EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg,17.4.2018 SWD(2018) 152 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Serbia 2018 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

2018 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy {COM(2018) 450 final}



1. Introduction 1.1 Context 1.2 Summary of the report 2. Fundamentals first: political criteria and rule of law chapters 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 3. Fundamentals first: Economic development & competitiveness 3.1 The existence of a functioning market economy 3.2 The capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the EU 4. Regional issues and international obligations 5. Normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo 6. Ability to assume the obligations of membership 6.1. Chapter 1: Free movement of goods 6.2. Chapter 2: Freedom of movement for workers

6.3. Chapter 3: Right of establishment and freedom to provide services 6.4. Chapter 4: Free movement of capital 6.5. Chapter 5: Public procurement 6.6. Chapter 6: Company law 6.7. Chapter 7: Intellectual property law 6.8. Chapter 8: Competition policy 6.9. Chapter 9: Financial services 6.10. Chapter 10: Information society and media 6.11. Chapter 11: Agriculture and rural development 6.12. Chapter 12: Food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy 6.13. Chapter 13: Fisheries 6.14. Chapter 14: Transport 6.15. Chapter 15: Energy 6.16. Chapter 16: Taxation 6.17. Chapter 17: Economic and monetary policy 6.18. Chapter 18: Statistics 6.19. Chapter 19: Social Policy and employment 6.20. Chapter 20: Enterprise and industrial policy 6.21 Chapter 21: Trans-European networks 6.22. Chapter 22: Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments

6.25. Chapter 25: Science and research 6.26. Chapter 26: Education and culture 6.27. Chapter 27: Environment and climate change 6.28. Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection 6.29. Chapter 29: Customs union 6.30. Chapter 30: External relations 6.31. Chapter 31: Foreign, security and defence policy 6.32. Chapter 32: Financial control 6.33. Chapter 33: Financial and budgetary provisions Annex I – Relations between the EU and Serbia Annex II – Statistical annex



1. Introduction 1.1 Context Since the opening of Serbia’s accession negotiations in January 2014, 12 out of 35 chapters have been opened, two of which provisionally closed. The overall pace of negotiations will continue to depend on Serbia’s progress in reforms and in particular on a more intense pace of reforms on rule of law and in the normalisation of its relations with Kosovo. The European Council granted Serbia the status of candidate country in 2012. 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 new compliance issues have emerged over the last year. 1.2 Summary of the report As regards the political criteria, Serbia held presidential elections in April 2017. International observers found that the elections provided voters with a genuine choice of contestants, but that the playing field was tilted by several factors. The recommendations of international observers need to be fully addressed, including those related to the transparency and integrity of the election process during the electoral campaign. Following the resignation of Prime Minister Vučić after his election as President, the new government, headed by Ana Brnabić, took office in June 2017. For the first time, a woman was elected Prime Minister. The parliament still does not exercise effective oversight of the executive. Transparency, inclusiveness, and quality of law making need to be enhanced and cross-party dialogue improved. The use of urgent procedures should be reduced. Actions which limit the ability of the parliament for an effective scrutiny of legislation must be avoided. The role of independent regulatory bodies needs to be fully acknowledged. Constitutional reforms are needed for alignment with EU standards in some areas.

Serbia is moderately prepared in the area of public administration reform. Some progress was achieved in the area of service delivery and with the adoption of several new laws. Serbia needs to implement its reform targets, professionalise and depoliticise the administration, especially regarding senior management positions, and ensure systematic coordination and monitoring of the public financial management reform programme 2016-20. Serbia’s ability to attract and retain qualified staff in the administration dealing with EU issues will be crucial. Serbia’s judicial system has some level of preparation. Some progress was made, notably by reducing the backlog of old enforcement cases and putting in place measures to harmonise court practice. Improved rules for evaluating professional performance of judges and prosecutors were adopted. The scope for political influence over the judiciary remains a concern. A new draft of amendments to the Constitution in the domain of the judiciary was published in January 2018 and was put forward for public discussion before being sent to the Venice Commission for its opinion. Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Some progress has been achieved, especially in adopting amendments to the Criminal Code in the economic crimes section; to the law on the organisation of state authorities in the field of fight against corruption, organised crime and terrorism; and to the law on seizure and confiscation of proceeds of crime. However, there is a serious delay in adopting the new law on the AntiCorruption Agency. Corruption remains prevalent in many areas and continues to be a serious problem. Operational capacity of relevant institutions remains uneven. Law enforcement and judicial authorities still need to prove that they can investigate, prosecute and try all high level corruption cases in an unbiased and operationally independent manner. Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against organised crime. Some progress was made in areas such as human resource management in the Ministry of the Interior and the police. The operational capacity in both the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime and the Prosecutor’s Office for Cybercrime was improved. A new strategy and action plan to prevent and fight trafficking in human beings were adopted, a National Coordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings was appointed, and a new Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing was adopted. However, Serbia has yet to establish an initial track record of effective financial investigations, as well as of investigations, prosecutions and final convictions in money laundering cases. The number of convictions for organised crime remains low. Serbia needs to focus on the implementation of the action plan agreed with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The legal and institutional framework for the respect of fundamental rights is in place. Its consistent implementation across the country needs to be ensured, including as regards protection of minorities. While Serbia has some level of preparation, no progress was made on freedom of expression, a matter of increasing concern. Further sustained efforts are needed to improve the situation of persons belonging to the most discriminated groups (Roma, LGBTI persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and other socially vulnerable groups). A gender equality law needs to be adopted. Serbia overall remained constructively committed to bilateral relations with other enlargement countries and neighbouring EU Member States and an active participant in regional cooperation. Regarding the normalisation of relations with Kosovo, Serbia has remained engaged in the dialogue. However, Serbia needs to make further substantial efforts on the implementation of existing agreements and contribute to the establishment of circumstances conducive to the full normalisation of relations with Kosovo, to be defined in a legally binding agreement. As regards the economic criteria, Serbia has made good progress and is moderately prepared in developing a functioning market economy. Some of the policy weaknesses, in particular with regard to the budget deficit, were addressed. Growth fundamentals are sound and macroeconomic stability was preserved. Inflation was contained and monetary policy supported growth. Labour market conditions improved further. However, government debt is still high and the budgetary framework and its governance need to be strengthened. Major structural reforms of the public administration, the tax authority, and stateowned enterprises remain incomplete. Informal employment, unemployment and economic inactivity remain still very high, particularly among women and youth. The private sector is underdeveloped and hampered by weaknesses in the rule of law and the enforcement of fair competition. Serbia is moderately prepared to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. Some progress was made to increase competitiveness. However, the level of investment activity is still below the economy’s needs. Despite some improvements, companies face a number of challenges, including an unpredictable business environment, a high level of parafiscal charges, and difficult and costly access to finance. As regards its ability to assume the obligations of membership, Serbia has continued to align its legislation with the EU acquis across the board. Adequate financial and human resources and sound strategic frameworks will be crucial to maintaining the pace of reforms. Serbia has a good level of preparation in areas such as company law, intellectual property, science and research, education and culture, and customs. Serbia improved linking its investment planning to budget execution but has yet to develop a single mechanism for prioritising all investments regardless of the source of funding in accordance with the government's public finance management reform programme. In areas such as public procurement, statistics, monetary policy and financial control, Serbia is moderately prepared. Serbia needs to progressively align its foreign and security policy with the European Union’s common foreign and security policy in the period up to accession. Serbia needs to address, as a matter of priority, issues of non-compliance with the SAA, regarding in particular restrictions on capital movements, state aid regulation, fiscal discrimination on imported spirits and restrictions on waste exports. Serbia continued to manage the effects of the migration and refugee crisis. Serbia is in the process of negotiating with the EU the status agreement on actions to be carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency in Serbia. Serbia adopted a new law on asylum and temporary protection, a law on foreigners, and a law on border control. A strategy and an action plan for 2017-2020 to counter irregular migration needs to be adopted. In this context, Serbia needs to put in place a robust return mechanism for irregular migrants, which is in line with the EU acquis, as well as to align its visa policy progressively with the EU’s. Stronger coordination among the various state authorities involved in migration management has to be ensured. Serbia continued to cooperate with neighbouring countries and Member States, in particular at technical level, and made substantial efforts to provide shelter and humanitarian supplies, primarily with EU support. Serbia needs to increase its capacity to address special reception needs of unaccompanied minors. 2. Fundamentals first: political criteria and rule of law chapters 2.1.Functioning of democratic institutions and Public Administration Reform 2.1.1 Democracy Elections Serbia held presidential elections in April 2017. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) found that the elections provided voters with a genuine choice of contestants, but that the playing field was tilted by several factors. Most of the recommendations of the OSCE/ODIHR are yet to be fully addressed, including those related to the transparency and integrity of the election process during the electoral campaign. Presidential elections were held on 2 April 2017. The president is elected by popular vote for a five-year term. The turnout was 54 %. Eleven candidates took part; there were no women candidates. The candidate of the ruling coalition, the then Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić, won in the first round with 55 % of the votes. Former Ombudsman Sasa Janković obtained 16 %, while newcomer candidate Luka Maksimović received 9 %, and former Minister of Foreign Affairs Vuk Jeremić 5 %. The remaining candidates received less than 5 % each. The elections were observed by the OSCE/ODIHR Election Assessment Mission at the Serbian authorities’ invitation. The OSCE/ODIHR found that the elections provided voters with a genuine choice of contestants, who were able to campaign freely. Opening, voting and counting were overall efficient and orderly. Some improvements have been made, including in areas related to secrecy of the voting, training members of polling boards, representation of national minorities, and participation of persons with disabilities. However, the OSCE/ODIHR noted that the campaign was dominated by the candidate from the ruling coalition, who benefited from the effectively blurred distinction between campaign and official activities and unbalanced media coverage. The OSCE/ODIHR also reported credible allegations of pressure on voters and employees of state-affiliated structures, a misuse of administrative resources, and ineffective use of regulatory and oversight mechanisms to safeguard the fairness of competition. In line with the OSCE/ODIHR recommendations, a comprehensive and inclusive review of the legal framework on elections is needed to regulate all essential aspects and address gaps and loopholes. Persistent shortcomings should be addressed, such as the transparency of party and campaign financing, the need for strict separation of party and state activities, and the need for independent regulatory bodies to exercise their monitoring and oversight role proactively and effectively.

