Constitutional changes passed by referendum in Serbia in January 2022 were presented to the public as a step towards harmonizing our judicial system with the legislation of the European Union. Although the regime, numerous professional NGOs, as well as Western officials, insisted on the necessity of these changes, they were not the result of the actual needs of society. The “for and against” campaign lasted for a considerable year.
The process of constitutional changes began under the pressure of international organizations and foreign countries that insisted that judicial system reforms were one of the main prerequisites for progress in the process of European integration.
The truth is different. The reforms were not conceived, as could be inferred from the proponents’ claims, as an instrument to ensure the independence of the judiciary and increase the efficiency of the judicial system, but on the contrary – to facilitate the penetration of foreign factors. In practice, this means that international organizations and foreign governments gained greater influence over the process of appointing judges and prosecutors through their agents in the civil sector – partly those funded through NGOs and partly direct scholarship recipients who work without intermediaries. The principle of sovereignty, which mandates that the state independently makes decisions about its internal organization, had to “kneel” before international forces.
LOBBYISTS FROM THE PROFESSION
During the process of adopting constitutional changes, NGOs played a crucial role. Their task was to lobby for changes that would supposedly enable a better judicial system but actually ensured that the proposed changes aligned with the interests of foreign financiers. Thus, NGOs became an instrument of foreign policy in the hands of those who wanted to influence the Serbian judiciary.
Additionally, financial support for drafting the constitutional changes came from various international organizations and foreign governments, which enabled the engagement of experts and the implementation of numerous research and analyses. At first glance, the engagement that does not suffer criticism. However, the support was accompanied by conditions that satisfied the interests of the financiers, not the Serbian judiciary and the citizens of Serbia.
At the head of the commission formed for constitutional changes was an SNS MP, recently appointed Minister for Public Administration and Local Self-Government, who was not particularly “engaged” in this topic. Behind the implementation of the ideas of Western actors stood influential factors of the NGO sector, individuals like Supreme Court Judge Dragana Boljević, who mobilized her resources and members of the NGO “Association of Judges of Serbia.” Another figure was Dr. Miroslav Đorđević, at the time of writing the constitutional changes, a representative of the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation (IRZ), then prosecutor Goran Ilić, long-time president of the NGO “Association of Prosecutors of Serbia,” and Dr. Vladan Petrov. In addition to being a Constitutional Court judge, Petrov is also the editor of the section for constitutional law issues of the “Kopaonik School of Natural Law,” funded by the OSCE. He is a highly profiled lawyer who, as needed, is engaged by the OSCE, UNDP, and numerous other international organizations. He is also a member of the Venice Commission.
WHAT IS THE PRICE OF YOUR PROJECT?
Credit for the reforms also partly goes to Dr. Bojan Milosavljević, a full professor at the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, who is not officially a member of any NGO but has been engaged for several years as a direct partner in EU law master’s studies organized within the TEMPUS project. TEMPUS is an EU program that supports the reform and modernization of higher education in partner countries, including Serbia.
The working group representing the Ministry of Justice and the Government of Serbia included Vladimir Vinš, senior advisor at the Ministry of Justice, Darko Radojičić, assistant director of the Republican Secretariat for Legislation, Branko Marinković, deputy secretary general of the National Assembly, and Jovan Ćosić, assistant minister of justice.
It should be noted that all participants, whether they actively meddled in their work as part of the working group for constitutional amendments or not, were at some point temporarily engaged by international institutions for specific projects and were adequately paid for these engagements. How much this contradicts the Constitution and ethical codes will be further analyzed in separate articles.
The working group, seemingly composed of diverse personnel from all spheres of society who are not interconnected, was supposed to ensure the appearance that the process was proceeding without political influence. However, the working group did everything to widely open the doors through constitutional changes for those who insisted on and financed these changes – the foreign factor. In the end, even that diversity of personnel is questionable – because when the money flows are followed, it is clear that everything begins and ends in one place.
This undoubtedly serious blow to Serbia’s sovereignty opens the question of how capable our country is of independently managing its judicial system.
EMINENT JUDGE OR SOROS’ SOLDIER?
Supreme Court Judge Dragana Boljević, appointed to ensure the transparency and impartiality of the process, became a key figure in implementing the agenda of the foreign factor.
As the president of the NGO “Association of Judges of Serbia,” Judge Boljević led an organization that had received significant grants for years. These grants provided not only her but also a large number of members of this organization with more than a comfortable life. In return, Boljević subtly implemented the interests of those who financed their activities for years, using her position to promote the agenda of her donors.
Her role, although nominally independent, was crucial in adopting changes that subtly but effectively reflected the interests of the foreign factor. Boljević, in her capacity as a judge and legal expert, provided legitimacy and legal justification for the changes, but her connection with NGOs, especially the fact that the draft proposal for constitutional changes based on which the amendment plan was created was financed by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, sheds new light on this whole project.

