The case has been formed

The end of last month was marked by the news that the Security Information Agency had organized and carried out an operation aimed at directly influencing the outcome of the elections for the High Prosecutorial Council. That truly scandalous news inevitably attracted enormous public attention and, as a result, another development, equally noteworthy from the perspective of the painful and bleak state of our judiciary, went almost completely unnoticed and remained in its shadow: that the High Judicial Council had “formed a disciplinary case against seven judges of the Higher Court in Belgrade.”

It is worth noting that the public was not informed of this by the High Judicial Council itself, but by the complainant, whom the HJC notified about the “formation of the case.” The very next day, the President of the HJC deemed it appropriate to announce that the body “did not file a complaint nor initiate disciplinary proceedings against the judges; rather, a disciplinary complaint was registered with the disciplinary bodies at the request of the complainant.”

The complaint submitted to the HJC states that the actions of the group of judges led to a gross violation of fundamental human rights and caused serious, hard-to-compensate damage to the health and reputation of a group of defendants, and that claims for compensation would likely result in multimillion-euro material damage to the budget of the Republic of Serbia.

The complaint accuses the group of judges of conscious and continuous violations of the law and of the unjustified and unlawful deprivation of liberty of several individuals. It states that during 2025, these judges prosecuted and kept in detention for months a group of citizens from Kragujevac and Kraljevo, despite the defense’s argument that the Belgrade court lacked both territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over events that took place outside Belgrade. It is particularly emphasized that the defendants were victims of discrimination, as they were kept in detention significantly longer than other suspects in an identical procedural position. The complainant sees the reason for this discriminatory treatment in the publicly expressed pro-opposition political views of those detained.

One judge from the group is accused of especially serious procedural violations. These include malicious management of the proceedings to the detriment of the detainees, by forwarding defense appeals against detention orders to the Appellate Court with substantial delays, sometimes of several dozen days, despite the legal deadline of 48 hours for deciding on such appeals. The accusations even include the deliberate failure to enforce decisions of higher courts. An almost unbelievable claim is also made: that after the Appellate Court in August 2025 overturned the detention order, the judge nevertheless kept three defendants in custody for an additional eight days without any legal basis.

In its response to the complainant, the High Judicial Council stated that the complaint concerning the work of the group of judges had been forwarded to the President of the Higher Court in Belgrade for consideration, while the part relating to the work of the President of that court was submitted to the President of the Appellate Court with instructions to report on the measures taken.

Which brings us back to the beginning, to the question: what does it actually mean that “a case has been formed”?

In connection with numerous different proceedings, from disciplinary to criminal, we have heard this formula far too often with no substantial outcome. Moreover, the actors in these “formed cases” frequently not only avoid any sanctions but are even promoted. There are many examples; some recent and particularly striking ones include the appointment to top command positions within the police of individuals suspected of exceeding their authority and brutally treating participants in civil protests. In that context, it is highly indicative that, according to the HJC’s letter to the complainant, the particularly singled-out judge from the group has since been promoted and appointed as a judge of the Appellate Court in Belgrade.

It would be unacceptable for the situation described here to remain at the level of a “formed case.” The allegations in the complaint are easily verifiable and should be promptly examined in disciplinary proceedings, which are, by law, urgent. And if they are accurate, then the responsibility of the actors involved goes far beyond disciplinary liability.

It should be unnecessary to remind the High Judicial Council that a public official who, on the basis of differences regarding a personal characteristic, including political beliefs, denies or restricts the rights of a person or citizen guaranteed by the Constitution and laws commits the criminal offense of violation of equality under Article 128 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, unlawfully detaining another person or otherwise unlawfully depriving or restricting their freedom of movement constitutes the criminal offense of unlawful deprivation of liberty under Article 132, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. A judge who, in judicial proceedings and with the intent to cause harm to another, issues an unlawful act or otherwise violates the law is also guilty of a criminal offense under Article 360 of the Criminal Code – violation of the law by a judge, public prosecutor, or deputy public prosecutor. Each of these offenses carries a potential prison sentence of up to five years.

Will the High Judicial Council and its bodies – the disciplinary prosecutor and the disciplinary commission – by turning a blind eye to possible multiple and continuous violations of the law by judges, significantly contribute to the complete collapse of our judiciary?

Translated by Marijana Simić

Peščanik.net, 04.03.2026.