ABSTRACT: This paper analyses the institutional process of decision-making and implementation of the construction of the “Sava Centre” (Phases I and II), as a project initiated at the highest federal level in the context of preparations for the Belgrade meeting of the CSCE. Based on a critical analysis of archival materials, planning and technical documentation, and relevant literature, and drawing on neo-institutional theory and the concept of path dependency, the study examines how a political imperative establishes a specific mode of institutional operation through (1) the repeated shifting and reversal of procedural steps and (2) formal verifications through which previously made decisions are retroactively institutionalized and legitimized. The analysis also addresses the representation of the building and the ways in which the role of architecture and the position of the profession are articulated. The relevance of the research lies in providing a deeper understanding of the relationship between political power, regulation, and institutional practices in decision-making on spatial development.

KEYWORDS: political power; neo-institutional theory; occupancy permit and building permit; path dependence; Sava Centre

SUMMARY: The paper analyses the institutional process of decision-making and implementation of the construction of the Sava Centre (Phases I and II) as a representative project initiated at the highest federal level in the context of preparations for the 1977 Belgrade CSCE meeting. Based on a critical analysis of archival materials, planning and technical documentation, and relevant literature, the case study shows that a political imperative reshapes the hierarchy of priorities in planning and construction without abolishing or formally altering existing rules; instead, it leads to their adaptation within the established institutional framework. Decisions and deadlines set at the federal level are transmitted as binding priorities, while at the city and municipal levels they are operationalized through a sequence of administrative, procedural, and expert actions that function primarily as instruments of ex post alignment and management of decisions already taken. Particular attention is given to building and use permits and their role within a regime of ex post verification. The analysis identifies a discrepancy between the construction and use of the building and the corresponding formal acts, as well as a prolonged sequence of technical controls, revisions, and verifications culminating in the final use permit for the congress and concert hall in 1981. This practice is interpreted as a mechanism of retroactive institutionalization and institutional legitimation of an already established state of affairs. By also addressing the representation of the Sava Centre in public and promotional discourse, the paper highlights how the role of architecture and the position of the profession are articulated within a broader narrative of modernization. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the relationship between political power, regulation, and institutional practices in decision-making on spatial development.