Although publicly listed as the honorary president of the NGO “Association of Judges of Serbia,” Dragana Boljević is still listed as the legal representative in official APR channels, as can be seen from the attached documents. This also means that she holds the “key and lock,” i.e., the “account and wallet.”

HELP FROM FRIENDS
According to the Constitution of Serbia and the Law on Judges, a Supreme Court judge, or any other judge, as well as prosecutors, must be independent and impartial in their work. Independence also implies financial independence, meaning that judges and prosecutors must not receive finances from foreign embassies or organizations through the NGO sector.
Article 149 of the Constitution of Serbia states that the judicial function is permanent and that a judge must not perform another public or professional function, nor engage in professional activity, which further supports the principle of independence. Also, Supreme Court judges are subjected to strict ethical standards that require impartiality and the prohibition of any influence that could question their independence.
In specific situations, accepting funds from foreign embassies or organizations is considered a potential conflict of interest and a violation of the principle of judicial independence. Such a conflict of interest could seriously affect public trust in the judicial system and constitutional rule.
However, Judge Dragana Boljević, who is just one in a series of those who approached the drafting of the constitutional amendment draft with bias, subjectivity, and more than a clear agenda, did not mind violating the very constitution she was supposed to defend. On the website of the “Association of Judges of Serbia,” there is a list of friends – NGOs – and permanent donors.

INDEPENDENT OF THE PEOPLE
Despite the known facts, at one of the many forums held regarding the referendum at the end of 2021, Dragana Boljević, invited to explain how she, as a Constitutional Court judge, is still listed as the responsible legal person – answered in the status of honorary president. Even today, two years later, Dragana Boljević is marked as the responsible person on the APR website, not as an honorary, but as the main member of this NGO, which ended the last year with a surplus of 391,000 dinars.
At the aforementioned forum, one of the opponents of constitutional changes asked the judge to explain who financed the “Testimony of Preparations for Constitutional Changes from 2006 and the Profession,” a publication referenced by the forum participants, including Dr. Vladan Petrov. Although the program was undeniably funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, as evidenced by the seal on the publication, the participants insisted that the proposals for constitutional changes were made for the purpose of an independent judiciary.

Constitutional changes did bring independence, but independence of the judiciary from the people, leading to a situation where the judiciary exists for prosecutors and judges, but not for the people.
It is no wonder that 90 percent of prosecutors and judges insisted on constitutional changes. Despite the conflict of interest not only of Dragana Boljević but also of many employees in the Serbian prosecution who simultaneously work in the civil sector for foreign services that pay them, either through intermediaries like various foundations or directly through foreign embassies – they managed to separate the court from the people and “do whatever they want because they can.” They call on the people only when their interests and agendas are threatened.
The case of the fake “Laurus,” supported by almost the entire working group, was also telling. We will address the action itself and its coordinators in the continuation of the investigation.
(To be continued)