EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 29.5.2019 SWD(2019) 219 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Serbia 2019 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 2019 Communication on EU Enlargement Policy {COM(2019) 260 final}



Table of Contents 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 2.2.2Chapter 24: Justice, freedom and security 3.Fundamentals first: economic development and 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.Good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation 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 6.28.Chapter 28: Consumer and health protection 6.29.Chapter 29: Customs union 6.30.Chapter 30: External relations 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 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. Meetings of the joint bodies under the agreement took place at regular intervals. Serbia continued to implement the SAA, although a number of compliance issues remain. Since the opening of Serbia’s accession negotiations in January 2014, 16 out of 35 chapters have been opened, two of which were provisionally closed. Four chapters were opened during the reporting period. The overall pace of negotiations will continue to depend in particular on a more intense pace of reforms on rule of law and in the normalisation of its relations with Kosovo as per the requirements of the Negotiating Framework. 1.2 Summary of the report As regards the political criteria, there is an urgent need to create more space for genuine cross-party debate, in order to forge a broad pro-European consensus which is vital for the country’s progress on its EU path. Several opposition parties started boycotting the parliament in early 2019. The ruling coalition’s parliamentary practices led to a deterioration of legislative debate and scrutiny, and undermined the parliament’s oversight of the executive. Weekly anti-government protests started in Belgrade in December 2018 in reaction to an attack on an opposition party leader. The overall peaceful protests, demanding freedom of the media and free and fair elections, grew over time. Several opposition parties have announced their intention to boycott parliamentary elections, unless demands for free and fair elections are met. Serbia needs to fully address all recommendations on the elections, identified by international observers, as a matter of priority.

Serbia is moderately prepared in the area of public administration reform. Some progress was made in the area of service delivery and with the adoption of several new laws. Political influence on senior managerial appointments remains an issue of serious concern, especially regarding an excessive number of acting positions. Serbia’s ability to attract and retain qualified staff in the administration dealing with EU issues is crucial. A coordinated monitoring and reporting system of the public administration reform strategy and public financial management reform programme is yet to be established. Serbia’s judicial system has some level of preparation. Some progress was achieved during the reporting period. Last year’s recommendations have only been partially addressed. Some progress was achieved in the reduction of old enforcement cases and following up on measures to harmonise court practice. The constitutional reform process, intended to align the constitution with European standards for the judiciary, is ongoing. Further to the adoption of the constitutional amendments, the system for the appointment and evaluation of judges and prosecutors needs to be revised to allow for fully merit-based judicial recruitments and careers. Currently, the scope for political influence remains of concern. Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Limited progress has been made. There is no measureable impact of corruption-prevention reforms. A revised Law on the prevention of corruption (also known as law on the Anti-Corruption Agency) was adopted in May 2019. As regards the repression of corruption, the Law on organisation and jurisdiction of government authorities in suppression of organised crime, terrorism and corruption, which entered into force in March 2018, is being implemented but it is too early to fully assess its impact. Law enforcement and judicial authorities still need to establish a credible track record of operationally independent prosecutions and of finalised high-level corruption cases. Overall, corruption is prevalent in many areas and remains an issue of concern. Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against organised crime. Some progress was made over the reporting period. Serbia started to implement the new economic chapter of the criminal code and the Law on organisation and jurisdiction of state authorities in the fight against organised crime, terrorism and corruption and adopted a cybercrime strategy for 20192023. At the same time, no progress was made in fulfilling the recommendations of the previous report. Serbia has yet to establish a convincing track record of effective investigations, prosecutions and final convictions in organised crime cases, including financial investigations leading to a track record of freezing and confiscating criminal assets. The number of convictions for organised crime (notably in the fight against trafficking in human beings) remains low. The legislative and institutional framework for upholding fundamental rights is broadly in place. Amendments improving the legislative framework related to national minorities were adopted. Consistent and efficient implementation of legislation and policies needs to be ensured. While Serbia has some level of preparation, no progress was made on freedom of expression. This lack of progress is now a matter of serious concern. A new media strategy was drafted in a transparent and inclusive manner; it needs to be adopted and implemented. Serbia needs to step up measures to protect the rights of persons facing discrimination, including LGBTI persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and other vulnerable individuals. As regards the economic criteria, Serbia has made some progress and is moderately prepared in developing a functioning market economy. External imbalances are on the rise, although their financing remained healthy. Price pressures remained subdued and inflation contained. Major fiscal adjustments over previous years have significantly improved debt sustainability. Financial sector stability was preserved and labour market performance has improved with the exception of the youth activity rate, which declined. Major structural reforms of public administration, the tax authority, and stateowned enterprises advanced slowly, prolonging longstanding inefficiencies. The authorities are addressing weaknesses in the budgetary framework and its governance at a slow pace. The state retains a strong footprint in the economy and the private sector is underdeveloped and hampered by weaknesses in the rule of law and in the enforcement of fair competition. Serbia has made some progress and is moderately prepared to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union. The structure of the economy improved further and economic integration with the EU remained high. However, despite some progress, the quality, equity and relevance of education and training does not fully meet labour market needs. Investment increased but remains insufficient, after years of underinvestment, to address infrastructure gaps. Although the cost of small and medium enterprises borrowing has declined recently, they still face a number of challenges, including a volatile business environment and unfair competition. Serbia overall remained committed to bilateral relations with other enlargement countries and neighbouring EU Member States and an active participant in regional cooperation. In the context of being granted the seat of the Transport Community Treaty Secretariat, Serbia should now provide further support to ensure the conditions are in place for it to take up operations swiftly. Regarding the normalisation of relations with Kosovo, Serbia has remained engaged in the dialogue and showed restraint in its response to the introduction of the customs tariffs. However, Serbia needs to make substantial efforts, in particular in its international relations, to establish a conducive environment to the conclusion of a legally binding agreement with Kosovo. Such an agreement is urgent and crucial so that Serbia and Kosovo can advance on their respective European paths. As regards its ability to assume the obligations of membership, Serbia has continued to work towards aligning its legislation with the EU acquis across the board. Adequate financial and human resources and sound strategic frameworks will be crucial for the pace of reforms. Serbia has a good level of preparation in some areas such as company law, intellectual property, transport policy, science and research, education and culture, and customs. Serbia improved the linking of 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, external relations, social policy and employment, monetary policy and financial services, Serbia is moderately prepared. Serbia continued to make good progress in agriculture and in aligning with the EU transport acquis while limited progress was noted in the area of energy. The policy areas of environment and climate change have yet to receive adequate attention. Serbia needs to address, as a matter of priority, issues of non-compliance with the SAA, regarding in particular state aid control, fiscal discrimination on imported spirits, and restriction to competition in the cardbased payment system. 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 continued to manage the effects of the mixed migratory flows towards the EU, which have stabilised throughout 2018. It made some progress in implementing the integrated border management strategy. The European Border and Coast Guard Status Agreement with the EU was initialled. The strategy and action plan to counter irregular migration have been adopted. Serbia needs to respect the obligation of readmission of third country nationals under the EU Serbia Readmission Agreement. Serbia furthermore should refrain from further diverging from the EU visa policy. 2.Fundamentals first: political criteria and rule of law chapters 2.1.Functioning of democratic institutions and Public Administration Reform 2.1.1 Democracy The reporting period was increasingly marked by a polarised political scene. This has a negative impact on the work of democratic institutions, in particular the parliament. There is an urgent need to create space for genuine cross-party debate and conditions for meaningful participation by the opposition in the parliament. A new opposition group, the Alliance for Serbia, was established in September 2018. As of February 2019, several opposition parties, including those in the Alliance for Serbia, started boycotting parliamentary sessions. The same parties have announced their intention to boycott parliamentary elections under the present conditions. Weekly anti-government protests started in Belgrade in December 2018 in reaction to an attack on the leader of an opposition party. The protests grew over time, encompassing broader demands and spreading to other towns across Serbia. The demonstrations were overall peaceful. Protestors demand, in particular, freedom of the media and conditions that ensure free and fair elections. The protests have not lined up behind any political party, though the Alliance for Serbia has played a more visible role in recent weeks. Elections Serbia has not made sufficient use of the interval between elections to address persistent shortcomings. These include the lack of transparency of party and campaign financing, the blurred distinction between party and state activities, and the unbalanced media coverage. Serbia still needs to address all priority recommendations of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR).

