Glamoč Residents Lose Their Land to Private Wind Farm

The Municipality of Glamoč has begun expropriating over 232 dunams of privately owned land to make way for the construction of the Škadimovac wind farm, a project in which the company RWP Vitorog plans to invest around 300 million BAM. Although the investment is commercial in nature, the Municipal Council declared the project one of public interest in 2018, paving the way for expropriation to proceed. It was agreed that the company would cover the compensation costs, while the municipality would receive a share of the monthly revenue once the wind farm becomes operational.

Landowners were offered compensation of 0.30 BAM per square metre, and some accepted the offer. However, others who felt the offer was unfair filed complaints with the Federation Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs (FGU), which subsequently annulled the municipality’s expropriation decisions. The FGU pointed out that the Municipality had failed to submit two key documents: a formal expropriation request from the Municipal Public Attorney’s Office in Livno, and proof that funds had been secured to cover the expropriation costs. The FGU also raised doubts about the validity of the decision to declare the project in the public interest.

In addition, the Expropriation Law of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) prohibits the authorities from transferring ownership of expropriated land—something that is planned in this case once the land is expropriated.

Journalists from the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIN) have uncovered that the Municipality failed to first establish the rightful owners of the land being expropriated, many of whom have long since passed away. In such cases, the authorities appointed temporary legal representatives—some of whom were simultaneously representing the investor.

Recognised Yet Unresolved Issues

The construction of the Škadimovac wind farm is planned for the clearings of Hrbine, a windswept plateau some 30 kilometres from Glamoč. This is a desolate, wind-battered landscape of sprawling rocky pastures, dotted with sparse low vegetation and conifer trees. Each spring, after wintering in the towns, residents would return to Hrbine, reclaiming what they could from the wind and stone—grazing sheep and cattle across the pastures and planting potatoes, barley, and oats. During the war, the area was abandoned, and the homes and barns were later destroyed by fire.

Ranko Radoja initially planned the wind farm project on this plateau after his Banja Luka-based company, WBL City Project, was granted a 30-year concession by the Government of Canton 10 in 2014.

After running out of funds over the next four years, he brought businessman Zoran Bibić into the venture, granting him joint ownership of his second company, RWP Vitorog, to which he soon transferred the concession.

With the Municipality’s backing, the project was revived in 2018 when a Business Cooperation Agreement was signed with RWP Vitorog. This agreement served as the basis for the Municipal Council to declare the project of public interest, allowing Mayor Nebojša Radivojša to submit a proposal for the expropriation of private land—something not permitted under the Federation of BiH’s Expropriation Law.

Departures from the law have been observed throughout the entire process.

Of the at least 567 dunams designated for the wind farm, just over 232 belong to long-time residents of the area. However, most of the local population fled during the war in the 1990s. Some have since passed away, and their heirs have yet to resolve property ownership. The land registry books for the Glamoč area were destroyed in a fire in the 1970s.  The only official records now exist in the cadastre—a register of property holdings where the listed occupants are not necessarily the rightful owners. Without verified ownership, expropriation cannot be legally completed.

In 2023, Milorad Milišić from Derventa, along with five others, filed a complaint with the Federation Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs (FGU), arguing that the legal procedures for expropriation had not been properly followed. The municipality had seized eight dunams of his ancestral land, which holds deep personal meaning for him—his father died there.

“If they hadn’t touched the house plot, I probably wouldn’t have been as interested in fighting this. It’s a small area compared to everything else I own. But once they touched the house plot, I went straight to a lawyer, and he told me: ‘Milorad, this is illegal,’” Milišić says.

The FGU quickly confirmed their suspicions. Lacking access to the full expropriation documentation, the FGU concluded that there was no key evidence to show all obligations under the Federation Expropriation Law had been complied with.  These include: a formal expropriation request by the competent public attorney’s office, a valid act declaring the wind farm to be in the public interest, and proof that funds had been secured to cover expropriation costs. Instead, the municipality submitted an agreement on the transfer of funds to Glamoč for 69,832 BAM. It was also noted that the Municipality failed to identify the rightful owners of the land, one of the basic legal requirements for expropriation.

Furthermore, the FGU highlighted the Municipality’s intention to transfer the expropriated land to a private company, which is explicitly prohibited by law.

