Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), as the legal successor of the former Socialist Republic of BiH, owns significant property on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. This is a valuable property that includes hotels, resorts, villas, and construction land, especially on the Adriatic coast. However, despite the signed Agreement on Succession, the return of this property is hindered by a series of legal and political obstacles that have remained unresolved for years.
Ismet Velic, a lawyer and professor at the Faculty of Law in Zenica, and former attorney of BiH who led proceedings for the return of state property in Croatia after the breakup of Yugoslavia, spoke about this important topic in an interview.
“The property you mentioned is very significant. It includes various types of real estate – from land, villas, hotels, and resorts – and often these are attractive locations on the Adriatic, including Makarska, Gradac, Split, and especially Dubrovnik,” emphasizes Professor Velic.
According to him, property in Croatia is owned not only by BiH institutions but also by numerous companies and individuals from our country. However, since the 1990s, Croatia has adopted a series of regulations that restrict the right to dispose of that property.
“Decrees were adopted, and later also laws, prohibiting the disposal of that property. A particular problem arose in 2018 when Croatia passed the Law on Management of State Property, which allows their institutions to lease out that property long-term – often without the knowledge or consent of the actual holders,” warns Velic.
The situation is further complicated by the non-implementation of the Agreement on Succession, an international treaty signed by all former republics of the SFRY, including BiH and Croatia. This agreement, especially its Annex G, provides for the return and protection of the property of former republics, but in practice in Croatia – it has not been implemented.
Non-implementation of regulations
In practice, as he says, there have been cases in which BiH was properly registered as the holder of a particular real estate, but the property was occupied by third parties without any legal basis.
“In such cases, there are no legal obstacles to conduct proceedings and for BiH to seek return of possession. However, the problem is time. If Croatia now grants those properties under concession for the next 30 years – the holders will effectively be prevented from regaining them in the foreseeable future,” warns Velic.
Estimates of the total value of this property are not precise, but the figures mentioned exceed hundreds of millions of BAM. Velic emphasizes that there is an open channel of communication with Croatian institutions, including the Ministry of Justice and the State Attorney’s Office, but that the key issue is reciprocity and political will.
“If BiH respects the agreement and returns the property to Croatia, then we expect the same treatment. The solution must be a bilateral agreement that will clearly regulate issues of property, application of succession, and protection of the rights of all holders,” concludes Professor Velic.
It remains to be seen whether political actors on both sides will have the strength and will to place this issue on the agenda – before valuable state property permanently ends up in the hands of other users, eKapija writes.
