Judging by the content of Friday’s hearing of the Trenta case at the Celje District Court – which took place in the excused absence of the President of the Slovenian Democratic Party (Slovenska demokratska stranka – SDS), Janez Janša – the indictment is nothing but a writing exercise with no meaning, at least according to what one of the key witnesses said on Friday.
Anton Požar was expected to appear in court on Friday, but for unknown reasons, he was not served with the summons, so only two witnesses were heard. We reported on Thursday that there should be no grounds for this Kafkaesque process, unless the now-defunct Imos company recognises that it was financially harmed by the Trenta deal, and the supervisors file a denunciation on its behalf.
However, there was no financial harm done – instead, the initiator of the trial was, as we have already written, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (KPK), and on its behalf, its second President, Goran Klemenčič, who became Minister of Justice as a reward for his work after the 2014 elections, when Janez Janša was already in prison. Janša confirmed this on Friday on the X network, writing: “There is no such thing as a financially harmed company in this case, because there was no harm done. That is why Klemenčič jumped in, while still working at the Commission for the Prevention of Corruptiion, and later became – as a reward for his work – a minister. Well, that’s called blatant corruption. A known reward for a known act done in a known way on a known day.”
Imos was not a state kolkhoz
Ergo: Imos was a private company, not a state kolkhoz, so only Imos, as a legal entity, would be a legitimate denouncer if there was indeed any damage caused. However, none of the former Imos managers have confirmed this so far. Moreover, the purchase of the property in Trenta was, in fact, a trivial transaction for the company, especially in conditions such as those of twenty years ago, when the banks stimulated the growth of the real estate market with favourable credit offers. Such transactions, including loans, were handled by Imos’ professional services, and the Trenta property was bought with Imos’ own funds (and not with loans). Moreover, on Friday, we learned that Imos even made some deposits in banks at that time, which means that it was a very successful company at that time, mainly buying land in degraded areas (former failed factories) and then developing it, while also buying smaller plots of land, including agricultural land. It was only the harsh situation after 2008 with the global financial crisis that completely changed the habits of the banks, thus consigning many construction and real estate companies to the ash heap of history. So, it is not true, as some fake news peddlers claim, that overpaying for land in Trenta was what drove Imos into bankruptcy.
Of course, it should be clarified at the outset that the indictment was based on the assumption that nothing could be built on the former Janša estate (also known as Tonder’s homestead) in Trenta (as some appraisers have publicly claimed, much to the delight of the mainstream media). Which means that, according to the prosecutors (Boštjan Valenčič and Luka Moljk), Imos paid a fabulous price for a supposedly worthless property with three “dilapidated” houses on it, no car access, and no utility connections. But the truth is quite different, and on Friday, it was finally revealed.
It is not true that nothing can be built on the plot of land in question
Manca Plazar, an architect and urban planner, was the first to testify on Friday, and she confirmed much of what her professional colleague Lidija Dragešić had already said in a hearing at the end of last year. So, there is a project option: either renovate the existing properties (there are three, namely a residential building, an outbuilding and an agricultural building) or replace the building and build a new one in the existing dimensions and with traditional materials. Of course, according to the existing zoning acts as they were in force at the time. The building in question is a detached farm which is not part of the settlement, but consists of several parts of the property: building land (property with immediate surroundings), woodland and arable land. The architect has also been involved in some controversy with the Association of Judicial Valuers and Experts in the Construction Profession (SICGRAS), which accused her of giving the investor unrealistic hopes that he would be able to develop the land. She herself had relied on the planning acts.
The next witness was Izidor Salobir, a civil engineer and university graduate in economics with full real estate valuation licences. In explaining his valuation methodology, he also based his valuation on comparable real estate turnover in the area, which was not the case, for example, with some other valuers and appraisers, such as Breda Zorko and Nikolaja Kogovšek Gilčvert. In this case, he first divided the plot into a northern and a southern part – the latter is also where the buildings are located. He valued the former, which is just over 12,000 square metres, at almost 136,000 euros, and the latter, which is less suitable for development, at just under 7,000 euros. This means that, according to him, the property was worth 140 thousand euros at the time of the purchase, which is even more than what the Imos company paid for it. He disagreed with the claim that the valuation should follow the price set by the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia (GURS), saying that it was actually as high as seven times that price. Some plots of land had been sold at a much higher factor than the price set by the Surveying and Mapping Authority, which calculates a national average. “You can compare a car with a car, but you cannot compare a car with an aeroplane,” he said.
Even glamping tourism could be developed there
In Salobir’s view, it would have been possible to develop so-called glamping tourism on the property within the framework of the existing acts – and, as the first defendant Branko Kastelic confided to the author of these lines, Imos had the government’s consent for such a development. Salobir recalled that no building permit was required for the erection of glamping houses and toilets, and that the method of construction could be such that it would not interfere with the integrity of the Triglav National Park (TNP). The latter, as Plazar had previously pointed out, was even a kind of bonus, which Salobir further justified by saying that the trends in tourism development were such that more and more people wanted to spend their holidays in unspoilt nature. The Tonder homestead and all its plots are located in the immediate vicinity of the Soča River, and there is a suitable climbing wall nearby. Salobir proposed this vision as a way for Imos to develop the property and offered to calculate the cost for the investor, including finding a possible tenant for the camp. He also believes that the problem of access across the Soča River, where there is only a footbridge, could be solved in a way that would be suitable for construction as well.
Salobir also commented on the valuation carried out by the SICGRAS experts, stating that it should have been done as a whole and not on a building, forest and agricultural land-by-building basis, as they had done, and that, above all, comparable properties in the area should be taken as a starting point. Of course, these questions also point to many cases of change in the use of real estate, where some people have made a fortune by selling off properties. However, according to Salobir, a change of use would not be necessary at all for the development of glamping tourism at the plot of land in Trenta.
The indictment is completely unfounded, will the godfathers pressure the judge?
In short, the opinion of the valuer Salobir has thus completely shattered the thesis of the supposed unanimous assessment of the building profession that the former Janša property in Trenta is a plot of land on which nothing can be built, and that the deal between Janša and Imos was therefore only a “sham”. With his testimony, Salobir also put the prosecutors in an awkward position. This does not mean anything yet, because the court can still rule on the guilt of the trio (Janša, Kastelic and Klemen Gantar) at first instance, but it is already clear that if such a ruling is made, it will be proof of the very clear political background of such a ruling and the obvious abuse of the law in order to interfere in the political race before the elections. In this context, it is not so insignificant what our sources report: that the private dealings of Judge Cvetka Posilovič in changing the designation of agricultural land could lead to her being cornered and blackmailed by the deep state. If we just recall the way in which the godfathers from the background took cruel revenge on the prominent, now former criminal court judge Zvjezdan Radonjić, we can quickly realise that anything is possible in our country.
Gašper Blažič
