How a Wind-Farm Dispute in Šavnik Exposed Weaknesses in Montenegro’s Property System

Illegal cadastral entries, threatened expropriation and what it means for real estate Montenegro

A local dispute over a planned wind farm has landed at the heart of Montenegro’s property system. In the municipality of Šavnik, residents of the village of Brezna and neighbouring communities accuse developers and state bodies of illegally registering expropriation notices and servitude rights on private land to make way for the Bijela wind power project. For anyone watching the real estate Montenegro market — buyers, investors and expats — this story is a warning: title security can be tested by administrative action and contested permits.

Quick summary for investors

• Who is involved: Alcazar Energy Partners (developer of Wind Park Bijela), Montenegrin Electricity Transmission System CGES, the Real Estate Administration of Montenegro, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), local residents of Brezna and Šavnik, consultancy ENOVA, and the EBRD as a potential lender.
• Allegations: illegal registration of expropriation notices, subsequent registration of servitude rights in favour of Alcazar, falsified Environmental Impact Assessment data, secret public hearings, unauthorised surveying on private land, and threats aimed at vulnerable landowners.
• Legal actions: residents plan to file a criminal complaint with the Special State Prosecutor’s Office for abuse of office and possible corruption.

What happened: sequence of alleged irregularities

Residents and the Civic Initiative “Save Brezna” say the Real Estate Administration illegally entered cadastral records to register a notice of expropriation in favour of CGES and then, on the same parcels, listed a servitude right in favour of Alcazar Energy Partners. According to the residents, those entries were removed only after they raised the alarm — but the deletions occurred without any supporting documentation or administrative act.

They say the campaign of pressure began in April last year, and includes a series of events that their statement outlines:

• Alleged concealment of public hearings.
• Approaching and pressuring the elderly and vulnerable residents with threats of expropriation.
• Sending surveyors onto private land without consent.
• Collaboration with the EPA to approve an Environmental Impact Assessment that residents describe as falsified.
• Media narratives claiming community consent that residents say are untrue.

These are serious allegations against a private operator seeking to build a major energy project and against state bodies entrusted with land and environmental governance.

Legal mechanics: expropriation notices, servitude and cadastral records

To understand the stakes for property owners and investors, we must unpack three legal concepts that sit at the centre of the case:

• Expropriation notice: a declaration that public interest may justify compulsory acquisition of land. It is supposed to be backed by administrative acts, transparent procedures and compensation rules.
• Servitude (easement): a registered right that allows a third party to use part of a property for a particular purpose, for example to install transmission lines.
• Cadastral registration: the official record of ownership and encumbrances on land. Changes to the cadastre are the primary way property rights are protected or affected.

According to the residents, the Real Estate Administration recorded a notice of expropriation for the benefit of CGES and later recorded a servitude for Alcazar on the same parcels. If true, that sequence suggests a route to secure land-use rights for the developer before any formal expropriation procedure or transparent public process had been completed. The further allegation that those records were later deleted without administrative justification raises questions about procedural integrity and record-keeping.

From an investor’s view, this is not academic. Titles and clear encumbrance histories are the backbone of any property transaction. When cadastral records are altered without documentation, the chain of title is weakened and investor confidence is affected.

Environmental approvals and lender risk: the EIA and the EBRD

The residents allege that the Environmental Protection Agency approved an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that contained falsified data, and that EPA officials cooperated with the developer. The controversy touches on the role of international financiers: Alcazar has been linked to a loan request from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

Two points are important:

• Lenders like the EBRD have environmental and social standards that borrowers must meet. If those standards are breached, the bank can suspend support or require corrective action.
• Project documentation prepared for lenders is typically audited by consultants; in this case the consultancy ENOVA is noted as having prepared a report that the EBRD financed. Residents claim ENOVA’s project report misrepresented the proximity of houses and community assets to the planned infrastructure.

The residents say ENOVA reported there were no houses or commercial buildings within a two-kilometre radius of the planned site, a claim they say is false. That matters: misrepresentations in EIA submissions both harm local people’s rights and expose lenders to reputational and compliance risk.

Local stakes: land, livelihoods and infrastructure risks

The project is not just an abstract infrastructure plan. Residents warn that CGES plans a major international energy hub in Brezna, including a 400 kV substation intended to connect to Italy via a submarine cable. The location in the centre of a populated settlement is the central grievance of locals who say their community depends on agriculture and tourism.

Key local concerns include:

• Loss of private agricultural land through expropriation or servitude.
• Disruption to tourism and recent population growth that the residents say their area has experienced.
• Technical risk: the existing substation built by private company Krnovo Green Energy is said to be deteriorating and sinking due to geological conditions. Locals fear a larger 400 kV installation at the same unstable site could increase the risk of accidents or long-term damage.
• The possibility that decisions are influenced by private sector interests and by external shareholders, such as Italy’s Terna, a notable shareholder in CGES.

This is a reminder that energy infrastructure projects intersect with land use, community cohesion and geological realities. Developers and transmission companies often promise economic benefits, but those promises need to be balanced against tangible local impacts and sound engineering.

What this means for buyers, investors and expats in Montenegro real estate

Our analysis shows that the dispute exposes legal and operational risks for anyone with exposure to property in Montenegro. If you are considering buying, investing or moving to Montenegro, here is what to watch and do:

• Title and cadastre due diligence: verify not only ownership but recent encumbrance history. Ask for a certified extract from the cadastre and check for any recorded expropriation notices or servitudes.
• Check administrative records: confirm that any changes to cadastre entries are supported by administrative acts and published decisions.