Đorđe Vukotić, lawyer and consultant in the field of construction and legislation: Legalization stuck between promises and reality

Although the new legalization model "On My Own Ground" is presented as a solution which will accelerate the registration of illegally built buildings and finally close the multi-decade problem of illegal construction in Serbia, the results after the first months of application raise numerous questions. Since the promise that the procedure will be completed by the end of March, through the postponement of the deadlines until the end of the year, to the absence of detailed official data on the number of issued certificates and registrations in the cadastre, the impression is that the system has not yet demonstrated the efficiency that was announced.

The process of legalization "On My Own Ground" was announced too ambitiously, as the president first promised that the legalization would be completed by the end of March this year, and then the promised deadline was postponed to the end of the year. Can anyone then claim that this model is successfully implemented?

Citizens whose facilities entered the legalization procedure in 2015, by force of law, i.e. without submitted requests, and who did not have the necessary technical documentation, the new procedure reduces the costs of creating technical documentation for legalization.

Another problem is the handling of the submitted documentation, which in at least 90% of cases is not valid for decision-making in the certification process. I have already drawn attention to the fact that the Law stipulates that documents are to be acted upon. This means that responsible persons in the Agency can evaluate only original paper or electronic documents signed with a qualified certificate of the person who issued them or a public notary. A scanned copy is not a document, but a copy of a document. The possibility that a scanned document is a forgery puts an authorized person in the Agency at risk of criminal liability if he were to issue a certificate based on such a document. This is a real risk that a large number of executors in the Agency will not act in cases where scanned ownership documentation has been submitted.

Another huge problem is that the Agency did not provide the interested parties with the opportunity to file an electronic objection to the submitted applications via the "Svoj na svome" website, even though this right is guaranteed by the Law. Additionally, bearing in mind that the Law denies both them and the applicants the right to appeal against certificates and entries in the cadastre, the only legal means they have left are criminal proceedings and property disputes, which can overwhelm our judiciary.

In the end, the possibility that the Constitutional Court will invalidate certain provisions or even the entire Law is constantly hovering over this legalization like the sword of Damocles. The effects of that would be that the application "passed" for some, while those who did not will have to wait for a new law on legalization. I am sure that this is exactly what all professional investors, who have been building without a building permit, are hoping for, in order to continue with such activities, while waiting for some new legalization.

- Transparency is the key feature of all institutions and systems, which are established to be legal and non-corrupt. As soon as there is no transparency in the work of the public administration, the door is opened to fraud and corruption in their work, and stories start about that. Even when the authorities act in the most conscientious manner, connections are offered and sought to complete cases outside of law and order.

Due to this risk, both the Agency and the RGZ had to inform the public at the beginning of the campaign about the methodology according to which the cases are taken into operation, with an explanation of justified deviations in relation to the order of submitted applications. This is especially considering the administration`s bad reputation regarding the implementation of legalization procedures between 2015 and 2025. This would prevent rumors that officials and members of the ruling parties are favored in the proceedings, as well as that money can be used to stimulate the taking of cases into work.

Also, the Agency and RGZ had to make publicly available data on the number of certificates issued by municipality, as well as the number of buildings and their owners registered in the cadastre according to those certificates. This would prevent rumors that laws are being used to buy votes in local elections.

In the end, the Agency and RGZ had to provide all applicants with precise information about the stage in which their case is, as well as the expected time for completion of that stage. Interested persons had to be given online access to basic information about the subject of the application, so that they could protect their rights either through objections and emergencies in those procedures, or before other competent institutions. This would prevent stories that every problem can be "closed" with money.

Such transparency during the establishment of institutions and procedures was practiced as far back as 2004 by the team establishing the Agency for Business Registers (APR). That`s why APR is still a leader in transparency, and stories about corruption have been nixed at the root. I hope that this does not bother anyone and that such a working model will not change. It is clear that the legalization cannot be done in the short time frame in which the APR operates, but the competent institutions could have introduced a little more transparency in the handling of cases following the example of the APR.

That is why I suggest that the amendment of the Law be approached as soon as possible, in order to prescribe the competence for transferring documentation from paper to electronic format. This amendment of the Law should be accompanied by an apology to the citizens for the "mistake in the steps", with an invitation to submit the documents in the form of an electronic document this time. Also, the Agency should leave a link for citizens to file complaints.

Of course, the above suggestion refers only to the implementation of legalization in proceedings where there are undisputed ownership relationships. For cases of legalization of buildings that were illegally built on other people`s plots or added on without the consent of the owners of the apartments in the buildings, additional serious changes to the Law are needed, which we can discuss at another time. And one day we will have to swallow that frog too.