Serbia has become an attractive place for investing in real estate in the past several years, due to the encouraging orientation of the government and positive public policies towards foreign investments.

Foreign businesses are particularly interested in investing in Belgrade – Serbia’s capital – especially in the historical part of the city, which is a main touristic location. Building in the old town areas is rather challenging. It is not easy to acquire a free land lot and a construction permit, as there are plenty of historic sites and monuments, many of which are under protection from the Serbian Law on Cultural Heritage.

Although economically speaking the increased interest of investors is positive, construction could endanger cultural properties.

This article reflects on the need to find a balance between investors’ financial interests and public interests for preserving cultural property. For creating a truly favourable and safe climate for real estate business in historic areas, fulfilling legal requirements and accurately pursuing legal procedures is of the utmost importance, and unfortunately is often neglected.

The “Generalstab” Case

As an example of the importance of transparent and lawful conduct, the case of “Generalstab” caused huge controversy in public, followed by legal actions that are still ongoing. It concerns an architectural building of late modernism from the sixties, and is considered one of Belgrade’s most prominent architectural landmarks. The building, popularly called the “Generalstab” (meaning “army headquarters”), is owned by the State. It served as headquarters of the Serbian Ministry of Defence, and is located next to the old Ministry of Defence building, which itself is also an important architectural achievement built in the 19th century and designed by the architect Baumgarten.

The Generalstab is a complex consisting of two parallel separate buildings on opposite sides of Nemanjina Street, with descending blocks of red limestone and white marble in a cascade arrangement. In its entirety, it symbolises an urban city gate. Built from 1955 to 1965 and designed by acclaimed architect Nikola Dobrovic, historians of art reflect on the Generalstab as one of the most important works of sculptural architecture.

During the Milosevic era, as a part of strategic army and political targets, on 29 April 1999 the Generalstab was severely damaged in NATO bombing, though not destroyed. It has not yet been repaired, except for certain ruined parts that were removed for safety reasons.

In 2005, upon a proposal of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, the Serbian government determined the Generalstab and the Ministry of Defence to be cultural monuments under the Law on Cultural Property. The decision stipulated measures for preservation of the complex, including prohibition of construction and building, and the obligation of maintaining the authenticity and constructive architectural elements/materials with horticultural and urbanistic maintenance.

Until today, nothing has been achieved in respect of renovation of the Generalstab. Owing to excessive repair costs, some attempts were made to remove this protection.

Controversy

In May 2024, the Serbian Minister of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure signed a memorandum of understanding with foreign investors concerning plans for the renovation of the Generalstab complex. At the time, not much information had been shared with the public. The Minister announced that a “reputable US company” would invest in the renovation of the building (which would also include a memorial and a museum), and promised that everything would be done in accordance with the law and in co-operation with the government – the land lots would not be sold but leased to the investor for 99 years.

News agencies reported that the government planned a strategic partnership with foreign investors, US-based construction companies with ties to Donald Trump’s son-in-law (who worked on the deal with Richard Grenell, special envoy in the Balkans), for developing a hotel and apartments on the site, while the lease of the State-owned land lots would be free of charge.

The public reacted strongly to this news. More than 350 experts and cultural institutions – including the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the International Union of Architects – stood against the proposed demolition of the Generalstab. The European heritage civil society network Europa Nostra expressed deep concerns over reported Serbian government plans to replace the Generalstab with a private building. Emphasising that the Generalstab is part of Europe’s shared cultural legacy, the Serbian government was reminded of obligations under its own laws and under European conventions, and of its commitment to the European Green Deal, the New European Bauhaus and the Davos Principles of High Quality Baukultur. 

In June 2024, the Serbian head of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments resigned, not accepting the Ministry of Economy’s request to initiate the process of removal of the Generalstab’s status as a cultural monument.

Nevertheless, in November 2024, the Serbian government decided to remove the protection as a cultural monument from the Generalstab. The government made such decision on 14 November 2024 and published it in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia. After eight days, it became legally valid and binding.

It was revealed that the investment company Affinity Partners, founded by Jared Kushner (Donald Trump’s son-in-law) and the Emirati billionaire Mohammed Alabar, will jointly build a luxury hotel and apartment complex in Belgrade on the site of the former Generalstab, under the “Trump” brand. This led to a new wave of criticism, since the decision was made in breach of the Law on Cultural Heritage.

Legal Background

In order to properly understand the unlawful removal of the cultural monument status from the Generalstab, the main rules applicable to the present case are provided as follows.

The determination of the Generalstab as an immovable cultural monument in 2005 was based on the Law on Cultural Property, in force at the time. Since then, the new Law on Cultural Heritage was introduced (in 2021). Both laws provide the same rules in respect of determination of certain assets as cultural monuments and termination of their respective protection, as well as regards removing a cultural monument from the Central Register of Cultural Monuments.

In general, there are three categories of protection:

• cultural monument;
• cultural monument of great importance; and
• cultural monument of exceptional importance.

