In Mali Lošinj, a dispute over a hospitality terrace situated on private land has been ongoing for more than 25 years. The terrace belongs to Alfa Patisserie on Trg Republike Hrvatske, and ownership relations regarding the land have led to disagreements between the City of Mali Lošinj and co-owner Mirjana Kujundžić.
The city claims that part of the plot on which the terrace is located serves as public space and is used as a rear access to the city fish market. It also disputes existing ownership entries, arguing that this part of the land should not have been returned to private individuals in the process of returning nationalised property. That part was once in social ownership with the right of use held by the Cres-Lošinj Municipality.
Mirjana Kujundžić holds a final decision on the return of property confirming her ownership of the disputed land. She believes the city administration is helping a private hospitality operator who uses the entire terrace area without the consent of the other co-owners and without paying compensation. The owner of the patisserie has a one-third co-ownership share but uses the space without agreement with Kujundžić.
The tourism inspection issued a decision to remove the terrace, which has 52 seats, and to prohibit hospitality activities on that area, but the operator requested help from the city due to the inability to obtain the necessary permits. The city administration initiated a procedure to supplement the plan for hospitality terraces for 2026, which includes the disputed area, but that procedure has not been completed and the proposal has not been sent to the City Council. A final decision on the terrace plan for 2027 has not yet been made, and the terrace is designated as terrace number 43, with an area of 44 square metres, in the 2027 proposal.
The city engaged a surveying company to record existing municipal infrastructure, but the process was halted following an objection from the co-owner until the legal circumstances are clarified. The mayor abandoned the idea of expropriating the land after Kujundžić's opposition. The city rejects claims that it initiated land expropriation.
A 2012 ruling rejected Mirjana Kujundžić's earlier request for the removal of objects and handover of the area, but she points out that this ruling does not mean the operator became the owner of the land, but rather that his long-term possession received judicial protection. The city acknowledges that this ruling did not resolve all ownership issues.
Despite the tourism inspection's decision, the operator continues to use the terrace, while the implementation of inspection measures and supervision of hospitality activities are the responsibility of other bodies. The city's terrace plan cannot replace the necessary permits for hospitality activities. The city will consider Mirjana Kujundžić's objection before potentially sending the proposal to the City Council; she states that she will not give up on protecting her ownership.
