Special Cases of Rights Registration and the New Model for Submitting Applications under the New Law on State Survey and Cadastre (ZDPK)

With the entry into force of the Law on Amendments to the Law on State Survey and Cadastre (“Official Gazette of the RS”, No. 91/2025) (hereinafter: the “Amendments” or the “New ZDPK”), applicable as of 1 January 2026, a normative attempt has been initiated to resolve a decades-long problem in real estate transactions. This problem is particularly evident in situations involving incomplete documentation, where the available instrument and the passage of time unquestionably indicate the existence of a legal basis for the acquisition of rights, but not the possibility of their registration in the real estate cadastre.

Past experience shows that rigidly set formal criteria for registration have often led to legal uncertainty, especially in cases involving older instruments lacking appropriate clauses, i.e. private instruments drawn up and certified before the establishment of the notarial system, as well as instruments where certain data do not match the data currently registered with the competent authorities.

In this context, the most significant novelty is the introduction of Article 88b, which prescribes special cases for the registration of rights holders and allows deviations from the general registration requirements in precisely defined situations. These special cases seek to establish a balance between excessive formalism in the registration procedure and the need to enable the realization and registration of real estate rights on the basis of already existing, but formally insufficiently documented, rights.

However, the question remains open as to whether the newly prescribed special conditions have truly provided a systemic and comprehensive solution to the accumulated problems in the practice of registering real estate rights, or whether these Amendments are of limited scope, aimed only at certain typical situations, while substantive disputed issues have remained outside their reach.

Analysis of Article 88b of the New ZDPK

Namely, upon a closer look at the content of Article 88b of the New ZDPK, it may be noted that the legislator provides for the possibility of registering a rights holder even where the documents do not formally meet the (general) requirements for registration, particularly in the following situations:

1. Where the real estate is not designated in the document in accordance with cadastral data, but identification is ensured by a geodetic survey report submitted together with the document;
2. Where the surface area of a building or a separate part of a building stated in an older document (prior to 1 August 1992) does not match the area registered in the cadastre, accompanied by the findings and opinion of a court expert explaining the discrepancy by different measurement methods;
3. Where, for a building constructed on the basis of a construction permit issued before 1 August 1992, no occupancy permit has been submitted, but a court expert confirms in the attached findings and opinion that the building or its separate part was constructed in accordance with the technical documentation;
4. Where a decision of a competent authority lacks a finality clause, and at least 30 years have elapsed since its adoption;
5. Where consent for registration (clausula intabulandi) or proof of payment of the purchase price is missing in situations where the registration of rights in the cadastre was conditioned upon the submission of such documents, and at least 30 years have passed since the document was executed;
6. Where the subject matter of the legal transaction was the transfer of the right of use over construction land in state ownership, at a time when such transfer was legally restricted;
7. Where there is a discrepancy in personal data within the legal chain of title, but identity is confirmed by statements of two witnesses certified by a notary public;
8. Where the person designated in a decision on expropriation or on the transfer/deprivation/taking of possession of land is not registered in the cadastre, and subsequent registrations are not based on a transaction for consideration.

At the same time, the New ZDPK expressly limits the application of certain grounds prescribed by Article 88b (specifically items 1, 4, 5 and 7) in relation to agricultural and forest land, as well as to real estate in public or state ownership.

Consequently, it may be concluded that these provisions represent a significant step toward a more flexible approach to the registration of rights, as they for the first time recognize typical, long-standing issues in practice (incomplete clauses, lack of occupancy permits, data discrepancies, passage of time), while at the same time leaving room for assessing their actual reach in specific proceedings.

In this respect, of particular importance is the possibility to register a rights holder even in situations where, alongside a document constituting the basis for registration that is older than 30 years, no supplementary document in the form of a clausula intabulandi or proof of payment of the purchase price has been submitted, although such a document was envisaged in the registration document itself as an additional requirement for registration in the cadastre.

The importance of this change is reflected in the fact that these legal transactions were concluded in a period when records and practices related to the issuance and safekeeping of clausulae intabulandi and/or proof of payment were not institutionally standardized as in later periods. The passage of at least 30 years is recognized by the legislator as a relevant circumstance justifying a departure from strict formalism, bearing in mind the real difficulties in obtaining such supplementary documents after several decades have elapsed.

