Pressure on prosecutors and judges, and cases taken away

Category: Elections, media and institutions

Period: from 2015

For more than a decade, prosecutors and judges who touched cases important to the authorities have been removed from those cases, transferred, subjected to disciplinary proceedings and publicly attacked by President Aleksandar Vučić, ministers, MPs and pro-government media. Since 2025 the target has been Mladen Nenadić, chief prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office for Organised Crime, which took over the investigations into the canopy collapse and the General Staff building. In March 2026 the High Prosecutorial Council sent four of the 11 prosecutors seconded to the office back to their posts, but after an opinion from the Venice Commission all of them were reinstated in June 2026. No one has been held accountable in any of these cases.

Prosecutors removed and attacked

In its 2025 and 2026 reports, the European Commission finds that political pressure on the judiciary has grown significantly, and that the competent institutions have neither investigated the interference nor established who is responsible.

Attacks on TOK and Nenadić

Since 2025, when the Prosecutor's Office for Organised Crime (TOK) took over the investigations into the canopy and the General Staff building, its chief prosecutor Mladen Nenadić has been a target.

Under the „Mrdić laws“, the High Prosecutorial Council in March 2026 sent four of the 11 prosecutors seconded to TOK, an office with 20 prosecutors, back to their home offices. After an opinion from the Venice Commission, all of them were brought back in June 2026.

The BIA and prosecutors

Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac confirmed in February 2026 that, ahead of the repeat elections for the High Prosecutorial Council, some prosecutors from the Kragujevac appellate area had attended a meeting about those elections at the headquarters of the BIA. Prosecutor Miodrag Surla said that, as he had learned indirectly, BIA director Vladimir Orlić attended the meeting. TOK questioned more than ten prosecutors and minister Nenad Vujić, but not Orlić, because the BIA did not provide the data it had requested.

According to Radar, the BIA wiretapped TOK prosecutors over the „Canopy“ case until 29 October 2026. On 2 November, TOK asked for it to be established whether, and why, they had been under covert surveillance.

Prosecutors transferred off the EPS case

On the transfer of prosecutors Bojana Savović and Jasmina Paunović, who ordered arrests in the EPS case in 2023, the Commissioner for Autonomy of the State Prosecutorial Council concluded that it was an organisational matter, not outside influence.

Cases with no investigation or indictment

No one has been held accountable in any of these cases. A criminal complaint against Vulin over his flat was dismissed in 2017. The 2015 helicopter crash and Informer's attacks on judges in Užice were never investigated.

In the Banjska, Savamala, Krušik and Telekom media purchases cases, proceedings drag on with no indictment.

Prosecutor Danilović on pressure

Dragan Danilović, a prosecutor at the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, told Nova.rs on 3 November 2026 that the office's senior officials had pressured him to downgrade the charge against the driver who hit student Sonja Ponjavić.

Supreme Prosecutor's Office oversight

After the elections of 25 October 2026, Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac ordered oversight of cases, starting with Nenad Stefanović's Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, which called it an „open attack“. The Belgrade Bar Association called for Dolovac and Stefanović to resign.

On 5 November the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office said that a number of the commission's members do not hold a certificate for access to classified information, and accused commission member Branko Stamenković of publicly prejudging its conclusion. By 6 November the commission had reportedly taken over 34 cases from the office, among them „Sound Cannon“ and „Pardons“. The cases themselves, „Canopy“, „General Staff“ and „Jovanjica“, and the disputed doctorates are followed on their own pages.

