Conference on the Justice System: From Practice to Public Policy

25.6.2026

On June 25, 2026, the Faculty of Law at the University of Niš hosted the professional conference "Justice System: From Practice to Public Policy", organized by the Committee for Human Rights Niš and Judicial Base South, in cooperation with the Faculty of Law at the University of Niš, Iustitia, and ELSA Niš.

The conference was held with the support of the Open Society Foundation as part of the project "Continued Development of the Judicial Base South (JBS) Coalition". The research studies whose findings served as the basis for the conference discussions were also conducted with the support of the Open Society Foundation.

Conference Objectives

The event brought together representatives of academia, the judiciary, the public prosecution service, the legal profession, the media, local public attorney offices, civil society organizations, and law students. Across three panel discussions, participants examined the findings of four research studies conducted within Judicial Base South.

The conference was not intended merely to present or summarize the publications. Its purpose was to place the research findings in a broader context and, together with legal practitioners, consider what those findings reveal about how the justice system functions and what public policy changes could improve it.

Public Attorney Offices: Between Legal Representation and Protection of the Public Interest

The first panel focused on the position of local public attorney offices and their role in protecting the public interest.

The discussion was led by Professor Nevena Petrušić, Bojana Verović of the Faculty of Law at the University of Niš, and attorney Stefan Vlatković.

The research showed that local public attorney offices differ significantly in their organization, responsibilities, staffing, and institutional capacity. In some municipalities, a single public attorney handles the entire caseload without professional or administrative support.

A particular challenge lies in the unclear institutional position of public attorney offices. Organizationally, they are part of the executive branch, while they also participate in the functioning of the justice system and are expected to protect public property and the public interest.

The panel also raised the issue of public attorneys' professional autonomy. In practice, a public attorney may receive instructions from the authority the office represents even when, in the attorney's professional judgment, following those instructions could be contrary to law or detrimental to the local government's property interests.

One of the most important findings concerned the structure of the work performed by public attorney offices. Most matters involve legal representation in disputes that have already arisen, while providing legal opinions and advice accounts for a much smaller share of their work.

This raises an important question: are public attorney offices primarily services that react only after a dispute has arisen, or should they also function as institutions capable of preventing disputes and damage to public property through timely legal advice and early warnings?

Judicial Protection of Consumers: A Right Rarely Exercised

The second panel addressed judicial protection of consumers in Serbia. Participants included Ivan Grujić of the Association, one of the study's authors; Adrijana Mladenović, a judicial assistant at the Basic Court in Niš; and attorney Nemanja Tolić.

One of the main problems in this area is the lack of reliable and sufficiently detailed data on consumer disputes. Without high-quality data, it is difficult to determine how many such cases are brought before the courts, how long proceedings take, in which sectors disputes arise most often, and how they are resolved.

Although consumer disputes are designated by law as urgent matters, the research showed that the average duration of first-instance proceedings does not reflect that legislative intent.

At the same time, relatively few consumers choose to seek judicial protection. The reasons are numerous: litigation costs, insufficient information, uncertainty about the outcome, lengthy proceedings, and the disproportion between the value of the disputed good or service and the time and effort consumers must invest.

The research nevertheless showed that consumers who initiated court proceedings obtained favorable outcomes in a significant number of cases. This raises another important question: do traders sometimes reject well-founded consumer complaints because they assume that most consumers will not pursue the matter further?

The panel also considered the need for better coordination between judicial and out-of-court resolution of consumer disputes. Out-of-court mechanisms can provide faster and more accessible solutions, but only if consumers receive clear and timely information about them and traders demonstrate a genuine willingness to participate.

Court-Appointed Experts and Accountability

The first part of the third panel presented findings from research on the role of court-appointed experts in civil proceedings. The study on the disqualification, recusal, and removal of experts in civil proceedings was led by Dr. Nebojša Stanković, an attorney from Niš. During the panel, the findings were presented and discussed primarily with Milan Jovanović, a co-author of the study and a judicial assistant at the Commercial Court in Niš.

Expert evidence plays an important role in proceedings in which the court lacks the specialized knowledge needed to determine relevant facts. Experts' findings and opinions often have a decisive influence on the outcome of a dispute.

It is therefore essential to have effective mechanisms for assessing their professional competence, impartiality, and diligence. The research identified a lack of systematic data on complaints concerning experts' work, sanctions imposed on them, and motions or proposals for their removal.

It also showed that, during the period examined, experts were removed almost exclusively at their own request, while removals based on incompetence, negligence, or improper performance were virtually nonexistent.

This does not necessarily mean that such problems do not occur in practice. Rather, it suggests that existing mechanisms for oversight, recordkeeping, and accountability are underdeveloped or are not applied consistently. Particular attention was also given to motions to disqualify experts. In a significant number of the cases examined, it was not possible to determine whether the court had ruled on such a motion, while such motions were granted only rarely.

Privileged Witnesses and the Limits of Procedural Rights

The second part of the third panel was based on the research study "Abuse of Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings - Privileged Witnesses," led by Professor Ivan Ilić. Panel participants included the study's co-authors, public prosecutor Andrija Ivić and attorney Miodrag Petković.

Privileged witnesses have the right to refuse to testify against close relatives and other persons specified by law. The purpose of this right is to protect family relationships and private life.

Problems may arise, however, when a witness gives a statement at one stage of the proceedings and later invokes the right not to testify. In those circumstances, the witness's earlier statement can no longer be used as evidence.

When there is insufficient other evidence, this can have a decisive effect on the outcome of criminal proceedings.

The panel considered whether the current legal framework strikes an appropriate balance among the protection of witnesses' rights, the rights of the accused, the interests of the injured party, and the need for the effective conduct of criminal proceedings.

Comparative legal approaches show that this issue can be regulated differently. Under the Croatian model, subject to certain conditions, a witness's decision to testify when first examined remains effective during later stages of the proceedings.

Common Issues Emerging Across the Research Studies

Although the panels addressed different topics, several common issues emerged from the discussions.

1. The first is the lack of reliable and publicly available data. Without sound records, it is difficult to assess the scale of a problem, monitor institutional performance, or measure the results of reforms.

2. The second is the gap between the normative framework and its practical implementation. In several areas, legal rules and formal mechanisms exist, but their application does not always produce the expected results.

3. The third common issue concerns accountability and prevention.

   
   

The justice system often responds only after a problem has arisen, while mechanisms that could prevent harm, abuse, or unprofessional conduct remain underdeveloped or underused.

Research as a Basis for Change

Research conducted by Judicial Base South focuses on specific problems affecting the functioning of the justice system. Its purpose, however, is not merely to describe the existing situation.

The goal is for the collected data and practitioners' experiences to serve as a basis for formulating recommendations, improving legislation and practice, and developing public policies with clear, measurable outcomes.

Support from the Open Society Foundation has enabled Judicial Base South, through the project "Continued Development of the Judicial Base South (JBS) Coalition", to continue its research activities, create opportunities for dialogue among members of different legal professions, and present findings that can serve as a basis for future reforms.

It is therefore important for the discussion initiated at this conference to continue within institutions, professional associations, academia, and civil society organizations.

Justice-sector policies should not be developed solely in response to individual problems or based on general assessments. They must be grounded in evidence, practical experience, and open dialogue among all stakeholders involved in the functioning of the justice system.

The professional conference "Justice System: From Practice to Public Policy" represented one step in that direction.