Although more than a year has passed since the Zagreb earthquake, its consequences remain strongly present. Some residents have not returned to their homes and are instead living elsewhere: some in collective accommodations and others in containers. Organized reconstruction has only just begun, and those who started renovating their properties independently are facing numerous uncertainties and issues.
These problems relate to a lack of information, complex procedures, unclear deadlines and scopes of reconstruction, issues with temporary accommodation and the use of city- and state-owned apartments, unresolved property and legal matters, and long-standing neglect of public properties. There are also concerns regarding safety and the capacity of property managers and city/state services to handle upcoming processes.
Ombudswoman Tena Šimonović Einwalter and her colleagues discussed many of these issues during May and June with residents of Medvedski Breg, Markuševečki Popovec, and those temporarily housed in Hostel Arena, as well as with representatives of the citizens’ initiative SOS Zagreb, which emerged from a Facebook group gathering over 15,000 citizens concerned about the consequences of the earthquake.
Based on these conversations and complaints received, 14 recommendations were issued by the Ombudswoman and sent to the Ministry of Physical Planning, Construction and State Assets and to the City of Zagreb.
Issue: Uncertainty About Accommodation in Hostel Arena
The residents we spoke to had no major complaints about the living conditions in the hostel but were troubled by the uncertainty surrounding their stay. They reported receiving no formal decisions or documents detailing the length of their stay, and it’s unclear what categories of victims they fall into or how damaged their properties are.
They are also concerned about various aspects of reconstruction—deadlines, lack of information, excessive bureaucracy, and even receiving bills for utilities and water management fees for damaged properties, which have resulted in enforcement threats. Although psychological help is available, some stressed the need to strengthen these services.
Recommendations:
1. Conduct individual assessments of Hostel Arena residents and analyze possibilities for alternative housing—such as in city/state-owned apartments—by expanding the right to rental subsidies (currently limited to red-labeled buildings) to include those in yellow-labeled (PN1 and PN2) buildings staying at Hostel Arena.
2. Formalize their status by issuing decisions with specified duration of accommodation and allow legal recourse against such decisions.
3. Given the psychological effects of collective living, mental health support should be intensified, with special attention to older individuals, people living alone, and children. Planning must also consider stigma-related concerns.
Issue: Access to Timely and Relevant Information
After the earthquake, many citizens lacked timely and reliable information about their rights, available assistance, and responsible authorities. Although materials and guides have been published on the Ministry’s website and information centers are set up in various city districts, residents and NGOs say many are unaware of them or find the information too general.
They need specific answers and advice across fields—legal, construction-related, etc. A serious barrier to trust is the unresponsiveness to emails and the inability to speak to officials by phone.
Following an accident caused by falling scaffolding near Ban Jelačić Square, safety in public spaces was again brought into question. Citizens are unclear about which authority—municipal enforcement, building inspectors, or the Ministry—is responsible for removing dangerous building elements.
Recommendations:
4. Strengthen or establish inter-sectoral teams of government and/or city officials to provide clearer information and support on reconstruction processes—especially in existing information centers and with mobile teams serving areas like Hostel Arena and Donji Čehi.
5. Use local and public media to clearly and simply communicate citizens’ reconstruction rights and organize campaigns, forums, and events on deadlines, procedures, etc.
6. Clarify jurisdiction for demolition and hazard removal among municipal enforcement, construction inspection, and the Ministry under applicable laws.
7. In collaboration with professional chambers (architects, civil engineers, etc.) and academic institutions, explore involving more qualified volunteers to assist citizens with information and support.
8. Consider age, education, and socioeconomic status when choosing communication channels and methods—especially regarding electronic communication.
Issue: Lengthy Reconstruction and Demolition Procedures
Those who have submitted requests complain of slow processes, unclear procedures, lack of clear parameters for self-led reconstruction, worries about restoring culturally protected buildings, energy efficiency requirements, and costs. They are also confused about structural engineers—who appoints them, when, at what cost, and what their deliverables are. There’s no clear point of appeal regarding their work.
Recommendations:
9. Speed up procedures by hiring more case officers and considering the involvement of available civil servants, expert volunteers, etc.
10. Wherever possible (e.g., temporary demolition decisions), specify deadlines for official actions in written decisions.
11. Clearly communicate the roles and responsibilities of structural engineers.
12. Engage commercial banks to secure affordable reconstruction loans.
13. Prioritize environmentally friendly and energy-efficient reconstruction solutions.
Issue: Utility and Water Management Charges
One complaint came from a woman housed at Hostel Arena who is facing enforcement due to unpaid municipal fees for a home she can’t live in—it was yellow-labeled after the earthquake.
Recommendation:
14. Amend the decision on municipal fees so that charges are waived for residential or business premises marked as unusable due to force majeure (yellow or red labels). For yellow-labeled properties, the fee exemption currently lasts a maximum of six months, which expired in September 2020. The same applies to water management fees. As most residents have not returned, an urgent review is needed to extend this exemption or write off the debts, particularly for those still in Hostel Arena.
The Ombudswoman continues to monitor other earthquake-related issues, such as concerns of protected tenants still living in private homes that owners are unwilling to repair—since they lack possession and receive only symbolic rent. Tenants are not authorized to renovate, and if owners fail to invest, the state will place a mortgage on their property.
Residents are also unhappy with poor communication with building managers (especially GSKG d.o.o.) and the Ministry of Culture regarding protected buildings. They want to know whether energy and seismic renovations will be merged, and whether structural engineers will re-inspect buildings damaged further by the Sisak-Moslavina County earthquake.
Due to many unresolved issues, the earthquake’s impact on human rights remains a key focus of the Ombudswoman’s work, which she will continue to report on to the public and the Croatian Parliament. You can follow all updates on this topic [here].