EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.10.2022 SWD(2022) 338 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Serbia 2022 Report Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Communication on EU Enlargement policy



















{COM(2022) 528 final} - {SWD(2022) 332 final} - {SWD(2022) 333 final} - {SWD(2022) 334 final} - {SWD(2022) 335 final} - {SWD(2022) 336 final} - {SWD(2022) 337 final}



1. Introduction 1.1 Context 1.2 Summary of the report 1.3. State of play of the accession negotiations 2. Cluster 1: The Fundamentals of the Accession Process 2.1.Functioning of democratic institutions and Public Administration Reform 2.1.1 Democracy 2.1.2. Public administration reform 2.2. Rule of law and fundamental rights 2.2.1. Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights 2.2.2 Chapter 24: Justice, freedom and security 2.3 Economic criteria 2.3.1.The existence of a functioning market economy 2.3.2.The capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU 2.4. Public Procurement, Statistics, Financial control Chapter 5: Public procurement Chapter 18: Statistics Chapter 32: Financial control 3. Good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation

4. normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo 5. Ability to assume the obligations of membership Cluster 2: Internal Market Chapter 1: Free movement of goods Chapter 2: Freedom of movement for workers Chapter 3: Right of establishment and freedom to provide services Chapter 4: Free movement of capital Chapter 6: Company law Chapter 7: Intellectual property law Chapter 8: Competition policy Chapter 9: Financial services Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection Cluster 3: Competitiveness and inclusive growth Chapter 10: Information society and media Chapter 16: Taxation Chapter 17: Economic and monetary policy Chapter 19: Social Policy and employment Chapter 20: Enterprise and industrial policy Chapter 25: Science and research Chapter 26: Education and culture

Chapter 29: Customs union Cluster 4: The Green agenda and sustainable connectivity Chapter 14: Transport Chapter 15: Energy Chapter 21: Trans-European networks Chapter 27: Environment and climate change Cluster 5: Resources, agriculture and cohesion Chapter 11: Agriculture and rural development Chapter 12: Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy Chapter 13: Fisheries Chapter 22: Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments Chapter 33: Financial and budgetary provisions Cluster 6: External relations Chapter 30: External relations Chapter 31: Foreign, security and defence policy ANNEX I – RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EU AND SERBIA



1. Introduction 1.1 Context

Since the opening of Serbia’s accession negotiations in January 2014, 22 out of 35 chapters have been opened, including all chapters in cluster 1 on the fundamentals and all chapters in cluster 4 on the Green agenda and sustainable connectivity. Two chapters have been provisionally closed. In June 2021, Serbia accepted the revised enlargement methodology. The overall pace of negotiations will continue to depend in particular on the pace of rule of law reforms and on the normalisation of Serbia’s relations with Kosovo *. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) between Serbia and the EU entered into force in September 2013. Serbia continued to implement the SAA, although a number of compliance issues remain. The Serbian government has continued to declare EU membership its strategic goal, but actions need to follow. Serbia’s reform progress allowed for the opening of negotiations under cluster 4 at the intergovernmental conference with Serbia on 14 December 2021. However, after the calling of the early parliamentary elections and the dissolution of Parliament in February 2022 the pace of reforms slowed down. Due to delays in the finalisation of election results, the government has acted in a caretaker capacity with limited powers since February 2022. The EU-facilitated dialogue on the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo

continued with meetings at leaders’ and chief negotiators’ level. The Commission’s recommendation from last year that Serbia has fulfilled the opening benchmarks for cluster 3 (competitiveness and inclusive growth) and that this cluster is technically ready for opening, remains valid. Following Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified aggression against Ukraine, Serbia aligned with most of the international community, including the EU, in voting for two relevant UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions and voted on Russia’s suspension from the Human Rights Council. However, Serbia did not align with any of the EU’s restrictive measures and most declarations by the High Representative (HR) on behalf of the EU against the Russian Federation. It maintained its close relationship with Russia, raising questions about Serbia’s strategic direction. Under the EU-Serbia Negotiating Framework, Serbia is expected to progressively align its policies towards third countries with the policies and positions adopted by the EU, including restrictive measures. It remains important that effective policy planning and coordination is in place, along with sufficient human and financial resources for EU accession across all institutions involved, so that Serbia can work towards meeting its objectives for EU accession negotiations. In line with the EU accession objective, the Serbian authorities need to, as a matter of priority, take responsibility for proactive and objective communication on the EU, which is by far Serbia’s main political and economic partner. The COVID-19 pandemic continued throughout the reporting period, following similar patterns across the region. 1.2 Summary of the report As regards the political criteria, all relevant political actors took part in the early parliamentary elections on 3 April 2022, which resulted in a more pluralistic Parliament. However, the political and media landscapes remained polarised and continued to be dominated by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and the incumbent President. Offensive language continued to be used against political opponents, both in Parliament and during the electoral campaign. Prior to the elections, a broad range of political actors engaged in the Inter-Party Dialogue, facilitated by the European Parliament. The April 2022 presidential and early parliamentary elections were held in a generally calm and peaceful atmosphere and fundamental freedoms were largely respected. However, international observers noted a number of shortcomings. According to the final report of the International Election Observation Mission, these shortcomings resulted in an uneven playing field favouring the incumbents. It is crucial that outstanding and new recommendations from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and Council of Europe bodies are fully implemented, in a transparent process, well ahead of any new elections and with the involvement and upon consulting expert civil society organisations. A new, more pluralistic Parliament was constituted on 1 August 2022. Due to significant delays in finalising the election results, there was no parliamentary activity, other than the inauguration of the President, for a period of over five months. The previous Parliament engaged constructively in the Inter-Party Dialogue and in implementing the measures identified therein. The use of urgent procedures remained at around 9%. The code of conduct still needs to be used more effectively in preventing and sanctioning the use of offensive and inappropriate language in Parliament. Further efforts are still needed to ensure systematic cooperation between the government and civil society. An enabling environment for developing and financing civil society organisations still needs to be created on the ground, as verbal attacks and smear campaigns against such organisations continued. Serbia is moderately prepared as regards public administration reform. Overall, limited progress was made in this area during the reporting period, when the start of implementation of the new strategic framework began. On human resources management, roughly half of senior manager positions are still filled on an acting basis. As regards policy development and coordination, no mechanism is yet in place to verify that the Public Policy Secretariat’s comments have been incorporated into the final draft versions of laws and policy documents submitted for government approval. On public financial management, action is still needed to fully implement the recommendation for a single mechanism for prioritising all investments regardless of type and source of financing. Serbia has some level of preparation when it comes to its judicial system. Overall, some progress was made during the reporting period. Serbia took an important step towards strengthening the independence and accountability of the judiciary with the approval of relevant amendments to the Constitution in February 2022, together with the constitutional law setting out the steps and the deadlines for their implementation. The Venice Commission was consulted twice during the drafting process. It found that the process of public consultations was sufficiently inclusive and transparent. Most of the Venice Commission’s specific recommendations were addressed. The amendments provide that all judicial appointments (with the exception of the future Supreme Prosecutor) will be the competence of either the future High Judicial Council or the High Council of Prosecutors, increasing safeguards against potential political influence. In order to give practical effect to the constitutional amendments the relevant implementing legislation needs to be adopted as a next step. According to the constitutional law, this legislation should be adopted within 1 year for judicial laws and within 2 years for the alignment of all other relevant legislation. Two expert working groups (one for prosecutors, one for courts) were established in April 2022 and tasked with the drafting of the implementing legislation. A first set of draft judicial laws were finalised in September 2022 and shared with the Venice Commission for opinion. The new human resources strategy and implementing action plan were adopted in December 2021. Their implementation is pending. Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Overall, some progress was made during the reporting period, including on last year’s recommendations. The recommendation on prevention of corruption has been further implemented, and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) concluded in March 2022 that the adoption of amendments to the Law on prevention of corruption had addressed the previously identified shortcomings and was sufficient to strengthen the framework aimed at preventing and combating conflicts of interest of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors. Serbia has still to prepare a new anti-corruption strategy and action plan, and establish an effective coordination mechanism to operationalise prevention and repression policy goals and thoroughly address corruption. The number of indictments and first-instance convictions in high-level corruption cases has increased slightly. Serbia should further step up the prevention and repression of corruption. In particular, it should increase the final confiscation of assets linked to these cases. Those sectors most vulnerable to corruption require targeted risk assessments and dedicated action. In the fight against organised crime, Serbia has some level of preparation. Limited progress was made over the reporting period. The number of new investigations and final convictions increased in 2021 compared to 2020, however the number of indictments and first instance convictions decreased. The number of cases involving seizure and final confiscation of assets is still limited. Extended confiscation is not systematically applied. However, the level of understanding and the investigation approach have improved, which should lead to better results in the future. Serbia should move from a case-by-case approach to a strategy against criminal organisations, and from focusing on cases of low or medium importance to high- profile cases, aimed at dismantling big internationally spread organisations and seizing assets. Serbia’s legislative and institutional framework for upholding fundamental rights is broadly in place. Serbia adopted new strategies on anti-discrimination and Roma inclusion, as well as action plans on gender equality and Roma inclusion. Action plans, and related funding, in other areas were due in July 2021 (violence against women) and April 2022 (anti-discrimination; de-institutionalisation) and are now overdue. More efforts are needed to comply with the Law on the planning system, which requires that action plans are adopted within three months of the adoption of related strategies. Serbia needs to strengthen human rights institutions by allocating the necessary financial and human resources and by putting in place procedures to ensure compliance with the European Court of Human Rights’ measures, including interim measures. In September 2022, Europride was hosted for a first time in the Western Balkans, in Belgrade. The Europride route was banned, and the holding of the march was uncertain until the very last moment. The authorities claimed safety concerns related to threats by extreme right groups as the basis for their decision. An anti-Europride and, anti-Western demonstration was also banned. Finally a march, via a shorter route took place on 17 September 2022, without major incidents. A high number of law enforcement officers protected it, nevertheless, some instances of violence against the participants were reported. The period prior to the march was marked by legal and political uncertainty. The communication of the authorities was contradictory, with high level announcements that the march would be banned altogether and a subsequent ban issued by the Ministry of the Interior on the route of the march. Other high level politicians addressed the Europride Human Rights Conference and held a reception before the march. While the authorities maintained contacts with the organisers to find a solution, they remained non-committal about the parade going ahead with an official permit. Regarding freedom of expression, no progress was made in the reporting period. The two working groups on the safety of journalists continued to meet. In several cases of attacks and threats, the police and the prosecution reacted swiftly, also thanks to the coordination facilitated through those groups. However, cases of threats and violence against journalists remain a concern and the overall environment for the exercise of freedom of expression without hindrance still needs to be further strengthened in practice. Implementation of the media strategy experienced increasing delays, affecting even the most important measures such as amending the Law on public information and media and the Law on electronic media. In July 2022, the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) awarded all four national frequencies, for a period of eight years, to the same television channels as in the previous period, during which all of them had received warnings from REM due to violation of their legal obligations. A call for a fifth licence was published in August 2022; the process should be handled in a transparent manner, respecting the principle of media pluralism in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. In its final report of 19 August 2022 on the April elections, ODIHR found that ‘the national public broadcasters had covered the campaign activities of all contestants equitably but provided extensive uncritical news coverage to public officials who were also candidates. Private broadcast media with national coverage presented the election campaign without meaningful editorial input and focused their news coverage on state officials.’ ODIHR also found that ‘despite its mandate to oversee the broadcast media, REM remained overall passive in the campaign period.’ On the economic criteria, Serbia is between a good and moderate level of preparation and has made some progress in developing a functioning market economy. After a relatively mild contraction in 2020, the Serbian economy rebounded strongly in 2021 followed by some deceleration in the first half of 2022. After decreasing in 2020, external imbalances started to widen in the second half of 2021, in particular due to high energy imports. Consumer price inflation surged in the second half of 2021, mostly driven by energy and food prices, which led the central bank to start tightening its policy stance. Banking sector stability was preserved and lending growth remained robust despite the phasing-out of liquidity-enhancing measures. The economic rebound and the reduction of fiscal support measures helped to substantially improve the budget balance in 2021, despite a further increase in capital spending. A slight increase in the unemployment rate in 2021 reflected in particular a rising labour market participation as part of the rebound from the COVID-19 crisis.

