Election of members of the High Prosecutorial Council from among public prosecutors – procedural disputes and institutional deadlock

The procedure for electing candidates for elected members of the High Prosecutorial Council from the ranks of public prosecutors was launched on October 1, 2025. Elections were scheduled for December 23, 2025, when five public prosecutors were to be elected as members of the High Prosecutorial Council for the next five years. Following the closure of the voter register, 762 public prosecutors held the right to vote. The election is conducted by prosecutorial level. Prosecutors at the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office level could vote for one candidate. Prosecutors at the appellate prosecutors level, as well as prosecutors from the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime and the Prosecutor's Office for War Crimes, were to choose between two candidates. The same applied to prosecutors from higher prosecutors' offices. Prosecutors from basic prosecutors' offices had the widest choice - four candidates. The final candidate lists were proclaimed on November 12, 2025. Across Serbia, 13 polling stations were opened, distributed across Beograd, Novi Sad, Niš, and Kragujevac.

The work of the Election Commission of the High Prosecutorial Council was accompanied by certain uncertainties, including the question of the participation of temporarily seconded prosecutors in collegium sessions. In addition, one of the candidates, dissatisfied with the Commission's work, filed a lawsuit with the Administrative Court. Alongside the official campaign in which candidates present themselves to colleagues in the prescribed manner, a parallel media campaign was also visible. The newly elected members of the High Prosecutorial Council will, within their mandate, have the opportunity to elect the Supreme Public Prosecutor and the chief prosecutor for organized crime.

The elected members of the High Prosecutorial Council from the ranks of public prosecutors, based on preliminary results, are: at the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office level, Jasmina Stanković, MA, was elected; at the appellate prosecutors, Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime, and Prosecutor's Office for War Crimes level, Radmila Jovanović was elected; at the higher prosecutors' offices level, Boris Majlat was elected; and at the basic prosecutors' offices level, Predrag Milovanović and Jovana Komnenović were elected.

Due to violations of electoral rights, six public prosecutors filed complaints relating to polling stations Kragujevac 2, Kragujevac 3, Novi Sad 2, and Niš 3. The High Prosecutorial Council was required to rule on those complaints within 48 hours of their submission, but due to lack of quorum at the session held on December 25, no rulings were issued and the session was adjourned to December 26. The High Prosecutorial Council subsequently issued rulings rejecting all six complaints. All six complainants filed appeals with the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court upheld the appeals on January 15 for all six complaints. The complaints concerned four polling stations: two relating to Kragujevac 2 (higher prosecutors' offices level), two relating to Kragujevac 3 (basic prosecutors' offices level), one relating to Novi Sad 2 (higher prosecutors' offices level), and one relating to Niš 3 (basic prosecutors' offices level). Following the Constitutional Court's decision, the High Prosecutorial Council issued a ruling finding that the complaints were "deemed" upheld, because it had not issued a ruling within 48 hours of receiving the complaints.

The complaints did not contest the elections at the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office level and at the appellate and special prosecutors' offices level; accordingly, the HPC noted that Jasmina Stanković, MA and Radmila Jovanović were elected. An appeal was subsequently filed with the Constitutional Court against the HPC ruling accepting the complaints, by public prosecutors Boris Majlat and Jovana Komnenović. The Constitutional Court dismissed those appeals on January 26, 2026, and held that the HPC was obligated to annul the elections at the specified polling stations and repeat them within the statutory eight-day period.

On January 27, the Election Commission of the High Prosecutorial Council issued a statement announcing that the president, deputy president, three members, and three deputy members had submitted irrevocable requests for the termination of their functions. The signatories were Nebojša Popović (president), Tamara Mirović (deputy president), Ksenija Dajanović, Zorica Stojšić, and Smiljka Stojanović.

On January 30, the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Beograd issued a statement announcing that Justice Minister Nenad Vujić had filed a criminal complaint against HPC President Branko Stamenković for the criminal offence under Article 361 - Negligent Conduct in Office (see page 7 for further details). According to a statement from the Higher Prosecutor's Office dated February 11, the chief prosecutor of the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Beograd, Nenad Stefanović, filed an objection against the ruling of the Supreme Public Prosecutor (dated February 9, 2026), which had authorized the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime to act on the Justice Minister's criminal complaint against the HPC president, in a case that had been handled by the Special Department for Suppression of Corruption of the Higher Prosecutor's Office in Beograd.

The first session of the HPC was scheduled for February 6, 2026, with a decision on the termination of functions of the Election Commission members on the agenda. After a multi-hour debate, the HPC did not accept their resignations.

The Election Commission of the HPC, at its session of February 11, adopted a Decision on electoral actions and deadlines for the conduct of repeat elections at four polling stations: Kragujevac 2, Kragujevac 3, Novi Sad 2, and Niš 3. The repeat elections were scheduled for February 25, 2026. Of the 681 public prosecutors with voting rights at the higher and basic prosecutors' offices levels, 288 were entitled to vote in the repeat elections.

After the objection filed by chief prosecutor Nenad Stefanović against the substitution ruling of the Supreme Public Prosecutor was dismissed as unfounded, he filed a lawsuit requesting annulment of that decision with the Administrative Court.

The elections were repeated on February 25 and resulted in a change of results:

At the higher prosecutors' offices level: Boris Majlat - 56 votes - total 106; Nikola Uskoković - 38 votes - total 110.

At the basic prosecutors' offices level: Boris Pavlović - 73 votes - total 133; Predrag Milovanović - 64 votes - total 136; Jovana Komnenović - 41 votes - total 121; Nikola Stojanović - 4 votes - total 35.