Almost all of the OSCE/ODIHR recommendations stemming from the previous elections have yet to be addressed. This includes the need for a comprehensive and inclusive review of the legal framework on elections, in order to regulate all essential aspects and address gaps and loopholes. Independent regulatory bodies need to be empowered to exercise their monitoring and oversight role proactively and effectively. The unbalanced media coverage reported during previous elections needs to be urgently tackled. These reforms should be undertaken in an inclusive and transparent manner, and as a matter of priority ahead of the next elections. A limited number of recommendations have been partially implemented, such as those regarding candidate registration, secret balloting, standardised training of polling board members, and the publication of election results. The digitalisation of the voter list is a positive step. A new law on the central registry was adopted in March 2019. Several local elections took place, in which irregularities were reported by domestic observers. These cannot be evaluated independently, but the institutional response to reported irregularities has been limited. Credible allegations of pressure being put on voters and public employees need to be investigated and those responsible brought to justice. In reaction to the anti-government protests, the ruling coalition raised the possibility of early parliamentary elections. This de facto pre-election mode deepened the political divide rather than contributing to cross-party consensus. The Alliance for Serbia and other opposition parties have announced that they will boycott elections, unless demands for free and fair elections are met. Parliament The ruling coalition’s parliamentary practices led to a deterioration in legislative debate and scrutiny, and significantly undermined the parliament’s oversight of the executive. There is an urgent need to create space for genuine cross-party debate and conditions for the opposition to participate meaningfully in the parliament. The role of independent bodies needs to be urgently guaranteed and supported. Practices of the ruling coalition often prevented the parliament from properly exercising its legislative function. These included merging unrelated laws under one discussion point, and proposing hundreds of amendments irrelevant to the content of legislation. These practices, which aim to use up the allocated time for debate in the plenary, have been employed systematically since December 2017. In addition, the use of urgent procedures remains high at around 44% from February 2018 to February 2019. As a result of the above, the parliamentary opposition in most cases was not able to participate effectively in the legislative debate and to present its draft amendments, including on key legislative pieces such as the 2019 budget. As of March 2019, several opposition parties, including those in the Alliance for Serbia, started boycotting parliamentary sessions, also at provincial and local self-government level. Some opposition members continue to participate in the parliamentary committees. In the current polarised environment, it is crucial that cross-party debate and meaningful participation in the parliament are restored as a matter of priority. Existing mediation and dialogue mechanisms, such as those by the European Parliament, should be utilised. The meeting of the parliamentary collegium in April should be followed up on with a view to improving law-making procedures. In this regard, the rules of procedure should be amended and a code of conduct adopted with EU expertise. The parliament’s oversight of the executive remains weak. As in previous years, the parliament failed to support the role of independent institutions. Since 2014, the parliament has not discussed any of the annual reports by independent bodies in its plenary sessions, exemplifying its lack of willingness to ensure effective oversight over the government. The holding of regular question and answer sessions with the executive has increased and five such sessions were held in 2018. Only one public hearing was held in 2018. The lack of annual work plans and the ad hoc nature of agenda setting leads to uncertainty. Non-majority representatives head only two parliamentary committees. The parliament continued to hold debates on Serbia’s negotiating positions for EU accession chapters as well as exchanges with the core negotiating team and with the National Convention on the European Union (see under Civil society). 93 of 250 members of parliament are women. There is also a women’s parliamentary network. In line with OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) recommendations, financing for political parties and electoral campaigns need to be made more transparent (see under fight against corruption). Governance EU membership continued to be the Serbian government’s strategic goal. However, human and financial resources on EU accession need to increase and the government should put more emphasis on domestic communication on the EU. Inclusiveness and transparency on EU-related reforms need to be improved as a matter of priority. 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 across all of the institutions involved to meet Serbia’s objectives on EU accession negotiations. Consultations continued with relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations, through the National Convention on the EU. However, the inclusiveness and transparency of the reform process, in particular on EU accession-related issues, need to be improved as a matter of priority and public consultations on policies and legislation to be more than just a formality. In the context of constitutional reform, stakeholder consultations took place in an acrimonious environment. The role of independent bodies needs to be fully acknowledged and their recommendations followed up appropriately. Monitoring of the implementation and impact of the reform processes needs to be further improved. Authorities should put more emphasis on objective communication about the EU, which is Serbia’s main political and economic partner. Serbia’s strategic choice of EU accession needs to be more actively and unambiguously communicated in the public debate. Further efforts are needed to promote EU 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. In November 2018 the Council of Europe’s Congress of Regional and Local Authorities organised a specific session to discuss reports related to political pressures exercised by ruling party authorities on opposition-run local governments. Constitutional changes are still needed in some areas to address issues relevant to the accession negotiations. Civil society

No progress was made towards establishing an enabling environment for the development and financing of civil society. Further efforts are needed to ensure systematic cooperation between the government and civil society. Civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders continued to raise awareness about civil and political rights. This takes place in an environment not open to criticism, with the authorities making negative statements, echoed by the media, on civil society in general and on funding of certain associations in particular. Harsh criticism against human rights defenders has continued in tabloid newspapers. The National Convention on the EU (composed of representatives of governmental bodies, political parties, non-governmental organisations, experts, trade unions, private sector and representatives of professional organisations), whose goal is to contribute to a structured debate on Serbia’s accession to the EU, has continued to monitor and assess the progress of accession negotiations. The authorities should use its expertise more systematically, in order to benefit from the full potential of the Convention and its working groups. Amendments to the Law on state administration, Law on local self-government and the Law on the planning system introduced specific provisions aimed at improving public participation in policy development. However, the relationship between the government and CSOs is still marked by fragmented cooperation. The continued frequent use of the urgent procedure for the adoption of laws limits the effective inclusion of civil society in the law-making process. A number of CSOs have reported that periods for public consultations are sometimes too short, or that their comments on draft laws were not given sufficient consideration and followup. A national strategy and action plan to contribute to an enabling environment for civil society have still not been adopted. A council for civil society cooperation still needs to be set up. Criteria for public financial support for CSOs need to be better defined and implemented to ensure overall transparency, especially at local level. Civilian oversight of the security sector Parliament continues to be responsible for the oversight of the security sector. The parliamentary committee responsible for this task continued to review the activities of the security-information, military and defence services. In May 2018, amendments to the law on the Security-Information Agency were adopted. 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 was made in the area of service delivery and with the adoption of new laws regulating policy planning, public consultations, e-government, and salary system in the public sector. However, the Commission’s recommendations made over the last few years have not been fully addressed, especially regarding de-politicisation and professionalisation of public service, and therefore remain valid. In particular, political influence on senior managerial appointments remains an issue of serious concern. It was not sufficiently addressed in the 2018 amendments to the Law on civil servants. In the coming year, Serbia should in particular: ®start recruiting senior civil servants effectively through a merit-based procedure and reduce the excessive number of acting positions; ®issue practical guidance to line institutions on strategic planning, monitoring and reporting and ensure a strong quality control role for the Public Policy Secretariat to allow for the effective implementation of the new Law on the planning system; ®develop a single mechanism for prioritising all investments regardless of the source of financing and ensure integration of capital investment planning and project appraisal in the budget process. Strategic framework for public administration reform Serbia is implementing its public administration reform strategy and action plan as well as the public financial management reform programme, which is undergoing revision. These umbrella strategies are supported by a number of specific strategic documents. The government ensures regular monitoring and reporting on implementation of reforms, but a coordinated monitoring and reporting system is yet to be established, also covering managerial accountability (see Chapter 32 – Financial Control). Civil society takes part in the monitoring of reforms. Political support for public administration reform continues through the Public Administration Reform Council, chaired by the Prime Minister. Financial sustainability remains a concern due to reliance on donor funding. There are also inconsistencies between costing of strategies, appropriations in the budget, and the mediumterm expenditure framework. Policy development and coordination Institutions are in place for a central government policy-making system, including for the European integration process, but there are weaknesses due to the continuing focus on formal and procedural issues. The strategic planning system was improved with a new Law on the planning system, which was adopted in April and entered into force in October 2018, and secondary legislation adopted in February 2019. This legislation sets out clear rules for developing, monitoring and reporting on sector strategies. The Public Policy Secretariat needs to start ensuring strong quality control, including on the costing of strategies and their linkages to medium-term fiscal planning. The national plan for the adoption of the acquis (NPAA) and the government annual work programme need to be better synchronised. The capacity for inclusive and evidence-based policy and legislative development, including when aligning with the acquis, needs strengthening. Administrative data collection and its systematic use for policy and law-making needs to improve across the administration. Secondary legislation adopted in early 2019 provides for a detailed methodology on impact assessments and for an obligation of line institutions to consider the opinion of the Public Policy Secretariat prior to submitting documents to the government. Regulatory impact assessments should be systematically submitted to the parliament together with legislative proposals. Better coordination between the Ministry of Finance and the Public Policy Secretariat has yet to be established to ensure that there are no discrepancies between financial impact assessments, which the Ministry of Finance coordinates, and financial information in the regulatory impact assessments. With regard to inter-ministerial consultations, no official high-level mechanisms exist for resolving possible conflicts between services. The regulatory framework for public consultations was improved with amendments to the laws on state administration and on local government and the Law on the planning system, requiring that public consultations are organised early in the policy-making process. The impact of these regulations has yet to be assessed in practice. As regards public scrutiny of government work, the new Law on the planning system requires the government and ministries to prepare and publish monitoring reports on implementation of strategic documents. They should start measuring achievements against stated objectives rather than report on implemented activities. Quarterly reports on the implementation of the NPAA are now regularly published. The government’s website was revised in October 2018, but it still does not provide easy access to the government’s main public policy documents, such as annual government work plans or action plans for the implementation of the government programme. Public financial management The 2016-2020 public financial management (PFM) reform programme is being implemented albeit with delays. The ongoing revision needs to ensure more realistic planning, costing, sequencing, and increased focus on performance indicators and results.

