Director of Novi Sad Gymnasium Arrested Over Court Orders

Director of Novi Sad Gymnasium Arrested Over Court Orders
Radivoj P. Stojković, director of the Jovan Jovanović Zmaj Gymnasium in Novi Sad, has been arrested on suspicion of four counts of failing to implement final court decisions ordering the reinstatement of four professors. Both opposition and pro-government outlets report that the Basic Public Prosecutor’s Office in Bačka Palanka initiated the case, ordered a 48‑hour detention due to the risk of reoffending and influencing witnesses, and then requested that pretrial detention be extended up to 30 days. They agree that Stojković was brought in by police, heard by the prosecution, and that further evidence collection and procedural steps are pending, with the prosecution publicly promising to act in accordance with the law and to inform the public as the case develops.

Coverage from both sides also situates the case within the framework of court authority over public institutions and the duties of school directors to comply with judicial rulings. The reports concur that the dispute originates from multiple labor‑law judgments ordering the return of suspended or dismissed teachers to their posts, and that the case raises questions about enforcement of court decisions in the education sector. Both opposition and pro‑government media note that the prosecutor’s office in Bačka Palanka has handled other sensitive complaints in the past, that this proceeding may test institutional accountability and the boundaries of criminal liability for non‑implementation of court orders, and that the affair is unfolding amid broader public debate about the rule of law, judicial independence, and the management of elite schools in Serbia.

Areas of disagreement

Nature of the offense and precedent. Opposition-aligned outlets frame the director’s arrest primarily as the overdue enforcement of clear court decisions, emphasizing that he repeatedly ignored rulings to reinstate teachers and presenting the case as a straightforward matter of rule of law. Pro-government outlets, drawing heavily on Pištaljka and statements by defense lawyers, stress that no one has previously been arrested in Serbia for this specific offense, calling the move a legal and procedural precedent. While opposition sources see the uniqueness of the case as proof of prior impunity for officials who defy courts, pro-government sources highlight the same uniqueness as evidence that the prosecution is stretching criminal law in a potentially abusive way.

Responsibility and blame. Opposition coverage implicitly assigns primary blame to the director for unlawfully sidelining teachers and depicts the prosecution’s actions as a necessary response to his persistent disobedience, with students and parents portrayed as supporting the wronged professors. Pro-government coverage, by contrast, shifts responsibility toward the prosecutorial authorities, questioning their motives, pointing to earlier controversial decisions by the same office, and suggesting that Stojković is being singled out. Whereas opposition outlets cast the case as an example of institutional accountability finally catching up with an intransigent official, pro-government outlets frame it as an overzealous or politically tinged prosecution targeting a school principal.

Portrayal of the director and law enforcement treatment. Opposition-aligned media describe the director mainly through his actions in ignoring court orders and his role in keeping reinstated teachers out of the school, making his personal treatment by police secondary to the legal issue. Pro-government outlets devote significant attention to how Stojković was taken away “in handcuffs like a criminal,” amplifying reactions such as Miloš Vučević’s shock and outrage at what is presented as humiliating and disproportionate treatment. In opposition narratives the focus is on his institutional misconduct and the rights of teachers and students, while in pro-government narratives he appears more as a victim of harsh state force and symbolic stigmatization.

Political and institutional implications. Opposition coverage uses the case to illustrate broader systemic problems in Serbia’s education governance and the frequent non-compliance of public institutions with court decisions, implicitly arguing that stronger enforcement is needed regardless of political sensitivities. Pro-government coverage, on the other hand, underscores suspicions of political motivation, linking the case to prior controversial decisions by the Bačka Palanka prosecutor’s office and highlighting defense claims that there is no solid legal basis for detention. While opposition media see the investigation as a test of whether courts can finally impose discipline on powerful school administrators, pro-government media cast it as a test of whether prosecutorial power can be checked when it allegedly oversteps legal norms.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to treat the arrest as a justified, if belated, enforcement of judicial authority against a director who defied multiple court orders, while pro-government coverage tends to question the legal basis and proportionality of the measures, portraying the case as an alarming and possibly political precedent against a school principal.