On May 4, 2026, in Pula, a minor in a Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) uniform laid a wreath in "Tito's Park" to mark the anniversary of Josip Broz Tito's death. He wore a cap with a red star on his head. Police in the Croatian city opened proceedings for disturbing public order and peace. The minor will be reported to the competent court - under Article 5 of Croatia's Law on Misdemeanours Against Public Order.

The reasoning is clear. Croatian police argue the JNA was "the army that committed aggression against the Republic of Croatia." By wearing the uniform and the red star, the minor provoked and disturbed the peace. That is the institutional position. But the reality is more complex: in Pula, as in many Croatian cities, there are people who remember Tito differently. "Tito's Park" is still called that, even though there has been a decades-long push to rename anything that smells of Yugoslav.

The minor, whose name has not been published, did not come alone. His presence, in uniform, with the red star, is an act of symbolic political statement. Whether that is his personal conviction or a reflection of family history - that is not a discussion Croatian law recognises. For the state, the JNA uniform is a sign of an aggressor. For some citizens, it is a sign of inheritance.

For the Balkans, this is not an isolated case. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Serbia, even in Macedonia, a similar battle plays out over Yugoslav-era symbols. Who has the right to wear them? Which are historic monuments, and which are political provocations? And where does the line between freedom of expression and disturbance of public order run? Croatia's measure is one - but other countries have their own, often less formalised but no less rooted.

The question rarely raised: why do children and young people still reach for the symbols of a system officially finished more than three decades ago? Perhaps because heritage doesn't change by law. It travels through songs, family stories, pictures on the walls of grandparents' apartments. When a state declares that heritage unacceptable, it doesn't disappear. It only migrates to private spaces - until someone again decides to express it publicly.