Criminal complaint against ex-prosecutor Paunovic and Lucic
On the orders of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade, a criminal complaint has been filed against a retired prosecutor and a YouTube host over suspected discrimination. She rejects it.
- The criminal complaint was filed on July 28, 2026 on the orders of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade.
- Retired prosecutor Jasmina Paunovic faces two counts of racial and other discrimination, one of them jointly with Dejan Lucic.
- The disputed remarks come from a broadcast on July 21, with three further programmes from June and July also cited.
- Paunovic rejects the complaint as groundless and says it is politically motivated.
On the orders of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, a criminal complaint was filed on July 28, 2026 against retired prosecutor Jasmina Paunovic and Dejan Lucic, the editor and host of a YouTube programme. The stated basis is suspicion of the criminal offence of racial and other discrimination.
Prosecutors suspect that during a broadcast on July 21 the pair grossly insulted and humiliated, and incited hatred and discrimination against, members of the Serbian Progressive Party, the President of the Republic, members of his family and political opponents. The complaint does not stop at that single broadcast. It also cites the content of the programmes Otisak of June 16, Bez pardona of July 1 and Glas javnosti of July 13, 2026.
Paunovic faces two separate counts. One is alleged as joint commission with Lucic, the other as a sole act. In practice that classification means prosecutors tie part of the disputed statements to the two appearing together, and part to her alone.
What the complaint actually means procedurally
A criminal complaint is not an indictment, and it is a long way from a verdict. It opens the pre-investigation stage, in which prosecutors gather evidence and decide whether there are grounds to proceed. At this point nobody has been convicted, no guilt has been established, and the right to a defence remains intact.
In hate speech and discrimination cases the evidentiary burden is a particular one. It is not enough to show that something was said. Context, intent and whether the statement was objectively capable of inciting hatred or unequal treatment of a defined group all have to be established. That is why prosecutors as a rule request full recordings rather than isolated clips, and commission a transcript analysis.
Paunovic responded publicly the same day. She described the complaint as “utterly groundless and arbitrary, taken out of context and interpreted in the language of a regime loyalist”. She says it amounts to persecution and to a campaign against the so-called Student List, on which, as she confirmed, she is a candidate.
Why did the case acquire a political label immediately?
Because it coincided with an election campaign. Paunovic confirmed the same day that she is on the so-called Student List, so the legal process is running in parallel with the pre-election contest. In that setting every procedural step by prosecutors invites a double reading, one legal and one political, regardless of the filing party’s actual intent.
For reporting purposes, the two levels have to be kept apart. What is verifiable is that the complaint was filed, against whom, on whose orders and for which offences. What remains one side’s assertion is the assessment of motive. Paunovic says the motive is political. Prosecutors have so far offered no public argument on that point.
The next move belongs to the prosecution. It can dismiss the complaint, order the collection of further information, or open a formal investigation. Deadlines in cases of this kind are not short, especially when the material consists of several hours of video that must be transcribed and analysed.
Until then the usual rule applies. A complaint is a prosecutorial claim, not an established fact. Where do you think sharp political criticism ends and a criminal offence begins?
