Minimalist arguments for banning SNS

Written by: Bogdan Ivanisevic, lawyer from Belgrade

The word that the opponents of the SNS authorities often say these months is "You will answer!" It is not always clear whether they mean criminal prosecution of individuals, lustration or something else that will follow after the change of government in Serbia. Here I will offer arguments for the responsibility of SNS kao political organizations. There is a legal basis and plenty of supporting evidence on the basis of which the Constitutional Court, freed from political constraints, should ban the SNS as a party opposed to the democratic order.

The Constitution of Serbia, in Article 5.3, provides for the prohibition of a political party in the event that its actions are aimed at the violent overthrow of the constitutional order, violation of guaranteed human or minority rights, or incitement of racial, national or religious hatred. In the case of the SNS, the basis for banning the party is found primarily in the continuous violation of guaranteed human rights, and additionally in causing national hatred.

THE BAN IS A PROPORTIONATE MEASURE AND DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENT

Some of the critics of the authorities in Serbia might wonder if the banning of the party, including the SNS, is not a disproportionately strict measure. And doesn't it lead to each succeeding government banning the work of its political opponents, thereby collapsing democracy in Serbia? The answer is a double "no".

First, the measure is not disproportionate. The actions that I will present in the text as examples of the controversial actions of the SNS are completely incompatible with constitutional democracy. Only in the context of countries such as Belarus, Russia or despots outside of Europe is it possible to imagine the systematic bribing of voters, the banning of bus and train traffic as a means of fighting against critics of the government, the use of a sound cannon against thousands of peaceful demonstrators while they pay their respects to the dead, or allowing only those televisions that are propaganda services of the government to broadcast the program on the territory of the entire country.

The fact that the ban might give the next government the idea to resort to a similar measure is not a good reason for restraint regarding the SNS ban either. In order for the banning of a political party to be possible, it is necessary that a significant part of society has a real belief in the justification of such an extreme measure. It is not realistic that the banning of parties such as today's opposition parties, committed to a free democratic order, would enjoy legitimacy and that some future government would then try to resort to the ban.

VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS A REASON FOR THE BAN

There are numerous examples of serious violations of human rights by SNS in the most recent period. The examples below are provided for illustration purposes only.

- The ban on bus and train traffic in Serbia on the eve and on the day of the protest on March 15 in Belgrade, and then again on June 28, is a violation of basic rights to freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. The enjoyment of these rights has been implied since the defeat of fascism and the fall of communism in the civilized world. It is unthinkable, in constitutional democracies, that someone could interfere with these rights, especially not in such a way as to suspend public transport.

- In an equally shocking way, the government degraded thousands of people on March 15 by using a sound cannon against them at the moment of honoring the dead in Novi Sad. On that occasion, the government drastically violated the right to peaceful assembly and the right to inviolability of physical and psychological integrity.

The government violates the electoral right in various ways, as another right guaranteed by the Constitution. The statements made by the residents of the village next to Zaječar to journalists after the local elections on June 8 confirmed what everyone was already aware of: that SNS members systematically commit the crime of bribery in connection with voting, by giving or promising money and things to locals who vote for the party.

- By making pro-opposition electronic media unavailable in a significant part of the territory through a combination of legal and physical measures, the government prevented hundreds of thousands of voters from exercising their right to vote by freely forming their political position.

- The government systematically violates the constitutionally guaranteed right not to be discriminated against on the basis of political opinion. Thus, the police allow supporters of the regime to use unlimited freedom of assembly in Pionirski Park and Nikola Pašić Square in Belgrade, while they repeatedly dispersed spontaneous peaceful gatherings of citizens by force.

ATTACK ON DIGNITY AS A PATTERN OF ACTION

In the violations of human rights by the SNS authorities and in other actions of the representatives of the regime, the effort to injure the dignity of opponents of the authorities is conspicuous. This is relevant for at least two reasons.

