1. Kosovo and Serbia should agree for a process of state succession and sign a binding agreement on state succession issues, similar to the one signed between the former constituent republics of SFRY, whereby they would address the issues presented in this paper and other issues, such as debts, pensions, cultural heritage, archives, and other issues of state succession.

2. Trepca Mining Complex and the underground mineral reserves under its management are the property of Kosovo and only Kosovo has the sovereign right to exploit its natural resources under applicable rules of international law. Serbia cannot claim ownership rights for Trepca nor its assets as they were built and exploited from SFRY during its existence. Trepca shall recognize debts and liabilities towards private creditors such as Mytileneos AS and SCMM, and these debts shall be paid for by Trepca and or Kosovo State as Trepca’s owner.

3. International debts of SFRY taken for the financing of socially owned enterprises such as Trepca and Brezovica Ski Center shall be addressed with Serbia in the context of debt succession on an equitable basis. Serbia shall not claim and

4. The Special Chamber on Privatization Issues of the Kosovo Courts shall decide on claims made by private creditors towards socially owned enterprises of Kosovo, such as Trepca, Brezovica Ski Center and the like, and those claims shall be satisfied by either the proceeds of sales of those enterprises or their assets or by the Republic of Kosovo in case of nationalization.

5. Socially owned enterprises’ assets should be recognized, protected and compensated. Since both Kosovo and Serbia have assets in one another, they could agree on the exchange of those assets, provided this exchange is done on an equitable basis. Alternatively, they could agree on the compensation of the assets, which would need a process of valuation. Any private citizens or private entities rights over the assets, in case they have been rightfully acquired should be protected pursuant to European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms or compensated by the states in case of transformation or nationalization of the same.

6. A process of restitution of property rights should be initiated in case Serbia insists on claims over properties in Kosovo. The process of restitution of property rights would enable private citizens and entities in Kosovo, whose property was privatized, confiscated or transformed during the period of 1989 until 1999 to claim ownership rights on the properties which were discriminately transformed during the above period.

7. Further, entities in Serbia and other creditors could file investment claims against Kosovo before World Banks’ International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes in Washington D.C., in case they have a litigate claim against Kosovo.

8. Legitimate creditors’ rights shall be recognized and to the extent possible protected or compensated by the proceeds generated by the privatization process or by Kosovo’s budget.

9. In case Kosovo and Serbia cannot agree on the above matters and other related issues of state succession, they could establish an arbitral tribunal similar to the Badinter Commission for the SFRY, which would finally settle all the outstanding issues between them.