Belgrade city elections were held on 4 March 2018. Domestic observers reported irregularities and assessed that these have not fundamentally affected the results. Parliament Transparency, inclusiveness, the quality of law making and effective oversight of the executive need to be enhanced and cross-party dialogue improved. The role of independent regulatory bodies needs to be fully acknowledged and supported. The use of the urgent procedure to adopt legislation decreased, but is still high. The effectiveness of the parliament in scrutinising legislation has on certain occasions been limited by deliberate actions by the ruling coalition. Parliament’s legislative activity was suspended between March and April 2017 during the presidential elections’ campaign. Efforts continued to improve transparency and consultation. These included debates on Serbia’s negotiating positions for EU accession chapters and exchanges with the core negotiating team and with the National Convention on the European Union (which brings together civil society organisations involved in the accession process). However, the former Head of the EU Delegation was for the first time ever prevented from presenting the country report on Serbia following obstruction in the parliament. The parliament needs to be able to properly exercise its core function to scrutinise legislation. Although the use of urgent legislative procedures decreased from 65 % in 2016 to 44 % in 2017, it is still high. Genuine cross-party debate and political dialogue remain weak and risk undermining parliamentary effectiveness and the quality of legislation. No draft legislative proposals tabled by the opposition were discussed. The parliament does not exercise effective oversight of the executive, as illustrated by the lack of holding regular question and answer sessions with the executive, very limited discussion and follow up to the State Audit Institution’s audit reports and a lack of parliamentary discussion on the implementation of major laws and policies. Support for independent regulatory bodies did not improve. For three consecutive years, the parliament has not discussed any annual reports by independent bodies in plenary sessions. The parliament has not adopted its annual work plans for 2016 and 2017 and has yet to adopt its code of conduct. The Law on Financing Political Activities provides for political parties’ regular work and election campaign costs to be financed from public and private sources. The Anti-Corruption Agency monitors political party financing by means of annual financial reports and election campaign reports. Governance The new Serbian government, which took office in June 2017, reaffirmed EU accession as Serbia’s strategic goal. Inclusiveness and transparency needs to be further strengthened. Constitutional changes are still needed to address issues of relevance to the accession negotiations. Further to the resignation of the Prime Minister following his election as President, the new government took office on 29 June 2017. For the first time, a woman was elected Prime Minister. Out of 21 ministers, four are women. The government comprises two new ministries – for environment and for European integration. The latter took over the responsibilities of the Serbian European Integration Office. The new government remained committed to EU integration, as illustrated by the new Prime Minister’s first visit abroad to the EU institutions. It also identified reforms, economic growth, education and digitalisation as key priorities. The Serbian administration and negotiating team continued to demonstrate preparedness and professionalism in the accession negotiations process; however, adequate human and financial resources will need to be allocated to meet Serbia’s ambitious objectives on EU accession negotiations. Consultations with relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations through the National Convention on the EU, continued. However, the inclusiveness and transparency of the reform process, in particular on EU accession-related issues, need to be further strengthened. The role of independent regulatory bodies needs to be fully acknowledged and supported. Monitoring of the implementation and impact of the reform processes needs to be further improved. The administration acknowledges the importance of better communicating the benefits and obligations of EU membership to Serbian citizens, but further efforts are needed to promote European values in Serbian public debate and in education, including readiness for reconciliation. Regarding local self-government, the law on Vojvodina’s financing resources still needs to be adopted as 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. Consultation with local authorities on new legislative proposals with local implications improved, but remains discretionary. Constitutional changes for alignment with European standards and recommendations of the Venice Commission have still not been adopted in areas of relevance to the accession negotiations such as on the independence of judiciary, the parliament’s role in judicial appointments, the political parties’ control of parliamentary office, the independence of key institutions, and the protection of human rights and freedoms including protection of right to privacy and personal data protection.



Civil society No progress was made towards establishing an enabling environment for the development and financing of civil society. A national strategy for an enabling environment for civil society organisations (CSOs) and its accompanying action plan has not been adopted. Further efforts are needed to ensure systematic cooperation between the government and civil society. An empowered civil society is a crucial component of any democratic system and should be recognised and treated as such by state institutions. CSOs and human rights defenders play a key role in raising awareness about civil and political rights in a climate not open to criticism, with negative statements made by government officials and echoed by the media on civil society in general and on funding of certain associations in particular. Human rights defenders have been the subject of harsh criticism from tabloid newspapers. The National Convention on the EU (made up of representatives of governmental bodies, political parties, non-governmental organisations, experts, syndicates, private sector and representatives of professional organisations aiming to support a structured debate on Serbia’s accession to the EU) continued to monitor and assess the progress of accession negotiations. Their expertise should be used more systematically by the authorities, in order to benefit from the Convention’s full potential.

