out for EPCG without submitting verified emission reports, thus nullifying the number of credits from previous years, in order to create the conditions for trading the “missing” emission credits.

Finally, the agreement between the two companies contains all the elements not only of a damaging transaction but also of a null and void contract – from the manner of its conclusion and the arbitrary selection of the credit supplier (in violation of market principles) to the unlawful subject of the contract itself. This undermined the principles of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment of market actors. Consequently, further institutional steps are urgently needed, since corruption does not end when it is identified, but when it is prosecuted. In this regard, the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption’s decision – based on the initiative of the National Council for the Fight against Corruption – represents an important and encouraging initial outcome.

In the fight against systemic corruption, every positive result of interinstitutional cooperation serves as encouragement to persevere in creating an environment where accountability, transparency, and the rule of law form the foundation for managing state resources.

The National Council for the Fight against Corruption remains fully committed to building a system in which no case of abuse of the public interest will go unanswered, and in which all actors dedicated to the protection of the public good will receive full support for their independent, objective, and professional work.