Insufficient Regulation of Deficiencies in the Chain of Title

However, when it comes to one of the most contentious issues – the impossibility of registering a rights holder due to the failure to provide a complete chain of title, i.e. documents proving continuity in relation to the registered predecessor – it may be concluded that the Amendments are not sufficiently broad in this segment.

Namely, Article 88b provides certain relief exclusively with regard to discrepancies in personal data in the documents forming the chain of title, by allowing identity to be proven through certified statements of two witnesses. However, this solution does not cover the situations that are in practice the most frequent and the most problematic – cases where, between the registered rights holder and the person who currently has a legal basis for acquisition, there are one or more transfers for which the relevant documents must be provided.

In situations where 30 or 40 years have passed since the conclusion of those legal transactions, obtaining complete documentation is often factually impossible. Persons who participated in earlier transactions are frequently no longer available, and contacting their heirs represents an additional, sometimes insurmountable obstacle. In such cases, parties as a rule turn to the archives of the competent courts, where – if the contract had been certified – it is usually possible to obtain only information on the certification number, date and signatories, or a photocopy of the relevant page from the certification register, along with an official notice from the court that case files themselves are kept for a limited period (as a rule 10 years) and that, after the expiry of that period, they were written off and destroyed in accordance with the court rules of procedure in force at the time.

However, bearing in mind that the real estate cadastre recognizes exclusively the document on the legal transaction itself as a basis for registration, and not proof of its existence in the form of a certification register entry, such archival documentation in the majority of cases has no practical value for carrying out registration, even though it is consistent with other elements of the chain of title.

In that sense, it appears justified to consider a normative amendment to Article 88b in the direction of prescribing that, for documents older than 30 years, an appropriate extract or page from the court certification register containing relevant data on the legal transaction may be deemed a sufficient basis for registration in situations of an incomplete chain of title. Such a solution would better respond to real problems in practice and contribute to a more effective overcoming of long-standing obstacles in the registration of real estate rights.

New Model of Electronic Submission of Registration Applications

The Amendments have also introduced the possibility for parties themselves, through a dedicated application of the Republic Geodetic Authority, to submit documents for registration, while professional users (attorneys, etc.) continue to submit applications exclusively through the e-Counter, as before. However, it is important to emphasize that parties are not obliged to use this application – they may still immediately submit an application through professional users, without a prior independent attempt, i.e. the possibility of electronic submission by a party represents an alternative, but not a substitute for professional representation.

The statutory solution further confirms the importance of professional users, since if the submitted documents do not meet the requirements for registration, the party is, through the application, referred precisely to professional users or to litigation. This clearly indicates that assessing compliance with the general requirements under Articles 83–88 or the special requirements under Article 88b of the New ZDPK is a legally complex issue that requires professional expertise.

At the same time, from the beginning of the application of the Amendments, the e-Counter for professional users has also been modified. In every application for registration of a change of rights holder over real estate, it is now technically specified whether registration is sought under the general conditions or under the special conditions of Article 88b, with additional specification of the конкретan case. These additional technical steps evidently primarily serve the purposes of recording, processing and allocation of cases within the competent real estate cadastre office, given that professional users in any event possess the necessary knowledge to properly legally qualify the application and invoke the relevant provisions of the New ZDPK.

Therefore, despite the introduction of the application for parties, proceeding through attorneys as professional users of the e-Counter remains a safer and legally more reliable route, as it ensures that the application is properly set from the outset and reduces the risk of rejection, referral to litigation, or subsequent complications in the registration procedure.

Accordingly, in the context of the most significant novelties that are the subject of this analysis, the New ZPDK brings substantive changes both with regard to the conditions for registration (through the introduction of the special cases under Article 88b) and with regard to the procedural framework, through the new model of electronic submission of applications. It is precisely these changes that have the potential to most significantly affect the day-to-day practice of real estate rights registration. In any case, only through their application will it be possible to assess whether they represent a real step forward toward more efficient real estate transactions while preserving legal certainty, or merely a partial improvement of the existing system.

The information in this document does not constitute legal advice in relation to any specific matter and is provided solely for general informational purposes.

Author: Attorney at Law and Senior Associate Neda D. Stojanović