From Research to Public Policy: What Practice Tells Us About the Justice System

26.6.2026.

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

The conference was held with support from the Open Society Foundations as part of the project “Continued Development of the Judicial Base South Coalition (JBS) – Spin-off”. The research studies whose findings formed the basis of the conference discussions were also conducted with support from the Open Society Foundations.

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

The purpose of the conference was not merely to present or summarise the publications.

Its aim was to place the research findings in a broader context and, together with legal practitioners, consider what those findings reveal about the functioning of the justice system and which public policy changes could improve it.

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

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

The discussion featured Professor Nevena Petrušić, Bojana Verović of the Faculty of Law in Niš, and attorney-at-law Stefan Vlatković.

The research showed that local public attorney’s offices differ considerably in terms of their organisation, competences, staffing levels and institutional capacities. In some municipalities, the entire workload is handled by a single public attorney, without any professional or administrative support.

A particular challenge lies in the ambiguous institutional position of public attorney’s offices. Organisationally, they are part of the executive branch, while also participating in the functioning of the justice system and being expected to protect public property and the public interest.

The panel also raised the issue of the professional autonomy of public attorneys. In practice, a public attorney may receive an instruction from the authority they represent even where, in their professional assessment, acting on that instruction could be contrary to the law or detrimental to the property interests of the local authority.

One of the most important findings concerned the structure of the work performed by public attorneys’ offices. Most cases involve legal representation in disputes that have already arisen, while the provision of legal opinions and advice accounts for a much smaller proportion of their work.

This raises an important question: are public attorneys’ offices primarily services that respond 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. The participants were Ivan Grujić of the Asocijacija Agency, one of the authors of the research; Adrijana Mladenović, a judicial assistant at the Basic Court in Niš; and attorney-at-law Nemanja Tolić.

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

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

At the same time, relatively few consumers decide to seek judicial protection. There are numerous reasons for this: the costs of proceedings, insufficient information, uncertainty as to the outcome, lengthy proceedings, and the disproportion between the value of the disputed goods or services and the time and effort that consumers are required to invest.

The research nevertheless showed that consumers who did initiate court proceedings obtained favourable outcomes in a significant proportion 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 any further?

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

Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses and Accountability

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

Court-appointed expert witnesses play a highly significant role in proceedings in which the court lacks the specialist knowledge required to establish the relevant facts. Their findings and opinions often have a decisive influence on the outcome of a dispute.

It is therefore essential that effective mechanisms exist to assess their professional competence, impartiality, and diligence.

The research identified a lack of systematic data on objections to the work of expert witnesses, penalties imposed on them and proposals for their dismissal.

It also showed that during the period examined, expert witnesses were almost exclusively dismissed at their own request, while dismissals on the grounds of incompetent, negligent, or improper performance were virtually nonexistent.

This does not necessarily mean that no problems exist in practice. Rather, it suggests that the existing mechanisms of oversight, record-keeping and accountability are insufficiently developed or are not applied consistently.

Particular attention was also paid to applications for the recusal of expert witnesses. In a significant number of the cases examined, it was not possible to determine whether the court had ruled on such an application, while very few applications were granted.

Privileged Witnesses and the Limits of Procedural Rights

The second part of the third panel was based on the research study “Abuse of Procedural Powers in Criminal Proceedings – Privileged Witnesses”, led by Professor Ivan Ilić. The panel participants included the study’s co-authors, public prosecutor Andrija Ivić and attorney-at-law Miodrag Petković.

Privileged witnesses are entitled 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.

A problem may arise, however, where a witness gives evidence at one stage of the proceedings and subsequently invokes the right not to testify at a later stage. In such circumstances, the witness’s earlier statement can no longer be used as evidence.

Where there is insufficient other evidence, this may have a decisive impact on the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

The panel considered whether the current legal framework strikes an appropriate balance between the protection of the witness’s rights, the rights of the accused, the interests of the injured party and the need to conduct criminal proceedings effectively.

Comparative legal solutions demonstrate that this issue may be regulated differently. Under the Croatian model, subject to certain conditions, a witness’s decision to testify when first examined remains effective during the subsequent stages of the proceedings.

Common Issues Emerging from Different Research Studies

Although the panels addressed different subjects, several common problems emerged from the discussions.

1. The first is the lack of reliable and publicly accessible data. Without high-quality 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 problem concerns accountability and prevention.

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

Research as a Basis for Change

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

The aim is for the data collected and practitioners' experience to provide a basis for formulating recommendations, improving legislation and practice, and developing public policies with clear, measurable outcomes.

The support of the Open Society Foundations has enabled Judicial Base South, through the project “Continued Development of the Judicial Base South Coalition (JBS) – Spin-off”, to continue its research activities, create opportunities for dialogue among members of different legal professions, and present findings that may serve as a basis for future reforms.

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

Justice 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 those involved in the functioning of the justice system.

The expert conference “The Justice System: From Practice to Public Policy” represented one step in that direction.