The relationship between the government and CSOs is still marked by fragmented cooperation and a selective approach towards individual CSOs. The adoption of laws using the urgent procedure limits democratic debate, as well as the effective inclusion of civil society in the process. A national strategy for an enabling environment for civil society and its action plan are still not adopted. A council for civil society cooperation still needs to be set up. Following CSO consultations organised by the Office for Cooperation with Civil Society, amendments to the regulation on public funding to CSOs were adopted, aiming to harmonise the internal legal acts regulating public CSO funding and increase transparency, monitoring and evaluation of the overall process. Most Serbian CSOs lack stable funding, and especially at local level, criteria for public financial support need to be better defined to ensure overall transparency. The lack of financial sustainability of CSOs affects the potential of social entrepreneurship to address local community needs and stimulate employment and economic growth. Civilian oversight of the security forces Parliament continues to be responsible for oversight of the security forces. The parliamentary committee for oversight of the security forces continued to review the activities of the security-information, military intelligence and defence services. A law on access to state security files still needs to be adopted. 2.1.2. Public administration reform Serbia is moderately prepared with the reform of its public administration. Some progress has been achieved in the area of service delivery and with the adoption of several new laws on public service salaries and employment relations, on local government and autonomous province salaries, and on the national training academy. However, the Commission recommendations from 2016 have not been fully addressed. In particular, political influence on senior managerial appointments remains an issue of concern, with an estimated 60 % of senior managers in acting positions, many for an extended period of time. Also, the implementation of the public administration reform action plan has experienced delays. In the coming year, Serbia should in particular: → align the National plan for the adoption of the acquis (NPAA) with the government annual work programme, medium-term budget plan, provide costing for actions, and update it with a view to setting a legislative programme that promotes better regulation based on impact assessments and timely inter-institutional and public consultations; → amend the civil service law through an inclusive and evidence-based process to guarantee the neutrality and continuity of the public administration and ensure merit-based human resources management; → monitor and report on the implementation of the public financial management reform programme in line with the reporting established for the PAR strategy. Policy development and coordination While the institutions are in place to ensure a central government policy-making system, policy coordination faces challenges in practice due to a focus on formal and procedural issues rather than on substance. Quality of strategic planning continues to be weak. There are no established rules for the development of sector strategies, which are often not costed and which are not sufficiently linked to the medium-term fiscal planning. The newly created Ministry for European Integration, incorporating the structures of the former Serbian European Integration Office, has continued to provide political guidance to coordination structures for European integration. The third revision of the National plan for the adoption of the acquis (NPAA) for the period 2018-2021 is completed. The NPAA should be aligned with the government annual work programme, it should be properly costed, and its implementation should be regularly monitored and reports published. Serbia’s ability to retain qualified staff to develop and manage sector policies related to the EU is of great importance. The public administration needs to further strengthen its capacity for inclusive and evidencebased policy and legislative development, including on the acquis. Public consultations on proposals are often conducted formalistically and too late in the process, not enabling all interested parties to provide timely and qualitative input. Line ministries have yet to develop internal rules on policy development and legal drafting, and improve acquis transposition costing. With regard to inter-ministerial consultations, high-level civil servants remain uninvolved in the process, and possible conflicts between services have to be resolved at the ministerial level. Regulatory impact assessments vary in quality and the Public Policy Secretariat does not have a mandate to return them for revision. Regulatory impact assessments are not submitted to the parliament together with legislative proposals. There are discrepancies between the financial impact assessments, which the Ministry of Finance coordinates, and financial information in the regulatory impact assessments, so better coordination is needed between the Ministry of Finance and the Public Policy Secretariat. Public scrutiny of government work is affected by the fact that government agendas are not systematically available to the public, and that many reports, such as the implementation reports of the annual government work plans or reports on the implementation of the NPAA, have not been regularly published. The government monitoring reports and ministries’ strategy monitoring reports should start to increasingly measure achievements against stated objectives rather than report on implemented activities. Public financial management Serbia continued to implement its comprehensive 2016-2020 public financial management reform programme which covers all the relevant sub-systems. A monitoring framework has been set up, but its efficiency and link with the PAR strategy monitoring need to be improved. Implementation reports, which are regularly prepared and published, need to become a useful management tool. Implementation has suffered from limited human and financial resources, aggravated by fiscal consolidation measures. The planned revision of the reform programme in 2018 needs to be based on more realistic planning and costing, better sequencing, clearer emphasis on key reforms, and improved indicators. Improvements have been made in the quality of macroeconomic forecasts, medium-term planning of budget beneficiaries, coverage of budget execution and quality of fiscal reports. Capital expenditure execution remains hampered by weaknesses in budgeting, planning and contract oversight. Serbia adopted in June 2017 a decree on capital investment management. It aims at linking investment planning to the budgetary process. However, EU funded investment projects are not covered by the decree. Rather, they are channelled through the National Investment Committee and the Single Project Pipeline. Serbia therefore still needs to develop a single mechanism for prioritising all investments regardless of the source of financing, as foreseen in the public financial management reform programme adopted by the government. Revenue projections have been more conservative and expenditures more realistically planned. In-year financial reporting has provided wider information and has been more readily available. The coverage of the financial management information system has been enlarged by inclusion of cultural organisations and prisons as of January 2018. The budget calendar set up in the Budget System Law is still not fully respected, resulting in insufficient time allocated to proper preparation, assessment and debate among stakeholders. Although the budget is now structured by programmes, the link with strategic plans and the government’s priorities remains weak. Procedures to ensure integration of capital projects planning and appraisal in the budget process are yet to be developed. As regards budget transparency, a simplified citizens’ budget is prepared and published. A transparency roadmap, a pre-budget statement, and a mid-year report have been planned but are still not published. The Ministry of Finance does not publish the annual budget execution profile, preventing an analysis of deviations from targets. Budget execution reports contain only basic elements, and do not break down expenditure figures for individual budget organisations. Budget oversight by the legislature needs to be improved. The 2018 budget was adopted by the parliament without substantive debate.

Public service and human resources management The current civil service framework defines merit-based recruitment, promotion and dismissal procedures, but exemptions and transitional arrangements need to be addressed. Merit-based recruitment is still undermined by excessive discretion allowed to the political level in the choice of final candidates. Also, there are no clear criteria for organisation of the selection tests and composition of selection committees. Exemptions from the normal recruitment procedures are allowed for temporary staff, that continues to make up around 10 % of the civil service. The legal separation of political and public service positions is still not clearly enforced. Political influence continues to play a key role in filling senior management posts. 60 % of senior civil servants are not appointed in line with the legal provisions, but they serve in ‘acting’ positions, many for a number of years. High turnover among senior civil servants and the consequent loss of institutional memory continue to be of particular concern. The weaknesses in the legal framework create the risk of abusive use of dismissals at both expert and management level, as dismissal is allowed after one negative appraisal followed by a confirmation of such appraisal through an additional evaluation after 30 days. Human resources management continues to focus mainly on legal compliance. The performance appraisal system, with inflated appraisal grades, remains ineffective. The Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government is responsible for central coordination of human resources management, but it lacks capacity to coordinate and harmonise the work of human resources units. The human resources management information system still does not interact with other national databases such as the treasury payroll registry, and it is not regularly updated. Regarding the civil service remuneration system, new laws on public service salaries and employment relations and on salaries of local government and autonomous province were adopted in December 2017. With regard to professional development, Serbia adopted the Law on National Training Academy for public servants. The Academy will provide trainings for all public officials, including at the local level. Specific training modules targeting senior managers are an integral part of the national training curriculum. Implementation of the strategy for professional development of local government employees continued with accreditation of training programmes and the introduction of accreditation for the training providers. However, professional development is not yet consistently promoted and it is not linked with the performance appraisal system. Integrity in public service is promoted by the 2015 code of ethics for civil servants. Attention needs to be given to the implementation of the second round of integrity plans in the judiciary and in the public administration. Efforts are needed to address prevention of corruption in local administration through adoption of local action plans. Accountability of administration "Rightsizing" of the state administration remains a key government priority. Since 2015 the number of public employees has been reduced by more than 29 175. The structure of the public administration is a key outstanding issue that needs to be addressed in order to maximise the impact of rightsizing. Lines of accountability between agencies and their parent institutions continue to be blurred within the current organisation of the administration, contributing to overlapping functions, fragmentation and increased politicisation. Similar types of institutions may report to ministries, to the council of ministers or to the parliament. The political commitment to improve managerial accountability and more systematic delegation of responsibilities within institutions has still not delivered results. Institutions continue to have a bureaucratic and process-oriented approach to planning, budgeting and reporting of their activities. There has been no progress towards results-based management. (see chapter 32 — Financial control) Citizens’ right to good administration is protected through internal and external oversight mechanisms. The Ombudsman’s Office plays a key role, and public authorities are obliged to report on implementation of its recommendations (see under Governance). For the last two years the government has not issued a report on the implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations. Citizens’ right to access public information is regulated in the law on access to public information, which is still not fully aligned with EU standards. Administrative silence, whereby public authorities fail to properly act on the citizens’ information requests, continues to be a major issue. The law on access to public information still has not been strengthened to ensure enforcement of decisions taken by the Commissioner for free access to information of public importance. With regard to citizens’ right to administrative justice, the limited efficiency of the Administrative Court system risks undermining public confidence. An adequate regulatory framework for legal aid in administrative cases is not in place. The right to seek compensation is regulated by law, but the lack of statistical data makes it impossible to monitor its implementation. Service delivery to citizens and businesses Creating a more user-oriented administration remains a key government priority. The government established a new Office for Information Technologies and e-government directly accountable to the Prime Minister. The e-government strategy is being implemented, and an action plan is under preparation. There is an increase in the provision of integrated eservices to citizens and businesses through one-stop-shops. However, mechanisms and resources to measure citizen satisfaction with the delivery of public services are not in place. The legal framework for simplification of administrative procedures is in place with the law on general administrative procedures. However, the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government lacks the resources for efficient oversight of its implementation. Serbia still needs to harmonise a significant number of sector laws with special administrative procedures with the general law. Regulatory impact assessments can help to prevent and reduce administrative burdens, so their quality needs to be improved. Strategic framework for public administration reform Serbia is implementing its umbrella public administration reform strategy, which is further supported by additional strategic planning documents in public finance, anti-corruption, open government, e-government, professional development of civil servants and regulatory reform and public policy management. A new action plan for 2018-2020 is being finalised, with increased focus on the key reform actions. While the lead ministry has improved the monitoring and reporting system for the strategy, there have been serious delays in implementation, due to a lack of resources and weak planning and managerial capacity. Monitoring and reporting on the public financial management reform programme needs to be harmonised with monitoring and reporting on the PAR strategy. Political support for public administration reform continues to be ensured through the Public Administration Reform Council, chaired by the Prime Minister. The financial sustainability is a concern, due to inconsistencies between planned allocations and actual appropriations. Financing relies heavily on external donor funding. The government needs to allocate sufficient resources in the annual budget and the medium-term expenditure framework. 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. A properly functioning judicial system and an effective fight against corruption are of paramount importance, as is respect for fundamental rights in law and in practice.