The government’s main achievement in PFM has been to keep the public finances on a sustainable path, maintaining the improved quality of in-year financial reporting and more realistically planned revenue and expenditure projections. The capital budget execution level has further increased. The tax administration has focused on boosting tax compliance, improving efficiency of revenue collection and reducing the tax collection administrative burden. All budget beneficiaries are obliged to report on the performance of the budget programme. The State Audit Institution has continued to increase both the coverage and quality of their audits of public funds. The key outstanding issues concern the budget calendar, which is not being complied with, resulting in insufficient time allocated to proper preparation, assessment and debate among the stakeholders. Although the budget is structured by programmes, the link between the government programme and sector strategies and operational plans of budget beneficiaries is still weak. Serbia still needs to develop a single mechanism for prioritising all investments regardless of the source of financing and to ensure that procedures are in place to guarantee the integration of capital projects’ planning and appraisal in the budget process. Furthermore, the government’s investment planning and management capacity needs to be improved, including the capacity to control public assets funded by loans from third countries (see Chapters 5, 16, 29 and 32). Serbia is committed to improving budget transparency. A ‘citizens’ budget is published. The executive’s budget proposal and the year-end report should be more comprehensive. A transparency roadmap, a pre-budget statement, and a mid-year report are still to be produced and published. The Ministry of Finance does not publish the budget execution profile at the beginning of the year, preventing an analysis of deviations from targets. Budget execution reports contain the basic elements but do not break down expenditure figures for individual budget organisations. Public participation in the budget process continues to be weak and budget oversight by the legislature needs to be improved. The 2019 budget was adopted by the parliament without substantive debate (see under Parliament). Public service and human resources management The civil service legislation defines merit-based recruitment and dismissal procedures. Amendments were introduced in the Law on civil servants in December 2018 and new secondary legislation was adopted in January 2019. While the amendments introduce criteria for the organisation of the selection tests based on competency assessments, the heads of institutions still have too much discretion in setting up selection committees. Obligatory recruitment procedures have been introduced for certain categories of temporary staff, which make up around 10% of the civil service. The possibility to convert certain categories of temporary contracts into permanent civil service contracts should be carefully considered. With regard to the risk of abuse of the dismissal process, the revised performance appraisal procedure introduces a longer timeframe for improving performance, including the possibility to attend professional training following a negative assessment, at both expert and management level. Performance appraisal grades remain inflated. The amendments also introduced a new performance assessment system reflecting the policy priorities of institutions. Political influence over recruitments to senior civil service positions continues to be an issue of serious concern. The merit-based recruitment procedure, as prescribed in law, has not always been complied with. Rather, the provision in the law that allows appointments to ‘acting positions’ for six months (with a maximum extension of three months) has been often misused. This has resulted in high staff turnover and loss of institutional memory in some cases and in violation of the legal time limit in other cases. As of March 2019, 63% of filled senior positions are held on an acting basis. The amendments to the Law on civil servants did not address these shortcomings, apart from restricting the appointments to already existing civil servants as of 1 July 2019. The phasing out of the current acting positions needs to be effectively monitored by the competent institutions. A competency-based human resources management system was introduced with the amendments to the Law on civil servants. Its effectiveness has yet to be assessed in practice. The Human Resources Management Service under the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government needs to strengthen its capacity to coordinate and harmonise the work of line institutions’ human resources units. The human resources management information system remains underdeveloped and does not interact with other national databases such as the treasury payroll registry. There have not yet been improvements regarding remuneration of civil servants. The implementation of the 2016 Law on the salary system in the public sector, which introduces the principle of equal pay for equal work for all public sector employees, has been postponed to 2020. Progress has been made with professional development, following the establishment of the National Training Academy for Public Administration in 2018. The academy has a mandate to provide training for all public officials, including at the local level. Specific training modules target senior managers. A code of ethics for civil servants aims to ensure integrity in public service. Further efforts are needed to ensure full implementation of the existing integrity plans in the judiciary and in the public administration and to address corruption in local administration through adoption of local action plans. The impact of the implementation of these integrity plans has yet to be assessed. Accountability of the administration Following the government’s rightsizing efforts and decrease of public administration staff by over 45,000, the structure of the public administration still needs to be streamlined. The lines of accountability between agencies and their parent institutions are blurred, contributing to overlapping functions, fragmentation, and unclear reporting lines. Political commitment to managerial accountability and systematic delegation of responsibilities is still needed. Institutions continue to have a bureaucratic and process-oriented approach to planning, budgeting and the reporting of their activities (see Chapter 32 — Financial control). The Ombudsman has a key role to play in ensuring citizens’ right to good administration, and public authorities are obliged to report on the implementation of his recommendations. However, for the fourth consecutive year, the parliament did not discuss in the plenary the Ombudsman’s annual report and hence, no conclusions were made for the government’s review (see under Governance). Citizens’ right to access public information is regulated in the Law on access to information of public importance, which is under revision. Administrative silence, whereby public authorities fail to properly act on the citizens’ information requests, continues to be a major issue. Enforcement of the decisions taken by the Commissioner for free access to information of public importance needs to be ensured (see Chapter 23 – Fight against corruption). With regard to citizens’ right to administrative justice, the administrative court operates with an insufficient number of judges while coping with broadening responsibilities, especially over labour disputes including at local self-government level, which affects its efficiency. A new Law on free legal aid was adopted in November 2018, and it includes a regulatory framework for legal aid in administrative cases. While the citizens’ right to seek compensation is regulated, no statistical data is collected to monitor implementation. Service delivery to citizens and businesses The government continues to be committed to creating a more user-oriented administration. Progress was made with the development of further e-services, such as e-payments, and the adoption of an e-government law in April 2018. Secondary legislation and a new e-government strategy for 2019-2021 are being developed. There is strong co-ordination and leadership in this area from the e-government office and the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit. Digital signatures are being used, but only around 5% of the population avail of this service. A more modern e-government portal is currently being designed. While electronic service delivery continues to advance, there is still no central policy ensuring citizens’ access to services. The legal framework for simplification of administrative procedures has been in place since the 2016 Law on general administrative procedures. However, there continues to be regulatory uncertainty for citizens and businesses due to considerable delays with aligning sector legislation with this law. Citizens are often not aware of their improved rights, allowing the administration to apply old cumbersome procedures. The capacities of the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government to exercise an efficient oversight of the implementation of this law are limited, and there are overlaps in coordination with the Public Policy Secretariat. 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 of fundamental rights in law and in practice. Serbia has some level of preparation to apply the acquis and European standards in this area. Serbia made limited progress. In April 2018, Serbia submitted to the Venice Commission the draft constitutional provisions aimed at strengthening the independence of the judiciary. The latter submitted its Opinion in June 2018 with a number of recommendations on changes required for the draft provisions to meet European standards. The revised draft sponsored by the government follows these recommendations. The constitutional reform process continues through parliamentary procedures, initiated in November 2018. Corruption is prevalent in many areas and remains an issue of concern. The legal framework on fundamental rights is broadly in place but its implementation is inconsistent. There was no progress made as regards freedom of expression. The overall environment is still not conducive to the exercise of this right. The role of independent and regulatory bodies needs to be recognised, their capacities strengthened, including their budgets and skilled staff, and their functional independence must be guaranteed in practice.