There has been some progress with tax administration reforms and the privatisation of state-owned enterprises. However, other major structural reforms of public administration and of the governance of state owned enterprises (SOEs) continued to advance slowly, prolonging long standing inefficiencies and increasing fiscal pressure. There has been no progress in strengthening fiscal rules to anchor fiscal policy. The state retains a strong footprint in the economy and the private sector is underdeveloped and hampered by weaknesses in the rule of law, in particular corruption and judicial inefficiency, and in the enforcement of fair competition. Last year’s recommendations have been partially implemented. Serbia is moderately prepared and has made some progress in coping with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU. The structure of the economy improved further and economic integration with the EU remained high. However, despite some progress, the quality and relevance of education and training does not fully meet labour market needs. Public investment has continued to increase with the aim of addressing serious infrastructure gaps after years of underinvestment. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) still face a number of challenges, including an uneven playing field as compared to large companies and foreign investors. Last year’s recommendations have been partially implemented. On good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation, Serbia remained committed overall to improving bilateral relations with other candidate countries, potential candidates and neighbouring EU Member States. However, relations with Croatia are increasingly under strain, with occasional political altercations. Relations with Montenegro remain challenging but both sides have signalled greater willingness to reset relations and work toward addressing open issues. In general, Serbia actively participates in regional cooperation. The EU-facilitated Dialogue on the normalisation of relations with Kosovo continued throughout the reporting period with regular monthly meetings on the level of Chief Negotiators and a High-level meeting in Brussels on 18 August 2022. No further concrete progress was yet achieved in the negotiations on the comprehensive and legally-binding normalisation agreement, while in the High-level meeting President Vučić and Prime Minister Kurti agreed to regular meetings on the level of Leaders to take the negotiations forward. Kosovo and Serbia are now urged to engage constructively and advance the negotiations on the comprehensive, legally-binding normalisation agreement with no further delay. Reaching such an agreement is urgent and crucial so that Kosovo and Serbia can advance on their respective European paths. Regarding Serbia’s ability to assume the obligations of EU membership, the country continued the work on alignment with the EU acquis in many areas, particularly on company law, intellectual property rights, research and innovation and financial control. The internal market cluster is key for Serbia’s preparations for the requirements of the EU’s internal market and is highly relevant for early integration and the development of the Common Regional Market. Progress was achieved in several areas within the cluster, particularly on legislative alignment on company law; freedom of movement for workers through coordination of social security systems; and legislative alignment on the free movement of goods. The competitiveness and inclusive growth cluster has significant links to Serbia’s Economic Reform Programme. Progress was achieved in some areas under this cluster, particularly: social policy and employment through steps towards establishing the Youth Guarantee scheme; economic and monetary policy through improvements of the budget process; enterprise industrial policy through an action plan for the strategy on state ownership and management of business entities owned by the Republic of Serbia, and the creation of the e-consultation portal; scientific and technological development through the new strategy for developing start-up ecosystem; and education through steps towards ensuring compliance of the quality assurance system in higher education with the recommendations of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). The Green agenda and sustainable connectivity cluster is at the heart of the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans and closely linked to Serbia’s Economic Reform Programme and the Commission’s Economic and Investment Plan. The cluster and all related chapters were opened in December 2021, after Serbia had fulfilled the remaining requirements, namely the adoption of action plans on oil stocks and on gas unbundling. Limited progress was achieved overall with the exception of Trans-European networks, where Serbia advanced on upgrading its infrastructure, with works starting on the Serbia-Bulgaria gas interconnector, a strategically highly important project for Serbia and Europe. The cluster on resources, agriculture and cohesion comprises policies linked to EU structural funds and to developing capacity to assume the responsibilities of a future Member State. It also comprises some of the key policy areas crucial for ensuring sustainable food systems and helping rural communities to develop and diversify economically. Two out of five chapters are open (Chapters 13 and 33) with closing benchmarks still to be fulfilled in each chapter. The Commission has assessed that the opening benchmarks have been met for Chapters 11 and 22, while Serbia still has to meet all three opening benchmarks for chapter 12. Limited progress was achieved in some areas, e.g. submission of the IPARD III programme for 2021-2027; adoption and implementation of the law on plant protection products; classification of food establishments and establishments handling animal by-products; financial and budgetary provisions as regards the underlying policy areas affecting the correct functioning of the own resources system; and regional policy as regards financial management. On the external relations cluster, Serbia is yet to finalise its accession to the World Trade Organization which is one of the opening benchmarks for chapter 30. Serbia should also abstain from introducing unilateral trade restrictive measures without prior consultation of the Commission, in line with its SAA obligations. Following Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified aggression against Ukraine, Serbia did not align with the EU restrictive measures against Russia and majority of Declarations by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on this matter. Serbia’s alignment rate with relevant High Representative declarations on behalf of the EU and Council Decisions therefore dropped from 64 % in 2021 to 45 % in August 2022. A number of actions and statements by Serbia went against EU foreign policy positions. Serbia is expected, as a matter of priority, to fulfil its commitment and progressively align with the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, including with EU restrictive measures, in line with EU-Serbia negotiating framework. Serbia continued to contribute to the management of the mixed migration flows towards the EU by cooperating effectively with its neighbours and EU Member States. Efforts continued to host and accommodate substantial numbers of third-country nationals, with EU support. Serbia decided on 17 March 2022 to grant Ukrainian nationals having fled Russia’s war on Ukraine temporary protection for 1 year. It also continued to implement the integrated border management strategy and its action plan effectively. Serbia took no steps to align with the EU’s list of visa required third countries, in particular with those third countries which present irregular migration or security risks to the EU, as recommended in the Commission’s visa suspension mechanism report of August 2021. 1.3. State of play of the accession negotiations Clusters Chapters / areas State of play Fundamentals All chapters open 23 – Judiciary and fundamental rights 24 – Justice, freedom and security 5 – Public procurement 18 – Statistics 32 – Financial control …Economic criteria …Functioning of democratic institutions …Public administration reform Opened July 2016 Opened July 2016 Opened December 2016 Opened December 2018 Opened December 2015 Internal Market 4 chapters open 1 – Free movement of goods 2 – Freedom of movement for workers 3 – Right of establishment and freedom to establish services 4 – Free movement of capital 6 – Company law 7 – Intellectual property rights 8 – Competition 9 – Financial services 28 – Consumer and health protection Serbia working on fulfilment of opening benchmarks Draft EU Common Position in Council Draft EU Common Position in Council Opened December 2019 Opened December 2017 Opened June 2017 Serbia working on fulfilment of opening benchmarks Opened June 2019 Draft EU Common Position in Council Competitiveness and inclusive growth 5 chapters open 10 – Digital transformation and media 16 – Taxation 17 – Economic and monetary policy 19 – Social policy and employment 20 – Enterprise and industrial policy 25 – Science and research 26 – Education and culture 29 – Customs union Draft EU Common Position in Council Opening Benchmarks Assessment Report in Council Opened December 2018 Opening Benchmarks Assessment Report in Council Opened February 2017 Opened December 2016 and provisionally closed Opened February 2017 and provisionally closed Opened June 2017 Green Agenda and Sustainable connectivity All chapters open 14 – Transport policy 15 – Energy 21 – Trans-European networks 27 – Environment and climate change Opened December 2021 Opened December 2021 Opened December 2021 Opened December 2021 Resources, Agriculture and cohesion 2 chapters open 11 – Agriculture and rural development 12 – Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy 13 – Fisheries 22 – Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments 33 – Financial and budgetary provisions Opening Benchmarks Assessment Report in Council Serbia working on fulfilment of opening benchmarks Opened June 2018 Opening Benchmarks Assessment Report in Council Opened June 2018 External Relations 1 chapter opened 30 – External relations 31 – Foreign, security and defence policy Opened December 2017 Screening Report in Council Not part of a cluster: Chapter 34 – Institutions is currently not applicable for Serbia Chapter 35 – Other Issues / Normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo opened in December 2015 2. Cluster 1: The Fundamentals of the Accession Process 2.1. Functioning of democratic institutions and Public Administration Reform 2.1.1 Democracy The proper functioning of Serbia’s democratic processes is a central pillar of Serbia’s EU accession process. All relevant political actors took part in the early parliamentary elections on 3 April 2022, which led to a more pluralistic Parliament. While fundamental freedoms were largely respected, international observers noted a number of shortcomings. The political and media landscapes remained polarised and continued to be dominated by the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) and the incumbent President. Offensive language against political opponents also continued to be used, both in Parliament and during the electoral campaign. Prior to the elections, a broad range of political actors engaged in the Inter-Party Dialogue, facilitated by the European Parliament, although a number of opposition parties did not endorse the recommendations of the Dialogue or take part in their implementation. The authorities implemented a number of the identified measures. They also conducted a parallel dialogue with the part of the non-parliamentary opposition ‘without external mediation’. The significant delay in finalising the election results delayed the formation of a new government, which led to a period of its limited decision making capacity.