Serbia has some level of preparation to apply the acquis and European standards in this area. Serbia presented in January 2018 the long awaited draft of the constitutional reform for the judiciary that was put forward for public discussion before being sent to the Venice Commission for its opinion. Some progress was made, notably by reducing the backlog of old enforcement cases and putting in place measures to harmonise court practice, while preparations for amending the constitutional and legislative framework to further improve the independence of the judiciary are still ongoing. Corruption is widespread and remains an issue of concern. The legal framework on fundamental rights is mostly in place but remains incomplete and its implementation inconsistent. Freedom of expression has seen no progress. Independent and regulatory bodies need to be strengthened, including as regards budget and skilled staff, and their functional independence must be guaranteed in practice. In the coming year, Serbia should in particular: ®strengthen the independence, accountability, impartiality, professionalism and overall efficiency of the judicial system; ®ensure an effective implementation of the national anti-corruption strategy and action plan, including by providing effective coordination and ensuring that all key institutions have adequate capacity and resources to fulfil their remits effectively; ®improve the situation as regards creating an enabling environment for freedom of expression and media freedom. Serbia is implementing a detailed action plan which was adopted prior to the opening of the accession negotiations on this chapter in July 2016 and the country is in the process of revising its action plan with more realistic deadlines. Functioning of the judiciary Serbia’s judicial system has some level of preparation. Serbia has partially fulfilled the 2016 recommendations. Some progress was made, notably by reducing the backlog of old enforcement cases and putting in place measures to harmonise court practice. Improved rules for evaluating professional performance of judges and prosecutors were adopted. The scope for political influence over the judiciary remains a concern. In the coming year, Serbia should in particular: ®make significant progress on strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of the prosecution through amendments to constitutional and legislative provisions related to appointment, career management and disciplinary proceedings of judges and prosecutors; ®ensure that the High Judicial Council and the State Prosecutorial Council can fully assume their role and achieve a coherent and efficient judicial administration in line with European standards, including regarding the management of the judicial budget; ®adopt and implement a human resources strategy for the entire judiciary including the establishment of a uniform and functioning case management system, which will in combination lead to a measurable improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system. Strategic documents The commission overseeing the implementation of the national judicial reform strategy and its action plan (2013-2018) met infrequently in 2017, and the impact of the strategy’s implementation is limited. The national judicial reform strategy and the action plan for Chapter 23 are broadly aligned but need to be revised taking into account Serbia’s new objectives and deadlines for the completion of accession negotiations and the resources available. Their monitoring should be improved to include a more precise assessment of the activities’ results and impacts. Management bodies The High Judicial Council (HJC) and the State Prosecutorial Council (SPC) are responsible for independently managing the justice system, including judicial appointments, transfers and dismissals, and for helping to make judicial administration coherent and efficient. The 2018 budget of the Judicial Council is EUR 2.95 million (EUR 4.88 million in 2017). The 2018 budget of the Prosecutorial Council is EUR 1.02 million (2017: EUR 0.99 million). While the Councils continued to build their capacity, they have not yet fully assumed their role due to legislative and administrative delays. In particular, the transfer of full responsibility for the judicial budget from the Ministry of Justice to the Councils has been delayed for the third time by one more year to January 2019. Both Councils need to improve their capacity for strategic, budget and human resources planning, as well as their public communication. Both Councils also need to improve the transparency of their work, including by giving full reasons for and publishing decisions on promotions and appointments. Independence and impartiality The current constitutional and legislative framework still leaves room for undue political influence over the judiciary. Little progress has been made in establishing a fully objective, transparent and merit-based system for the appointment of judges and prosecutors. Any future constitutional or legislative changes in this regard should be designed and implemented on the basis of European standards, and the current two-track system of access to the judicial professions should be gradually streamlined. In addition, the broad discretionary powers of court presidents and heads of prosecution offices over the work of individual judges and deputy prosecutors, respectively could affect their independence and impartiality. The constitutional reform process on judicial independence was launched in May 2017 with a call for submission of amendments to the Constitution by civil society organisations. The subsequent organisation of a number of roundtables was envisaged as a first phase of a consultative process. A number of professional associations and civil society organisations left this process, citing the lack of an official government-sponsored draft constitutional text; they contested the arrangements for and legitimacy of the consultations. A new draft of amendments to the Constitution in the domain of the judiciary was published in January 2018 and was put forward for public discussion. A number of stakeholders withdrew from the consultative process criticising its format and atmosphere, and claiming a lack of genuine debate. They sent an open letter to parliament, government and the Ministry of Justice highlighting their concerns. The Serbian authorities and stakeholders need to enter into a broad, inclusive and meaningful public debate conducted in a constructive manner. This should raise awareness of the constitutional reform process in the country and its outcome of which should be reflected in the draft to be sent for the Venice Commission’s opinion. Other planned interim measures to improve the institutional independence of the Councils are still pending. These include the transfer of authority, from the Ministry of Justice to the Councils, over the entire judicial budget and the judicial administration, supervision of the courts, the collection of statistical data, and the adoption of the rules of procedure. In particular, no progress was made in amending the Law on Public Prosecution in this regard. Pressure on the judiciary (including from authorities within the judiciary) remains high. Public comments by government officials, some at the highest level, on investigations and ongoing court proceedings continue and are perceived as pressure on judicial independence. Some progress was made in this respect: the High Judicial Council amended its procedural rules to react more efficiently in cases of alleged political interference in the judiciary upon requests filed by the judges. The amended rules do not foresee a mechanism for a regular HJC reaction. The procedure has only been used in a very limited number of cases. A more elaborate mechanism has been put in place by the State Prosecutorial Council for both ad hoc and regular reactions in cases of alleged political interference. The SPC’s newly appointed Commissioner for Autonomy has a mandate to take action on individual complaints by deputy prosecutors and has already processed several cases. Accountability Track records in the enforcement of disciplinary accountability and of the codes of ethics for judges and prosecutors are still very limited. While the State Prosecutorial Council’s Ethics Committee reviewed the code in the light of European standards, the High Judicial Council has yet to do this. Disciplinary procedures are in place for both judges and prosecutors. An analysis of the legal framework and practice regarding disciplinary matters is ongoing. In 2017, 588 disciplinary reports were filed with the Disciplinary Prosecutor and 15 disciplinary cases were processed by the 2nd instance Disciplinary Commission of the High Judicial Council, resulting in public warnings (3) and salary reductions (9). One judge was dismissed in March 2017, after he was sentenced for a criminal offence. During 2017, 179 disciplinary reports were filed with the Disciplinary Prosecutor for the State Prosecutorial Council, four cases were processed by the 2nd instance Disciplinary Commission, resulting in disciplinary penalties in three cases (public warning, salary reductions). There were no dismissals of public prosecutors. Judges and prosecutors have an obligation to declare their assets on an annual basis and to report possible conflicts of interest. Mechanisms to detect breaches of integrity rules and to enforce disciplinary penalties need to become effective. Public awareness of existing complaint mechanisms should be further raised and it should be made possible to challenge the dismissal of complaints before the two Councils. Relevant decisions by Councils need to be justified better, and a case-law developed. Professionalism and competence Some progress was made with the adoption, in November 2016, and initial implementation of rulebooks using merit-based and transparent selection criteria and evaluation standards for first time appointments of judges and deputy prosecutors. Through a two-stage process, candidates were ranked and the lists proposed by the Councils to the parliament for appointment. However, the process for first-time deputy prosecutors was challenged in July 2017 and the Constitutional Court deferred further appointments. The State Prosecutorial Council published in 2017 competitions for election of 17 public prosecutors and 89 deputy prosecutors, in line with the Council’s workload needs analysis from 2016. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court from July 2017 to assess the existing State Prosecutorial Council rulebook on criteria for evaluation of candidates, the Council followed the Constitutional Court’s arguments and adopted a new rulebook whereby the oral exam no longer has any bearing on the candidate’s ranking. This weakens the merit-based aspects of the selection process and the crucial role of the Council in selection. Elections for 57 positions in the prosecution service are underway. A system allowing effective and systemic evaluation of judges and prosecutors based on clear criteria, with the results feeding into their career paths, has yet to be fully implemented. Delays in the appointment process for deputy prosecutors have reduced efficiency of the criminal prosecution, in particular since the adversarial model was introduced into the criminal procedure in 2013, increasing the responsibilities of the prosecution without being accompanied by the necessary staff increase.

