Serbia’s new legalization law (Law on Special Conditions for Recording and Registering Rights to Real Estate) was adopted on October 23, 2025. From December 5, 2025 to February 6, 2026, owners of illegal buildings must apply through the Urban Planning Agency’s digital platform. Municipal offices and post branches are expected to help citizens file applications electronically, but the process is more complex than government messaging suggests.
Key gaps and risks: the Agency has not yet issued the rule defining the application form and authentication; the platform has not been publicly tested; a private “legalization” website is already attracting users despite missing official rules. The filing window is only 60 days; the finance minister has floated a one-month extension, which would still require a formal legal amendment.
The procedure is fully electronic and includes multiple Agency steps: verifying construction before the law’s effect date; checking exclusion zones; reconciling data with state registers; reviewing ownership documents; sending surveying dossiers to the cadastre (RGZ) for checks and corrections; calculating fees or verifying grounds for exemption; and issuing a legalization certificate to be sent to RGZ. If third-party objections or competing claims arise, the case is paused—formally up to five years—until ownership disputes end. RGZ is supposed to auto-register ownership, but delays are likely and quality of surveying files may be challenged.
Municipalities and postal branches are expected to provide “technical and legal assistance,” yet the law does not clearly mandate or regulate the postal role, staffing, or ongoing support for later document supplements. A major legal gap concerns who may certify paper documents converted to electronic form; without a fix, the process risks widespread use of uncertified scans or even forgeries. Server load, file sizes, and simultaneous logins could also hinder filings.
Costs may be higher than publicized. The touted €100 “average” fee is misleading; some owners—especially buyers of flats in permitted buildings that exceeded approved size—may owe the full land-development contribution for the excess floor area, payable at once.
The law removes ordinary appeals in both the Agency procedure and cadastre updates, raising constitutional concerns. Another controversial clause allows a “fast track” for certain priority projects, potentially privileging select developments and diverting capacity from regular cases.
Related cadastre amendments enable registrations based on “imperfect” documents in narrowly defined situations (e.g., mismatched parcel or unit numbers, old permits, missing finality stamps), and tighten oversight of surveying firms—improvements that may indirectly help—but they do not solve legalization of illegal structures.
Practical advice: apply within the legal window rather than waiting for an Agency initiative; prepare ownership and consent documents early; register for the e-government portal to receive notices; respond quickly to Agency requests; seek assistance from municipal legalization staff familiar with legacy files; never sign blank papers or hand over your only originals. Delays increase the risk that parts of the law are struck down, forcing a restart under new rules.
