Prosecutors Audit Belgrade Higher Prosecutor's Office
Five Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office prosecutors have been reviewing Belgrade Higher Prosecutor's Office cases since this morning. The two offices give conflicting accounts of earlier requests.
A five-member commission of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office began checking the legality of the Belgrade Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office on the morning of October 28, 2026. The office is headed by Higher Public Prosecutor Nenad Stefanovic. The same morning, Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac sent a binding instruction to all 87 public prosecutor’s offices in Serbia.
What does Zagorka Dolovac’s instruction require?
The instruction also reached the Organized Crime Prosecutor’s Office. Chief public prosecutors, or the prosecutors designated to stand in for them, must give commission members access to every case file the commission singles out. With the commission members’ consent, they must also provide working conditions on the offices’ premises.
The stated aims are legality, effectiveness and uniformity in how public prosecutors act, monitoring and guiding the work of prosecutor’s offices, and oversight of how general binding instructions are carried out.
The Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office told Danas that the commission has deputy members, that all public prosecutors of the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office take part, and that all cases are being checked. Priority goes to those that stand out for the social danger of the offense, the penalty it carries and the level of secrecy. The audit will last as long as necessary.
Which cases is the commission asking for first?
According to Danas, the first cases the commission requested from Stefanovic include the canopy collapse, the sound cannon case and the Senjak killing. Nova, citing unofficial sources, reports that the commission is also looking at arrests of government critics, wiretapping orders and the legality of plea agreements concluded by the Belgrade Higher Prosecutor’s Office. Both claims come from unofficial sources.
Danas also writes that criminal proceedings against a prosecutor could be possible if irregularities are found. This portal previously followed the Senjak case through the Court of Appeals decision to end house arrest for three defendants. The audit of the prosecutor’s office had not been a topic until now.
What do the Supreme and Higher Prosecutor’s Offices say?
The two institutions describe the same situation in opposite ways. The Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office told Danas:
Earlier requests for access to case files for the purpose of oversight were, in the great majority of cases, ignored or refused. The Appellate Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade did not perform its function of monitoring and guiding work, so it was necessary for the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office to use its, in any case very limited, powers, which have been further reduced over the years by amendments to the Constitution and laws. It is also important to say that at the beginning of 2025 the composition of the High Prosecutorial Council, which makes final decisions in disciplinary proceedings, changed, and it quickly became clear at the Council’s sessions that decisions not to the liking of the executive branch would not be able to pass.
The Belgrade Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office responded with a statement. It said it is acting in line with the General Binding Instruction of the Supreme Public Prosecutor and has given the five-prosecutor commission access to every case it requested. This, it stressed, is the fourth commission audit of its cases in the past two years ordered by the Supreme Public Prosecutor. The statement also says:
At the same request, the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade has submitted dozens of cases to the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office for oversight over the past two years. In that regard, we stress that the headlines and information published in some media are inappropriate, because the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade acts exclusively in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Serbia.
The difference is concrete. The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office claims that earlier requests for access were mostly ignored or refused, while the Higher Prosecutor’s Office says it granted access to every requested case and that this is the fourth audit in two years. The length of the audit has not been set: for now, the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office says only that it will last as long as necessary.
