Lawyer Questions Unequal House Arrest Application for Former Minister Vesić

Lawyer Vladimir Beljanski has raised serious questions about the judicial treatment of former minister Goran Vesić and his assistant Anita Dimovski, who are not under house arrest despite being indicted. Beljanski points out that a key justification for imposing house arrest on other defendants was to prevent "disturbing the public." He argues that if Vesić and Dimovski's freedom does not pose such a risk, then the same measure should be reconsidered for all involved.

“

If their freedom does not 'disturb the public and does not hinder the smooth conduct of the proceedings,' why should house arrest not be lifted for other participants in the proceedings?

Beljanski described the situation as highly unusual, stating he had never encountered such a case in his career. He explained that the Appellate Court in Novi Sad, which ordered house arrest for all defendants, including Vesić and Dimovski, apparently believed the two were already serving house arrest based on a decision from the Belgrade court. This Belgrade order, however, had expired in January.

“

This is not an 'administrative error' because it is not an 'obvious mistake in some number of items or dates.' This is a very specific situation that I, I must admit, have never encountered before in my career.

The Higher Court in Novi Sad informed N1 that they could not proceed with the house arrest for Vesić and Dimovski because the three-month duration of the measure was to be calculated from the date the Belgrade court's ban on leaving home was lifted. Electronic surveillance equipment for them was removed on January 30, 2026.

“

The Appellate Court in Novi Sad, which ordered so-called house arrest, that is, the prohibition of leaving the apartment in relation to all defendants in the case, and thus in relation to former minister Vesić and in relation to Dimovski, considered that these two defendants were already under house arrest by decision of the Belgrade court.

Beljanski questions how the Appellate Court could have been mistaken about the status of Vesić and Dimovski, especially since the Belgrade court's decision had already expired. He notes that the Appellate Court's order stipulated that the three-month house arrest would begin after the Belgrade measure ended. Consequently, with the Belgrade measure expiring in January, the three-month period would have concluded by April, rendering the Appellate Court's subsequent order moot. He suggests the court could have formulated the decision differently, without tying it to the expiration date of the previous measure.

“

In relation to defendants Goran Vesić and Anita Dimoski, the Administration for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions informed the court that they could not act on the said decision, bearing in mind that for the named defendants, the duration of this measure of at most three months is to be counted from the day of lifting the measure prohibiting leaving the apartment, which was determined by the decision of the Higher Court in Belgrade, and that on 01.30.2026, the electronic surveillance equipment was removed.