Elections The April 2022 elections were held in an overall calm and peaceful atmosphere. However, the preliminary statement and the final report of the International Election Observation Mission noted a number of shortcomings, which resulted in an uneven playing field favouring the incumbents. It is crucial that outstanding and new recommendations from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and Council of Europe bodies are fully implemented, in a transparent process and well ahead of next elections. Expert civil society organisations should be involved and consulted. On 3 April 2022, regular presidential, early parliamentary and regular Belgrade City elections were held. The national elections were observed by an Election Observation Mission from ODIHR, joined by observers from the European Parliament, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). According to their preliminary conclusions, reiterated in the final report, the elections presented diverse political options and fundamental freedoms were largely respected during the campaign but a number of shortcomings resulted in an uneven playing field, favouring the incumbents. The combined impact of unbalanced access to media, undue pressure on public sector employees to support the incumbents, significant campaign finance disparities and misuse of administrative resources, led to unequal conditions for candidates. Media did cover all electoral candidates, but most public and private broadcasters with national coverage favoured the incumbent President and the ruling coalition, limiting the opportunity for voters to make fully informed choices. Election day was smoothly conducted and overall peaceful but, despite solid preparation, was marked by a number of systematic procedural shortcomings relating to polling station layout, overcrowding, breaches in ballot secrecy and numerous instances of family voting. A number of reruns and delays in finalising the results of the parliamentary elections were not conducive for improving the overall trust in the electoral process. A number of the measures identified by the European Parliament-led Inter-Party Dialogue have been implemented. In October 2021, a temporary supervisory body for media oversight was set up. In December 2021, the Law on electronic media was amended to include measures identified in the Dialogue. In February 2022, a set of new election laws was adopted, including the framework Law on election of Members of Parliament, Law on election of President, Law on local elections, Law on financing of political activities, and the amended Law on prevention of corruption. According to international observers, these legislative changes included some welcome improvements and addressed some prior ODIHR recommendations. Specifically for the 3 April elections, the changes enhanced the representation of the non-parliamentary opposition in electoral commissions and the transparency of their work; they also extended the timeframes and legal standing for dispute resolution, improved the regulation of political party and campaign finance, and provided for post-election audits of election materials. They further regulated the status of international and domestic observers and introduced further affirmative action for national minorities. However, the amendments were introduced at a late stage and a number of long-standing ODIHR and Council of Europe bodies’ recommendations were not addressed, including those pertaining to key aspects of the electoral process, such as access to media, campaign finance, measures to tackle pressure on voters, and the public scrutiny and auditing of voter lists. On campaign finance, see also Chapter 23 – Judiciary and fundamental rights, under Fight against corruption. In contrast to the 2020 parliamentary elections, which were boycotted by a number of opposition parties, the 2022 polls were inclusive, and all relevant political actors took part. Eight presidential candidates ran, three of whom were women. There were 19 lists registered for parliamentary elections. Four were headed by women and eight were registered as national minority lists. Of the 12 lists that passed the threshold and entered the new Parliament, five were lists of national minorities. Parliament Following the elections of 3 April 2022, a new, more pluralistic Parliament was constituted on 1 August 2022. Due to significant delays in finalising the elections results, there was no parliamentary activity, other than the inauguration of the President, for a period of over five months. The previous Parliament engaged constructively in the Inter-Party Dialogue and the implementation of identified measures. The use of urgent procedures remained at around 9%. Offensive language against political opponents continued to be used. The code of conduct still needs to be used more effectively in preventing and sanctioning the use of inappropriate language. In line with the announcement made immediately after the 2020 elections, reducing the length of parliamentary term, Parliament was dissolved on 15 February 2022. A new Parliament was constituted on 1 August 2022 and a new leadership elected on 2 August. Out of seven initially appointed Deputy Speakers, three were women, two belong to the national minorities, and three represented the opposition. Members of working bodies and parliamentary delegations were also appointed on 2 August, including the parliamentary Committee for the Stabilisation and Association process, which is chaired by an opposition MP. It was agreed that five, out of 20 standing committees would be chaired by the opposition. In the new Parliament, 95 women were elected, which makes up for 38 % of all MPs. The ruling list of the Serbian Progressive Party controls 120 of the 250 seats, the list led by the Socialist Party of Serbia 31 seats, United for the Victory of Serbia 38 seats, Nada/Hope for Serbia coalition 15 seats, Moramo/We Must coalition 13 seats, the Zavetnici list and Dveri-POKS list 10 seats each, and the remaining 13 seats were allocated to national minority lists, which enjoy affirmative action (two Bosniak, one Hungarian, one Albanian and one Croat – Ruthenian list). There is an active women’s parliamentary network. There was a heavy legislative agenda in 2021 and Parliament adopted a 265 laws during its term (from August 2020 until its dissolution in February 2022), of which 24 (9 %) by urgent procedure. In 2021, 191 laws were adopted of which 14 by urgent procedure. The vast majority of bills continued to be tabled by the government. In February 2022, following the successful referendum in January, Parliament adopted and promulgated the Act on amending the Constitution and implementing the Constitutional Law, formalising the reform of the constitutional provisions in the area of the judiciary. Of the 21 public hearings held in 2021, 11 concerned the constitutional reform of the judiciary. One public hearing was held in 2022. Parliament has not yet adopted an annual work plan for 2022. Committees continued to regularly review activity reports by the relevant ministries. Nine monthly sessions with MPs’ questions to the Prime Minister and ministers were held in 2021. Annual reports by independent bodies were debated in the relevant committees and in plenary sessions. However, Parliament failed to support the activities of independent bodies in a systemic manner by regularly monitoring implementation of their recommendations. Parliament continued the recently established practice of plenary debates on the European Commission’s reports on Serbia. In December 2021, such a debate was held for the second time and relevant conclusions were adopted. The Committee for European Integration continued to debate draft negotiating positions submitted by the government: in January 2022 the draft negotiating position for Chapter 28 was discussed and endorsed and in November 2021 the Committee heard the regular (January-June 2021) government report on the accession process. Parliament also continued cooperation with the National Convention on the EU of non-governmental organisations (NKEU). Parliament engaged constructively in the second phase of the Inter-Party Dialogue and adopted the identified measures ahead of the April elections. The new Code of Conduct, adopted in 2020, was amended in September 2021. In October 2021, the ethics commission was established. However, offensive language against political opponents and civic activists continued to be used in parliamentary debate. The Code of Conduct should be used more systematically and effectively to prevent and sanction offensive language. The rules of procedure still need to be modernised, in line with best European standards and practices. The effectiveness, autonomy and transparency of Parliament, including the role of the parliamentary opposition, need to be strengthened unequivocally, in order to ensure the necessary checks and balances. Governance The Serbian government has continued to declare EU membership its strategic goal. In line with the EU accession objective, the Serbian authorities need to place emphasis on proactive and objective communication to its own population about the EU, which is by far Serbia’s main political and economic partner. Due to delays in the finalisation of election results, the government has acted in a caretaker capacity with limited powers since February 2022.