Quality of justice Judicial education needs to play a more prominent role in the evaluation process. The initial and continuous training programmes provided by the Judicial Academy need to be improved in terms of quality, and better respond to training needs by, for example, focusing on judicial skills. A rulebook on assessing training needs was adopted, while a quality review to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of judicial training has yet to be set up. The academy’s expertise and administrative capacity to carry out such reviews needs to be strengthened. The Judicial Academy has 45 envisaged job positions, 37 are filled. There is a need to ensure the academy’s capacity to become a proper entry point to the judicial profession. Harmonisation of court practice continued, in line with the national programme. Quarterly meetings between judges at higher and appeal levels and the judges of the Supreme Court of Cassation continued, these are recognised by the European Court of Human Rights as a good instrument for more consistent interpretation of the law. Instructions for improving consistency in the interpretation of the law are in place in all four appellate courts. A new electronic case-law database is being improved and filled. It should be up running for all courts, starting with the highest courts. In the medium term, this tool will also help to make case-law more consistent. The Supreme Court of Cassation also produced a new rulebook on anonymising court decisions to bring practice into line with European standards. The 2018 budget for the judiciary is EUR 254.7 million (0.73 % of GDP), which is more than the 2017 budget (EUR 234.6 million and 0.67 % of GDP). Given that the bulk of the budget is spent on salaries, funding remains insufficient, in particular to cover investment needs and to improve the generally poor judicial infrastructure. In 2017, the total budget for the courts was EUR 25.16 per inhabitant (2016: EUR 24.14) and the total budget for prosecution offices was EUR 5.37 per inhabitant (2016: EUR 5.28). According to the annual report on the work of the courts published by the Serbian Supreme Court of Cassation, there were 2 586 full-time judges effectively working in courts in 2017 (2016: 2,569), i.e. 37 judges per 100 000 inhabitants (2016: 37). According to the annual 2017 report of the State Prosecutors Council, in 2017, there were 628 deputy prosecutors effectively working at all levels in 2017 (2016: 691), i.e. 9 per 100 000 inhabitants (2016: 10). The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice puts the European average at 21 judges and 11 prosecutors per 100 000 inhabitants. The judiciary continues to rely on unlinked information and communication technology (ICT) systems to process and manage cases and documents. Serbia is therefore not yet in a position to produce comprehensive statistical data which would facilitate measurement of the system’s performance and help improve management and policy decisions. An automatic case allocation system, based on objective and pre-determined criteria and with proper technological support, is not yet in place for all courts. This is an essential tool to support judicial independence and impartiality, and for the efficient administration of justice. The ICT Council adopted general guidelines and a decision on the strategic orientation for the development of a case management system for the prosecution service and the prison administration. A roadmap of how to link the different systems was drafted. A better overall strategic vision and plan for ICT solutions in the judicial and prosecution networks is needed. There are 174 public notaries in Serbia, but these do not yet cover the entire country, so citizens’ access to justice is unequal. The Chamber of Notaries adopted its code of ethics and a disciplinary rulebook, and appointed two disciplinary prosecutors. Little progress was made in introducing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation. Awareness raising and promotion, including by relevant national associations, increased. In June 2017, the Supreme Court of Cassation, High Judicial Council and the Ministry of Justice passed guidelines for enhancing mediation in Serbia. The use of mediation for alternative dispute resolution is still not satisfactory due to lack of systemic measures and support by all relevant institutions. To become an effective alternative to court proceedings, a more efficient system for transferring court cases to mediation is needed, together with a much broader and comprehensive promotion campaign. Use of ICT tools, up-to-date case management system and exchange of information between the courts and mediators are needed to improve statistics and reporting on mediation. Efficiency Implementation of the national backlog reduction programme continued under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Cassation. Its impact on the courts’ efficiency is being felt, as the backlog of old enforcement cases shrinks. The number of enforcement cases was reduced by 811 322 cases in 2016 while in 2017 number of enforcement cases decreased by 143 519 cases. However, the overall age of the pending cases still remains a concern. The structure of pending backlog cases (at the national level), observed by types of courts, indicates that the largest number of backlog cases are in basic courts, which also have the largest number of cases dating back 10 years or more. Significant differences in workload across the country continue to burden the judicial system. Lengthy proceedings, the lack of a free legal aid system, and failure in processing indemnity claims continue to hamper the quality of justice and citizens’ access to justice (see also Procedural rights). The amended Law on Enforcement and Security from July 2016 gave courts more scope to administratively close many enforcement cases, by extending the authority of enforcement agents. This law mainly affected the so-called ‘utility bill’ enforcement cases (for water, electricity, telecommunications, etc.), which accounted for the most of the pending cases in the Serbian judicial system. There is a need to further revise the legislation in order to resolve the issues of small claims cases. With significant EU assistance, the total backlog of all cases was cut sharply in 2016 as 1 068 063 cases were solved: 895 184 enforcement cases, most of these were basic courts cases – 878 576. However, in 2017, in the absence of follow-up systematic measures significantly less old cases were solved – 495 708 out of which 310 990 were enforcement cases. At the end of 2017, the number of all pending court cases in Serbia was 1 911 086, out of which 1 118 201 were regular cases and 792 885 enforcement cases, mostly under the jurisdiction of Belgrade’s basic and misdemeanour courts. During 2017, all courts in Serbia disposed 2 335 760 cases, while 2 586 judges actually worked. In comparison with 2016, the total number of cases disposed in 2017 dropped. Although the overall clearance rate in 2017 dropped to 106.04 % compared to 139.87 % in 2016 the judicial system was still able to resolve more cases then received, even with less judges working in 2017. There is a delay in adopting a comprehensive human resources management strategy. Together with the ban on hiring in the public sector, these are serious constraints on improving the justice system. The number of permanent court staff has fallen over the past 10 years from over 13 000 to 10 420. Domestic handling of war crime cases

According to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Serbia’s technical cooperation on requests for assistance remained satisfactory. However, Serbia is in a state of non-cooperation in relation to the arrest of people indicted for contempt of court. This is an issue of serious concern: Serbia needs to return to full cooperation with the current Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals. In addition, statements from senior politicians have on occasion called into question the rulings of the ICTY. Such comments are not helpful for the broader respect of the rule of law, for Serbia’s international obligations or for creating an environment in which war crimes cases can be processed calmly and effectively. The implementation of the 2016 national strategy for the processing of war crimes is delayed and needs to be taken forward more decisively. The war crimes prosecutorial strategy has been severely delayed. A draft has been published in March 2018. The strategy should be in line with Serbia’s national strategy on war crimes prosecution as well as international standards to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of war crimes prosecution. The action plan for Chapter 23 lists a number of key elements for the prosecutorial strategy, including investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators most responsible for the crimes irrespective of their rank, a victims-focused approach, particular attention being paid to the protection of witnesses, and a strengthened cooperation among various stakeholders. Bearing in mind the impact of the passing of time, clear criteria for prioritising cases and timelines for their investigation and prosecution need to be established. One retired deputy prosecutor was replaced in March 2018 but no additional deputy prosecutors have been appointed; yet according to the action plan for Chapter 23, five additional deputy prosecutors should have been appointed by the end of 2017. From January 2016 to May 2017, Serbia had no formally appointed War Crimes Prosecutor. A new War Crimes Prosecutor was appointed in May 2017. Responsibility for prosecutions fell to one deputy prosecutor who lacked the formal competencies to be the ‘acting’ War Crimes Prosecutor. This has been used by defence counsels to contest the validity of prosecution tasks carried out during this period. In seven cases the indictments were dismissed requiring that one indictment had to be re-submitted and in six cases the prosecution had to file a request to resume proceedings all but one of which were granted. These issues further delay already protracted war crimes trials. Only three new indictments were filed in 2017 all of which were transferred cases from Bosnia and Herzegovina. So far, there have been no indictments against senior level military or senior level police officials for war crimes. There are currently 15 ongoing cases, the majority of which involve low-ranking military or police defendants. Many court hearings have been delayed, partially due to medical conditions of defendants and based on ill-health certificates issued by a military hospital. Serbia also has 926 cases at the pre-investigation stage, jurisdiction over which was transferred from the prosecution offices of general jurisdiction to the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office in 2015 and 2016. A prosecution database on war crimes cases has yet to be created. A mechanism to retain specialist judges with extensive experience in processing complex war crimes cases is needed. The Judicial Academy needs to provide adequate training on war crimes. Serbia continues to co-operate on war crimes cases at the regional level. Stronger efforts are required by all parties to ensure that regional co-operation effectively supports the fight against impunity. In 2017, some positive steps were taken to improve regional institutional cooperation in search for the missing persons, accounting for 10 332. A prosecution liaison officer programme is operational with Bosnia and Herzegovina, but remains pending with Croatia. Witness protection has improved following the signature in July 2017 of a protocol of cooperation between the Ministry of the Interior’s Witness Protection Unit (WPU) and the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office. The protocol sets out arrangements for cooperation on urgent measures in relation to a person under protection during a criminal procedure. The analysis carried out in February 2016 was not followed up as to working conditions, lack of specialised staff including psychologists, and legislative changes needed for a proactive change of identity. No changes were made to the legal framework granting social benefits to a restricted number of war crimes victims. The UN Human Rights Committee and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe expressed concerns as to the discriminatory nature of this law. Sexual violence in conflict has not been adequately addressed and further efforts are required in this area. Overall, Serbia needs to demonstrate firmer commitment at all levels in this area, fostering mutual trust and reconciliation, to establish an atmosphere conducive to meaningful regional cooperation and to effectively address all war-crimes related issues. Statements made by, in particular, high-level officials and the actions of state bodies have a significant impact on the creation of such an atmosphere. Fight against corruption Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Some progress has been achieved, especially in adopting the amendments to the Criminal Code in the economic crimes section, to the Law on the Organisation and Jurisdiction of Government Authorities in Suppression of Organised Crime, Terrorism and Corruption, and amendments to the Law on Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime. However, there has been a serious delay in adopting the new law on the Anti-Corruption Agency. The operational capacity of relevant institutions remains uneven and law enforcement and judicial authorities still need to prove that they can pro-actively investigate, prosecute and try all high-level corruption cases in an unbiased and operationally independent manner. There is as yet no measurable impact of anti-corruption reforms. In the coming year, Serbia should in particular: → further improve its track record on investigations, indictments and final convictions in high-level corruption cases, including seizure and confiscation of criminal assets; → urgently improve the operational capacity of the institutions, allowing them to correctly implement the new legislation in this area; → urgently adopt the new law on the Anti-Corruption Agency to strengthen its role as a key institution in a more effective fight against corruption; → ensure a measurable impact through the effective implementation of the national anticorruption strategy and action plan, including by providing effective coordination and sufficient resources. Track record As regards Serbia’s track record of investigating, prosecuting and trying corruption cases, there were 2 140 first instance convictions in 2017. In 2017, there were 50 final convictions (41 based on plea agreements) for persons in relation to high level corruption offences, and 26 acquittals. In relation to public officials, in 2017 a total of 5 persons were convicted of high corruption (a judge and a president of a municipal court; a misdemeanour judge, the director of the labour inspectorate and the director of a public company).

