How is it possible that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a final and binding judicial verdict, multi-million BAM payments, and a clear land registry certificate are not enough to take over legally purchased property? The hotel “Zenit” case in Neum is the obvious example of legal absurdity and of a system in which local interests consciously ignore the rule of law.
Insight into the comprehensive judicial documentation and the chronology of this case reveals a complex bureaucratic system in which an investor, despite meeting all the conditions, is left on his own for years.
It all started in late September, 2015, when the Agency for Privatisation of the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton (HNK) issued a decision declaring the offer made by the Bingo company the best bid for the purchase of a 79.73 per cent share of the state-owned capital in the company HTD ‘ZENIT-BRO’ d.o.o. Neum.” At the time, the offer received the highest evaluation in the tender, scoring 96.83 points. However, instead of the expected contract signing and taking possession, years of exhausting lawsuits followed.
The legal epilogue followed in late 2023, when the Cantonal Court in Mostar issued a legally binding ruling ordering the Agency for Privatisation to finalise the agreement with the buyer. The court, in a verdict, unequivocally stated that if the Agency refuses to implement it within the set deadline, the ruling itself would replace the sales contract.
The official documentation confirmed that the “Bingo” company fully met its obligation and paid 2.5 million BAM to the HNC budget. After all legal remedies were exhausted, the Municipal Court in Mostar issued a decision on the official registration of the Tuzla-based company as the owner of 79.73 per cent of the capital, which is clearly confirmed by the current extract from the court registry.
The obstructions did not end there. This registration was followed by new appeals from the Government of the HNC and the Municipality of Neum. However, with the Solution of the Cantonal Court in Mostar since March 18 , 2026, all those appeals were finally dismissed as baseless, which fully confirmed the first-instance ruling on the registration of the ownership. Despite the fully clear paperwork, favourable court rulings, and the paid money, actually taking possession of the Neum-based hotel is still being prevented.
What Is the Only BH Coastline Losing?
Unrelated to the sole legal absurdity, such a situation represents a direct financial blow to the state and its citizens. The verdict replacing the agreement strictly defined the purchaser’s obligations, which include investing a massive 30 million BAM during the first three years of the hotel’s operations.
Furthermore, the buyer undertook the obligation to retain all 59 current employees, while additionally employing 72 new workers within a three-year timeframe. This poses a question about what it means for tourism on the BH coast that, for over ten years, a reconstruction of this crucial hotel capacity has been completely blocked, and how many millions of BAMs were irretrievably lost.
A Proven Model for Revitalising Domestic Companies
When local actors in Neum create blockades, it is important to remind the public who is actually prevented from investing. “Bingo Group” has so far proved its model for revitalisation by investing over a billion BAM for saving bankrupt factories, modernisation, and improving the business operations of domestic companies, which today export to foreign markets.
The best example of this model is “Dita” from Tuzla. This group acquired the former bankrupt giant, linked the years of service for its workers, invested additional millions into production facilities, and turned a completely ruined factory into a stable exporter again. If such a model were successfully applied to the ruined industry, we are left to guess what the hotel “Zenit” could have become if the past decade had been dedicated to its reconstruction rather than court battles.
The Grey Zones: Who is Managing “Zenit” Today?
The case of the “Zenit” takeover raises several key questions about the system’s functioning. The official documents clearly show that the Municipality of Neum lost its shareholder status during the privatisation process, as its five per cent share was included in the state capital for sale. However, the municipal authorities continued to actively file complaints and seek termination of the contract, despite no longer being a legitimate member of the company. It remains unclear on what grounds their processes continue to be blocked from that address.
In the end, the most important, fundamental question arises regarding the management of multi-million-BAM revenues. Considering that, according to the current court registry excerpt, “Bingo” is officially registered as the majority owner, and the former director Ivan Lakić is an authorised representative, it is unclear under whose control daily operations are being conducted today and where the revenues generated by this tourist complex each season actually end up.
The Neum case goes beyond the local frameworks and reflects the systemic (in) security in the entire country. If a properly conducted tender, a multi-million payment into the budget, and final court rulings are not enough to take possession of the legally acquired property, the question arises whether any investment in Bosnia and Herzegovina is truly safe from local interest-driven blockades.
While working on this text, Klix.ba found that the Bingo representatives received a call from the Agency for Privatisationof the HNK to sign an agreement on June 26, 2026, which would realise, or enforce the court ruling, and finally complete the privatisation.
As Klix.ba learned, the authorised person arrived at the signing after receiving information that, the day before, during the urgent telephone session of the HNK government, the Director of the Agency for Privatisation, Donko Jović, was suddenly dismissed. He was ready to enforce the ruling and the legal commitment.
In the end, it is important to note that multiple hotels in Neum were privatised under the same model, so the question arises: why is this case with the domestic investor being disputed?