During the election campaign and afterwards, statements were made by some government representatives which were not in line with Serbia’s strategic goal of EU membership. The government continued to hold consultations with the National Convention of non-governmental organisations (e.g. on constitutional reform of the judiciary). Further efforts are needed to improve the transparency and inclusiveness of the reform process, particularly on issues related to EU accession. The restructuring of the Serbian negotiating team established two separate coordinating bodies, one of a political nature and one undertaking practical tasks. The new coordination structure aims to make the accession process more inclusive and establish a chain of responsibilities to speed up the process and make it more participatory. It is important that sufficient human and financial resources are allocated across all institutions involved so that Serbia can work towards meeting its objectives on EU accession negotiations. The autonomy of independent bodies needs to be fully exercised, their role acknowledged and respected by the authorities, and their recommendations followed up thoroughly and in a timely manner. The National programme for adoption of the acquis (NPAA 2022-2025), which adheres to the principles of the new EU accession methodology, was adopted by the government in July 2022. As regards local self-government, the Law on Vojvodina’s financing resources has still not been adopted, despite being provided for under the Constitution. Local administrative capacity remains weak and significant disparities between municipalities persist. Responsibilities continue to be borne at local level without proper analysis of the capacity and human/financial resources required. In June 2021, the government adopted for the first time the programme for reform of the local government system 2021-2025, which aims to address shortcomings in the functioning of local government. Civilian oversight of the security services Parliament continues to be responsible for civilian oversight of the security services. The Law on access to state security files has not yet been adopted. The Parliamentary committee for the oversight of security services remains responsible for civilian oversight of the security sector. The Committee reviewed regular periodic reports by the civilian and two military security agencies, and the activity report of the General Inspector of the Ministry of Defence. A law on access to the state security files still needs to be adopted. Civil society In February 2022, Serbia adopted a strategy for creating a stimulating environment for the development of civil society for 2022-2030, referring also to the need to establish a council for civil society cooperation. Further efforts are still needed to ensure systematic cooperation between the government and civil society. An enabling environment for developing and financing civil society organisations (CSOs) still needs to be created on the ground, as verbal attacks and smear campaigns against such organisations continued. An empowered civil society is a crucial component of any democratic system and should be recognised and treated as such by state institutions. In February 2022, Serbia adopted a strategy for creating a stimulating environment for the development of civil society for 2022-2030, and the corresponding action plan in September 2022. The strategy indicates that in 2022, as a baseline year prior to the start of implementation, ‘practices of cooperation between public authorities and CSOs are not satisfactory’. The strategy also refers to the need to establish a council for civil society cooperation. CSOs and human rights defenders continued to raise awareness about civil and political rights. This took place in a polarised environment. Verbal attacks and smear campaigns against several CSOs and their financing continued, including by high-level officials. Organisations and individuals that criticised the authorities were put under pressure, in particular in cases relating to the rule of law – such as protests against the glorification of war criminals - or environmental protection. During environmental protests in November and December 2021, masked and other individuals attacked some of the protestors. The Ministry of the Interior issued a public statement that, since the rallies were not registered, the police could not secure them and guarantee safety, and that the organisers would instead bear such responsibility (See also Chapter 23 on freedom of assembly). The legal framework for cooperation between the government and CSOs is broadly in place; its implementation still needs to be improved and systematised. A new e-consultations platform was set up in December 2021. The impact of this new consultation tool has yet to be assessed. There is no central body in charge of quality control. CSOs continue to report that the time given for public consultations remained short, or that their comments on draft laws of public interest, for example draft amendments to the law on expropriations, were not given sufficient consideration and follow‑up (See Public Administration Reform). The National Convention on the EU continued to monitor and assess the progress of accession negotiations, and met several times with government officials. 2.1.2. Public administration reform Serbia is moderately prepared as regards the reform of its public administration. Overall, limited progress was made in this area during the reporting period, with the adoption of a policy-making and regulatory reform programme 2021-2025 in November 2021, completing the new public administration reform (PAR) strategic framework, and with the start of its implementation. The three Commission recommendations from last year have yet to be implemented. On human resources management, roughly half of senior manager positions are still filled on an acting basis. As regards policy development and coordination, no mechanism is yet in place to verify that the Public Policy Secretariat’s comments have been incorporated into the final draft versions of laws and policy documents submitted for government approval. On public financial management (PFM), action is still needed to fully implement the recommendation for a single mechanism for prioritising all investments regardless of type and source of financing. There is an urgent need to address those shortcomings. In the coming year, Serbia should in particular: ®reduce the excessive number of acting positions, and allocate sufficient resources for effective, merit-based recruitment processes; ®ensure strong quality control role for the Public Policy Secretariat to allow for effective implementation of the Law on the planning system;

