Between Two Demolitions at Gazivode

By Dragutin Nenezić

Not even a week after the demolition of the Jezero Hotel and the nearby beach facilities, Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci issued new unilateral notices to residents and property owners in the villages of Rezala and Kovace, ordering them to vacate their properties within 15 days. Similar unilateral notices were also delivered to several locations outside these villages, toward the administrative boundary, requiring owners to submit ownership documentation within seven days. Meanwhile, owners whose buildings had already been demolished received official demolition orders accompanied by fines.

At the same time, the Ibar Kolasin region is being excavated at several locations in the search for wartime graves, while arrests and detentions of Serbs related to these investigations are taking place almost daily.

Finally, Prime Minister Albin Kurti himself visited Gazivode/Ujmani, making one wonder what may happen over the next ten days before the deadline expires for demolishing the next group of buildings. Will Kurti heed the European Union’s call to halt the demolitions, or will we witness yet another series of painful scenes?

Before then, however, I would like to examine the legal context of this unfortunate situation.

The pattern of demolitions

Based on what has happened so far, the process follows a consistent sequence:

1. Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci issues a notice requesting ownership documents within seven days. So far, submitting the requested documents has not prevented demolition.
2. Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci then orders owners to vacate their properties within fifteen days.
3. The buildings are demolished without any formal administrative act being served and without those carrying out the demolition identifying themselves.
4. Only after the demolition do owners receive official decisions ordering the removal of the structures and imposing financial penalties.

As is often the case, the Kosovo authorities, in attempting to give the appearance of legality to an unlawful process, have only deepened the illegality itself.

Property owners first received notices from Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci. Their buildings were then demolished by unidentified individuals acting without any formal administrative decision. Only afterward did they receive official decisions issued by the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning ordering the removal of the structures and imposing fines of €2,000.

These decisions contain numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies that should undoubtedly be raised on appeal (and, as always, I remain available to assist anyone who has received them). Three issues stand out in particular.

First, the decisions were issued after the buildings had already been demolished, effectively giving them retroactive effect.

Second, among other legal grounds, the decisions rely on the provisional protection regime for Mokra Gora and Gazivode/Ujmani, adopted at the end of 2025, claiming that the structures were built in violation of that decision—even though every single one of them had been constructed decades earlier, long before the protection regime entered into force. Moreover, that decision was adopted without any participation by the Municipality of Zubin Potok. For reasons unknown to me, the municipality’s current leadership has never challenged it before the Constitutional Court, despite having the legal right to do so.

Third, the annexes to the demolition decisions include the earlier notices issued by Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci, making it clear that the two sets of documents are connected. This confirms that they form part of a broader unlawful and arbitrary operation, as no formal legal link exists between these two categories of acts.

To paraphrase an old saying, it was apparently not enough for Kurti and Mujka to violate their own Constitution and laws; they also attempted to cover those violations by simulating legality—only making the violations even more serious.

Unfortunately, this has not, at least for now, prevented them from continuing with what I regard as arbitrary action, as demonstrated by the developments in Rezala and Kovače. At the same time, however, these acts amount to a form of acknowledgment of what has been done—an acknowledgment that will, in time, be judged by Kosovo’s courts (since there are no other judicial avenues available), as well as by the wider legal community.

A separate question is on what legal basis Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci registered itself in the Kosovo cadastral system, particularly in cases where private individuals had already been registered as owners in the Serbian cadastre before 1999. Such cases do exist. The explanation probably lies somewhere between the implementation of the cadastral agreement, the takeover of Ibar-Lepenac several years ago (when its archives may also have been taken over), and the subsequent requests for ownership documentation. In any event, there appear to be serious legal questions surrounding at least some of these cadastral registrations.

Excavations, arrests and the battle over the narrative

In my view, the ongoing excavations, arrests and detentions should be understood within the same broader framework.

Statistically, it is possible that these events are merely coincidental—that they are taking place simultaneously and in the same area where the shoreline of Gazivode/Ujmani is being systematically cleared of Serbian presence. I do not believe in coincidences in Kosovo.

Rather, I believe this forms part of an effort to control the public narrative. Whenever Serbs begin to appear, even marginally, as victims in the public eye, that perception must be counterbalanced by portraying Serbs as perpetrators of crimes.

This undoubtedly complicates the political struggle against unlawful conduct, since it further distances an already passive international community. It does not, however, make that struggle impossible.

So what should be done?

The situation is undoubtedly difficult—at times to the point of seeming hopeless.

Serbs trapped within Kosovo’s legal system, unable to turn to international courts, facing a passive Serbia and Kosovo authorities that disregard even their own laws and institutions, may understandably be tempted either to give up or to leave Kosovo altogether. No one should be blamed for making such a choice.

Experience with legal action so far lends weight to that feeling. Indeed, none of the legal measures taken to date has produced tangible results. It remains to be seen whether future appeals, lawsuits, criminal complaints and other legal remedies will fare any better.

Yet abandoning these efforts would, in a sense, amount to accepting that Kurti and Mujka—with all their arbitrariness, legal illiteracy and unlawful conduct—were right.

One must continue to fight, even when the struggle appears lost in advance or devoid of hope, because the very act of fighting bears witness to one’s legitimate claim.

How should that struggle be waged?

Through every lawful and peaceful legal avenue available, making full use of the numerous weaknesses and procedural flaws in the actions of those carrying out these unlawful measures.

It must also be understood that this struggle may take a long time and that it has only just begun. Slightly more than ten percent of all buildings around Gazivode/Ujmani have been demolished so far. Unless something changes dramatically, the demolitions are likely to continue.

Judging by the pace at which Ibar-Lepenac/Ibër-Lepenci is issuing both types of notices—including to areas beyond those initially targeted—it appears eager to complete the operation within the next month or two, possibly before potential repeat elections, in which developments in the Ibar Kolašin region may become one of the central themes of Kurti’s campaign. In my view, beyond the persecution of Serbs, he has little else to offer his electorate.

Ultimately, the people of Ibar Kolasin remain the primary guardians of their own future. Only they can protect their property if they persist in the legal and peaceful struggle described above.

History shows that they have done so before.

I choose to believe they will do so again.

And I stand ready to assist them in that effort.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff. KoSSev is not the author of this article.