Participants

Serbian Progressive Party: Its MPs proposed changes to the judicial laws without the councils' opinion and, through an amendment, limited the secondment of prosecutors to the Organised Crime Prosecutor's Office (responsible)
Aleksandar Vučić: According to the European Commission, he made inappropriate comments about investigations and the work of prosecutors and judges, including threats of dismissal (responsible)
Uglješa Mrdić: He told the Judges' Association that “reasoned criticism” is not pressure, and called on the presidents of the Association and of the Supreme Court to explain the elections (responsible)
Nikola Selaković: After the TOK charged him in the “Generalštab” case, he announced an end to the “organised criminal group around the rogue” TOK (commented on the case)
Nenad Vujić: On 1 July 2025 he removed Dolovac from her post on the examination board; the ministry gave no reason (responsible)
Nenad Stefanović: He allegedly decided with Dolovac on seconding prosecutors to the TOK through “deal-making and horse-trading”, prosecutor Paunović claims (responsible)
Zagorka Dolovac: She allegedly issued an instruction ordering an investigation into Marko Kričak on suspicion that he took part in the beating of students and citizens (responsible)
Ivan Konatar: As disciplinary prosecutor, he opened an inquiry into the accountability of prosecutor Paunović over her media statements about the canopy (responsible)
Dragan J. Vučićević: As TV Informer editor he called for prosecutor Nenadić to be arrested after the arrest of former minister Momirović (commented on the case)
Mladen Nenadić: A target of tabloids and officials since July 2025 over the canopy investigation; the TOK calls those statements “direct pressure” (harmed)
Jasmina Paunović: She said the secondment of prosecutors to the TOK is decided through “deal-making and horse-trading” between Dolovac and Stefanović (harmed)
Bojana Savović: Prosecutor at the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade; the EPS case was taken from her and she was moved in 2023. (harmed)
Irena Bjeloš: The president of the Association of Public Prosecutors said she is a victim of the “dirty compromise between Nenad Stefanović and Zagorka Dolovac” (harmed)
Aleksandar Isailović: TOK prosecutor who refused to accept classifying the protests as terrorism; not re-seconded in March 2026. (harmed)
Aleksandar Barac: A victim, according to the president of the Association of Public Prosecutors, of the “dirty compromise” between Nenad Stefanović and Zagorka Dolovac (harmed)
Lidija Komlen Nikolić: She said the authorities and Dolovac were playing “power games”, and that the two prosecutors were victims of a compromise (oversight and the public)
High Prosecutorial Council: On 3 November 2026 the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade asked it for an urgent response to political pressure (responsible)
Public Prosecutor's Office for Organised Crime: On 14 July 2025 it said that statements by top officials about its cases amounted to “direct pressure and impermissible influence” (harmed)
Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, Special Department for Combating Corruption: Moved the prosecutors who ordered arrests in the EPS case out of the anti-corruption department; cites staffing needs (responsible)
National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia: On 22 July 2021 it elected Zagorka Dolovac Republic Public Prosecutor for a third time, with 168 of 171 votes (responsible)
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia: During its caretaker mandate it called the inspection “regular practice” and condemned the “targeting” of prosecutors' offices and prosecutors (commented on the case)
Informer: On 26 June 2025 it published an article presenting Dolovac as “undermining the profession”; Vučićević called for the prosecutor's arrest (responsible)
Higher Court in Užice: Judges who annulled the election at a Kosjerić polling station branded “blockader judges” (harmed)
Judges' Association of Serbia: It said the High Judicial Council selected only 25 judges in 2025, even though eight vacancy calls had been announced for 416 posts (oversight and the public)
High Judicial Council: In 2025 it elected just 25 judges for 416 posts; the European Commission found that the councils had not responded adequately to pressure (investigation and courts)
Association of Public Prosecutors and Deputy Public Prosecutors of Serbia: The president said the articles and the dismissal of Dolovac were the authorities “sending a message” (oversight and the public)
Centre for Judicial Research (CEPRIS): It demanded an immediate halt to the disciplinary proceedings against prosecutor Paunović (oversight and the public)
Venice Commission (Council of Europe): It called for prosecutors whose secondments had been ended to be reinstated, and in June 2026 it found that two of them had still not been returned (oversight and the public)
European Commission: In 2025 it found that the president and other officials had commented inappropriately on investigations and threatened dismissals (oversight and the public)
Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office: Ahead of the 2026 elections it ordered swift action on election-related criminal complaints and set up a commission to inspect case files (investigation and courts)
Dragan Vasiljević: On 28 October 2026 the Organised Crime Prosecutor's Office asked him to reconsider the decisions withholding investigators from its task forces (commented on the case)
Ivica Dačić: On 28 October 2026 the Organised Crime Prosecutor's Office asked him, as minister, to reconsider the decisions withholding investigators from its task forces (commented on the case)
Belgrade Centre for Human Rights: He welcomed the inspection of prosecutors' offices and asked why those powers had not been used earlier (oversight and the public)
Branko Stamenković: Member of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office commission; said it had taken over the Kričak case, which could end in disciplinary complaints (investigation and courts)
Dragan Danilović: Says senior prosecutors pressured him to downgrade the charge against the driver in Ruzveltova Street and that he was transferred for refusing (harmed)
Miodrag Marković: Kreni-Promeni reported him to the Organised Crime Prosecutor's Office on suspicion of abuse of office in the “sound cannon” case (responsible)
Savo Manojlović: With the Kreni-Promeni movement, he filed criminal complaints over the prosecution's handling of the “sound cannon” case (oversight and the public)
Vladimir Orlić: According to prosecutor Surla, he attended a meeting at the BIA after which chief prosecutors told colleagues whom to vote for in the High Prosecutorial Council election (responsible)
Security Information Agency: Allegedly wiretapped Organised Crime Prosecutor's Office prosecutors, and despite repeated reminders did not give that office information about the meeting with prosecutors (responsible)
Miodrag Surla: Told a High Prosecutorial Council session that prosecutors from the Kragujevac appellate area were told at the BIA whom to vote for in the Council election (oversight and the public)