First of all, the humiliating behavior of the SNS authorities in some cases is an integral aspect of human rights violations. The right to respect for personal dignity is the basis for other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 23, the first operative provision in the human rights section of the Constitution, guarantees the inviolability of human dignity and imposes on everyone the duty to respect and protect that dignity.

In addition, the SNS's systematic focus on humiliating political dissidents resolves possible dilemmas as to whether the banning of the party is a proportionate measure. The noticeable excess of SNS's "enjoyment" in trampling on dignity displaces this party from the domain of the eccentric-but-still-legitimate and places it in the space of the deeply pathological. Again just for example:

The heavy fists of the regime, journalist Dragan Vučićević and lawyer Vladimir Đukanović, were jubilant in front of the cameras for using a sound cannon against thousands of peaceful participants in the rally on March 15 in Belgrade.

- The brutal and extremely humiliating behavior of the authorities in relation to specific opposition-oriented individuals led one such individual, truck driver Milomir Jaćimović, to attempt suicide on July 1 of this year. The act of hunger and thirst strike by professor Marija Vasić in May 2025, as a result of not agreeing to arbitrary detention, was of a similar nature.

- Countless insults uttered daily by SNS chief media worker Dragan Vučićević represent a continuous and drastic attack on the dignity of persons targeted by the SNS regime. As one of the countless examples, Vučićević recently publicly uttered the following insults against the rector of the University of Belgrade, Vladan Đokić: "You fraudster, you old man, shame on you, you drooling LGBT ass; Fecal of a man; The fraudster, a faggot; Rectal Đokica; Stink, scum; You were silent like a scumbag; You are a scammer! announced by Zoran Lutovac, deputy of the Democratic Party).

- The untruths uttered by the most influential member of the SNS, Aleksandar Vučić, are often so obvious that their presentation goes beyond the framework of a political struggle in which the actors predictably distort the facts. The brazenness of Vučić's lying can best be understood as an instrument of humiliating political dissenters. Such statements include those that the police officer Lazar Bačić was hit by protest participants on March 10 in front of the RTS building (although the video clearly shows that he was hit by a uniformed policeman) and that there were more people at the SNS rally in Belgrade on April 12, 2025 than at the protest against the government on March 15. Vučić's trampling on the dignity of Serbian citizens is also expressed through highlighting his own excesses of authority. In all these actions, the tacit and sometimes explicit message is: "Yes, so what? You can't do anything to me."

CAUSING NATIONAL HATRED AS AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR THE BAN

According to Article 5.3 of the Serbian Constitution, the activities of political parties aimed at inciting racial, national or religious hatred are prohibited. There are numerous recent examples of inciting national hatred by prominent members and supporters of SNS, including the editor of the Informer newspaper and television, Dragan Vučićević, the newly appointed chairman of the Board of Directors of the National Theater Dragoslav Bokan, State Secretary Đorđe Dabić and others. In the public space, they routinely use the terms "Ustashes", "Balijas" and "Šipci", i.e. "Šiptars", instead of "Croats", "Bosniaks" and "Albanians", of course without distancing themselves from the SNS.

In addition, the Security and Information Agency, headed by SNS Vice President Vladimir Orlić, targeted persons of Croatian nationality during the year. Examples of this are the attempt to expel Arien Stojanović Ivković, a long-term resident of Belgrade, as well as repeated examples of deportation or ban on entry of journalists and non-governmental activists from Croatia.

"PARTY" IS OFFICERS, MEMBERS - AND SUPPORTERS

What authorizes the Constitutional Court to, on the basis of Articles 5.3 and 167.3 of the Constitution, impose a prohibition measure is the illegal activity of a political party. Therefore, the question arises as to whose conduct can be attributed to the party.

More examples of human rights violations, from the previous part of the text, refer to the actions of executive bodies and leading party officials. That action can undoubtedly be attributed to the party. And what about the statements or actions of ordinary members, as well as supporters who do not have a SNS membership card?

