Major Legal Victory as Serbian Constitutional Court Rules in Favour of Whistleblower
Date Published: 11 February 2026
Article provided by Pištaljka
In a major victory for Serbian whistleblowers, the country's Constitutional Court found that whistleblower Vladimir Pantić had been denied the right to a fair trial. It ordered the government to compensate the whistleblower for non-pecuniary damage.
In 2017, while working as a building permits official at the administration of the town of Valjevo, 100 kilometres southwest of the capital, Belgrade, Pantić refused to issue construction permits to two companies, finding them to be in breach of legal provisions. Just a few hours after refusing to grant permits, Pantić was reassigned to a lower position and denied access to permits. Construction permits to the two companies were then issued, contrary to standard practice.
The whistleblower notified the prosecutor's office about this and also turned to Pištaljka, who provided him with free legal and journalistic help. Since 2017, Vladimir Pantić and Pištaljka have initiated a total of 22 court proceedings before the Administrative Court, the Higher Court in Valjevo, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Until the Constitutional Court ruling, no court had issued a final judgment in his favour. An interim relief request was also denied, and he lost cases regarding reassignment to other positions, disciplinary sanctions, reduced salary and the workplace harassment he endured as a result of his whistleblowing.
The local prosecutor started an investigation of the companies that obtained the permits based on the note from the whistleblower. However, the investigation ended after the two companies paid around 700 euros to the state to avoid criminal prosecution.
Administrative Court is the only court where public-sector employees can challenge decisions on dismissal or reassignment to lower positions, which is the most common form of retaliation. The dispute before this court lasted three years because the Administrative Court never issued a final decision declaring the whistleblower’s reassignment unlawful and unfounded. The court merely annulled the city administration’s decisions and sent them back to the same administration for reconsideration. These decisions remained the same until the Administrative Court ultimately rejected the whistleblower’s claim.
In December 2025, the Constitutional Court upheld the whistleblower’s appeal regarding this trial and stated that “the duration of the proceedings, given the circumstances of the specific case, cannot be considered reasonable,” particularly because, by law, such proceedings are considered urgent.
“Given that the disputed proceedings were marked by multiple remands for reconsideration, the Constitutional Court also refers to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which has stated that the mere fact that a case is repeatedly sent back for reconsideration by a lower instance can, in itself, reveal a serious deficiency in a state’s legal system,” the Constitutional Court’s decision reads.
Vladimir Pantić currently works as a clerk handling child allowances. Since reporting the wrongdoing, his superiors have not given him any work assignments, and, as the courts have failed to protect him, he continues to suffer from the “empty desk” form of workplace harassment. And while the Constitutional Court decision may not affect Pantić's day-to-day work, it is a strong message to Serbian judges to pay attention to whistleblowers and their precarious situation.
Read more.
Image credits: The Constitutional Court, Republic of Serbia