Despite the identified irregularities, Mayor Radivojša and the Department for Housing, Communal Affairs, Reconstruction and Development, Geodetic and Property-Legal Affairs, and the Land Cadastre—which is overseeing the process—insist that everything was done by the law. They have not addressed the shortcomings raised by the FGU, while the Public Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the matter.

The mayor maintains that the Municipality stands to benefit from the wind farm project: “It would mean a lot for job creation and for reinvesting in our Municipality. Ultimately, the Municipality would receive certain benefits from the concession agreement and from the cooperation agreements signed with the companies developing the project.”

For now, however, there are no benefits in sight, as it remains unclear when construction will begin—or when the Municipality might start collecting 0.5% of revenue from monthly electricity sales, as stipulated in the 2018 Business Cooperation Agreement.

According to the concession agreement signed with the Government of Canton 10, the investors were initially obliged to negotiate the sale or lease of land directly with residents. However, they claim that reaching the owners was impossible.

“It’s a mission impossible, because Bosnia and Herzegovina—especially Canton 10—doesn’t have a land registry. Property rights haven’t been resolved for hundreds of years,” says investor Ranko Radoja.

They were then supposed to request the cantonal Ministry of Economy to initiate expropriation proceedings, but they bypassed this requirement. Instead, they turned to the Municipality, which unlawfully carried out the process.

In June 2019, a decision was issued approving the expropriation of over 232 dunams of land, listing 72 landholders from whom the property was to be taken, even though the actual number of heirs is significantly higher.

“The problem with property in Glamoč is that, during and after the war, most of the population was displaced, and since the 1990s, inheritance proceedings have not been conducted. So we were aware that the list likely included many individuals who had passed away,” the Municipality stated in a response to CIN.

As a result, the Municipality failed to comply with the legal obligation to negotiate expropriation exclusively with legal owners and instead completed the process with landholders.

Goran Brkić, Secretary of the Federation Administration for Geodetic and Property Affairs (FGU), explains that identifying the rightful owner is a complex process, but a necessary one.

“A body that only determines possession in an expropriation procedure has not completed the process. Such a decision cannot pass legal review.”

In response to all the issues raised, Mayor Radivojša and the investors claim that dissatisfied citizens are simply trying to seize the opportunity to demand more money.

Under the law, agreement on expropriation must first be reached with the legal owners, followed only then by negotiations over compensation. However, some citizens were immediately offered a fixed amount of 30 pfennigs per square metre by the Municipality. Official documents do not state which court expert assessed the value of the land in Hrbine, when the valuation took place, or by what method. The municipal department did not respond to these questions, while the investors have provided conflicting information about the expert who assessed the value of the land.

“That land isn’t worth even 10 pfennigs. We paid the going rate for farmland in the [Glamoč] plain. You have to understand us—we’re investors. I’ve already put in 100,000, and it might cost me another 300,000, and I’m not running away from that”, says investor Bibić.

Radoja and Bibić admit they don’t fully understand the legal procedures around expropriation, but insist that the Municipality declared the construction of the Škadimovac wind farm to be of public interest—and that, in their view, cannot be disputed.

In 2023, in response to five complaints, the FGU ordered the Municipality to correct the deficiencies and issue new decisions within 15 days. This, however, never happened.

Municipal officials have not provided any explanation of what steps—if any—they took following the FGU’s order. Meanwhile, the citizens whose complaints were under review say they are now negotiating directly with Bibić. They have reportedly been offered a 30-year land lease at a rate of 1 BAM per square metre, per year.

Payment Made to Namesake Without Verification

In 2022, Stana Meseldžija from Prijedor submitted a written statement to the Municipality agreeing to the expropriation of three plots of land totalling 2,575 square metres, which were listed in the land cadastre as her co-ownership following the death of her husband, Stevo. The following year, the Municipality issued an expropriation decision, after which 400 BAM was transferred to her account. However, she turned out not to be the actual owner of the land, but rather a person with the same name and surname.

When a CIN journalist asked her about the other co-owners—her daughters Dosta Subošić and Mira Pavličić—she said she had not been in contact with them for a long time. The journalist was able to reach Dosta Subošić, who lives in Novi Sad, Serbia, at the address listed in the cadastre as her place of residence.

Stevo and Stana Meseldžija’s daughters are listed in the cadastre as co-owners of the land along with their mother. However, Dosta Subošić says her mother passed away in 2012 and that she only knows Stana from Prijedor via social media.