®put in place a unified, comprehensive and transparent system for capital investment planning and management. Strategic framework for public administration reform The new PAR strategic framework was completed in November 2021 with the adoption of the missing policy-making and regulatory reform programme 2021-2025. The authorities involved civil society organisations in monitoring the first year of implementation of the strategy. The PAR Council, chaired by the minister in charge of public administration, held two meetings in 2021. Political support for public administration reform continued. Financial sustainability remains an issue of concern due to reliance on donor funding. Policy development and coordination Institutions are in place for a central government policy-making system, including for the EU integration process. The Law on the planning system, containing clear rules for developing, monitoring and reporting on sector strategies, needs to be applied systematically. There is still no mechanism to ensure that the Public Policy Secretariat’s comments are incorporated and that the final draft versions of laws and policy documents are compliant with the legislation. An increasing number of policy documents are being entered into the unified information system, but the number of implementation reports deriving from it remains limited. Two years on, the legal requirement to have mid-term plans adopted by all institutions as of January 2020 is not met; only 20 out of 40 public bodies have adopted and published their mid-term plans for 2022-2024. The national plan for the adoption of the EU acquis (NPAA) and the government annual work programme have yet to be better synchronised. Serbia adopted a new NPAA in July 2022. A high proportion of planned commitments in the government annual work programme are carried forward into the following year as they have not been implemented. The capacity for inclusive and evidence-based policy and legislative development, including when aligning with the EU acquis, still needs strengthening. Administrative data collection and its systematic use for policy and law-making has to be further improved across the administration. The methodology on impact assessments needs to be consistently applied. The Public Policy Secretariat’s acceptance of ‘partial compliance’ with the methodology limits the degree of alignment with legal requirements and improvement in the overall quality of the impact assessments. Better coordination between the Ministry of Finance and the Public Policy Secretariat is still needed to ensure that there are no discrepancies between financial impact assessments and financial information in the regulatory impact assessments. Regarding inter-ministerial consultations, there are still no high-level mechanisms for resolving possible conflicts between services before they reach the government. The scope of public consultations was improved. A new e-consultations platform was established in December 2021. The impact of this new consultation tool has yet to be assessed. There is no central body in charge of quality control. Despite the legal obligation to provide information on the results of public consultations, reports are not yet systematically published, nor are explanations systematically provided on the acceptance or not of comments received (See Civil society). As regards public scrutiny of government work, reports were published on implementation of the PAR strategy and PFM reform programme and on the action plan for the implementation of the government programme. Other reports on the NPAA and sector strategies were not published. The government’s website still does not provide direct access to monitoring reports on the implementation of key government planning documents. Agendas, minutes and conclusions of government sessions are still not published. Public financial management The 2021-2025 PFM reform programme was implemented in line with its action plan for 2021. The cost of government measures to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19 and the spillover effects of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has increased the overall fiscal deficit and public debt. However, public finances were kept on a sustainable path in line with medium-term fiscal goals. The capital budget level continued its upward trend but a unified, comprehensive, effective and transparent system for planning and management of capital investments needs to be put in place. Serbia needs to apply the full methodology of the decree on capital projects management, as well as public procurement procedures, to all capital investments regardless of type of investment or source of financing. It must also ensure that effective procedures are in place to guarantee that the planning, appraisal and implementation of capital projects is integrated into the budget process. Furthermore, the government’s investment planning and management capacity needs to be improved. This includes the capacity for public assets management and for assessing possible fiscal risks for investment projects funded by loans from third countries. The link between the government programme and the sector strategies and operational plans of budget beneficiaries remains weak. The improved legislative framework for public procurement and internal control needs to be implemented in practice. With public procurement in particular, the very high value of procurement decisions exempted from the Law on public procurement raises serious concerns. The State Audit Institution has continued to increase both the coverage and quality of its audits of public funds and its relations with stakeholders (See Chapters 5 – Public procurement, and 32 – Financial control). Analytical units in all ministries and line bodies need to be established without delay in order to foster the effective consolidation of strategic, operational and financial management functions, as planned in Serbia’s strategic documents. Areas that would merit further improvements include the accounting and reporting framework, arrears, commitment controls, extra budgetary operations and performance management. Serbia did not progress in improving budget transparency. No transparency roadmap, pre-budget statement or mid-year report has been produced or published. The Ministry of Finance does not publish the budget execution profile at the beginning of the year, preventing analysis of deviations from targets. Some additional policy and fiscal risk information could be included in the executive’s budget proposal. Public participation in the budget process and budget oversight by the legislature needs to be improved. The 2022 budget was adopted in line with the budget calendar but with very limited qualitative assessment and debate among the stakeholders. Public service and human resources management The civil service legislation provides for merit-based recruitment and dismissal procedures but leaves too much discretion to the heads of institutions in setting up selection committees. There were no developments in mandatory competition procedures for recruiting temporary staff in cases of increased workload and this has been postponed from 2021 to 2023. The possibility to convert certain categories of temporary contracts into permanent civil service contracts needs to be considered carefully to avoid possible abuse. Grades received by civil servants under the performance appraisal system remain inflated. A high proportion (2020: 72 %, 2021: 50 %) of disciplinary decisions are annulled by courts. The legislation on senior civil service positions provides for a merit-based recruitment procedure, but the lack of transparency in the procedure and the lack of compliance with it remain issues of serious concern. The legal provision allowing for appointments to acting positions for 6 months (with a maximum extension of 3 months) is frequently used beyond those limits. As of May 2022, 51 % of filled senior positions were held on an acting basis (62 % in June 2021). Despite the amendments to the Law on civil servants restricting appointments to existing civil servants as of July 2019, the government continued to appoint non-civil servants – occupying two thirds of total acting posts - after that legal deadline. The limited capacity of the High Civil Service Council is a concern given the large number of competitions to be organised to replace all the current acting managers at a reasonable speed. Clear political will, sufficient resources and effective monitoring by the responsible institutions remain essential to address this issue as a matter of urgency. The authorites set up a ‘special working group’ to look into possible solutions. However, established practices continue to lack transparency. In particular, appointment decisions for management positions can be overturned by a government personnel committee after the selection process has been finalised at the institutional level. As regards the competency-based human resources management system, the success rate of tested competencies remained extremely high. The Human Resources Management Service needs to further strengthen its capacity to coordinate and harmonise the work of human resources units in the line institutions. There is no annual reporting yet and reliable statistics are not yet available as the setting up of a new human resources management information system is delayed. The current system is still not connected to other national databases such as the treasury payroll registry. No progress was made regarding remuneration of civil servants. Implementation of the 2016 Law on the public sector salary system, which introduces the principle of equal pay for equal work for all public sector employees, is further delayed as it was again postponed for another year, to 2025. Restrictions in recruitment remained in place through the Law on the budget system. With regard to professional development, the National Training Academy for Public Administration continued organising training for all public officials, including at the local self-government level. The Academy further developed online training courses and continued to increase training coverage both in terms of the number of courses and the number of trained public administration staff. The implementation of a comprehensive professional development programme for senior civil servants is at an early stage of implementation. The third round of development and implementation of integrity plans for all public authorities began in November 2021. Further efforts are needed to ensure that the existing integrity plans for the judiciary and public administration are fully implemented. The integrity of the civil service is still undermined by the excessive number of acting senior manager posts. By March 2022, 30 out of 174 local self-governments had adopted the new code of ethics for local officials developed by the Standing Conference of Towns and Municipalities.

Accountability of administration The structure of the public administration has not yet been streamlined. The lines of accountability between agencies and their parent institutions remain blurred, contributing to overlapping functions, fragmentation, and unclear reporting lines. In spite of the existence of the Law on public agencies, almost all agencies of this type still have their status regulated by a special law. Political commitment to managerial accountability, performance management and systematic delegation of responsibilities is still needed. The establishment of a registry of holders of public powers was postponed to 2025 in the new PAR strategy. The decree of March 2021 on organisation and systematisation of work posts, introducing analytical units, has yet to be enforced; the units need to be promptly set up with adequately trained staff. Institutions still have a predominantly bureaucratic and process-oriented approach to planning, budgeting and reporting on their activities (See Chapter 32 – Financial control). As regards the citizens’ right to good administration, a new Law on the Ombudsman was adopted in November 2021. According to the Ombudsman’s 2021 report, the largest number of citizens’ complaints relates to violation of economic and property rights, followed by civil and political rights, socio-cultural rights and rights of children (See Fundamental rights). Administrative silence, whereby public authorities fail to properly act on citizens’ information requests, remained a major issue. Amendments to the Law on free access to information of public importance were adopted in November 2021, which should in principle ensure more effective enforcement of the decisions taken by the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance (See Chapter 23 – Fight against corruption). On the citizens’ right to administrative justice, review of Administrative Court judgments is possible only in a limited number of cases and only through extraordinary legal remedies. According to the Chapter 23 action plan, a two-instance network of administrative courts review should be established by the first quarter of 2023. In 2021, the Administrative Court received 38 927 cases and resolved 22 104 (77.04 % clearance rate). Some 64 834 cases were pending at the end of 2021. The continuing backlog of cases, alongside expanded jurisdiction and a relatively small number of judges (46), is negatively affecting access to justice. The Court took steps to improve transparency by uploading 169 548 integral and 14 029 anonymised judgements into the case-law database of the Supreme Court of Cassation. Available data indicate a gradual increase in the use of legal aid, predominantly in civil and administrative cases and for victims of domestic violence. There is a need to improve the existing capacity and cooperation between different service providers, raise further awareness about this right, and align the legal framework with the procedural laws, the law on court fees and the tariff regulation. All local self-governments but one now have a registered provider of free legal aid (See Fundamental rights). Citizens’ right to seek compensation is regulated but there is still no statistical data to monitor its implementation. Service delivery to citizens and businesses Creating a more user-oriented administration remains a government priority. The Office for IT and e-government and the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit continued to ensure coordination and leadership in this area and implementation of the e-government programme. A central monitoring of performance and quality standards for services are needed. Progress in developing e-services continued, in particular in relation to the COVID-19 crisis. A full set of implementing laws relating to the Law on e-government was adopted by February 2022. The number of municipal one-stop shops increased; however, a regulation governing their setting up has yet to be adopted. The number of databases connected to the Government Services Bus - an information system linking major databases - has increased, including the central population registry. Digital signatures are being used but the number of people using this service is still limited. The legal framework for simplification of administrative procedures is in place. However, regulatory uncertainty for individuals and businesses remains due to persistent delays in aligning sector-based legislation with the Law on general administrative procedures. The capacity of the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government to efficiently oversee the implementation of this Law is still limited. In implementation of the ‘e-paper’ programme 2019-2021, the Public Policy Secretariat simplified 311 administrative procedures and digitised 64 ones. However, this programme is still not clearly linked with the process of aligning sector-based legislation and/or special procedures with the Law on general administrative procedures. 2.2. Rule of law and fundamental rights 2.2.1. Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights The EU's founding values include the rule of law and respect for human rights. An effective (independent, high quality and efficient) judicial system and an effective fight against corruption are of paramount importance, as is respect of fundamental rights in law and in practice. Serbia has some level of preparation in applying the EU acquis and European standards in this area. Limited progress was made overall, which includes an improvement of the average grading of the sub-chapters compared to the previous reporting period. Serbia made an important step with the adoption and promulgation of the constitutional amendments in Parliament in February 2022. In order to give practical effect to the constitutional amendments the relevant implementing legislation needs to be adopted swiftly. Two experts working groups tasked with drafting the legislation have been set up with a timeline for their adoption by February 2023. A first set of draft judicial laws were finalised in September 2022 and shared with the Venice Commission for opinion. The Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommendations in the area of prevention of corruption have been further implemented and the number of indictments and first instance convictions for high-level corruption cases has slightly increased. Serbia has still to prepare a new anti-corruption strategy, accompanied by an action plan. On media freedom, no progress was made on the recommendations of last year, which therefore remain valid. Following the 2020 adoption of the revised action plan for implementing Chapter 23, the judiciary’s monitoring and reporting mechanism has been improved and places greater emphasis on a qualitative analysis of achievements of the impact indicators. In addition, an early warning reporting mechanism involving the 50 implementing institutions has been introduced through a special report and involving follow-up improvements to rectify implementation issues within timeframes. Annual reporting on the interim benchmarks has begun. The interinstitutional Coordination body has held four meetings since its establishment in 2021. Three permanent staff have been appointed to the secretariat. The mechanism for cooperation with civil society organisations has improved. The Ministry of Justice has organised one roundtable bringing together civil society organisations. Considering the high staff turnover across the judiciary and fundamental rights institutions, staff retention should be prioritised. Further know-how and capacity building is required and budgeting for human and financial resources should be improved. Functioning of the judiciary Serbia has some level of preparation in the area of the judiciary. Some progress was made overall on last year’s recommendations. Serbia took an important step on the independence and accountability of the judiciary with the approval of relevant amendments to the Constitution in February 2022, together with the Constitutional Law setting out the steps and the deadlines for their implementation. The Venice Commission (VC) was consulted twice during the drafting process. It found that the public consultations process was sufficiently inclusive and transparent. Most of the VC’s specific recommendations were addressed. The amendments to the Constitution provide that all judicial appointments (with the exception of the future Supreme Prosecutor) will be made either by the future High Judicial Council (HJC) or the High Prosecutorial Council (HPC), increasing safeguards against potential political influence. In order to give practical effect to the constitutional amendments the relevant implementing legislation needs to be adopted swiftly. For the purpose of drafting the implementing legislation two expert working groups (one for prosecutors, one for courts) were established in April 2022. A first set of draft judicial laws were finalised in September 2022 and shared with the Venice Commission for opinion. A broad and inclusive consultation process including full alignment with Venice Commission recommendations and European standards will be needed in this regard. According to the constitutional law, this legislation should be adopted within 1 year for judicial laws and within 2 years for the alignment of all other relevant legislation. The new human resources strategy and related action plan were adopted in December 2021. Their implementation is pending. Notwithstanding this positive development, significant challenges and delays in implementation remain regarding the impartiality, accountability, efficiency and professionalism of the judiciary, access to justice and high-quality training. The current system of recruitment, transfer and promotion of judges and prosecutors still needs to be revised to ensure that careers are fully based on merit. A number of steps have been taken to reduce the space for political influence on the judiciary, however, it is not yet possible to observe a reduction of undue influence on judges and prosecutors in practice. Serbia still needs to show a genuine commitment for investigating and adjudicating war crimes cases. Serbia continues to challenge publicly the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), including at the highest levels. In the coming year, Serbia needs in particular to:

®amend the relevant judicial laws for the implementation of the constitutional amendments (Laws on: organisation of courts; seats and territorial jurisdiction of courts and Public Prosecutors’ Offices, judges; Public Prosecutors’ Office and the Judicial Academy) in line with the foreseen deadlines and Venice Commission recommendations in order to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of the prosecution; ®amend the Laws on High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, in line with foreseen deadlines and Venice Commission recommendations, to empower them to effectively and proactively defend judicial independence and prosecutorial autonomy in practice, including in cases of external undue influence; ®start implementing the human resources strategy for the entire justice sector and operationalise the uniform and centralised case management system, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system. Strategic documents In March 2022, the action plan for the 2022-2025 judicial development strategy was adopted, further specifying reform activities, including reporting by the relevant international bodies/organisations and civil society. The Serbian government is delayed in carrying out a comprehensive impact analysis of the country’s reforms on the basis of the 2014 World Bank functional reviews including addressing its recommendation. The World Bank finalised the latest functional analysis of the prosecution services in August 2022, following comments received from the Ministry of Justice and the judicial institutions. The recommendations from previous World Bank functional reviews remain to be addressed. A new human resources strategy and action plan for the judiciary were adopted in December 2021. Their full implementation should improve performance across the justice sector. The new monitoring and reporting mechanism set out in the Chapter 23 action plan should provide information based on a qualitative analysis of achievements towards impact indicators, including on human and financial resources, as well as early-warning and corrective measures. Special efforts should be placed on staff retention and capacity building across the implementing institutions. An information and communications technology (ICT) strategy and accompanying action plan were adopted in February 2022. Sustained efforts are needed to make the ICT system work in an effective and efficient manner, closely linked with the human resources (HR) strategy and the judicial reform. The Ministry of Justice also developed a new mechanism for cooperation with civil society. Overall, although Serbia is advancing in setting up a robust performance assessment framework and building a credible record of accomplishment in implementation, the reforms need to be accelerated. Management bodies As regards the organisation of the courts and prosecutors’ offices, responsibilities for budgetary planning, resource allocation and execution remain divided between the Ministry of Justice and the Councils, adversely affecting the efficiency of the courts and prosecutions. Following the constitutional amendments, the implementing judicial laws should set out a clear framework to resolve this issue. In addition, the implementation of the new HR strategy should improve the overall management of the system, taking into account the predicted judiciary workload, both the number and complexity of cases, as determined by case-weighting procedure. The new case-weighting formula was introduced in January 2022 in all basic, higher and commercial courts. An evaluation of its application is underway. The High Judicial Council (HJC) adopted a new strategy and improved the use of the information and financial reporting system for more accurate, reliable and efficient data collection and processing. The State Prosecutorial Council (SPC) took steps towards introducing the necessary ICT tools to ensure random allocation of cases and introduce the case weighting formula. Measures were also taken to improve the transparency of the Councils’ work, notably through publications on their websites. Both Councils have operated without full complement of members since 2021, pending Parliament’s appointment of bar representatives. The new judicial laws should further strengthen the position and role of the Councils, in line with the constitutional amendments and Venice Commission recommendations. There is a need to improve the analytical and statistical capacity of both Councils in line with the HR strategy for the judiciary. Independence and impartiality The current legal framework does not provide sufficient guarantees against attempts to exercise undue political influence over the judiciary. The first step in the constitutional reform, aimed at increasing judicial independence safeguards, was successfully finalised on 9 February 2022, when the Parliament promulgated the amendments to the Constitution and the Constitutional Law after they were confirmed in the public referendum held on 16 January 2022. The Constitutional Law sets out the next steps and the deadlines for adopting the implementing judicial legislation. The Venice Commission (VC) was consulted twice on the draft text of the amendments. The VC concluded in its first opinion from October 2021 that the process of public consultations for these draft amendments was sufficiently inclusive and transparent. It welcomed ‘[…] inter alia, the introduction of the principle of non-transferability of judges, functional immunity for judges and prosecutors, the removal of the probationary period for judges and prosecutors, the fact that the High Judicial Council will no longer be dissolved if it does not render a decision within 30 days and, most importantly, the removal of the competence from the National Assembly to elect court presidents and public prosecutors and to decide on the termination of their office as well as to elect judges and the deputy public prosecutors.’ The VC ‘[…] deemed the relevant amendments in line with European standards and considered that these amendments address previous recommendations, including those of the Venice Commission.’ The VC complemented this assessment with a number of specific recommendations that Serbia was expected to address. Parliament took account of the VC’s opinion and submitted a revised version to the VC for an urgent opinion. This was issued on 24 November 2021 with the VC welcoming ‘that most of its key recommendations from the October opinion have been met, most notably the recommendation on the composition of the High Judicial Council’. The Venice Commission warned that “the recommendation related to the anti-deadlock mechanism for the election of the lay members of the High Judicial Council has not been followed and the one related to the composition of the High Prosecutorial Council has only been partly followed.’ The Venice Commission confirmed that ‘even though the solutions proposed in the revised draft amendments in respect of these two recommendations do not go against any international standards as such, the Commission insisted once again on the need to reduce the risks of politicisation of the two Councils.’ The amendments to the Constitution provide that all the judicial appointments, including first time judges and prosecutors (with the exception of the future Supreme Prosecutor) will no longer be made by Parliament, but by the future High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council (name change from the present State Prosecutorial Council, as per amendments). With the reform, the ‘High Court of Cassation’ has been renamed the ‘Supreme Court’, whose powers will be defined in the future law on courts. In order to give practical effect to the constitutional changes the adoption of a set of judicial laws with detailed provisions is needed as next step, which needs to be done within 1 year (by February 2023). The set of laws includes the Laws on: organisation of courts; seats and territorial jurisdiction of courts and Public Prosecutors’ Offices, judges, Public Prosecutor’ Office, the High Judicial Council, and the High Prosecutorial Council. A broad and inclusive consultation and the active participation of all relevant institutional stakeholders and civil society are needed for developing these important laws. The Constitutional Law sets a two-year deadline for the alignment of all other relevant legislation (by February 2024). This includes the adoption of legislation referring to, but not limited to: rules of procedure for the courts, for the high judicial and the high prosecutorial council, including specific rules on the work of bodies for evaluating the work of judges and (deputy) public prosecutors; the work of their respective disciplinary bodies, ethical boards and elections committees; and also rules of procedure of the Managing Board and the Programme Council of the Judicial Academy. The Ministry of Justice is leading this process and has established two expert working groups (one for the judges and one for the prosecutors) on 15 April 2022. The work started with delay, in June 2022. The working group finalized the drafts of the five judicial laws in September 2022 (Laws on: judges, High Judicial Council, organisation of courts; Public Prosecutors’ Office; High Prosecutorial Council) and shared them with the Venice Commission for opinion. This exercise should be completed on time for the adoption of the laws by February 2023 through wider consultations and with full alignment with the recommendations of the Venice Commission. Pressure on the judiciary and the prosecution still remains high. Government officials, including some at the highest level, as well as members of Parliament, continue to comment publicly on ongoing investigations or court proceedings, as well as on the work of individual prosecutors and judges. Such comments are in contradiction with the new code of conduct for members of Parliament, adopted in December 2020. Information leaked on ongoing investigations or cases has been published by a number of media outlets and may be considered to interfere in the investigations and processing of cases, creating undue pressure on individual members of the judiciary or the prosecution. Some steps were taken to address this issue. In line with the Action plan for Chapter 23, the Ethics Committees of the High Judicial Council (HJC), the State Prosecutorial Council (SPC) and the National Assembly held their first joint meeting in June 2022 agreeing to continue cooperation in order to establish an effective monitoring mechanism for full compliance with court decisions. The rules of procedure of the HJC and the SPC, amended in April 2021, lay the foundation for a more effective reaction and protection mechanism for judges and prosecutors in cases of undue influence. However, despite these steps, it is not yet possible to observe a reduction of undue influence on judges and prosecutors in practice. In 2021, five judges reported undue influence to a confidential counsellor of the HJC, who also took one case on own initiative. The counsellor identified inappropriate influence in three cases. One was rejected and two are pending. In the first half of 2022, nine judges addressed HJC on the basis of undue influence. Compared to the previous period, there was a smaller number of processed cases on prosecutorial protection over external pressure. The HPC Commissioner issued only one statement. More transparency in his work is needed, including the publication of guidance and anonymised decisions. The current legal framework authorises the head of every prosecutor’s office to intervene in individual cases. This creates a certain vulnerability for political influence, notably when effective safeguards are lacking in practice. This should be addressed in line with the amended Constitution in the new Law on prosecution and on the HPC. Overall, stronger reactions and broader public outreach are needed from both Councils, notably by using the many instruments at their disposal (statements, media conferences, publicly addressing the authorities or institutions concerned). This would send a clear message on the need to eliminate undue influence on judges and prosecutors and help reverse a persisting negative perception as to their independence and autonomy in practice. Accountability Following the constitutional changes, the new judicial laws (and subsequently the relevant implementing laws) should lay down more precise disciplinary rules for judges and prosecutors including the necessary procedural safeguards, especially with regard to the violations of the adopted standards of professional ethics. There is a need to improve the capacity of the disciplinary bodies. The HJC adopted a new rulebook on the work of its Ethical Board in June 2022 following the appointment of the new president, deputy president and members of the Board in October 2021. Both Councils continued with activities to promote respect for professional ethical standards and confidential counselling.

