Judicial group slams Serbian president for interfering in court case

Serbia's judiciary has publicly pushed back against President Aleksandar Vučić's recent comments on a court ruling, with a group of judges and prosecutors known as "Defense of the Profession" issuing a strong statement. The group accused the president of overstepping his authority and interfering with the judicial process.

"Defense of the Profession" emphasized that public officials have a legal duty to uphold and strengthen public trust in the judiciary's independence, impartiality, and authority. They argued that public discrediting of court decisions and judges by high-ranking state officials constitutes inappropriate pressure on the judiciary and violates the principle of separation of powers and the rule of law.

“

He is, for reasons unknown, once again venturing into areas outside his jurisdiction, interfering with the work of the court and prosecution, with the intention that the pressures of the executive branch will make the judiciary obedient.

The group specifically addressed Vučić's statement regarding the Appellate Court in Novi Sad's decision. The court had overturned a previous ruling by the Higher Court in Novi Sad concerning the "canopy incident" case. This decision confirmed the indictment against several former officials, including Jelena Tanasković and Goran Vesić.

President Vučić, speaking from Paris, had described the events in Serbia's judiciary as a "great shame," questioning the logic behind decisions such as reinstating pre-trial detention for individuals who had been released months prior. "Defense of the Profession" countered that the president, "for reasons unknown," is once again venturing into areas outside his jurisdiction, attempting to influence the judiciary through executive pressure.

“

What can you tell me about the decision to reinstate pre-trial detention for those who have not been in detention for a year or seven-eight months because they might influence witnesses, as is the case with one or two former ministers or company directors? Is there any logic in all of this?