Issue for June 18, 2026

This story tracks Serbia's EU talks, rule-of-law requirements, judicial reforms, media issues, and foreign-policy conditions. In June 2026, the key current episode concerns amendments to five judicial laws, Venice Commission opinions, and expectations around opening Cluster 3.

• Serbia has not opened new EU accession negotiation chapters since December 2021.
• In January 2026, parliament adopted amendments to five judicial laws on MP Ugljesa Mrdic's proposal, drawing criticism from parts of the professional community and the EU over prosecutorial autonomy and judicial independence.
• On April 24, the Venice Commission published an urgent opinion identifying shortcomings and seven key recommendations for removing them.
• On May 18, the Justice Ministry sent improved working drafts of the amendments to parliament for transmission to Venice Commission rapporteurs.
• On June 12, Ana Brnabic said the Venice Commission had given a positive opinion, that the package would go to parliament next week, and that the government expects Cluster 3 to open soon.
• The follow-up opinion published on June 16 clarified the status: seven of nine recommendations were implemented, but the return of two of 11 organized-crime prosecutors and the autonomy of the cybercrime unit remain unresolved.
• On June 17, Serbia's parliament opened an extraordinary session with amendments to five judicial laws on the agenda, moving the Venice Commission recommendations dispute from expert review into parliamentary procedure.
• On the evening of June 17, N1 and Danas reported that the High Prosecutorial Council scheduled a June 18 extraordinary session with temporary assignment of public prosecutors to TOK among the proposed agenda items; this addresses one unresolved Venice Commission remark.
• On June 18, VST decided to assign Irena Bjelos, Aleksandar Barac, and Boris Majlat to TOK for three years; Bjelos and Barac return from June 19, while Danas separately carried the Judicial Authority Union's criticism that temporary assignment of prosecutors as a mechanism is not in line with European standards.
• On June 21, SSP, SRCE, PSG, and Solidarnost told EU institutions that, according to them, the Venice Commission and parliament received different texts of the judicial-law amendments; the Justice Ministry denies this and says the parliamentary version differs only because it is in Serbian.

This story connects the shooting at a restaurant on Autokomanda, the arrests of Interventna jedinica 92 officers, the figure of Sasa Vukovic Boske, former Belgrade police chief Veselin Milic, and the separate Senjak branch. It is no longer only a crime chronicle but also a story about how police and prosecutors handle cases involving connected people.

• The Autokomanda branch is about suspicion that some police officers failed to record the shooting properly and helped conceal procedural traces.
• The name of Sasa Vukovic Boske appears as the figure whom, according to the prosecution's version, the authorities did not properly prosecute after the shooting.
• On June 11, N1 reported that the commander of Interventna jedinica 92 and a team leader were placed in custody over obstruction of Vukovic's prosecution.
• On the evening of June 11, N1 reported that Mitar J., Jugoslav S., and Nenad S. denied the allegations, Darko Z. remained silent, and the Higher Prosecutor's Office sought custody for Jugoslav S., Nenad S., and Darko Z. and house arrest with electronic monitoring for Mitar J.
• In comments to N1, former inspector Sinisa Carevic says the restaurant owner's testimony, cameras, cell-site data, and phone contacts will matter.
• Retired police colonel Slavica Radovanovic called MUP's work in the Senjak murder investigation sloppy and amateurish and tied the problem to the leadership of the Criminal Police Directorate.
• The Senjak branch remains a separate but closely related story about a shooting, the killing of Aleksandar Nesovic, and complaints of police violence during questioning.
• Prosecutor Nenad Lazic told N1 that it would be logical to review the work of the Higher Prosecutor's Office in the Senjak case at the level of the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office.
• On June 12, Novosti reported that the Higher Court in Belgrade extended custody for Veselin Milic for up to 30 days, and also extended custody for Sasa Vukovic, Mario S., Danka V., Nenad L., Dejan S., and Jasna Z. in the Aleksandar Nesovic Baja murder case.
• On June 13, 021 carried the Higher Prosecutor's Office explanation: the part of the complaint against Milic alleging assistance to the perpetrator after the crime was dismissed because further evidence and testimony did not confirm that he called Nesovic to come without security, was in the restaurant at the time of the killing, or removed traces.
• On June 13, prosecutors expanded the investigation into Aleksandar Nesovic's killing: Sasa V. and Mario S. are suspected of aggravated murder as co-perpetrators, Danka V. of assisting aggravated murder, and evidentiary actions were ordered against Veselin M. and seven others in the failure-to-report and assistance-after-the-crime branches.
• On June 16, Sasa Vukovic Boske was questioned at the Higher Prosecutor's Office at his own request; lawyer Ivan Simic confirmed that questioning continues on June 17, while details of the statement are not known.
• On June 18, Novosti reported that Vukovic Boske spent two days giving his defense in the presence of three Higher Prosecutor's Office prosecutors over suspicion in the killing of Aleksandar Nesovic Baja at restaurant "27" in Senjak.
• On June 20, VJT ordered the Second Basic Prosecutor's Office to form a case and identify unknown persons who, according to the defense, threatened Veselin Milic in Belgrade district jail; the prison administration said it follows safety procedures for all detainees.

A mass shooting took place at Belgrade's Vladislav Ribnikar school on May 3, 2023. Because the shooter was younger than 14, the central issues became parental responsibility, gun storage, the role of the school, and the state's response; on June 18, 2026, the repeated trial against K.K.'s parents ended with a first-instance guilty verdict.

• On June 18, 2026, the Higher Court in Belgrade sentenced Vladimir Kecmanovic to 14 years and 6 months in prison and Miljana Kecmanovic to 2 years and 11 months in the repeated trial.
• Vladimir Kecmanovic was found guilty of a grave offense against public safety and neglect and abuse of a minor; Miljana Kecmanovic was found guilty of neglect and abuse of a minor.
• The court extended Miljana Kecmanovic's ban on approaching, meeting, or communicating with witness K.K. until she is sent to serve the sentence, and confiscated Vladimir's weapons and ammunition listed in the verdict.
• The verdict is first-instance: participants in the proceedings may appeal, after which the Belgrade Court of Appeal will review the decision.
• Prosecutors had sought 14 years and 11 months for Vladimir and three years for Miljana, while the defense sought acquittals.