The term office of the former HJC disciplinary prosecutor expired and a successor took over in May 2021. There were 473 new disciplinary reports filed in 2021. The disciplinary prosecutor resolved 593 cases and recommended to the disciplinary commission to take further proceedings in 6 cases. The HJC’s disciplinary commission was not operating for the whole of 2021, due to changes in its composition; in 2022 it processed 12 new cases and issued 2 penalties, 1 public warning and 1 salary reduction for a serious disciplinary violation. Most of the reports were filed by private individuals and lawyers complaining over prolonged litigations and misdemeanour proceedings. In 2021, disciplinary prosecutor of the State Prosecutorial Council processed 115 new cases. In these cases 91 reports were rejected as groundless, while 3 cases were referred to disciplinary commission. As in the previous period, most of the reports were filed by private individuals and attorneys. Professionalism and competence In 2020 and 2021, 16 court presidents and 259 judges were appointed to courts at all levels. At the end of 2021, out of 3 073 judicial posts, 353 were vacant while 2 508 judges effectively worked (2020: 2 649), amounting to 39.4 judges per 100 000 inhabitants. At the end of 2021, there were 703 holders of public prosecutorial function (756 in 2020), 52 appointed public prosecutors, 27 deputies were in the acting status and in 11 prosecutors’ offices, deputies were in caretaker capacity. The number of prosecutors per 100 000 inhabitants was 11 in 2021. According to the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), the European averages are 21 judges/12 prosecutors per 100,000 inhabitants. The HJC and the SPC continued to publish information on their websites about the process for evaluating judges and prosecutors. The current system for recruiting, transferring and promoting judges and prosecutors will need to be revised in line with the new legislation for implementing the constitutional amendments. In particular, it will be essential for career advancement to be based solely on merit, with a clear performance evaluation mechanism based on objective criteria. The eligibility criteria for the judicial profession should be clearly defined in the new Laws on judges and prosecutors and the Law on the Judicial Academy, to cover all present categories, the Academy graduates and judicial and prosecutorial assistants. In line with the Venice Commission’s recommendation, the Academy should be effectively ‘protected from possible undue influence’. The independence and professionalism of the Academy remain essential to its becoming a sole nationwide entry point to the judicial profession. In line with the Law on planning, implementation of the new reform strategy for the judiciary should make it possible to act on the recommendations from the World Bank’s functional reviews. These concern effective performance appraisal, budgetary planning and execution, improvement of qualifications and skills through initial and continuous training. Quality of justice The Judicial Academy continued to implement its multiannual work programme for 2020-2025. The Academy’s capacity and internal expertise for initial and continuous training should be further improved, in particular for the training on European law, as presented by the Academy in the 2021 European judicial training report. The total budget for training initiatives at the Judicial Academy in 2021 amounted to EUR 3 766 707. The Academy continues to be an observer in the European judicial training network. On case law harmonisation, in 2021 the court jurisprudence database was further expanded, with inputs from the Supreme Court of Cassation (SCC), four appellate courts, the Administrative Court and the Commercial Appellate court. It now contains 269 140 integral decisions, 32 413 anonymised decisions, 122 legal views, 33 case law bulletins and 17 descripts. The various existing databases should be interlinked, including the one on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Structural shortcomings, including a mismatch between the number of cases and staff should be addressed through implementation of judicial reform and human resources strategies. The role of the SCC in effectively orienting jurisprudence has still to be defined in the judicial laws for implementing the constitutional amendments. Serbia still lacks a comprehensive court case (and document) management system that interlinks cases across Serbian courts and prosecutor’s offices. The work on case management system for courts officially started in September 2021 and is planned to be finalised in 2024. The case management system for prosecutor offices is planned to be finalised by the end of 2022. The case management system for prison administration is operational as of December 2021. Further work is still required to ensure that all systems can operate smoothly. Legislative changes are needed, along with adequate staffing and financial resources, and upgraded communication infrastructure. In July 2021, 28 new notaries were appointed, bringing the number of active notarial offices to 225 covering most courts’ jurisdictions. Four basic courts still have no notarial services in the territories they cover. The notary chamber continued its efforts for better services, including improvements to the electronic documentation system, training and standardisation of practice. There was no progress in amending the Law on mediation to increase the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms including mediation, based on quality standards. A sustainable system with sufficient mediators would be an effective way of addressing the steady rise in the number of first instance litigation cases. The number of mediations compared to the number of pending civil court proceedings remains below 1 %. In 2021, there were 1 704 registered mediators, 216 cases (other than labour disputes) were referred to mediation by the courts and 44 were resolved. In addition, 3 labour dispute cases were also referred to mediation (none was resolved). Out of 1 271 mediations referred by the courts (773 fewer than in 2020), 1 091 ended in a settlement, less than 10 %. The annual report of the SCC points to a rising number of litigation cases and identified space for an increased use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as an effective way of resolving disputes. Efficiency The court and prosecution network consists of 159 courts and 90 prosecutors’ offices (general and specific jurisdictions), operating in four instances (basic, higher, appellate and supreme), adding to complexity in terms of financing, procurement and court payments for the services. An unequal workload among judges and prosecutors and frequent changes in the court network negatively affect equal access to justice for the public. The increase in the number of cases continued in 2021, with 2 402 486 new cases (314 415 more than in 2020), the highest number being in basic and misdemeanour courts. Private individuals have filed over 200 000 new cases against banks, claiming undue bank loan processing fees. In 2021, 2 415 672 cases were resolved, 401 843 cases more than in 2020, in spite of 353 vacant judicial positions. The clearance rate fell to 100.55 % compared to 107.81 % in 2020. At the end of 2021, there were 1 498 237 pending cases. The average duration of courts’ proceedings in 2021 was 226 days, compared to 274 in 2020. The number of cases dismissed due to expiration of statutory time significantly increased in commercial cases to 4 379. From 2017 to 2020, the number of cases varied between 4 and 33. There are 9 882 positions for court staff (only 8 763 filled) while 1 751 staff were engaged on a temporary basis, due to increased workload. The number of the state employees, i.e. staff whose work is not linked to processing of cases, fell slightly (2021:2 831; 2020:2 938) but it is still high compared to the total number of staff, according to European average (CEPEJ report). Implementation of the unified backlog reduction programme (for 2016-2020) continued under the supervision of the SCC, with declining trends in the overall number of pending backlog cases, including enforcement cases. In 2021, more such cases were resolved (375 567, out of which 36 884 were enforcement cases) compared to 2020 (353 563). At the end of 2021, there were some 137 637 pending backlog cases, with the highest number in basic courts in civil matters (35 128). Most of the backlog cases older than 10 years (39 033) are in the basic courts. There is a large number of these cases pending in the higher courts (1 954) owing to the legislative changes concerning jurisdiction in civil matters. There is a high number of old cases in the Administrative Court (4 368). The number of cases filed over violations of the right to a trial within a reasonable time is 40 607. In 20 930 new cases the parties requested compensation for damages resulting from the undue prolongation of proceedings. A high number of cases is pending before the Constitutional Court (CC). In 2021, the CC worked on 18 198 cases, mostly (17 924) constitutional appeals and 209 cases relating to normative control and other powers of the Court. The CC resolved 13 316 constitutional complaints (rejecting over 58 % of them for procedural reasons) and postponed 27 280 unresolved cases to 2022. Additional protection granted by the Law on the protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time did not reduce the number of constitutional complaints or the processing time. Working with 13 out of 15 judges, in 2021, the CC solved 1 147 cases in merits, an increase by a 11.25 % compared to 2020. A number of requests are pending for assessment of the constitutionality of laws and other general acts and their compliance with international documents which is the core mandate of the CC, who has not established a practice of acting on own initiatives in this area. The CC should improve public outreach to explain its work, ensure the transparency of its sessions in practice and provide easier access to judgements. Overall, and as underlined by the Venice Commission, there is a need to reform the Constitutional Court in particular with regard to the introduction of a qualified majority with a deadlock mechanism for the election of some of the judges of this court by Parliament. Significant differences in workload remain between the courts across the country, with the Belgrade courts bearing the highest overall workload. The Ministry of Justice introduced a case-weighting formula in all basic, higher and commercial courts in January 2022. Lengthy proceedings and the slow pace of processing indemnity claims continue to hamper the efficiency and quality of justice and people’s access to justice. The Law on free legal aid came into force in October 2019 (See procedural rights). As to enforcement cases, the transfer of additional types of enforcement cases from courts to 231 public enforcement agents and 32 deputy agents continued. The e-auction platform is in use to increase access to information and improve transparency. In 2021, 255 792 new enforcement cases were received, 514 833 were resolved and 66 610 are pending. The total number of backlog enforcement cases at the end of 2021 was high at 36 845, with 32 519 older than 10 years. Implementing the new HR strategy for the judiciary should provide the courts with the additional human resources that are required for better protection of individual debtors and stronger court control over enforcement. Domestic processing of war crimes