Serbia is implementing an action plan which was adopted prior to the opening of the accession negotiations on this chapter in July 2016. Serbia is in the process of revising its action plan with measures oriented towards meeting the interim benchmarks of the EU common position. Functioning of the judiciary Serbia has some level of preparation in the area of judiciary. It made some progress during the reporting period: while last year’s recommendations have only been partially addressed, progress was made in reducing old enforcement cases and in following up on measures to harmonise court practice. Some changes to the rules for judicial appointments and for evaluating the work of judges and prosecutors were adopted, but the system needs to be thoroughly revised following the adoption of the constitutional amendments to allow for merit-based judicial recruitments and careers. Currently, the scope for political influence remains a concern. The constitutional reform is ongoing. In the coming year, Serbia needs in particular to make significant progress on: ®strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of the prosecution, including through amendments to constitutional and legislative provisions related to the appointment, career management and disciplinary proceedings of judges and prosecutors; ®ensuring both in law (in the context of the ongoing constitutional reform) and in practice that the High Judicial Council and the State Prosecutorial Council can fully assume their role and achieve an independent and efficient judicial administration in line with European standards, including regarding the execution of the judicial budget; ®adopting and implementing a human resources strategy for the entire judiciary and establishing a uniform and centralised case management system, which in combination should lead to a measurable improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system. Strategic documents Serbia’s main strategic document, together with the action plan on Chapter 23, was the national judicial reform strategy (2013-2018). Its renewal is ongoing. A draft assessment of the previous strategy was presented in November 2018. Furthermore, the World Bank is carrying out a follow-up review to its court functional review, and has completed a prosecution functional review. These reviews are aimed at informing the renewal of the national judicial reform strategy and the revision of the action plan for Chapter 23. The new strategic documents should include clearly defined activities and performance indicators. Management bodies The High Judicial Council (HJC) and the State Prosecutorial Council (SPC) are responsible for the appointments, evaluation, transfers and dismissals of judges and prosecutors, and related budgetary issues. The 2019 budget of the HJC is EUR 2.02 million (EUR 2.75 million in 2018). The 2019 budget of the SPC is EUR 1.04 million (2018: EUR 1.02 million). As regards the budget for the judiciary and the prosecution, responsibilities continue to be divided between the Ministry of Justice and the two councils. This also has an adverse impact on the efficiency of budgetary planning, in terms of resource allocation, and execution. The action plan for Chapter 23 envisaged the transfer of residual budgetary responsibilities from the Ministry of Justice to the councils by early 2017. This is delayed: while the current legislative framework provides for this transfer to the HJC, it has been further postponed (for the fourth time) to 2020. The Law on public prosecution was still not amended to allow for the same transfer to the SPC. Both councils should further improve the transparency of their work, including by making the reasoning of their decisions on appointment, promotions, transfers and disciplinary proceedings available to the public. The councils’ professional and administrative capacities need to be further strengthened. Training is being provided in an ad hoc manner, mostly by external providers. A more systematic approach towards the professional improvement and long-term training plans for judicial and prosecutorial staff as well as the councils’ own staff are needed for the better overall operation of the judicial system. Independence and impartiality The current constitutional and legislative framework continues to leave room for undue political influence over the judiciary. Future legislative changes (required to finalise the constitutional changes) will need to enhance the safeguards for judicial independence. A fully objective, transparent and merit-based system for appointing, transferring and promoting judges and prosecutors in line with European standards will need to be put in place also to promote professionalism and improve quality. In addition, the current broad discretionary powers of court presidents and heads of prosecution offices over the work of individual judges and deputy prosecutors respectively should not have an adverse impact on the quality of the adjudication of cases. They also need to respect the safeguards for independence and autonomy in this field, in particular in relation to instructions to individual prosecutors. The constitutional reform process continued throughout 2018 in an acrimonious environment and there was no consensus reached during stakeholder consultations. In April 2018, following a few public roundtables, the draft provisions were submitted to the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission adopted its Opinion in June 2018, providing recommendations on the provisions so they can meet European standards. On a number of issues, several possible options were recommended. The Venice Commission also noted that the budget for the judiciary had not been addressed. In October 2018, the Ministry of Justice finalised the text after the Venice Commission Secretariat stated that the recommendations of the June Opinion had been followed. In late November 2018, the government submitted to parliament an initiative to change the constitution, a step necessary to begin the parliamentary procedure. It is important for the constitutional reform to be finalised at the level of implementing legislation, in particular on the jurisdiction and organisation of courts and prosecution offices, the role and effective functioning of the councils and the Judicial Academy. Serbia is encouraged to consult the Venice Commission in this legislative reform process. Pressure on the judiciary remains high. Public comments continue to be made by government officials, some at the highest level, on ongoing investigations or court proceedings, and on individual judges and prosecutors. The HJC issued several statements in response to public comments and in reaction to complaints received by judges on intimidation and threats. The SPC’s Commissioner for Autonomy reviewed over 40 cases of alleged inappropriate political influence, and issued several advisory opinions. The draft rulebook and instructions on the work of the Commissioner were finalised, but not yet adopted. Accountability Disciplinary procedures are in place for both judges and prosecutors. In 2018, the SPC disciplinary prosecutor processed 152 disciplinary reports received and initiated a procedure in five cases. The Disciplinary Commission issued the following sanctions: public warnings, prohibition of career advancement, decrease in salary, and a dismissal in one case. During the same period, the HJC’s Disciplinary Commission had 30 cases in process, 25 of which were new cases proposed by the disciplinary prosecutor in 2018. The Disciplinary Commission issued a public warning and imposed several salary reductions. Judges and prosecutors have an obligation to declare their assets on an annual basis and to report possible conflicts of interest. Both councils have codes of ethics and ethical boards in place. Following the adoption of new rules of procedure, their members need to be re-appointed. A revision of the disciplinary rules is needed in order to better define the offences, streamline the procedures and strengthen the capacity of the disciplinary bodies. In addition, the codes of ethics need revision in order to, among other things, clarify which provisions in the codes should entail disciplinary liability for their non-compliance. The SPC started reviewing the disciplinary rules for prosecutors. Professionalism and competence In 2018, the HJC elected 51 judges to permanent positions, and promoted 42 judges to higherlevel courts. It also proposed to parliament 187 first-time judges. The SPC elected 110 deputy prosecutors and promoted 28 deputy prosecutors.

