Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija are grappling with significant legal challenges as they attempt to reclaim property that has been unlawfully seized or destroyed, particularly in areas like the shores of Lake Gazivode. According to Dragutin Nenezić, a legal expert specializing in property issues in the region, the only recourse available to these individuals is through the institutions of Kosovo. Nenezić, who has been working on property matters in Kosovo for over a decade, explained to Danas that other legal avenues, such as seeking justice in Serbia or through European Union courts, are currently unavailable.
The limitations faced by Serbs in seeking justice are largely due to Kosovo’s status outside the Council of Europe, which prevents them from accessing the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. As a result, the legal mechanisms available to them are effectively limited to the Kosovo Constitutional Court as the final instance. Nenezić noted that only a few criminal complaints have been filed concerning the destruction of Serbian property, such as the Hotel Jezero, and there is scant information on the progress or resolution of these cases.
The broader context of these issues traces back to the longstanding legal and property disputes in Kosovo, which have been a persistent challenge for the Serbian community since the 1999 conflict. These disputes often involve perceived biases within local institutions, complicating efforts to achieve fair resolutions. Nenezić highlighted that while some legal actions, such as civil lawsuits and appeals against demolition orders, have been initiated, the outcomes have been largely unfavorable for the Serbian claimants.
The situation is further complicated by the actions of the Kosovo Privatization Agency and other public enterprises, which have targeted both state and private Serbian properties. Nenezić questioned the legitimacy of these actions in light of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, but acknowledged the absence of an appropriate legal forum to address these concerns. The privatization agency’s mandate and the implementation of agreements, such as those reached in Brussels, have been criticized for being manipulated to enforce a policy of fait accompli regarding property rights.
The Serbian government in Belgrade has been urged to take action to protect both state and private Serbian properties in Kosovo. However, Nenezić expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such efforts, citing a lack of progress since 2016 when attempts to grant a concession for the Brezovica ski center were halted. Despite new agreements, such as those brokered in Brussels and between France and Germany in 2023, the maneuvering space remains constrained.
On a related note, the implementation of Kosovo’s Law on Foreigners, which began nearly six months ago, poses additional challenges for the Serbian community. The law includes provisions for issuing temporary residence and work visas to employees of the University of Pristina, relocated to northern Mitrovica, who are not from Kosovo. Nenezić expressed concern that if the status of the university is not resolved by the end of the transitional period next year, the authorities in Pristina might apply the law in a manner similar to their approach at Lake Gazivode—harshly and with ill intent.
As the new academic year approaches, there are uncertainties about potential obstructions from the Kosovo side, particularly regarding demands for the handover of certain university buildings. Nenezić anticipates that while there may be attempts at obstruction, serious confrontations are unlikely before the end of the transitional period. The situation underscores the ongoing complexities and tensions in Kosovo-Serbia relations, particularly concerning property rights and the access to justice for the Serbian community in Kosovo.
