{"id":42183,"date":"2025-11-28T14:29:36","date_gmt":"2025-11-28T12:29:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/?p=42183"},"modified":"2025-11-28T15:35:14","modified_gmt":"2025-11-28T13:35:14","slug":"general-staff-case-key-points-of-contention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/general-staff-case-key-points-of-contention\/","title":{"rendered":"General Staff Case: Key Points of Contention"},"content":{"rendered":"

Controversial procedure of lifting protection from the General Staff complex <\/strong><\/h2>

On November 14, 2024, the Serbian government<\/em> decided to revoke the status of protected cultural property from the area where the General Staff building (Generalstab)<\/em>\u00a0stands \u2013 a status it has had since 2005.<\/p>

Urban planner and architect Dragomir Ristanovi\u0107<\/strong> from the Renewables and Environmental Regulatory Institute <\/em>(RERI) explained to CINS that such a revocation requires an explanation of why a cultural asset has irreversibly lost its key characteristics.<\/p>

\u201cWe know that since 2005, when the General Staff<\/em> and the Ministry of Defense<\/em> buildings were declared cultural property, nothing has changed. And even if something had changed, even if parts of the building had collapsed, this would not have happened to an irreversible degree,\u201d Ristanovi\u0107 says.<\/p>

He adds that lifting protection measures requires experts from the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia<\/em> to prepare a detailed study \u2013 which did not happen in this case.<\/p>

Suspicions of forgery and a case before the Prosecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime <\/strong><\/h2>

The Government\u2019s<\/em> decision to remove protection relied, among other things, on documentation prepared by the acting director of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments<\/em> of Serbia<\/em> Goran Vasi\u0107<\/strong> \u2013 documentation that turned out to be problematic.<\/p>

On May 12 of this year, Vasi\u0107 was arrested as part of an investigation launched by the Prosecutor\u2019s Office for Organized Crime<\/em> (TOK) on suspicion that he forged the Proposal for Repealing the Status of Cultural Property for the General Staff and Ministry of Defense building complex<\/em>.<\/p>

While giving his statement, Vasi\u0107 admitted to doing so.<\/p>

In the meantime, media reports indicate that the TOK investigation has been expanded to include the director of Belgrade\u2019s Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments<\/em> Aleksandar Ivanovi\u0107<\/strong>, for document forgery, as well as acting secretary of the Ministry of Culture Slavica Jela\u010da<\/strong> for abuse of office.<\/p>

Lex specialis<\/em><\/strong> adopted before protection was removed<\/strong><\/h2>

In an urgent procedure move, Serbia\u2019s National Assembly passed a lex specialis<\/em> \u2013 a special law \u2013 concerning the General Staff<\/em> complex.<\/p>

CINS\u2019s interlocutors have found the lex specialis<\/em> to be problematic, among other reasons, because the General Staff building is still protected cultural property, meaning the law is in violation of the Law on Cultural Heritage.<\/p>

\u201cAccording to the information available to us, the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments<\/em> of Serbia<\/em> has not yet removed the General Staff<\/em> from its register of protected properties. This means the first and most basic condition for implementing the law has not been met,\u201d Ristanovi\u0107 from RERI explains.<\/p>

The deadline for the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments of Serbia <\/em>to remove the complex from the central register of cultural heritage expired on November 22.<\/p>

Historian Nenad Lajben\u0161perger<\/strong> from the Institute<\/em> confirmed for CINS that nothing has changed:<\/p>

\u201cThe 15-day period prescribed by the law [lex specialis]<\/em> has expired, but the law doesn\u2019t outline any penalties if the protection is not lifted. So it\u2019s still in the register. Things are generally quiet at the Institute<\/em>, and we will wait and see what the authorities or the director will do next,\u201d Lajben\u0161perger says.<\/p>

Doubts over whether lex specialis<\/em> is constitutional <\/strong><\/h2>

CINS\u2019s interlocutors agree that the lex specialis<\/em> is unconstitutional.<\/p>

Dragomir Ristanovi\u0107 from RERI notes that the Constitution stipulates the state should protect its cultural heritage. Nemanja Nenadi\u0107<\/strong> from Transparency Serbia<\/em> adds that the separation of powers principle has also been violated.<\/p>

\u201cParliament took upon itself something that is the jurisdiction of the executive or possibly the judiciary \u2013 deciding on the nullity of individual legal acts or previous government decisions,\u201d Nenadi\u0107 says.<\/p>

Several opposition parties have asked the Constitutional Court to determine whether the lex specialis<\/em> enabling the demolition of the General Staff<\/em> complex is in violation of the Constitution.<\/p>

CINS asked the Constitutional Court whether it has initiated a constitutionality review of the lex specialis<\/em> \u2013 either on its own or at the request of the parties \u2013 but we received no response.<\/p>

Authentic interpretation of the lex specialis<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>

Just two weeks after adopting the special law for the General Staff<\/em>, Parliament received a Proposal for an authentic interpretation of one of its articles, and it has been on the parliamentary agenda since yesterday.<\/p>

Authentic interpretation is used when parts of a law are insufficiently clear and need to be specified.<\/p>

However, CINS\u2019s interlocutors argue that, under the guise of interpretation, new provisions are being added and the lex specialis<\/em> is being expanded.<\/p>

In fact, the General Staff<\/em> complex is protected not only by a government decision from 2005, but also by a decision the Government made in 2020 declaring the entire area along Kneza Milo\u0161a Street a cultural-historical entity. This means that removing protection today would require removing it not only from the General Staff<\/em> buildings but also from the surrounding streets and structures \u2013 including the Government<\/em> building, the Finance and Foreign Affairs ministries\u2019 <\/em>buildings, and the Church of the Ascension<\/em>.<\/p>

It is precisely through the authentic interpretation that the removal of protection for this entire area is being sought.<\/p>

Contract with US partner signed outside legal procedures and far from public view<\/strong><\/h2>

Serbia has signed a contract \u2013 portions of which have been published by Radar and Forbes \u2013 with the company Atlantic Incubation Partners LLC<\/em>, which is supposed to build towers on the site of the current General Staff<\/em> complex. Media outlets have linked this firm to Jared Kushner<\/strong>, son-in-law of US President Donald Trump<\/strong>.<\/p>

Nemanja Nenadi\u0107 from Transparency Serbia<\/em> points out there were procedural violations:<\/p>

\u201cWe know that under legal procedures many steps were required: drafting a project, obtaining approvals from various institutions, preparing a feasibility study, and finally conducting a competitive bidding process. Since none of that was carried out, and there was definitely no bidding, all such negotiations and contracts would constitute a direct violation of the law \u2013 and likely a criminal offense.\u201d<\/p>

He explains that the lex specialis <\/em>contains provisions stating that all acts, contracts, memoranda, and similar documents become valid based solely on a Government decision.<\/p>

\u201cIn other words, the lex specialis<\/em> was used in an attempt to legalize everything that the Serbian Government<\/em> or its ministers had previously signed with the business partner from the US,\u201d Nenadi\u0107 concludes.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Urban planners, architects, and legal experts have been warning for weeks about a series of irregularities surrounding the entire General Staff (Generalstab) case. Together with interlocutors, CINS summarizes the contentious decisions and inconsistencies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1392,"featured_media":42107,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1604,1595,1497],"tags":[2344,2345],"class_list":["post-42183","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hp-slider","category-justice","category-news","tag-general-staff","tag-governement-of-serbia","ciTrackContent"],"acf":[],"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/CINS-Generalstab-16x9-w.jpg","author_additional":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42183","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1392"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42183"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42183\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42195,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42183\/revisions\/42195"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cins.rs\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}