Serbia needs to cooperate fully with the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). This means fully accepting and implementing its rulings and decisions. Serbia continues to publicly challenge the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), including at the highest levels. Cooperation between the IRMCT Office of the Prosecutor and the Serbian Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor (OWCP) continued. Serbia’s state of non-cooperation in relation to the arrest of people indicted for contempt of court had not been resolved by the time the IRMCT assumed the jurisdiction, rights and obligations of the ICTY in 2017. After the IRMCT eventually decided that the contempt of court case has to be heard by the IRMCT itself, it requested Serbia to execute the arrest warrants and related transfer orders in December 2020. This was not yet done. Regarding regional co-operation on the prosecution of war crimes, the Serbian authorities undertook steps towards transferring the criminal prosecution case against a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who had previously been arrested at the border between the two countries and was subsequently indicted in October 2021 but later released. In addition, the OWCP transferred 24 investigative files to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two other citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, arrested in Serbia and accused of war crimes, are still in custody in Serbia and the proceedings against them are underway before the Higher Court. The former 2016 national strategy for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes expired in December 2020. Its rate of implementation was very weak. A new national strategy for the prosecution of war crimes for the period of 2021-2026 was adopted in October 2021 and its first implementation report was published in June 2022. Serbia has a case backlog of 1 731 pre-investigative cases. The new national strategy for the prosecution of war crimes is an opportunity to honour commitments to the fight against impunity and promoting reconciliation, by increasing investigations and indictments in high-level cases and strengthen regional co-operation. Moreover, the strategy needs to ensure that specific decisions in other fields, notably on granting citizenship, do not have the effect of fostering impunity. A new prosecutorial strategy is required with clear targets and indicators for addressing the significant backlog of cases. A number of Serbian political parties and figures, including at ministerial level, continued to provide support to and public space for convicted war criminals. Convicted war criminals continue to spread hate speech in the public space. Certain politicians continue to deny the Srebrenica genocide without repercussions. The OWCP’s capacity was strengthened in early 2021. It now operates with 11 deputies, of whom 9 were appointed and 2 assigned. The War Crimes Department (WCD) of the Higher Court has 7 judges, of whom 6 are assigned to 2 trial panels, and 2 are assigned as pre-trial judges. The WCD of the Court of Appeals operates with 5 judges assigned to 1 trial panel. In 2021, the OWCP filed 7 indictments against 9 defendants of whom 4 were transferred from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Two of the people indicted held a ‘high-ranking’ position at the time of the offence (former general and commander of corps), involving thousands of victims. One of the defendants has also been indicted by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the more serious offence of crimes against humanity. In 2021, 2 judgments involved sexual violence. In June 2022, the Higher Court of Belgrade confirmed the indictment against four Croatian military pilots for alleged crimes committed against ethnic Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995. The indictment is final. The court is currently reviewing the motion from the prosecution to initiate a trial in absentia. International legal assistance did not take place. In 2021, the Higher Court rendered 5 judgments, convicting 6 defendants and sentencing them to prison terms ranging from 2 to 15 years, while the Court of Appeals rendered 6 final decisions convicting 6 defendants and sentencing them to prison terms from 2 to 15 years. No defendants were acquitted. In 2022, the trial panels’ of the Higher Court’s WCD saw a change in its composition. One judge retired in February 2022, while the other judge and the president of the WCD was substituted due to ongoing health issues. This affected the processing of war crimes cases before the Higher Court. To date, the judges have applied relevant legislation to prevent significant delays in the proceedings. As of 31 December 2021, trials were ongoing in 18 cases before the Higher Court (16 cases) and the Court of Appeals (2 cases) against 38 defendants. Overall, Serbia needs to show a genuine commitment to investigating and adjudicating war crimes cases. This is a requirement to effectively deal with the legacies of the past and for fostering reconciliation. Serbia should prioritise complex cases and those involving high-ranking officials and provide a clear legal approach to resolving the issue of command responsibility. Serbia is expected to engage in meaningful regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations in the handling of war crimes. According to the relevant data of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 9 876 people were still missing as a result of the conflicts in the region by July 2022. Of these, 6 302 cases are related to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1 953 to the conflict in Croatia and 1 621 to the conflict in Kosovo. In 2021, 88 cases were resolved, of which 44 concerned the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 23 concerned the conflict in Croatia and 21 the conflict in Kosovo. Serbia participated in and reported on the work of the working group on missing persons (under the London Framework Plan Agreement). Serbia officially identified the remains of 10 persons found in Serbia, 1 from Croatia, 4 from Kosovo and 7 from Bosnia and Herzegovina, thanks to cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. In 2021, excavation works allowed the identification of the remains of nine victims in Kizevak, Raska municipality, and three in Sid. The remains of nine victims from the conflict in Kosovo exhumed in Kizevak were handed over to their families in 2021. Three sets of human remains were repatriated from Kosovo to Serbia. The Belgrade delegation to the ICRC-chaired Working Group on the Missing Persons remained engaged in 2021. There was no session of the Working Group after April 2021 as the Pristina delegation refused to hold new meetings until the Belgrade delegation changed its head. Nonetheless, sub-levels of the mechanism (Sub-Working Group on Forensic Issues and Analytical Team) continued to work on concrete cases and sites and held 13 meetings since April 2021 (of which, 8 in 2021 and 5 in 2022). The Belgrade delegation to the Working Group remained committed to assessing several locations on the territory of Serbia indicated by Pristina as potential gravesites of victims from the conflict in Kosovo. In May 2022, Serbian authorities conducted excavations in Stavalj in the presence of the Kosovo Commission on Missing Persons, in line with the commitments made in the framework of the ICRC-chaired Working Group. No human remains were found. Fight against corruption Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Overall, some progress has been made during the reporting period, including on last year’s recommendations. The recommendation on prevention of corruption has been further implemented. In March 2022, the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) concluded that the adoption of amendments to the Law on prevention of corruption had addressed the previously identified shortcomings and sufficiently strengthened the framework aimed at preventing and combating conflicts of interest for members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. Serbia has still to prepare a new anti-co