Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ruling on Trusina wind farm project annulled

, SEE Energy News

The Higher Commercial Court in Banja Luka annulled the first-instance verdict according to which the Croatian company Kermas Energija was obliged to pay more than 10.5 million euros to Serbian company Omega Plus due to failed project for the construction of Trusina wind farm.

The ruling of the Higher Commercial Court states that the appeal of the defendant Kermas Energija was founded and that the first instance court misjudged the finding and opinion of the economic expert who stated differently about the due date of the defendant’s obligation to pay 4.5 million euros.

The two companies established a joint venture Eol E Prvi, which has obtained the concession for the 51  MW wind farm, a project worth over 75 million euros. However, the start of the construction was S postponed several times and, at the end, the Government of the Republic of Srpska (RS) has terminated the concession agreement with the company. Soon after, the two companies have filed lawsuits, blaming each other for the project’s demise.

Last year, the District Commercial Court in Trebinje ruled that Kermas Energija has to pay 6.3 million euros to Serbian company in the name of compensation for lost profits because it did not fulfill the obligations undertaken by the agreement on the construction and operation of the wind farm signed in 2014. Furthermore, it has to settle the debt to Omega Plus in the amount of 4.4 million euros on the basis of the shares in the company Eol Prvi, which it transferred to itself, but did not pay.

In October 2012, local company Eol Prvi has obtained 30-year concession contract for the construction of 51 MW wind farm near Nevesinje. The wind farm is expected to produce some 160 GWh of electricity per year, which would be enough to supply some 40,000 households, while the turbines will be delivered by the Danish Vestas. The wind farm was expected to be completed by the end of 2019, however, the concession agreement was terminated because the concessionaire failed to provide a bank guarantee.

error: Content is protected !!