“It was extremely painful to realise someone had stolen the identity of my late mother, who died 13 years ago. That hurt me more than the fact that they took our land,” says Dosta Subošić, who first learned about the case from CIN.

When contacted again, Stana Meseldžija claimed it was all a mix-up, saying she owns land nearby, which she had signed over to her brother, that she hadn’t been in touch with Dosta and Mira for a long time, or later claimed she didn’t know them at all. She also said she hadn’t read the documents she signed and only later began to suspect that she might have been confused with another woman.

“When they paid me, I thought: ‘Dear God, what was that?’ Then I figured, let them build—so what?”

Subošić says Meseldžija later transferred her the compensation money, but holds the Municipality responsible for the error. The relevant municipal department stated that individuals were identified using personal documents, shifting the blame to the person who allegedly misrepresented herself. However, they have not explained whether or how they verified the personal documents of Stana Meseldžija.

Subošić says she received a notice from the Municipality about the expropriation, along with an invitation to negotiate, but was unable to attend due to illness. Instead, in August 2022, she recalls sending a statement through her husband, authorising the Municipality to proceed with her land in line with the decision of the majority of residents. “They said, OK, that’s fine—she doesn’t need to come given the circumstances, and that they’d contact me when the matter became active. But after that, I never heard anything again.”

Three months later, however, the Municipality appointed her a temporary legal representative: Ljubiša Dragičević, a lawyer from Banja Luka.

“That already constitutes active participation in the process of asserting ownership rights, and it’s difficult to justify appointing a temporary representative for someone in that situation. The person had already come forward and provided contact information. They have the right to take part in every stage of the process,” explains Goran Brkić, Secretary of the FGU.

Temporary representatives are typically local lawyers appointed in expropriation procedures to act on behalf of landowners whose whereabouts are unknown and to protect their interests. In this case, however, the representatives were appointed by the Municipality and paid by the investor, RWP Vitorog.

According to CIN data, at least 15 individuals were assigned temporary legal representatives.  Among them were deceased persons, heirs who had objected to the expropriation, as well as those who had agreed to it and already received compensation.

None of them were aware that a temporary representative had been appointed on their behalf, and the Municipality has not explained the legal grounds for doing so, especially given that it had their contact details, and in some cases, had even been in touch with them.

Compensation funds for expropriated land belonging to citizens represented by temporary legal guardians are supposed to be deposited into a municipal account and held until the rightful owner comes forward. However, municipal officials have refused to disclose how much has been paid out, to whom, or even which representatives were appointed for the task.

Journalists from CIN, however, discovered that among those appointed were Banja Luka lawyer Ljubiša Dragičević and legal associate Zoran Divjak.

Dragičević also represents the company RWP Vitorog, while Divjak works at the law office of Mileta Bošković.  Both Dragičević and Bošković previously represented investor Zoran Bibić in three civil cases before the District Court in Banja Luka. Moreover, Dragičević’s name appears in documents from the company register of RWP Vitorog dating back to 2017.

“You cannot represent both a business entity that is the beneficiary of the expropriation—requesting the seizure of land in its favour—and the person from whom the land is being taken. That is a conflict of interest; it is illegal,” explains lawyer Din Tešić regarding the role of the representatives.

The municipal office, Dragičević, Bošković, and Divjak all declined to speak with journalists about the details of their engagement, leaving it unclear whether they have done everything possible to protect their clients’ interests.

Bibić and Radoja claim they have run out of funds as the project’s costs have increased and say they are now waiting for a foreign investor to whom they plan to sell a 90% stake.

The Ministry of Economy of Canton 10 declined to comment on the terms under which multimillion-dollar concessions were awarded to companies that lack the financial capacity to see the project through to completion.

Aleksa Vučen from Transparency International BiH believes that state authorities neglect the protection of public interest when awarding concessions, even though that should be their primary goal.

“Instead of serving the citizens, the authorities commit by contract to assist investors who enter into a kind of legal negotiation conflict with the public,” Vučen explains. He adds that insufficient financial capacity should be a disqualifying factor in awarding concessions.

He argues that these contracts were drafted with an unambiguous intention on the part of the Canton to benefit the private investor, who, rather than implementing the concession, intends to resell it at a later stage.