Senjak case: could the Milic file switch prosecutors?
Media report the case against Veselin Milic could be handed to the basic prosecutor's office, but Belgrade's Higher Public Prosecutor disputes it. The status is unresolved.
- According to media reports, the case against former Belgrade police chief Veselin Milic could be handed to the First Basic Public Prosecutor's Office, but Belgrade's Higher Public Prosecutor disputes that claim.
- After part of the charge was dropped, Milic is now accused only of failing to report a crime, an offense that falls under basic prosecution jurisdiction.
- His proceedings would thereby be separated from the trial over the killing of Aleksandar Nesovic, known as Baja, on Senjak on May 12, 2026.
- Milic had earlier been released from custody, a move the opposition called a capitulation by the judiciary.
The question of which office holds jurisdiction over the case against Veselin Milic, the former chief of Belgrade police, has reopened debate about how the judiciary is handling the Senjak affair. According to reporting by some outlets, Belgrade’s Higher Public Prosecutor could hand the file to the First Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office, separating Milic’s proceedings from the trial over the killing of Aleksandar Nesovic, known as Baja. The Higher Prosecutor, however, disputes those claims, so the exact status of the file is currently unresolved.
The events date to May 12, 2026, when Nesovic was killed at a restaurant on Senjak. Milic was initially charged within that case, after which prosecutors dropped part of the charge. He now faces only the count of failing to report a crime, an offense that by law falls under basic prosecution jurisdiction. That is precisely the legal basis cited for any transfer of the file to a lower office.
What separating the file would mean
If the transfer does happen, Milic’s case would no longer be part of the main murder trial but a separate proceeding before the basic prosecutor. In formal terms, this is a question of jurisdiction: more serious charges are handled by the higher prosecutor, while lesser offenses, including failure to report a crime, go to the basic office. Prosecutors point to exactly those rules.
In political terms, the move reads differently. Milic was one of the most senior police officials in the capital, so any change in the charge or in jurisdiction in his case carries a weight it would rarely acquire with an anonymous defendant. The earlier release from custody further reinforced the impression that the former chief is being treated more cautiously than others. Opposition parties described that decision as a capitulation by the judiciary and announced they would seek answers in parliament.
Two layers are worth separating. One is legal: reclassifying an act from a heavier to a lighter offense, under the rules of procedure, also changes the competent prosecutor, and that in itself is not an irregularity. The other is political: in a climate where influence over the judiciary has been discussed for months, every step in this case is read through the lens of trust in institutions.
Who claims what
Critics of the government argue that loyalists within the judiciary are minimizing the Senjak case and that every subsequent move amounts to lowering the temperature. Prosecutors, for their part, insist this is solely a matter of applying jurisdiction rules and that the classification of the offense follows from established facts, not political calculation.
For now, though, even the report of the transfer itself is in question. The outlet that first published the information later issued a correction and framed it conditionally, while the Higher Prosecutor denied that the file had been formally forwarded. In other words, the public is currently following a procedural question on which the institutions themselves do not speak with one voice, while the substantive question, who is responsible and how for what happened on Senjak, remains open.
What will decide the public impression is not a press release but the outcome. If Milic’s case is separated and ends with a lighter classification, doubts about selective justice will hardly fade. If the process shows consistency, it will be an argument in favor of the institutions. Until then, one question still has no answer: is moving the file a matter of procedure, or a signal about how far the judiciary is willing to go in the Senjak case?