Three complaints were filed against the repeat elections. Miodrag Surla filed a complaint for BM Kragujevac 2, alleging that elections were conducted by an illegitimate and unlawful body, contrary to Articles 29 and 30 of the HPC Act and Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the HPC Election Commission, and for violation of ballot secrecy. The grounds were that he had become aware, from information on the website, that Election Commission members had submitted resignations, and that while the HPC had not issued a formal ruling, it had unambiguously noted that resignations had been submitted. He argued that the Election Commission members could not have participated in the repeat elections, as under Article 9 of the Rules of Procedure membership ceases upon submission of the request, with consequences arising automatically. Additionally, following the appearance of Kristina Golubović on February 25, it was established that observers from the Association of Judges and Prosecutors of Serbia were present at the repeat elections and had brought parallel voter lists, on the basis of which they could record who voted and when. He argued that this enabled pressure on prosecutors who voted and that the lists could be used to compare total votes received with votes that may have been promised to certain candidates. He noted that significant deviations were observed in the number of votes received by two candidates at the higher prosecutors' level in Kragujevac, despite no campaign having been conducted during those two months. Parallel voter lists are a well-known instrument for controlling voters and violating ballot secrecy. Vote on rejection: in favour - 2; against - 4 - the proposal was not adopted. Vote on acceptance: in favour - 4; against - 5 - the complaint was not upheld.

Dušica Jelić filed a complaint for BM Kragujevac 2. Under the second item on the agenda, they contacted the complainants and reached prosecutor Surla, who stated the following: it was visible that the observers had lists, but he did not inspect them - as each person entered, they were ticking off names. He also stated that on January 19 or 20, a meeting was held at the Supreme Prosecutor's Office with the chief prosecutors of the appellate public prosecutors' offices, after which the chief appellate prosecutor in Kragujevac, Milijana Dončić, along with a number of chief prosecutors from the Kragujevac appellate jurisdiction, attended a second meeting at the invitation of the BIA director. Surla stated he did not know exactly what took place at the meeting, but that afterwards it was requested that all chief prosecutors hold collegium meetings and convey the BIA's message that it would be desirable to vote for certain candidates. Those collegium meetings were subsequently held. Some chief prosecutors suggested, ordered, or asked their colleagues to vote for a specific candidate, while others merely informed their staff that they had attended the meeting and what had been requested, without issuing instructions. He therefore considered this a significant form of pressure. Vote on rejection: in favour - 0, against - 3, abstentions - 3 - no decision reached. Vote on acceptance: in favour - 4, against - 3, abstentions - 2 - no decision on the complaint reached. During the vote, the president of the Election Commission stated that he had never withdrawn his resignation, that he had submitted an irrevocable resignation, and that he had given consent to chair the session due to preclusive deadlines.

Jelena Sučević filed a complaint for BM Niš 3 - of the same content as the previous two. Vote on rejection: in favour - 0, against - 4, abstentions - 2. Vote on acceptance: in favour - 4, against - 3, abstentions - 2.

On March 2, media reported that three candidates - Milovanović, Pavlović, and Uskoković - filed appeals with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the HPC had not issued a ruling within the statutory deadline and that the complaints were therefore deemed upheld. They requested that the Court find the complaints either untimely or unfounded and dismiss them accordingly.

On March 3, it was published on the HPC's website that the three complaints had been upheld, as none of the proposals for a vote had received a sufficient number of votes, meaning the Council had not issued any ruling, triggering the statutory 48-hour preclusive period. The rulings were published on March 3 at 12:30. The HPC president's statement noted that the elections at Kragujevac 2 and Niš 3 were therefore annulled, and that public prosecutors Boris Majlat and Jovana Komnenović had announced a constitutional appeal "due to a violation of their electoral rights by the adoption of the Record on the Determination of Election Results of the Repeat Elections," following the raising of suspicions regarding BIA interference. The HPC also forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime a video recording of the Fifth Extraordinary Session along with supplementary evidence related to serious violations of the electoral rights of public prosecutors. Media reports indicate that the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime began interviewing witnesses and conducting evidentiary actions in this case.

At its session of March 23, 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled on the appeals filed in connection with complaints alleging irregularities at polling stations Kragujevac 2 and Niš 3. The Court annulled the HPC rulings of February 27, 2026, which had found that the complaints were deemed upheld, dismissed the complaints as unfounded, and ordered the HPC to publish the final election results and adopt a decision on the election of Council members without delay. The Court found that the HPC rulings had been unlawful, having been issued before the expiry of the statutory 48-hour deadline. Nevertheless, examining the substance of the complaints, the Court found that they contained no specific, proven, or legally relevant allegations that would call into question the lawfulness of the electoral procedure, the accuracy of the results, or any violation of electoral rights at the relevant polling stations. The Court also noted that the process had already been significantly prolonged and invoked an "anti-deadlock mechanism" to prevent further institutional paralysis - pointing out that 40 days had passed between its Decision of January 15, 2026, and the conduct of the repeat elections on February 25. Returning the matter for re-examination could have led to a repetition of the same procedural problems and a deepening of legal uncertainty.

Following the Constitutional Court's decision, the HPC scheduled a session for March 31 to consider the Decision of March 23. At its session of April 6, the HPC confirmed the final election results and thereby formally constituted the new composition of the Council; the election of a new president was not completed at that session.

The High Prosecutorial Council has a total of 11 members, divided into three categories:

1. Five public prosecutors - elected from the ranks of public prosecutors
2. Four "distinguished legal scholars" - elected by the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia
3. Two ex officio members: the Supreme Public Prosecutor and the minister responsible for justice

The term of elected members is five years. Under the HPC Act that entered into force in 2023, an elected member may not be re-elected to that position.