February 2, 2026
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Belgrade Court of Appeal violated the law by committing substantial procedural violations in favor of the defendants in the case concerning the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija—resulting in their final acquittal—his daughter Jelena Ćuruvija has submitted an initiative to the Constitutional Court of Serbia seeking a review of the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).
In addition, disciplinary complaints have been filed with the Disciplinary Prosecutor of the High Judicial Council against three judges who participated in delivering the acquittal judgment in the Ćuruvija case, on suspicion that they failed to perform their judicial duties with due care.
The initiative submitted to the Constitutional Court challenges the CPC provision that excludes the possibility of appealing against an acquittal rendered at second instance, as well as provisions that prevent the Supreme Court, after establishing violations of the law in an acquittal judgment, from assessing whether those violations could have influenced the outcome of the concluded criminal proceedings and, if so, from quashing the judgment.
As emphasized in the initiative, the reason for its submission lies in the final outcome of the criminal proceedings conducted in the case of the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija, in which a hearing was held before the second-instance court and evidence was presented before its panel. However, following the acquittal judgment overturning the first-instance conviction, the possibility of lodging an appeal was excluded. The Supreme Court subsequently found that violations of the law—namely, substantive procedural violations in favor of the defendants—had been committed in the acquittal judgment. Nevertheless, due to the limitations prescribed by the CPC, the Supreme Court was able only to establish the existence of those violations, without affecting the finality of the second-instance judgment.
In this way, the CPC favors defendants and prevents the fulfillment of the state’s obligations under the Constitution of Serbia and the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the right to life and the right to an effective remedy. This has had a direct impact on the Ćuruvija case and on the rights of Jelena Ćuruvija as the injured party in those proceedings.
According to the established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the provisions governing criminal proceedings as a whole must be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for violations of the right to life, and the finality of a judgment must not constitute an obstacle to reopening a case where serious violations capable of influencing the outcome of the criminal proceedings have been established.
Because of the violations of her rights, Jelena Ćuruvija will, in the coming days, also file a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court judgment, which—apart from its declaratory nature—has no practical effect on the concluded proceedings.
At the same time, disciplinary complaints have been submitted to the Disciplinary Prosecutor of the High Judicial Council against judges of the Belgrade Court of Appeal Dušanka Đorđević, Marko Jocić, and Dragan Ćesarović, on suspicion that they negligently performed their judicial duties and committed serious disciplinary offenses that significantly harm the reputation of the judicial function and public trust in the courts.
Disciplinary complaints were not filed against the remaining two members of the panel—Judge Nada Hadži-Perić and the presiding judge Vesna Petrović—because they have since retired and their judicial functions have ceased.
The complaints seek the dismissal of the three judges for negligent performance of judicial duties, unjustified protraction of the proceedings, unjustified delay in drafting the judgment, and violation of the principle of impartiality. The violations of the law and procedural rules established by the Supreme Court are so numerous and serious that they cannot reasonably be attributed to mere oversight.
Bearing in mind that the proceedings concerning the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija were initiated almost 16 years after the murder and that the trial itself lasted nearly a decade, we call on the Constitutional Court to decide urgently on the initiative for constitutional review. This would enable Jelena Ćuruvija, following the removal of unconstitutional procedural restrictions from the CPC, to request the amendment of the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, in accordance with Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
The manner in which the High Judicial Council addresses the disciplinary complaints against the three judges will be a clear indicator of its ability to ensure the accountability of those exercising judicial functions and begin restoring the shaken public trust in the judiciary.
