COST OF GIFTED PROPERTY OR GEORGIAN-LIKE BUSINESS

MAIA RAZMADZE

If the Supreme Court satisfied the claim of Poti port leadership, state will have to pay 10 million compensation to Simeba.

This sum is claimed by the firm and mp Zurab Tkemaladze in compensation for the territory he owns. The port resolved to regain the territory with President’s help after 8-years’ interval.
Zurab Tkemaladze, parliament member: in 1994 we addressed the President with the offer to build the terminal for alcohol and mineral waters in Georgia. We proved that it would be profitable for the country. There was such terminal in Novorosisk and Leningrad during the USSR period that functioned quite successfully.
The President supported the idea (then head of state) and ordered the Cabinet ministers and then the Poti Port Reconstruction and Development State Commission to study the issue and take the offer in consideration. In 1994 a territory was given to Sameba for the settlement of the issue. After this, we studied market and made business-plan. It was necessary to attract 10 million dollars for the construction of the terminal. Let us remind you how difficult it was. There was no law on land property then so that in 1995 we asked the President again to transfer our settled property to permanent ownership with the purpose of attracting investors and winning trust. This issue became a subject of state commission consideration. It passed a decision supported by the land management department. According to the Cabinet’s provision of 1995, the territory will be transferred to the full ownership of Sameba. We started to look for investors.
The law on non-agricultural lands was passed in 1998. After paying single-time tax, lands of legal and physical persons passed to the private property. True, the law says that the territory of port cannot be transferred to the private property, but as this territory has not belonged to the Poti port and belonged to Sameba since 1995, the Poti administration of land property department registered it as private property.
– Your opponents, leadership of Poti port say that it is the territory of the Port.
This land is not registered as Poti port property – or as usufruct or permanent use. It is registered as Sameba’s property. True, geographically it is an adjacent territory of the port, but since 1995 this territory has been transferred to the permanent ownership of Sameba and since 1998 it has become its private property. Therefore, no legal claim can be laid to us. Even now the land property department asserts that everything has been done under law and firm Sameba was a legal proprietor. The claim was made by the Poti port. Its consideration has lasted for two years. It has already been considered by the Poti court, Kutaisi court and the Supreme Court.
– In any case, the court pronounced judgement in favour of the Poti port.
The content of the issue has never been studied. The Poti court has considered the issue and five minutes later passed a decision on the cancellation of Sameba’s property certificate. We have, certainly, appealed against the decision. We encountered with the same situation in Kutaisi court. The issue has been considered without our attendance in favour of the port. We have then transferred the matter to the Supreme Court.
We have the appeal of the port’s leadership to the President. The leadership proves the importance of the terminal and demands its privatisation by means of tender. It also mentions that since 1995 or after the period when this territory belonged to firm Sameba, up to 2002 there has been trade return in this territory. As a result of it, the profit during this period totalled 7 millions. We have made a claim to the Kutaisi district court on the basis of this document and we say that abolishment of Sameba’s private property is illegal. If it happened so, does not the profit derived from business in our land since 1995 during the period when this territory was Sameba’s property, mean that this is offence against property and a crime? Thus, the mentioned 7 millions plus the profit will, probably, total 10 millions. This is what we demand. It is a constitutional, legal claim. Let use see how it will be met.
Today no one raises the question of cancelling Cabinet’s normative acts of 1995. Thus, if the property is abolished, the territory still remains in permanent ownership of Sameba. If someone needs the territory proceeding from state interest, there is law, rule. In accordance with it, abolishment should be made in accordance with the appropriate agreement and compensation by offering adequate property. Everyone has his private interests.