The government of Serbia determines immovable cultural monuments and cultural monuments of great importance. Parliament determines cultural monuments of exceptional importance. Museums, archives and similar institutions determine movable cultural monuments.

The government of Serbia also determines immovable cultural properties (unless otherwise determined by the law), upon proposal of the cultural institutions.

The Serbian Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments proposes and justifies the reasons why certain immovable property is of special cultural and historical importance. The Institute is obliged to provide and elaborate on:

• the name;
• a description of the cultural property;
• boundaries of the protected environment (cadastral and land register data); and
• protection measures related to the preservation, maintenance and use of that cultural property and its surroundings.

Such elaboration and protection measures form part of the government’s decision on determination of a cultural monument.

The government’s 2005 decision on determination of the Generalstab as a cultural monument was made in accordance with the above regulations. It was lawfully followed by registration of the Generalstab in the Register of Immovable Cultural Monuments.

Article 61 of the Law on Cultural Heritage prescribes conditions for removing a cultural monument from the Register. Such removal occurs if:

• it has been destroyed or has disappeared;
• it lost the value upon which it was determined a cultural monument; or
• it has been permanently removed or exported.

The Law on Cultural Heritage provides the same manner and procedure for removing protection of a cultural monument as for its determination. It requires the proposal and elaboration of the respective cultural institution.

Breaches

Although the government is authorised to decide on removing protection, the decision was not based on a proposal for issuance of an act of termination, which would need be elaborated by the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments.

Moreover, the Institute’s experts have addressed the Serbian government and the Ministry of Culture through an open letter regarding irregularities, stating that the government’s decision ran contrary to the law, as the Institute had not initiated the process for removal of protection from the Generalstab.

Therefore, the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments still upholds and maintains the Generalstab’s registration in the Register of Immovable Cultural Monuments.

Besides procedural misconduct, the government’s decision also violates the following.

• The special protection of cultural heritage in the public interest, provided by Article 3 of the Law on Cultural Heritage.
• The right to access to cultural heritage under Article 6 of said Law, which can be restricted only to protect the public interest, rights and freedoms of others. This also provides that everyone has an obligation to respect cultural heritage.
• The general interest of protection of material cultural heritage under Article 13 of said Law. As an immovable cultural asset, the Generalstab is a part of material cultural heritage, which is subject to the general interest. As such, it enjoys special protection established by this Law.

The decision to remove protection breaches the obligation to maintain cultural heritage under Article 89 of the Serbian Constitution, which prescribes specific accountability for the Republic of Serbia regarding the protection of historic and cultural heritage.

Legal Actions

So far, three legal actions have been commenced against the government’s decision to remove protection from the Generalstab and the Ministry of Defence.

In December 2024, the Renewables and Environmental Regulatory Institute initiated proceedings with the Constitutional Court for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the government’s decision on removal of protection. It proposed issuance of an urgent preliminary measure – an injunction against any further work on the disputed project until issuance of the Constitutional Court’s judgment.

In January 2025, a group of six opposition political parties also addressed the Constitutional Court, initiating proceedings for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the government’s decision.

In March 2025, in the ongoing protests led by university students that started in November 2024 and have spread across Serbia, a group of Belgrade students filed another motion to the Constitutional Court for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the government’s decision.

What Is Next?

The matter is not yet concluded or resolved. The Constitutional Court has not decided on the lodged complaints or on the injunction.

On 30 January 2025, Europa Nostra listed the Generalstab among the seven most endangered monuments and sites in Europe, as a “structural masterpiece of Cubo-Expressionism”.

Expert associations and institutions continue to appeal to the Serbian government to revoke the decision on removal of protection as a cultural monument from the Generalstab, and to suspend plans for its reconstruction into a luxury hotel.

In February 2025, Jared Kushner posted an announcement on Instagram of the planned “Trump” complex, a glass tower in place of the Generalstab. The Serbian government continues to maintain its silence on the issue.

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to emphasise the importance of respecting the rule of law for protecting the interests of all involved parties. It is important to mention that the Generalstab is not an isolated case, but rather just one of many controversial State-governed projects in the past decade. Such problems began back in 2015 with the high-value “Belgrade Waterfront” project, developed by Abu Dhabi-based Eagle Hills in co-operation with the Serbian government, and for which a special law was introduced and has been subject to several court actions and public debate. Similar circumstances have continued to arise with the announced reconstruction of the architectural cultural monument “Hall 1 of the Belgrade Fair” and Belgrade’s medieval fort. On 14 February 2025, seven cultural associations issued a joint public appeal for protection, expressing great concern regarding inadequate and often illegitimate projects endangering Serbian cultural heritage and historic sites in Belgrade.

Transparency and legality are crucial for creating a welcoming and safe environment for investments, as well as for protecting and safeguarding national interests. Especially when the government is a partner in strategic foreign business investments in Serbia, it is imperative to adopt additional measures and put special effort into finding a balance between economic interests and the public interest of preserving and maintaining national cultural heritage.