We heard the news: the High Council of the Prosecution (VST) has refused to put on the agenda the secondment of public prosecutors to the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime (TOK). Led by the Minister of Justice, six members of the VST used astonishing reasoning: that the recently published opinion is not, in fact, an opinion of the Venice Commission. The Minister of Justice also relied on other falsehoods, like claiming that the Commission’s recommendations do not require the re-secondment of public prosecutors, and that the opinion issued by the Venice Commission can be amended at that body’s session in June this year.
The Minister and the other Council members who relied on his argumentation are, or at least must be, familiar with the institutional framework of how the Venice Commission operates. All Council members have a duty to speak the truth and not to mislead the public; any other conduct renders them unworthy of the important constitutional functions they perform and for which the citizens of Serbia pay them well.
“The opinion of the Venice Commission is not an opinion of the Commission, but of experts.”
The first falsehood stated by the Minister of Justice and public prosecutors Milovanović and Uskoković (Milovanović even said this in his statement to the media) concerns the claim that the opinion of the Venice Commission published on April 24 is not an opinion of the Commission, but rather of certain individual experts, and that the published act will become an official opinion only after adoption at the Commission’s plenary session in June.
This is a blatant falsehood. The act published on Friday is clear: it is an urgent opinion of the Venice Commission. The Commission’s Rules of Procedure recognize three types of opinions: urgent opinions, joint opinions, and follow-up opinions. The acts of this Commission, which signed the document on Serbia published last Friday, do not recognize what the Minister and other Council members call an “expert opinion.”
Article 14a of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure clearly stipulates that an urgent opinion is adopted in exceptional cases when waiting for the next plenary session would not be appropriate. This solution is not new; it has existed since 2002 precisely so the Commission can react in a timely manner when necessary.
Not only is the claim that this is a so-called expert opinion false, but, on behalf of the Republic of Serbia, Ana Brnabić requested precisely the adoption of an urgent (expedited) opinion, as opposed to one that would require waiting for the next plenary session. This is not the first time Serbia has requested and received an urgent opinion from the Venice Commission, and it has always treated such opinions appropriately. Until now, because this time the Commission’s conclusion does not suit the ruling party.
So, the purpose of an urgent opinion is precisely to avoid waiting for the June plenary session of the Venice Commission. The Minister and his followers look the public in the eye and claim the opposite – that this is an informal document that will only become formal upon adoption mid-year.
“The Venice Commission must adopt the opinion at a plenary session.”
Related to the previous falsehood, the Rules of Procedure (Article 14a, paragraph 1) clearly state that an urgent opinion of the Commission will be issued and published before the report is discussed at a plenary session.
Making the falsehoods spread by the Minister & Co. even worse, the same article (paragraph 3) provides that an urgent opinion is submitted to the Commission for consideration, and during that consideration the Commission may confirm it, take note of it, adopt it in the form of a joint opinion, or postpone its consideration.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice claimed that the Venice Commission could amend its opinion on Serbia at the next session, and that this had been done in the case of the opinion on Montenegro’s law on religious communities. However, the procedure does not allow such modification of the opinion, and in the case of Montenegro, the Minister made multiple false statements: the Commission did not change its position; rather, the Montenegrin authorities amended the draft law they had submitted during the procedure.
“The recommendations do not require secondment of prosecutors, but election.”
During the VST session, the Minister also misled the public with this statement, although the Venice Commission’s recommendation clearly states that “seconded prosecutors whose mandates were prematurely terminated should be returned to their positions and that positions of seconded prosecutors should gradually be filled through the regular election of prosecutors” (para. 98/7), meaning that prosecutors whose mandates were terminated in this way had their permanence of office violated and should be returned to their positions until regular elections are carried out (para. 72).
If we assume the Minister can read, then he likely understands that the Commission explicitly required secondment until regular election procedures are completed.
***
It is clear to everyone why the Minister is participating in misleading the public – it is not the first time. If Serbia were a democratic state, he would have resigned long ago. But why public prosecutors (Pavlović, Milovanović, Uskoković) are also misleading the public may not be entirely clear to everyone. Instead of advocating for their colleagues who were dismissed by decree to be reinstated, they persistently do the opposite. For those who closely follow developments in the judiciary, the answer is clear: two of these members were elected to a second term in the VST contrary to the Constitution1 and the law2 (Pavlović and Milovanović), while the third secured his position through repeated elections in which prosecutors were pressured by the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) to vote for him (Uskoković). Proceedings are currently underway before the European Court of Human Rights on this matter.
In other words, people who are compromised and those who owe their positions to people in power can no longer present themselves publicly as professionals or as people of integrity.
As for our primary issue – the so-called Mrdić laws – yesterday the European Commission again called for the immediate suspension of the application of these laws (which the Constitutional Court could implement as early as today), followed by interventions that would permanently repeal Mrdić’s solutions.
So, no waiting for June, no working groups or analyses. Immediate suspension of implementation is what is expected from Serbia. Whether the VST will be part of the solution or part of the problem is now quite clear. Those who acted against the interests of the rule of law will be remembered, as will those who honorably raised their hands in support of the rule of law and the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
Translated by Marijana Simić
Peščanik.net, 01.05.2026.
________________
- Article 164, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia – The same individual cannot be re-elected to a position on the High Council of the Prosecution.
- Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Law on the High Council of the Prosecution – An elected member of the Council cannot be re-elected to that position.
- Biografija
- Latest Posts
Latest posts by Sofija Mandić (see all)
- The unworthy - 01/05/2026
- Nedostojni - 29/04/2026
- Na početak - 25/04/2026