The use of plea bargaining agreements needs to be carefully balanced against the public expectation that corruption-related crimes will be duly punished in accordance with the penalties laid down in law, particularly if they concern politically exposed persons. The track record on the final confiscation of assets needs considerable improvement. To improve results in detecting and prosecuting corruption crimes, human resources and technical expertise are needed together with better coordination and data exchange between all institutions involved. Serbia also needs to apply the concept of financial investigations in line with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards. The Anti-Corruption Agency received 41 requests related to conflicts of interest in 2017 (2016: 1 761) and filed 20 requests for misdemeanour proceedings (2016: 8). The Agency initiated 203 procedures (37 based on complaints and 166 ex officio) (220 for 2016: 100 based on complaints and 120 ex officio) based on suspicion of accumulation of functions without prior approval of the Agency and 170 procedures for other situations related to conflict of interest or nepotism (101 based on complaints and 69 ex officio) (2016: 125 based on complaints and 38 ex officio). In 2017 the Agency received 11 first instance judgments of misdemeanour courts, issued upon requests for initiation of misdemeanour proceedings filed in 2016 and 2017, with mostly fines (2016: 29 first instance misdemeanour judgments). The Agency submitted 86 asset declarations’ requests for misdemeanour proceedings in 2017 (2016: 80) of which all cases were related to failure to submit asset declarations on time (2016: 79). Based on the work of the Agency in the previous years, misdemeanour courts issued 63 convictions in 2017 (2016: 123). The Agency filed 15 criminal charges in 2017 (2016: 17) due to reasonable suspicion that a public official had not reported assets or had given false information about assets with the intention of concealing the facts. Based on the Agency’s previous work, 8 final judgements were issued, convicting 8 public officials, who were sentenced to imprisonment or probation, compared with 3 final judgements convicting 3 public officials to imprisonment or probation in 2016. Proceedings are under way in 16 cases; 5 acquittals have been issued, in 17 cases the criminal charge was dismissed, whereas in 12 cases deferring of a criminal prosecution was applied. The Agency performs checks on the funding of political activities and elections, and submitted 273 requests for misdemeanour proceedings for violations of the Law on Political Party Financing in 2017 (against 407 in 2016). Based on final sentences, in 2017, the Agency published four decisions on the loss of the right of political entities to use public funds for their regular work during 2018 (against 22 in 2016). The Agency issued a report in November 2017 on monitoring the financing of the 2017 presidential election campaign, based on reports from all 11 political parties that participated in the campaign. The Agency noted a considerable increase (540 %) in the number of citizens directly contributing to the campaign: whereas in the 2012 campaign only 102 citizens directly provided donations, 7 591 did so in 2017, of whom 6 940 donated to one presidential candidate. The Agency concluded that the source and structure of the funding, in particular concerning citizen donations, needs to be further assessed. Institutional framework Prevention measures Serbia’s institutions for preventing corruption broadly meet international standards and continue to show good potential. However, its human resources situation, the way other institutions share information and the consideration given by the political level to the ACAs work require further improvement. A new law enabling the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) to better assume its role as the key institution in this area needs to be adopted urgently. The former director of the Agency resigned in September 2017 and a new director was appointed in January 2018. The Agency continued to perform in some areas of its remit, despite limited resources and both legal and institutional obstacles, in particular the lack of human resources. Currently the Agency is operating with 86 personal. Its equipment is outdated. Efforts are needed to allow the Agency to increase its ability to collect and analyse data and its access to relevant databases. It must receive and maintain the required human resources, tools and financial resources needed to carry out its mandate in an independent manner. Serbia’s institutions need to cooperate with and respond to the Agency’s reports and instructions as provided for under the law. The implementation of the law on Public Procurement and the national anti-corruption strategy and action plan needs to be stepped up. In the public procurement legislation, largely in line with the acquis, inconsistencies remain regarding technical details, requiring a revision of the law. The public procurement office still lacks staff and technical capacity. The office needs to increase its supervision of other institutions and improve its monitoring, partly by setting up a centralised database. Inter-agency coordination needs to be strengthened. Infrastructure projects, healthcare, education, construction and spatial planning, and privatisation of public enterprises remain particularly vulnerable to corruption. Controls and procedural transparency are inadequate and need to be increased. In the education sector, an anti-corruption action plan focusing on higher education and covering the period to 2020 was adopted. The Ministry of Health established a dedicated anti-corruption body. Tangible results from both initiatives have yet to be seen and their work should be monitored closely. In December 2017, the Law on Employees in Public Services was adopted, including provisions related to conflicts of interest for this category of public employees. Integrity plans were adopted by 1 118 public sector institutions (out of 4 285) based on institutional corruption risk assessments. In order to better prevent and address corruption at local level, the Anti-Corruption Agency developed and provided local authorities with a model anti-corruption action plan, including guidelines for adoption, implementation and monitoring. But only 22 out of 145 have adopted their plan as required under the Anti-Corruption Agency guidelines. Only four set up a body to monitor its implementation. Provisions on conflicts of interest in public administration need to be further improved and disciplinary procedures added through amendments to the Law on Civil Servants. The Anti-Corruption Council, in its advisory role to the government, remained active in exposing and analysing cases of systemic corruption. However, the government does still not systematically follow up on its recommendations, and the Council is yet to be systematically included in procedures for the adoption of legislation with relevance to corruption, in order, for example, to improve the quality of legal drafting. In July 2017, the government appointed two new members of the Anti-Corruption Council without consulting it as provided for under the Council’s rules of procedure. The Serbian authorities urgently need to establish a more constructive relationship with the Council. Serbia so far did not implement in a satisfactory manner any of the thirteen recommendations provided by the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its last evaluation round on preventing corruption among parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors. Law enforcement The new Law on Organisation and Jurisdiction of Government Authorities in Suppression of Organised Crime, Terrorism and Corruption, which entered into force in March 2018, provides for specialised authorities for investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. It decentralises the prosecutor’s offices in charge of corruption offences, which will be located in Kraljevo, Niš, Novi Sad and Belgrade. Special departments for fight against corruption have been formed in the higher courts in these four cities. A set of trainings on the implementation of the law have been organised for the members of the judiciary. Financial forensic expertise is to be located in the special prosecution offices. The latter have yet to be set up, along with designated liaison officers in local police directorates. The law also provides scope for using task forces to investigate corruption cases. There is no secure platform for electronic data exchange or communication between the prosecution service, the police, tax and other authorities. There is still no system allowing statistical monitoring of criminal proceedings. Internal control departments continue to lack equipment, resources and human capacity. Reform of the inspection services was initiated to increase accountability. Effective supervision and deterrent penalties in cases of wrongdoing need to be applied consistently. The (operational) independence and accountability of all investigative and judicial bodies dealing with corruption need to be strengthened. There is a delay in introducing a team of economic forensic experts in the Public Prosecutor’s Office and in other authorities as necessary. Legal framework The legal framework for the fight against corruption is broadly in place. In November 2016, amendments to the economic crimes section of the Criminal Code were adopted. The provision on ‘abuse of position by a responsible person’ has been slightly amended but concerns remain as to whether this will have the desired effect of stopping the overuse of this offence in the context of business disputes, which is harmful to the business climate and to legal certainty. In addition to the new Law on Organisation and Jurisdiction of Government Authorities in Suppression of Organised Crime, Terrorism and Corruption, the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on Seizure and Confiscation of Proceeds from Crime was adopted. There is a serious delay in the adoption of the new law on the AntiCorruption Agency. It should urgently address the shortcomings identified, in particular as regards conflicts of interests, asset declarations by public officials, combining public functions and access to information. The law on access to public information needs to be further amended to ensure effective implementation. The improvements should be based on cooperation with the Commissioner for free access to information of public importance and with civil society. Requests for access to information which were refused mainly concern procedures with an impact on the budget. (see also under Public administration reform)