In the context of the constitutional amendments, there is a need to revise the current system of recruitment, transfer and promotion of judges and prosecutors, in order to ensure that their careers are fully based on merit, with a clear link between performance evaluation and career advancement. The methodology for the evaluation of the professional performance of judges should include participation in training initiatives. At present, Serbia has two categories of eligible candidates for the judicial professions: alumni of the Judicial Academy, and judicial and prosecutorial assistants. Thus far, mainly candidates from the latter group are being appointed. In light of the Venice Commission Opinion, having a national judicial academy as the sole entry point to the judicial profession at basic court level is ‘well founded with the aspiration and commitment to strengthen the calibre and professionalism of judicial and prosecutorial training, but it would be advisable to protect the Academy from possible undue influence’. Quality of justice The quality of initial and continuous training programmes provided by the Judicial Academy needs to be improved. Training should better respond to real needs by, for example, focusing on judicial skills and ethical values, including the role of a judge in a democratic society. Continuous training activities, which also require coordination efforts in order to avoid overlapping, are still highly dependent on different donors. The cooperation between the Judicial Academy and the HJC should be strengthened. Some strategic internal documents such as manuals and guidelines for evaluating mentors and rules for evaluating continuous training were prepared. A new database allows for easier access to the European Court of Human Rights case-law related to Serbia. A multi-annual work programme on judicial training still needs to be adopted. A quality control mechanism, which regularly and effectively assesses the impact of the training provided, is yet to be put in place. Overall, there is no systematic approach to the professional improvement through training of the judiciary staff. Further improvement of internal capacity and organisation of the Judicial Academy is pending. Further steps were taken to improve the consistency of jurisprudence: non-binding guidelines by the Supreme Court of Cassation on improving consistency in the interpretation of the law are in place in all four appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Cassation established a specialised department to analyse divergences in court decisions. It also adopted a new list of key words for a more precise search in the electronic case law database, and it adopted instructions for the selection, listing and archiving of relevant court decisions in this database. Efforts in this regard need to continue, as a functional judicial database plays a central role in effectively improving consistency of case-law. There is a need to revise the Civil Procedure and the Criminal Procedure Codes in a number of areas including document management and the recording of hearings, in order to bring them in line with European standards and best practices. The 2019 budget for the judiciary (courts and prosecution offices) is EUR 299 million. There is limited provision in the budget to meet infrastructure needs. In 2018, there were 2,418 full-time judges effectively working (2017: 2 586) i.e. 37.4 judges per 100,000 inhabitants. The trend towards fewer active judges thus continues. The average age of judges in Serbia is 54. There were 769 holders of the public prosecutor function effectively working in 2018 (2017: 628) i.e. 10.98 per 100 000 inhabitants (2017: 10). The European average is 21 judges and 11 prosecutors per 100 000 inhabitants. In the absence of a comprehensive human resource strategy, there is a mismatch between the number of judges per court and the size of the court administration. The Serbian judiciary continues to rely on several different case management applications that are not interconnected. Furthermore, there is only one centralised statistical tool (generating only one type of report) that does not cater for the different systems. This hampers data collection and exchange. The earlier adopted general information and communication technology (ICT) guidelines have not yet led to an overall strategic vision and plan for ICT solutions, which are urgently needed. A comprehensive countrywide system to process and manage cases across the judicial and prosecutorial networks, including to provide comprehensive and reliable statistical data in line with European standards, is still to be put in place. An automatic case allocation system with some technological support is in place in all the courts. It is based on objective and pre-determined criteria, on the normative principle of the ‘natural judge’ and on the requirement to assign cases randomly. This is an essential tool to support judicial independence and impartiality. In 20 pilot courts, both basic and higher, the tool has been improved with the introduction of a case weighting formula. In spite of increasing numbers compared to previous years, the services of public notaries are still not available throughout Serbia. Eight districts do not yet have public notaries. Secondary legislation was adopted to better regulate the management of documents, including land register registration, the electronic issuance of certificates and on filing property tax applications. Still little progress is being made in introducing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation. Info-desks for the public and court users were established. The Law on court fees was amended. As of January 2019, the law should provide for an additional incentive to parties by waiving court fees for successful mediation in civil cases, before or at the first hearing. The new provisions on peaceful labour dispute resolution provide for specialised mediation in collective labour disputes. The impact of these measures has yet to be seen. Efficiency The implementation of the national backlog reduction programme (for 2016-20) continued to be supervised by the Supreme Court of Cassation. It has a positive impact on the courts’ efficiency with the backlog of old enforcement cases shrinking. In 2018 the number of enforcement cases decreased by 78,135 cases. However, the overall high number of pending backlog cases still remains a concern (781 137 cases at the end of 2018). The highest number of backlog cases (86.6% of the total) are in basic courts. From 2016 to 2017, the overall clearance rate dropped from 139.87% to 106.04%, but in 2018 it increased again to 110.03%. Thus for the third year in a row, the Serbian judicial system was able to process more cases than it received, even with fewer active judges than in 2017. There are still significant differences in workload across the country. Lengthy proceedings, the lack of a free legal aid system – until the new law is implemented in October 2019 – and the failure in processing indemnity claims continue to hamper the quality of justice and citizens’ access to justice (see under Procedural rights). The amended Law on enforcement and security from 2016 that extended the authority of the public enforcement agents has accelerated procedures and has enabled the ‘utility bill’ cases to be reduced more efficiently. During the second half of 2018, enforcement agents have solved 163,812 cases, compared to 116,120 during the first half of 2018. As the backlog results to some extent also from malfunctioning corporate governance within the mostly government-controlled utility companies, the government is also responsible for addressing it. Domestic handling of war crimes cases Serbia needs to fully cooperate with the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), including by fully accepting and implementing its rulings and decisions. There have been public and repeated challenges by Serbia, including from the highest levels, of the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Serbia’s state of non-cooperation in relation to the arrest of people indicted for contempt of court had not been resolved by the time the IRMCT assumed the jurisdiction, rights and obligations of the ICTY. The final decision as to whether this case will be adjudicated by the IRMCT or in Serbia is pending. Regarding judicial cooperation issues, the existing bilateral protocols on cooperation related to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide between the Prosecutor’s Office of Serbia and its counterparts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Montenegro have contributed to improving relations and reducing judicial impunity for war crimes. In 2018, the cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina has led to indictments being issued in Serbia. Cooperation with Croatia faced a number of impediments and has not led to tangible results. Mutual legal cooperation between Kosovo and Serbia is extremely limited in war crimes cases. The implementation of the 2016 national strategy for investigation and prosecution of war crimes has continued at a slow pace. A monitoring mechanism for overseeing its implementation is in place. It has issued five reports.

The prosecutorial strategy 2018-2023 was adopted in April 2018. It did not include clear criteria for prioritising war crimes cases as envisaged in the Serbian action plan for Chapter 23. In order to support the implementation of this strategy, additional posts were planned for the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor (OWCP), including additional deputy prosecutors and a psychologist to support victims and witnesses. Eight deputy prosecutors have been appointed: five new posts and three as replacements for retired colleagues. There has been a further delay in assessing the confidentiality rules (disclosure of confidential information during investigations and/or tampering of evidence). In December 2018, the OWCP released its own report on criminal complaints filed nationally since 2003. According to this report, there were - out of a total of 76 cases - 13 against the mid-ranking perpetrators and none against high-ranking officers. In 2018, 10 indictments were filed by the OWCP (compared to 3 in 2017) of which 7 cases were transferred from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Seven have been confirmed. These indictments concern cases not involving high-ranking suspects. Currently, there are 16 cases ongoing at first instance, and 1 case at appeal level. Most of the ongoing cases are against low-ranking defendants. Most cases have seen significant delays on various (including medical and procedural) grounds. Significant court hearing delays experienced in 2017 also continue, for instance in the ‘Srebrenica’ case. Moreover, there have been reported instances of intimidation of witnesses and observers. Serbia currently has 2 382 cases at the pre-investigation stage. Some administrative steps were taken to improve the efficiency of investigations through the adoption in early 2018 of joint internal operating rules between the OWCP and the War Crimes Investigation Service. The latter moved to more suitable premises for keeping records of war crimes in order to prepare a database to investigate those crimes. This should help prioritise investigations and prosecutions. Overall, Serbia needs to demonstrate a firmer commitment to the domestic processing of war crimes at all levels. In addition, meaningful regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations are needed to overcome the legacies of the past, and to constructively foster mutual trust, dialogue and tolerance in the region, avoiding actions and statements that go against this goal. This should also imply honouring the victims of the past. There have been several instances in which the state authorities have provided public space and took part in promoting activities of ICTY-convicted