The ruling of the German Constitutional Court of January 17, 2017, in the case initiated by the request to ban the neo-Nazi party NPD, is helpful here. In Germany, the judicial authorities and the general public have thought more about the banning of political parties than in any other European country.

According to the logical interpretation by the German Constitutional Court, the actions and statements of party members can be attributed to the party if they relate to the party's activities and the party does not exclude itself.

- For example, the actions of four SNS members who beat several people with baseball bats in Novi Sad on January 27, 2025, and broke one girl's jaw, can undoubtedly be attributed to the party. Miloš Vučević, the president of SNS, and Aleksandar Vučić, effectively - although not formally - the first man of the party, called those four "heroes" who are in custody only because they defended the premises of the party. On July 2, Vučić pardoned all four thugs.

As clarified by the German Constitutional Court, the actions of supporters who do not have a party membership card can be attributed to the party if the political will of the party is recognizably expressed in those actions or the party recognizably accepts such actions as its own. This legal approach is fully justified in Serbia as well. In specific cases, it can be recognized that the behavior of the supporters is to such an extent integrated into the activities of the party, that the formal question of whether or not the participant has a membership card has no practical importance.

- For example, the closeness of propagandists Dragan Vučićević and Nebojša Krstić to the top of SNS is so great that there can be no doubt that their actions express the political will of the party and represent an integral part of its efforts. It is irrelevant whether the names of Vučićević and Krstić are on the list of SNS members. Therefore, the statements by which Vučićević celebrates the use of a sound cannon, calls for breaking the ribs of demonstrators or utters numerous insults, thus degrading people's dignity, can be attributed to that party. The same applies to the statements of Nebojsa Krstić, in which he publicly calls for drivers to run over participants of anti-government protests with their cars.

- SNS can be attributed to the detention of the "Novi Sad Six" by prosecutors and judges in Novi Sad, in the period from mid-March to mid-May of this year. In that and other similar cases, SNS both inspired and wholeheartedly accepted the actions of prosecutors and judges as part of its efforts to prevent opponents from using the constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom and freedom of expression.

Photo: Marko Čoković /Tanjug

PROVEN CAPABILITY OF SNS TO THREATEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

The German Constitutional Court, when deciding on the request to ban the NDP in 2017, also analyzed a condition that is not explicitly stated in the German Constitution, but derives from the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It is about the condition that, in order to be permissible, the encroachment on a right must serve the realization of a necessary social need (pressing social need). Expressed in the concepts used by the German Constitutional Court, the prohibition of a party is justified only if the party has ability to achieve its unconstitutional goals, because only in that case there is a necessary social need for a ban.

The practice of the European Court of Human Rights binds Serbia as well. In our context, bearing in mind the wording from Article 5.3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, the ban on the SNS is justified if the party's actions have the capacity to regularly result in human rights violations and incite national hatred.

The German Constitutional Court in the specific case it is not banned the NPD because he concluded that the party was too weak to threaten the order. The NPD won barely a little over one percent of the vote in the elections, and the already small number of members was constantly decreasing.

Contrary to the German case, SNS is a particularly strong party in Serbia with victories in a series of elections and a large number of members. The party has convincingly demonstrated its ability to undermine the democratic order.

NEVER MORE

In this text, I am not dealing with the political aspect of the SNS ban. That aspect is, of course, important and includes issues such as the composition, independence and intellectual courage of the Constitutional Court, which would decide on the request for a ban, as well as the moment when the new government should initiate the ban procedure before the court without fear that the ban could cause instability in the state.

The new government should not, nor would it be able to, prevent members and supporters of the current SNS from founding another party in the event of a ban. A clear message in this sense, and from the new government, should amortize part of the eventual dissatisfaction in the case of the SNS ban.

However, members of a party that emerges as a derivative of the SNS will understand that the program and activities of the party will be subject to constant careful evaluation. The society and the government in finally democratic Serbia must be able to prevent, in case of need, a new situation of endangering the basic democratic order by (former) radicals.