There is a delay in adopting amendments to the law on political party financing. This is needed to provide, among other things, for transparent financing of political entities and electoral campaigns, to introduce more efficient sanctions and to clarify duties between the Agency, the State Audit Institutions, the tax administration and other state authorities in this regard. The law on whistle-blower protection has continued to be implemented. All courts in Serbia received during 2017 a total of 149 new cases of protection of whistle-blowers from retaliation (same as in 2016), and out of the total caseload of 229 cases, 158 cases were finalised (2016: 106). Strategic framework The implementation of several important measures in Serbia’s anti-corruption strategy and action plan for 2013-2018, revised in June 2016, remains behind schedule. Adequate resources and human capacity to ensure their full implementation have not yet been allocated. There is a delay in extending the competences of the inter-ministerial coordination group chaired by the Prime Minister for the implementation of the national anti-corruption strategy to cover the relevant part of the action plan for Chapter 23. Furthermore, this body still does not ensure coordinated implementation of both these action plans. There is a delay in amending the government’s rules of procedure to make it obligatory for it to consider the Anti-Corruption Council’s reports within three months of their submission. Furthermore, an obligation for the government to follow up on the recommendations of the Anti-Corruption Agency’s reports is yet to be established. An empowered civil society and improved coordination and monitoring, together with a stronger political commitment, are needed in order to achieve tangible results in the fight against corruption. Fundamental rights The legislative and institutional framework for upholding human rights is in place. However, consistent and efficient implementation of legislation and policies throughout the country is urgently needed. In addition to making substantial efforts to uphold freedom of expression, Serbia needs to address the shortcomings outlined below and in particular: → strengthen human rights institutions and guarantee their independence, including via the allocation of the necessary financial and human resources; → step up actions to protect the rights of the groups facing discrimination, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, persons with disabilities, people with HIV/AIDS and other vulnerable groups: actively pursue investigation, prosecution and convictions for hate-motivated crimes; → give higher priority to the rights of the child: develop a national action plan for children and a national action plan to address violence against children; improve coordination and oversight of the child protection system and ensure that existing legislation and policies are effectively implemented; address the violations taking place in institutions; → develop a comprehensive approach for the protection of national minorities by implementing its action plan on national minorities consistently across the country and amending the legal framework by means of an inclusive, transparent and efficient process; → efficiently implement and monitor the strategy and action plan for Roma inclusion. Serbia has ratified eight of the nine core human rights treaties. It has yet to become a party to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. Overall, the implementation of international human rights instruments still needs to be improved. The Report on Human Rights for the Universal Periodic Review – Third Cycle included 190 recommendations for Serbia of which it accepted 74 and said that the remaining 116 will be examined no later than June 2018. In 2017 it was reviewed by the Committee against racial discrimination, the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Serbia submitted a report to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in October 2017. Serbia is in the process of being granted observer status in the European Agency for Fundamental Rights. The participation of Serbia as observer in its work is an important step towards its gradual alignment with the acquis in the area of fundamental rights. Since September 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has found violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 34 cases (out of 36) relating mainly to the right to a fair trial and the protection of property. During the reporting period, 1 910 new applications were registered by the Court. On 1 February 2018, the total number of applications pending before the Court was 960. There are currently 66 cases against Serbia under the enhanced supervisory procedure. As regards promotion and enforcement of human rights, the office of the Protector of Citizens has been accredited to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions as being in full compliance with the Paris Principles. Following the resignation of the previous incumbent, a new Ombudsman was elected in 2017. To strengthen the independence and efficiency of the Ombudsman’s Office, the Law on the Ombudsman needs to be amended. The Ombudsman has visited municipalities to raise citizens’ awareness of their rights. In 2017 most complaints to the Ombudsman were on the right to good administration and on social and economic rights. However, the capacity of the Ombudsman’s Office to handle such complaints needs to be increased. Cooperation with the parliament also needs to be improved. 90.6 % of the Ombudsman’s recommendations were fulfilled during 2017. However, certain recommendations of significant public interest have still not been addressed. In the field of prevention of torture and ill-treatment, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Interior adopted an official methodology for investigations into allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. The Ombudsman’s Office remained active in its capacity as the national preventive mechanism. Legislation needed to implement the law on the police, which should regulate the treatment of persons detained in police custody, is still lacking and penalties for ill-treatment and torture remain inadequate. A large number of recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment have yet to be applied. Proper legal safeguards to prevent torture and abuse in social institutions have yet to be adopted. No progress has been made towards de-institutionalisation, including of persons with mental disabilities and the elderly. Regarding the prison system, measures were taken to improve infrastructure and living conditions in several locations. The strategy and action plan for reducing overcrowding in prisons was adopted in March 2017. However, serious understaffing in prison treatment and probation services is hampering progress in its implementation. Some initial steps were taken to reorganise the service for treatment and alternative sanctions. The number of prisoners in 2017 was approximately 10 500. Overcrowding and poor living conditions in some closed wards is still a matter of concern. Limited progress was made in improving access to healthcare and specialist treatment programmes. Cooperation with local self-government and civil society on alternative sanctions and reintegration needs to be systematised. There is a need to improve the functioning of the prison training centre to ensure specialised training for prison staff. On the protection of personal data, the country has ratified the Council of Europe Convention 108 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data and its additional protocol. In 2016, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection received 422 complaints and initiated 828 inspection procedures. Adequate resources are needed for the effective performance of the Commissioner’s tasks. The government started working on a new law on personal data protection to harmonise the legislation with the new EU acquis entering into effect on 25 May 2018. On its part, the Commissioner proposed a draft model law reflecting the new EU legal framework. Work should continue in view of adopting a new legislation in line with the new General Data Protection Regulation and Directive. Inspections in several sectors (e.g. banking, health and education) indicate a lack of knowledge and protective measures, especially regarding sensitive data. The Commissioner’s office remains understaffed. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is constitutionally guaranteed and generally respected. Religiously motivated incidents have continued to decrease. However, the lack of transparency and consistency in the registration process of religious communities remains one of the main obstacles preventing some religious groups from exercising their rights. Freedom of expression Serbia has some level of preparation concerning freedom of expression. However, there was no progress over the reporting period and this lack of progress is increasingly a matter of concern. The overall environment is still not conducive to the exercise of this right. Cases of threats, intimidation and violence against journalists are still a concern, while investigations and final convictions remain rare. Serbian authorities need to react promptly to and publicly condemn hate speech and threats against journalists. Legislation on the media still needs to be fully implemented. Serbia’s legal framework needs to provide for greater transparency of ownership and funding of media outlets. Co-financing of media content to meet public interest obligations needs to be implemented in line with the legislative framework. This requires transparent and fair procedures without interference by the state administration, especially at local level. In addressing the shortcomings outlined here, Serbia should in particular: → create an enabling environment in which freedom of expression can be exercised without hindrance, and ensure that threats, physical assaults, the instigation of violence, and cases of invasion of privacy against journalists and bloggers are properly followed up by law enforcement and the judicial authorities, and publicly condemned by government officials; → ensure the full implementation of media laws and strengthen the independence of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media; → adopt the new strategy for the development of a public information system, in a transparent and inclusive manner;