war criminals. This is not creating an environment conducive for an impartial and effective adjudication of war crimes cases. Fight against corruption Serbia has some level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Limited progress has been made. There is no measureable impact of corruption prevention reforms. The revised Law on the prevention of corruption (previously known as law on the Anti-Corruption Agency) was adopted on 21 May 2019. The law needs to comply with the acquis, international agreements and GRECO recommendations. As regards the repression of corruption, the Law on organisation and jurisdiction of government authorities in suppression of organised crime, terrorism and corruption, which entered into force in March 2018, is being implemented but it is too early to fully assess its impact. Law enforcement and judicial authorities still need to establish a credible track record of operationally independent prosecutions and finalised high-level corruption cases. Overall, corruption is prevalent in many areas and remains an issue of concern. There is a need for strong political will to effectively address corruption issues, as well as a robust criminal justice response to highlevel corruption. Serbia should in particular: ®improve its track record on investigations, indictments and final convictions in high-level corruption cases, including the seizure and confiscation of criminal assets; ®implement legislation on the Anti-Corruption Agency that needs to be compliant with the acquis, international agreements and GRECO recommendations, in order to strengthen the Agency’s role as a key institution in a more effective fight against corruption; ®conduct an impact assessment on its anti-corruption policy with a view to adopting a new ambitious strategy and action plan. Track record As regards Serbia’s track record of investigating, prosecuting and trying corruption cases, there were criminal charges filed against 9,095 individuals with the special departments for combating corruption in the Higher Prosecutors’ Offices. They filed indictments against 547 individuals. Courts convicted 332 individuals based on indictments by these special departments, out of which there were court-accepted plea agreements for 294 defendants. Courts also convicted 41 individuals in relation to high-level corruption offences (based on indictments by the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime) in 2018 (compared to 50 in 2017). Of these, 13 were based on plea agreements. Confiscation of assets was imposed in two of these cases. The Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime indicted 21 individuals. Overall, for all types of corruption cases, there were first instance convictions against 1 952 individuals in 2018 (compared to 2 140 in 2017). Serbia needs to demonstrate a convincing track record on the final confiscation of assets. Serbia urgently needs to improve its results in detecting and prosecuting corruption crimes, based on increased technical expertise, and better coordination and data exchange between all institutions involved. Serbia also needs to step up the application of the concept of financial investigations. The Anti-Corruption Agency issued 77 opinions related to requests on conflicts of interest in 2018 (2017: 41). It filed 31 requests for misdemeanour proceedings (2017: 20). The Agency initiated 151 procedures (37 based on complaints and 114 ex officio) (203 for 2017: 37 based on complaints and 166 ex officio) on grounds related to accumulation of functions without prior approval of the Agency, and 166 procedures for other situations related to conflict of interest or nepotism (145 based on complaints and 21 ex officio) (170 for 2017: 101 based on complaints and 69 ex officio). In 2018, the misdemeanour courts had still not issued any first instance judgments, filed by the Agency in 2018. The Agency submitted 45 requests related to income and asset declarations for misdemeanour proceedings in 2018 (2017: 86) of which 43 were related to a failure to submit asset declarations on time. Based on the Agency’s work in previous years, misdemeanour courts issued 49 convictions in 2018 (2017: 63). The Agency filed 16 criminal charges in 2018 (2017: 15) 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, 2 final judgements were issued with a conditional sentence of imprisonment, 14 cases were finalised with the deferral of criminal prosecution, in 14 cases criminal charges were dismissed and in 3 cases acquittals were issued. Proceedings are underway in 17 cases. Overall, the number of cases dealt with by the Agency is decreasing. In general, the measures that the Agency can impose do not have a deterrent effect, and more stringent rules on the accountability of officials in cases involving conflicts of interest are needed. The ongoing process of drafting the new law on the Anti-Corruption Agency provides a good opportunity to ensure that the Agency gets a more robust and ambitious mandate when it comes to identifying and preventing corruption. The Agency also performs checks on the funding of political activities and of elections, and submitted 90 requests for misdemeanour proceedings for violations of the Law on political activities financing in 2018 (against 273 in 2017). In the same period, courts rendered 113 final verdicts. As most of them impose low sentences, they do not have the desired deterrent effect. Based on final sentences, in 2018, the Agency published 33 decisions on the loss of the right of political entities to use public funds for their regular work during 2019 (against four in 2017). The law on misdemeanours provides for misdemeanour plea agreements as a new mechanism, which was implemented by the Agency in May 2018 for the first time. The Agency signed four such agreements in 2018. Overall, the system for controlling of political activities and electoral campaign financing needs to become more transparent and effective through improving legislation and applying the recommendations of the OSCE/ODIHR and the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). A comprehensive and evidence-based assessment of access to information is not possible, as the majority of public authorities do not comply with the obligation to provide data to the Commissioner for Access to Information of Public Importance regarding citizens’ requests for information. The Commissioner established that 87% (2017: 86%) of citizens’ complaints – most of them concerning administrative silence – were well-founded, meaning that the information requested by citizens should have been provided by the authorities according to the Law on access to information of public importance. In 55% (2017: 62%) of these well-founded cases, the authorities reported that they acted upon the Commissioner’s request to provide the information to the complainants even before a decision was made on the appeal, which would indicate that there was no reason not to disclose the requested information in the first place. During 2018, courts in Serbia received 122 new cases based on the law on whistle-blower protection (2017: 149) and out of the total caseload of 193 cases, 124 cases were finalised (2017: 158). Institutional framework

Prevention of corruption Serbia’s institutions for preventing corruption broadly meet international standards. As regards the revision of the law on the Anti-Corruption Agency, enabling it to better assume its role as the key institution in this area, a first draft was prepared by a Ministry of Justice working group in July 2018. This draft did not fully comply with the GRECO recommendations. A second draft was published on the Ministry’s website in February 2019 further to consultations with a GRECOaffiliated expert. The government submitted a draft to parliament in early May 2019 under urgent procedure (see under Parliament on the use of urgent procedures). Parliament adopted the law on 21 May 2019. The law needs to comply with the acquis, international agreements and GRECO recommendations. Efforts are needed to empower the Agency to step up data collection in an accountable manner and its data analysis, including access to relevant databases. The Anti-Corruption Agency’s budget has increased for 2019, and the new ‘staff systematisation’ allows for 123 workplaces, as well as the contracting of 157 employees (compared to 92 workplaces and 139 employees previously). The Agency currently has only 80 employees on a permanent basis. Priority should be given to adequately resourcing the Agency in order for it to be a leading player in preventing corruption and monitoring progress in this regard, and to work in an independent and transparent manner. Serbia’s institutions need to cooperate with and respond to the Agency’s reports and instructions as provided for under the law. Public procurement, infrastructure projects, healthcare, education, construction and spatial planning, and public companies remain particularly vulnerable to corruption. No tangible improvements took place in relation to verifications and procedural transparency in these fields. Serbia’s public procurement legislation is largely in line with the acquis. A draft law aimed at further alignment including on e-procurement was prepared. The public procurement office still lacks staff and technical capacity. It needs to step up efforts in supervising other institutions and monitoring, partly by setting up a centralised database. The anti-corruption action plan focusing on higher education has yet not yielded concrete results. In order to fight corruption at local level, the Anti-Corruption Agency had provided the local authorities with a model anti-corruption action plan. Only six local authorities set up a body to monitor the implementation of plans drawn up that were based on this model (76 plans out of 145 required had been adopted). The Law on civil servants was amended in 2018 to include provisions concerning conflicts of interest in public administration and disciplinary procedures; however, the amendments did not sufficiently address shortcomings in transparent and merit-based recruitment. The Anti-Corruption Council, in its advisory role to the government, remained active in exposing and analysing cases of systemic corruption. However, the government still refuses to systematically follow up on its recommendations, and the Council is yet to be systematically included in procedures for adopting legislation that has a potential bearing on corruption. The authorities should establish a more constructive relationship with the Council. Law enforcement The new Law on the 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 to investigate and prosecute corruption cases. Adequate training has been organised. In the special departments for combating corruption in the Higher Prosecutors’ Offices in Kraljevo, Niš, Novi Sad and Belgrade a total of 44 deputy public prosecutors have taken up work. Also, five task forces were established in these departments, which include representatives of the police, the tax administration and the administration for the prevention of money laundering. A department for the fight against corruption is operating within the Criminal Police Directorate, and dedicated bodies have been established in the same cities. Coordination meetings between the police and the prosecution are organised regularly, and liaison officers have been appointed. Of the five financial forensic experts envisaged, only two have been employed. They are yet to be hired in the new special departments for combating corruption in Kraljevo, Niš and Novi Sad. While the impact of these new structures has yet to be fully assessed, so far the institutional and technical capacity of police, prosecutors and judges remains insufficient overall and needs improvement. Financial investigations are being launched more proactively, but their impact on a substantially increased number of final convictions is yet to be