Beljanski Steps Down From Serbian Bar Association Board

Lawyer Vladimir Beljanski resigned on August 5 from the Managing Board of the Serbian Bar Association, after the board refused to publicly condemn statements by Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic about attorney Jana Acimovic Planojevic. In an interview published on August 10, he described for the first time in detail what happened inside the board before he left.

Beljanski is a lawyer from Novi Sad and a former long-serving president of the Bar Association of Vojvodina, a man who spent years at the top of the chamber system. Besides refusing to condemn the statements, the Managing Board also rejected his proposal to notify international bar associations about the threat to Acimovic Planojevic’s safety.

Two Sessions That Never Happened

The board never voted on the matter, because it never got that far. An extraordinary session could not be held after several members failed to show up, and an electronic session called over the same issue went unanswered.

Beljanski describes the moment as decisive:

“The turning point was the Managing Board’s refusal to condemn the president’s public attacks on attorney Jana Acimovic Planojevic and to notify international bar associations about the threat to her safety. First, the absence of certain members made it impossible to hold an extraordinary session, and then an electronic session called for the same purpose was ignored as well.”

Staying on the board after that, he says, had become for him a matter of personal responsibility.

“Remaining a member of that body after all this would have meant accepting part of the responsibility for its silence, and lending legitimacy to conduct I disagree with, both professionally and morally.”

In the statement explaining his departure, he said protecting the freedom, independence, reputation and safety of lawyers when they come under threat because of their legal work is one of the Bar Association’s core duties, not something to be weighed case by case.

The Case That Made the Lawyer a Target

Acimovic Planojevic and her colleagues represent 27 citizens who say they were victims of police torture in Valjevo, including minors. The Prosecution for Organized Crime is running a pre-investigation procedure against 28 reported police officers, after the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office transferred the case to it because the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Valjevo had failed to act. Beljanski says the case reached that office thanks to her initiative and persistence.

After the case was transferred, she and members of her family became targets of media attacks. The gate at the entrance to her law office was damaged, and, according to Beljanski, the president then used a televised address on a national broadcaster to level accusations against her that Beljanski calls untrue.

Why Wasn’t the Bar Association’s Earlier Statement Enough?

The Serbian Bar Association had earlier condemned attacks by certain media outlets on Acimovic Planojevic, a fact Beljanski does not dispute. The president’s remarks came after that statement, and he sees them as a different kind of circumstance.

“A word spoken from the highest state office carries far more weight and can produce far more serious consequences than articles in individual media outlets.”

That, he says, is why the old statement could not substitute for a new response. He repeated the same argument in the written explanation of his resignation, describing the president’s remarks as considerably more serious and dangerous than the earlier media attacks.

Resignation Doesn’t Change the Board’s Decision

One member’s departure obligates the Managing Board to nothing. The issue that drove Beljanski out remains exactly where it was: no notice was sent to international bar associations, because the session at which that question was supposed to be put to a vote never took place. Staying away from the session thus produced the same effect as rejecting the proposal outright, only without a vote that would have been recorded in the Association’s documents.

Beljanski speaks of his colleagues’ motives as an impression, not an established fact, and he makes that reservation explicit.

“It leaves the impression that those members either lack the courage to protect a colleague exposed to attacks from the highest officials, or that they have taken on the political role of neutralizing any AKS response that would not suit the ruling regime.”

His broader assessment goes beyond a single session. He argues that the authorities have placed people close to them in the governing bodies of the bar associations, and that decision making is being blocked through absence from sessions, denial of quorum, and appeals to supposed political neutrality precisely when a lawyer needs protection. That is his own assessment, one the Association’s leadership has neither confirmed nor denied in a public statement.

What Autumn Holds for the Legal Profession

Beljanski expects pressure to intensify in the fall, when a new election cycle is expected, presidential and possibly parliamentary as well.

“The question is not only whether a ‘hot’ autumn awaits us, but also whether the legal profession will have institutions capable and ready to protect its members from that pressure.”

The Managing Board has been operating without him since August 5, and the proposal to notify international bar associations has been neither adopted nor rejected. The next time the issue returns to the agenda, the quorum in the room will answer more clearly than any statement could.