Home / Business and Politics / The accusations against Ćurković are absurd, untrue, and offensive

The accusations against Ćurković are absurd, untrue, and offensive

The leader received a denial from lawyers Ante Ćurković, Tomislav Ćurković, and Iljko Ćurić regarding the article published on April 26, 2013, which was taken from the Energetika-net portal under the title ‘Criminal charges filed against the “king of wind” Ante Ćurković’.

We are transmitting the denial in full:
In the aforementioned article, a series of inaccurate, untrue, and obviously malicious claims and insinuations were made to the detriment of our clients, regarding which, in the interest of publishing the truth and accurately informing the public, we request the publication of a correction of inaccurate and incomplete (very offensive) information and responses to the published information, in accordance with Articles 40-42 and Articles 56-58 of the Media Act (NN 59/04, 84/11).
First of all, we inform you that, after contacting MCI from Hamburg, the company referred to in your text, which is the immediate cause of other media reports on this case, we received official confirmation from MCI Hamburg that Mr. Michael Hermann (if he even exists) is not their authorized representative, that the same company does not deal with renewable energy sources, and that it has not filed any criminal charges against Mr. Ante Ćurković and his family members. Therefore, either in this specific case the author did not verify the basic claim from his article, or it is a commissioned article for the purpose of attacking Mr. Ante Ćurković and/or a similar illegal act, all of which implies criminal responsibility for the author and the involved parties. Regardless of the above, we firmly reject all insinuations made in the subject text about any illegal or immoral actions of any of our clients or their family members. The series of stated constructions is absurd, in addition to being untrue and extremely offensive. Namely, an average informed person in the field of renewable energy production is undoubtedly aware of the fact that reaching the stage of commercial operation of a wind farm requires obtaining at least fifteen approvals, consents, decisions, and resolutions from competent public authorities and concluding at least several contracts based on previous formal decisions, the prerequisite of which is resolving a number of property law issues. This is a lengthy and complex process that regularly takes years, which can be easily verified by reviewing the activity timeline that has been published for years on the Ministry of Economy’s website. Favoring any person or legal entity in the insinuated sense is not possible, nor is it logically feasible due to the complexity of the procedure for issuing all necessary approvals and would imply undue influence on the responsible persons of a number of bodies with public authority, namely the Ministry of Environmental Protection, the Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning, the Ministry of Economy, the State Property Management Agency, the Croatian Energy Regulatory Agency (HERA), the Croatian Energy Market Operator Ltd. (HROTE), the HEP-Transmission System Operator Ltd. (HEP-OPS), the Croatian Electric Company Ltd. (HEP), county administrative departments for spatial planning, Croatian Forests, etc. It should be noted that the legal framework regulating the energy sector is aligned with all standards of EU legal acquis, which primarily insists on transparency.

The published claim about the possibility of favoritism through alleged influence on a number of public bodies in the highly regulated energy market is obviously untrue and simply absurd. We explicitly dispute that Mr. Ante Ćurković in any way (quote) “exploiting his position and authority ensured the obtaining of preliminary electricity consents (PEES) for wind farms in Croatia.” That the claim is untrue arises from the fact that PEES is issued by HEP-Transmission System Operator Ltd. (HEP-OPS), thus a separate legal entity with public authority in which Mr. Ante Ćurković has never been employed or engaged in any way, nor has he ever been superior to the same company, and therefore he did not have the authority to do anything for anyone’s alleged benefit. Furthermore, the position that Mr. Ante Ćurković held within HEP had nothing to do with the issuance of PEES, nor was any PEES for any project developed by companies associated with Mr. Ante Ćurković or his family members issued during the time (which, by the way, was very short) when Mr. Ante Ćurković was the director of the sector for strategy, investment planning, and corporate development at HEP d.d. In addition, the author of the text overlooked the easily accessible information that at this moment, PEES has been issued for wind farms in Croatia relating to more than 1,500 MW (of which companies associated with Mr. Ante Ćurković have obtained less than 14%) and that the preliminary consent, contrary to the stated claims, does not guarantee any exclusive right in terms of connection to the electricity grid after the construction of the wind farm, but a number of conditions (obtained in the procedures for location permits, etc.) must be met for each specific case to connect. In this sense, PEES is obviously not comparable to a concession or similar exclusive regime. Furthermore, PEES is a prerequisite for issuing a location permit and is one of the initial approvals on the long road to commercial operation status. To make the author’s thesis even more incredible, the author seems to be unaware of the PEES issuance procedure before 2012, according to which the issuance of PEES always required an official request from the body responsible for issuing the location permit, not the investor.
It is unnecessary to emphasize that for the commercial operation of a wind farm, all previous consents and approvals must be obtained, and that in this sense all approvals are equally relevant, from which it follows that the importance of PEES is overstated in the disputed text for the purpose of deliberately creating a false impression about our clients and presenting untrue insinuations. Croatian regulations in the field of renewable energy sources and all documents issued based on these regulations for the purpose of constructing renewable energy sources are transparently, clearly, and publicly published on the websites of the competent authorities (including the Ministry of Economy, HERA, HROTE, etc.). Since it is evident from previous publicly available sources that there are a large number of individuals/companies/investors engaged in the development of wind farms in the Republic of Croatia, at various stages of development, without any mention of the alleged investor MCI (which the author of the disputed text uses as a supposedly relevant source, although the link in the text itself refers to MCI – a company for television production and media services, which explicitly denies any connection to the case!), it is obvious that the claims in the text are unreliable. Also, from publicly available data, it follows that it is a common (and due to the method of project financing the only possible) situation that each individual wind farm project is located in a separate project company, as well as the fact that each investor develops multiple projects – precisely because of the high risk of development and project success, which makes it likely that only a smaller portion of the projects being developed will succeed.