demonstrated. Internal control departments in line ministries continue to lack equipment, resources and human capacity. The State Audit Institution audited 200 statements from public funds beneficiaries in 2018. For 117, it concluded that the internal control system did not provide reasonable assurance that the goals concerning compliance with regulations and procedures were achieved. Some 76.5% of the audited entities were found not to have appropriately established the internal audit function. Legal framework Serbia is a party to all international anti-corruption conventions, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The legal framework for the fight against corruption is broadly in place. Parliament adopted amendments to the law on the Anti-Corruption Agency. This law needs to comply with the acquis, international agreements and GRECO recommendations. The Law on free access to information of public importance still needs to be further amended to ensure its effective implementation including through an appropriate access to information. Amendments are being prepared (see under Public administration reform). The legal framework on whistle-blower protection still needs to be aligned with the new EU acquis on this issue. There is a further delay in amending the Law on financing of political activities. This is needed, among other things, to increase transparency in financing political entities and electoral campaigns including the use of public resources, to introduce more efficient sanctions, and to clarify the duties between the relevant state authorities. The State Audit Institution has performed financial statement audits and compliance audits on five political entities in 2018. In its latest evaluation round in March 2019, GRECO noted that 10 recommendations on the prevention of corruption in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors were partially implemented and 3 not implemented (instead of 7 partially implemented and 6 not implemented in 2018). It concluded for the second year in a row that Serbia had not implemented satisfactorily or dealt with in a satisfactory manner any of the 13 recommendations. Following one of these recommendations, a new law on lobbying was adopted in November 2018. GRECO also concluded that the overall level of compliance with the recommendations is no longer ‘globally unsatisfactory’ and that Serbia was no longer subject to the non-compliance procedure. Strategic framework The Anti-corruption Agency monitored the implementation of Serbia’s anti-corruption strategy and action plan for 2013-2018. Out of 177 measures to be completed by the end of 2017, the Agency found that 26% were implemented in accordance with the indicators, while 61% were deemed not implemented at all (while the remaining measures were deemed to be partially implemented). A number of steps to effectively implement and monitor this strategy and its follow-up strategy, as well as the relevant sections in the action plan for Chapter 23, have been seriously delayed. Fundamental rights The legislative and institutional framework for upholding human rights is broadly in place. Amendments improving the legislative framework related to national minorities were adopted in June 2018. However, consistent and efficient implementation of legislation and policies needs to be ensured. In addition to making substantial efforts to uphold freedom of expression, Serbia needs to address shortcomings already identified in the 2018 report. In particular, Serbia needs to: ®strengthen human rights institutions, guarantee their independence, including via the allocation of the necessary financial and human resources, and follow up on their recommendations; ®step up measures to protect the rights of persons facing discrimination, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, persons with disabilities, persons with HIV/AIDS and other vulnerable individuals; actively pursue investigation and convictions for hate-motivated crimes; and adopt a new anti-discrimination strategy;

®ensure a consistent implementation of legislation regarding national minorities, including Roma, leading to a tangible improvement in the effective exercise of their rights across the country. Serbia has ratified eight of the nine international human rights instruments. 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. By decision of the Stabilisation and Association Council, Serbia was granted observer status in the European Agency of Fundamental Rights. The participation of Serbia as observer in the work of this agency is an important step towards its gradual alignment with Union law in the area of fundamental rights. In particular, it will contribute to the exchanges of best practices facilitating the advancements on concrete fundamental right issues in line with applicable EU standards. In 2018, the European Court of Human Rights delivered 13 (2017: 26) judgments concerning Serbia and found that it violated the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 12 (2017: 25) cases. Four violations related to the right to a fair trial, six to the length of proceedings, one to non-enforcement, and one to the protection of property. There are currently 69 (2017: 66) cases against Serbia in the enhanced monitoring procedure before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. As regards promotion and enforcement of human rights, the number of citizens’ complaints submitted to the Ombudsman decreased by 19% (2017: 4 060; 2018: 3 282), while the number of recommendations from the Ombudsman addressed to the authorities remained stable (2017: 799; 2018: 793). For the fourth consecutive year, the parliament failed to discuss in the plenary the annual reports of the Ombudsman and of other independent bodies; therefore no conclusions for the government’s review were made. According to the Ombudsman, the percentage of his recommendations followed up by the authorities remains high (2017: 90.6%; 2018: 93.2%), although certain recommendations related to “public interest” have still not been addressed. There has been a serious delay in amending the law on the Ombudsman. In the field of prevention of torture and ill-treatment, the Ombudsman, in his capacity as the national preventive mechanism, made fewer visits to relevant sites, namely police stations, prisons, social welfare institutions, psychiatric hospitals, and visits to oversee the treatment of refugees and migrants (2017: 61; 2018: 44). NGOs participating in the national preventive mechanism deem that cooperation from the Ombudsman’s office has decreased. As a large number of recommendations by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) had not been implemented, the CPT issued a report in June 2018 following its ad hoc visit to Serbia, stating that ill-treatment is an accepted practice within the current police culture. The Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior conducted training on the official methodology for investigations into allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. A new commission for the implementation of standards in police conduct related to investigating cases of torture has been established but there has been no impact yet. Secondary legislation needed for the appropriate implementation of the law on the police, which should regulate the treatment of individuals detained in police custody, is delayed. A law for the prevention of ill-treatment and abuse in social institutions has yet to be adopted. The government submitted draft amendments to the criminal code to parliament in early May 2019, under urgent procedure, introducing life imprisonment without the possibility of conditional release for a number of crimes. Parliament adopted the amendments on 21 May 2019. There are relevant provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The amended law will have to be assessed on this basis. Regarding the prison system, the renovation and modernisation of several prisons, including the prison hospital in Belgrade, continued in line with the strategy for reducing overcrowding in penal institutions. A new prison was built in Pančevo and is operational. A decision on reorganising the service for treatment programmes and alternative sanctions was adopted in May 2018 but has yet to be implemented. The revision and improvement of treatment programmes in prisons and prison medical facilities is ongoing, in line with CPT recommendations. The more restrictive use of incarceration measures and increased application of alternative sanctions contributed to a stable prison population. Amendments to the Law on execution of extrajudicial sanctions and measures were adopted in November 2018 to improve the use of alternative sanctions. However, shortcomings remain in accommodation conditions and in the provision of legal aid and health care. A new Law on personal data protection was adopted in November 2018, aiming at aligning with the new acquis, i.e. the General Data Protection Regulation and Law Enforcement Directive. It will enter into application in August 2019. The mandate of the previous Commissioner for access to information of public importance and personal data protection ended in December 2018. A new Commissioner needs to be appointed in a transparent manner, taking into account relevant professional experience. The Commissioner’s office remains understaffed and underfunded. It needs adequate resources to perform its tasks, especially given the increased responsibilities under the new law. Serbia has not signed or ratified the 2018 Protocol amending the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regards to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is constitutionally guaranteed and generally respected. However, the lack of transparency and consistency in the process for registering religious communities continues to be one of the main obstacles preventing some religious groups from exercising their rights. The law on churches and religious communities has yet to be aligned with international standards. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom of expression Serbia has some level of preparation concerning freedom of expression. However, there was no progress made over the reporting period. This lack of progress is now a matter of serious concern. A working group composed of both media associations and public officials submitted a draft strategy for the development of a public information system (the media strategy) to the government in December 2018; a consultation process has so far been conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner. With regard to the Commission’s recommendations in the 2018 report, the overall environment is still not conducive to the exercise of freedom of expression. Cases of threats, intimidation and violence against journalists are still a concern. While several cases have been solved and some criminal charges filed, investigations and final convictions remain rare overall. The first ever sentence in a case involving the murder of a journalist was pronounced, in first instance, in April 2019. The Serbian authorities need to react promptly to and publicly condemn hate speech and threats against journalists. Legislation on the media sector still needs to be fully implemented. Serbia’s legal framework needs to provide for more stringent criteria regarding 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 and swiftly followed up by law enforcement and the judicial authorities, as well as publicly condemned by government officials; ®ensure the full implementation of media laws, and strengthen the independence of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media and boost its capacity to work proactively; ®adopt and implement a new media strategy, in a transparent and inclusive manner; ®ensure suitable funding of public broadcasting services, transparent and equitable cofunding for media content serving the public interest, and increased