In December 2023, after two and a half years (?!) collecting evidence, the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Zrenjanin rejected the criminal report filed by RERI against Linglong for the criminal offence of constructing without a construction permit. The Prosecutor’s Office justified its decision with the conclusion that the company “intended to submit a request for the issuance of a construction permit.”
In June 2021, RERI filed a criminal report to the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Zrenjanin against the suspects – the company Linglong and Feng Wang, as the responsible person in the company, for the criminal offence of construction without a construction permit. Along with the criminal report, at a later stage of the proceedings, RERI submitted extensive, credible and relevant documentation and evidence to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which clearly and unambiguously proves that the criminal offence of construction without a construction permit was committed by the company Linglong.
Among other things, RERI submitted the decision of the construction inspector, who, after performing inspection surveillance at RERI’s request, ordered Linglong to remove eight facilities that were found to have been built without a construction permit.
The Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Zrenjanin explained the decision to reject the criminal report by the fact that the defendants had the intention of submitting a request for the issuance of a construction permit, bearing in mind that in the previous period they had regularly obtained them, and that a delay itself in the formal sense of submitting a request for the issuance of a construction permit does not represent the existence of the intention of the defendants to commit the criminal offence in question.
“The first question that must be raised is related to the evidence that the assigned public prosecutor has been collecting for two and a half years. Is there a single rational reason for collecting additional evidence when you have a factual situation clearly established by the inspection, i.e., a state authority?” points out Ljubica Vukčević, RERI’s lawyer, and concludes that “if the prosecution’s arguments were to be accepted, it would enable in practice the possible decriminalisation of constructing without a construction permit and, for example, for the investors who obtain construction permits for the construction of residential complexes, to be allowed to construct other residential complexes without obtaining a construction permit, for the reason that obtaining a construction permit for some objects excludes the obligation to obtain a construction permit for other objects”.
By the nature of things, the Prosecutor’s Office should act in the public interest and protect it – that is its basic purpose. However, in this particular case, the prosecution abuses its powers in a very obvious way, so that a private company would not be held accountable and punished. RERI highlights the fact that the same public prosecutor is handling all the cases against Linglong, and that, considering the symptomatic (in)action in the cases, RERI filed a complaint regarding the work of that public prosecutor. The judicial authorities confirmed this time too that, in situations where the defendant is a company that realises a project of “national importance”, the prosecution of illegal actions is omitted, and the violation of the regulations of the Republic of Serbia in this way is publicly and unequivocally encouraged.