→ ensure adequate funding of public broadcasting services, and transparent and equitable cofunding for media content serving the public interest. As regards intimidation of journalists, cases of threats, intimidation and violence against journalists remain a concern. There are numerous credible reports of verbal, physical attacks and attacks against property of journalists. In this respect, Serbia needs to elaborate guidelines clarifying their classification as criminal or other type of offences and closely monitor their follow-up by the law enforcement authorities. While several cases have been solved and some criminal charges have been filed, convictions are still rare. Serious efforts are needed to identify and prosecute those suspected of violating internet freedoms. A Memorandum of Understanding signed between journalists’ organisations, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior aimed at providing greater security for journalists at work has yet to lead to more efficient legal treatment of cases and ensure access to justice. The commission tasked with looking into three unresolved cases of murdered journalists from 1999 and 2001 has made progress in completing an investigation of one of these, for which the indictment is still pending. The trial for the murder of one media publisher is still ongoing while the third case is still being looked into by the commission. There have been no significant changes to the legislative environment during the reporting period. The adoption of a new strategy for the development of a public information system through inclusive consultation with stakeholders is still pending. As regards implementation of the legislative framework, the independence of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) needs to be strengthened to allow it to safeguard media pluralism. It will also allow it to carry out its tasks in reacting to programme changes eroding editorial content and programme composition, as stipulated in the frequency licences, by giving it the power to issue commensurate fines. The REM failed to address imbalances in media coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign. Co-financing needs to be implemented in line with the legislative framework, using transparent and fair procedures and without interference by the state, especially at local level. Hate speech and discriminatory terminology is often tolerated in the media and is rarely tackled by regulatory authorities or prosecutors. The Press Council has recorded an increase of breaches of the Journalistic Code of Professional Conduct in print media (approximately 7 % rise in 2017). Political and economic influences over media result in widespread self-censorship. Statements by highranking state officials on the investigative work of journalists have not been conducive to creating an environment where freedom of expression can be exercised without hindrance. Serbian authorities need to provide active support to independent bodies, human rights defenders and independent journalists, and promptly react to and publicly condemn hate speech and threats. Funding available for the two public service broadcasters is insufficient. The temporary nature of the funding model – a combination of subscription fees, budget subsidies and commercial contributions – leaves them vulnerable to political influence. Public services should more actively engage in opening their programmes to a plurality of views and promoting public dialogue. Public broadcasting services in minority languages need to be strengthened, especially as regards the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS). As regards economic factors, lack of transparency in ownership structures and financing from state resources, especially at local level, continue to be a feature of the media environment since the privatisation of the state media. Political and economic influence over media continues to be a source of concern. Serbian authorities should ensure that informal pressure on editorial policy is not exerted through the distribution of advertising funds, including from public companies, as well as project co-funding from local budgets. Co-funding of media content serving public interest should be brought into line with existing legislation and criteria, and implemented in a fair and transparent way which is not detrimental to market equality. There are three main professional associations in Serbia. Journalists have little job security and the editorial environment, which favours ‘tabloidisation’, is not conducive to improving journalistic standards. The overall media environment encourages self-censorship. Journalists’ job security should be enhanced and press associations need to strengthen their role in trade union and employment matters. Freedom of assembly and association are guaranteed by the Constitution and generally respected. Legislation is also generally in line with European standards, but has yet to be aligned with the Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly of ODIHR. Secondary legislation necessary for full implementation of the law on freedom of assembly has not been adopted. Cases of excessive use of force by law enforcement bodies have been reported. Violent counter-assemblies are often not prosecuted, while penalties are often not proportionate or perpetrators not sanctioned at all. Regarding property rights, the Agency for Restitution has adopted some 49 400 opinions and first instance decisions on return of confiscated properties (out of approximately 76 000 claims), concerning the restitution of 33 448 ha of agriculture and forest land, 6 016 buildings, apartments and business premises and 300 ha of construction land. The large majority of the decisions have been approved by the Ministry of Finance and property returned to owners. Implementation of the law on the restitution of heirless Jewish property has begun. Non-discrimination legislation is broadly in line with the European standards, although further alignment with the acquis is still needed. In August 2017, a new sector for anti-discrimination policy and improvement of gender equality was established within the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs. The division of responsibilities between the new sector and the coordination body for gender equality needs to be clarified and an efficient institutional set up with adequate resources needs to be ensured. The Office for Human and Minority Rights has developed an e-learning tool to increase public awareness on identification and protection mechanisms. The Office of the Commissioner for the Protection of Equality held training sessions for police, the courts and local self-governments units. A code of equality that provides guidelines for creating an anti-discrimination policy for employers was also published. Concerns remain on the implementation of the national anti-discrimination strategy (2014-2018), which has now expired and a new one has not been adopted yet. Amendments to the Criminal Code adopted in November 2016 further improved the prohibition and punishment of racial and other discriminatory criminal acts. The groups most discriminated against are women, persons with disabilities, Roma, LGBTI persons, people with HIV/AIDS and the elderly. Human rights defenders, together with LGBTI persons, often face hate speech, threats and violence. These abuses should be promptly and properly investigated, prosecuted and sanctioned. Concerning equality between women and men, the new Gender Equality Law, drafted by the coordination body for gender equality, has still not been adopted. The national strategy and action plan for combating violence against women in family and partner relationships expired in 2015. The Law amending the Criminal Code and the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence were adopted in November 2016 (in line with the Istanbul Convention). The latter law introduces emergency measures for perpetrators, multi-sectoral cooperation in preventing and responding to violence in the family, and increased responsibility and accountability of employees in the relevant institutions. In the first three months since its entry into force in June 2017, 9 403 cases of violence against women were reported to the Public Prosecutor’s Office. A national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 – Women, Peace and Security was adopted. The Statistical Office data on the position of women and men in Serbia show wide gender gaps in the areas of labour, time use, political participation, property and access to resources. Women with disabilities, older, rural and Roma women continued to be among the most discriminated against in society. The role of the media in perpetuating gender stereotypes and minimising gender-based violence remains a source of concern. Greater efforts should be made to change social attitudes to the roles and responsibilities of women and men. On the rights of the child, the National Plan of Action for Children expired in 2015. The functioning of the National Council for Child Rights has been erratic. Ensuring more effective coordination and oversight of the child protection system should be prioritised and efforts made to ensure that policies are uniformly implemented. Statistical data on vulnerable groups are still not disaggregated, particularly on Roma children and children with disabilities. Violence against children remains a concern and a national strategy on this issue is lacking. Since July 2016, the Ombudsman has received 109 complaints reporting violence, abuse or neglect of children, a majority referring to violence at schools. A new Law on Juvenile Offenders and Protection of Minors in Criminal Proceedings has yet to be adopted. The Juvenile Justice Council should be re-established and its functioning ensured. Better protection should be ensured for child victims who testify in criminal proceedings. There are serious concerns over child rights violations taking place in large-scale institutions for children, particularly those with disabilities, who also face challenges regarding access to education. Integrated, community-based services should be further expanded. Little progress has taken place on the rights of persons with disabilities, and the situation remains very difficult, in particular as regards access to services, employment and education. Serbia is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and was reviewed in April 2016 by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The adoption of a strategic framework on disability is still pending. Placement and treatment in social institutions of people with psychosocial and intellectual disabilities is still not regulated in accordance with international standards. Full deprivation of legal capacity on the basis of impairment remains common practice, although some progress was made on partial deprivation. (see also Chapter 19 — Social policy and employment) As part of public awareness on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, both the Serbia Pride in June and the Pride Parade in September 2017 took place without incidents, the latter attended by the Prime Minister and other government representatives. Training on adequate social protection services for LGBTI persons and their families was provided for employees of social work centres. Antidiscrimination training has also been given to the police, and efforts are ongoing to improve communication with the LGBTI community. However, the situation remains difficult and activities in the action plan for the national anti-discrimination strategy that benefit LGBTI persons are behind schedule. There has also been a slight increase in violence against LGBTI persons. Investigation, prosecution and penalties for hate speech, threats and attacks against members of the LGBTI community are often inadequate. Centralised official data on hate crimes are still lacking. Transgender persons are particularly vulnerable to discrimination, family rejection, homelessness and violence. Provision of new official identity documents is slow, which affects their democratic rights. There is no law on gender recognition. Discriminatory content has been removed from two high school textbooks, with six more to be revised. Stronger, visible political commitment to promote social inclusion and respect for the rights of LGBTI persons is needed. Issues of labour and trade union rights are covered in chapter 19. Some initial steps were taken to align procedural rights with the EU acquis. An analysis of the national normative framework for implementing minimum EU standards on the rights and protection of victims of crime (under the relevant Directive) has been finalised, and new services established within the Public Prosecutor’s Office, albeit limited to providing information and with limited staff. Access to justice is hindered by lack of an efficient free legal aid system, the poor availability and quality of performance of appointed defence lawyers, inefficient procedures for awarding compensation through civil proceedings, and weak enforcement of final judgments. The adoption of the Law on Free Legal Aid has been further delayed. Issues such as the purpose of the law, its beneficiaries and providers of free legal aid still need