transparency in media ownership and advertising. A working group composed of both media associations and public officials submitted a draft media strategy to the government in December 2018; a consultation process has so far been conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner. Results have yet to be achieved on the thirteen most pressing issues for media freedom identified by media associations gathered in the ‘Team for Dialogue’. Intimidation of journalists Seven physical attacks and attacks against the property of journalists were recorded by the Serbian authorities during the reporting period. Some media associations reported that political, economic, and other pressures on journalists increased. In this respect, Serbia needs to categorise these crimes as criminal or as other types of offences and ensure appropriate investigation and adjudication. While several cases have been solved and some criminal charges filed, convictions remain rare overall. Serious efforts are needed to identify and prosecute those suspected of violating internet freedoms, as well as those using social media to intimidate and threaten journalists. The 2016 memorandum of understanding between journalists’ organisations, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior has yet to lead to more efficient legal treatment of cases and to ensure access to justice. Media associations suspended their participation in the standing working group on the safety of journalists for seven months due to the perceived lack of results; the working group resumed its activities in October 2018. The commission tasked with looking into three cases involving the murder of journalists from 1999 and 2001 has made progress in completing an investigation into one of these cases, for which the indictment is still pending. In another case, in April 2019, progress was also made with the pronouncing, at first instance, of the first ever sentence in a case involving the murder of a journalist. The third case is still being investigated by that commission. Implementation of legislation / institutions

The independence of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media needs to be strengthened to enable it to safeguard media pluralism. This would 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. Hate speech and discriminatory terminology are often used and tolerated in the media and are rarely tackled by regulatory authorities or prosecutors. The authorities need to promptly react to and publicly condemn hate speech and threats against independent bodies, human rights defenders and independent journalists. The Press Council continued to record an increase of breaches of the journalistic code of professional conduct in print media. Statements by high-ranking state officials on the daily and investigative work of journalists are preventing the creation of an environment where freedom of expression can be exercised without hindrance. The frequent refusal by public bodies to disclose information, or their administrative silence, following requests submitted under the Law on free access to information of public importance hinders the work of journalists. Public service broadcaster 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 service broadcasters 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 Radio Television of Serbia. Economic factors Political and economic influence over the media continues to be a source of concern. 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. The reporting period was characterised by several acquisitions of media companies. The media register needs to be improved and monitored. The information contained in the register is limited, difficult to browse through, and does not provide the possibility of efficiently detecting who is able to influence the media, directly or indirectly. Claims have been made that fiscal inspections have been used disproportionally to exert economic pressure on certain media outlets. The Serbian authorities should ensure that informal pressure on editorial policy is not exerted through the distribution of advertising funds, including from public companies and in an overall context of decreasing advertising revenues, or through 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 that is not detrimental to market equality, especially at local level. This includes setting reasonable deadlines for the calls for proposals, selecting members of evaluation commissions in a transparent manner, taking due account of previous breaches of the journalists code of ethics when evaluating applicants, and monitoring the effective implementation of the awarded grants. Administrative courts have decided in favour of the plaintiffs in several cases involving irregularities in these calls. Professional organisations and working conditions Journalists have little job security and the editorial environment, which favours ‘tabloidism’, is not conducive to improving journalistic standards. Journalists’ job security should be strengthened and press associations need to strengthen their role in trade union and employment matters. (See also Chapter 10 - Information society and media) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Freedom of assembly and association are guaranteed by the Constitution and are generally respected. Legislation is 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 yet to be adopted. Issues of labour and trade union rights are further covered in Chapter 19 - Social policy and employment. Regarding property rights, the Agency for Restitution continued with restitutions in kind, having adopted a total of about 54,400 opinions and first instance decisions on return of confiscated properties, corresponding to around 73% of the 74,000 submitted claims since the Agency was established in 2012. As regards compensation, when restitution in kind is not possible, amendments to the law on property restitution and compensation were adopted in December 2018, extending the deadline for the repayment of financial bonds by three years to December 2021. The implementation of the law on the restitution of heirless Jewish property continued and the number of restituted properties increased. In the field of non-discrimination, legislation is broadly in line with European standards, although it needs to be further aligned with the acquis. The European Commission’s new recommendation on standards for equality bodies, adopted on 22 June 2018, will need to be taken into account. The Commissioner for the Protection of Equality continued to participate in the work of the European Network of Equality Bodies. Her office introduced an annual award for a municipality with the best practice in promoting tolerance and creating equal opportunities. A rulebook on the conduct of educational institutions in cases of suspected or established discriminatory behaviour and defamation was adopted in August 2018. The anti-discrimination strategy expired in January 2018 and a new one has yet to be adopted. The 2016 amendments to the criminal code related to prohibition and punishment of criminal racial acts and other acts of discrimination have yet to be fully aligned with the acquis. According to the Equality Commissioner’s annual report, the largest number of complaints relate to discrimination on grounds of disability, age and gender-based discrimination. Human rights defenders, together with LGBTI persons, often face hate speech, threats and violence. These abuses should be promptly and properly investigated and penalised. Concerning equality between women and men, the adoption of a new Law on gender equality has been seriously delayed. The division of responsibilities between the sector for anti-discrimination policy and improvement of gender equality within the Ministry of Labour, Employment, Veterans and Social Affairs and the coordination body for gender equality still needs to be clarified and an efficient institutional set-up with adequate resources needs to be ensured. A new EU Index of Gender Equality for Serbia was published in December 2018, indicating that the largest amount of progress made in gender equality was in the area of politics, due to the increased participation of women in the parliament, government, and local assemblies. Older, rural and Roma women, as well as women with disabilities 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 concern. On violence against women and domestic violence, adoption of the related strategy and action plan has been seriously delayed. The coordination body for gender equality submitted a first national report on the implementation of the Istanbul Convention on violence against women to the Council of Europe in July 2018. Since the adoption of a new law against domestic violence, a high number of cases of violence have been reported; police and social workers need to be further trained to implement the law efficiently. A new SOS hotline for female victims of violence was set up. Serbia adopted a national programme for safeguarding and improving sexual and reproductive health in order to align its priorities with the global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health (2016-2030) and the related World Health Organisation’s action plan. Additional funding is needed to ensure implementation of this programme in terms of improving access to quality services. An integrated national framework to ensure proper implementation of the rights of the child has yet to be established. The National Council for Child Rights set up a working group for the drafting of the action plan for children, as the previous plan had expired in 2015. A working group on early development of the child was also set up within the National Council. Statistical data on vulnerable groups is still not disaggregated, particularly on Roma children and children with disabilities. Violence against children remains a concern. A draft strategy (2018-2022) on child protection and preventing violence against children was prepared and needs to be adopted. The Juvenile Justice Council was re-established in April 2018. Adoption of amendments to the Law on juvenile offenders and protection of minors in criminal proceedings has been further delayed. Better protection should be ensured for child victims who testify in criminal proceedings. There are still serious concerns over child rights violations taking place in state institutions for children. In particular, there are concerns over violations of the rights of children with disabilities, who also face challenges regarding access to inclusive education. Integrated, community-based services should be further expanded. No progress has been made on the rights of persons with disabilities. Serbia is party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. There is a lack of funding for the development of community-based services, licensed service providers and social services. 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. Serbia is still lacking a comprehensive strategy on deinstitutionalisation (see Chapter 19 — Social policy and employment). As regards the rights of LGBTI persons, two pride parades, in June and September 2018, took place without any incidents, the latter attended by the Prime Minister and several high-level officials. There was a noticeably smaller police presence than in previous years. The first LGBTI community centre in Serbia was opened in Novi Sad in April 2018, primarily targeting LGBTI youth and their families. There was also some progress made in education, as six out of eight textbooks with discriminatory content were changed. Amendments to the law on birth registry now enable the entering of data on gender change into the registry. However, the overall situation in Serbia remains broadly the same as in previous years, with low implementation of activities under the expired anti-discrimination strategy. Implementation of the hate crime legislation, including on grounds o