In the following, we dispute a number of inaccurately presented facts in the disputed text that indicate the author’s ignorance and bias, who points to unverified claims, and to which inconsistencies we refer here in more detail:
– it is not true that the mentioned companies have completed 94.2 MW, but only 45 MW
– it is not true that the mentioned companies have PEES covering 351 MW (94.2 MW + 257 MW), but only 208 MW
– it is not true that the disputed PEES were issued by HEP-Distribution System Operator Ltd. (HEP-ODS), but by HEP-Transmission System Operator Ltd. (HEP-OPS); these are two different companies
– it is not true that the competent company issues PEES based on its own discretionary decision, but based on valid regulations and meeting prescribed conditions (and this for each request if the conditions are met), and requests for PEES could, according to valid regulations in the field of construction, only be submitted by the competent authorities in the procedure for issuing the location permit until 2012
– it is not true that HEP-ODS (nor HEP-OPS) was under any influence of Ante Ćurković at any time, nor was he employed in those companies, nor did he control them in any way – PEES were issued to all investors without a tender, which is completely in accordance with regulations and logical, as PEES is a preliminary consent (one of many) in the procedure for issuing a location permit that is issued in all cases of construction and the need for connection to the electricity grid (of any facility from a private house to large factories, etc.), and this always when the technical and network conditions for such a connection are met, and this in accordance with pre-established, public rules
– it is not true that the amendment of the regulations in 2012 simplified the issuance of PEES in any way, as all prerequisites for obtaining remain essentially unchanged, but to expedite the issuance of building permits, and to encourage investments, now all consents for the location permit can also be requested by the investor (in addition to the body responsible for issuing the location permit)
– it is not true that EKO Ltd. had 500 MW under control in 2008 or at any time before or after; the specific data contradicts the previously mentioned incorrect data of 351 MW allegedly covered by PEES from the same text, and even more so with the accurate data of 208 MW approved by PEES, of which only 45 MW has been installed to date
– the wind farm VE Bruška does not exist
– the wind farms VE ZD1 and VE ZD2 are obviously not artificially divided locations, when that claim would even make any sense, which is evident from the fact that these are projects under the supervision of completely different investors who are not connected, as well as that VE ZD2 is in commercial operation, while VE ZD1 (which has nothing to do with our clients) is not
– the values of development per 1 MW of installed wind farm capacity vary depending on the efficiency of the energy facility and are primarily assessed by banks during the project financing consideration process, not by the investor; the values stated in the text are given arbitrarily as they can literally be double on the Croatian market, indicating a significant lack of knowledge of the local energy market
– it is not true that due to allegedly poor reputation there is any problem in the realization of energy projects, considering that all completed projects mentioned were realized precisely with a world-renowned German supplier of wind turbines, and that cooperation continues
– it is not true that domestic investors hold a monopoly in the electricity production market through wind turbines, but quite the opposite – the majority of wind farms realized in Croatia are by foreign investors
– it is not true that any “foreigners” were particularly interested in projects ZD2, ZD3, ZD4, ZD6, ST1, and 2; considering that various foreign investors are developing and realizing wind farm projects at numerous locations in Croatia, which can all be seen from publicly available data (e.g., on the Ministry of Economy’s website), the claim that the mentioned projects stand out in any way is incredible
– it is not true that Enercon refuses to cooperate with our clients, quite the opposite, our clients have more cooperation offers from both other equipment manufacturers and Enercon
– it is not true that Ante Ćurković had, or could have had, any influence in the process of obtaining PEES for the needs of Dalekovod projects, for the reasons already mentioned.

Regarding the previous obvious inaccuracies, we can only express regret over the author’s unwillingness to verify relevant facts in direct contact with any of our clients. Not wishing to further debate with the author of the text and your media about professionalism, journalistic ethics, and the obligation to act in good faith, especially regarding the obligation to verify relevant facts and present all conflicting viewpoints of the involved parties, we request the publication of a correction regarding the inaccurate and incomplete claims so that our clients have at least minimal satisfaction in presenting the objective and complete truth to the wider public. We also ask that you fulfill the obligation to publish a complete correction and apology in accordance with relevant legal provisions properly and within the deadline so that, to our mutual satisfaction, we can avoid exercising the same right of our clients through legal means in that part. We reserve the right to seek total damages arising from the publication of all inaccurate and defamatory claims published by your media, as well as relevant criminal proceedings – states the denial signed by lawyer Danijel Antun Banić.