COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2024 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Serbia 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 2024 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2024-07-24
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Serbia, administrative transparency, corruption, democracy, freedom of the press, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, rule of law, whistleblowing

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.7.2024  SWD(2024) 831 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2024 Rule of Law Report     Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Serbia 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 2024 Rule of Law Report            The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2024) 800 final} - {SWD(2024) 801 final} - {SWD(2024) 802 final} - {SWD(2024) 803 final} - {SWD(2024) 804 final} - {SWD(2024) 805 final} - {SWD(2024) 806 final} - {SWD(2024) 807 final} - {SWD(2024) 808 final} - {SWD(2024) 809 final} - {SWD(2024) 810 final} - {SWD(2024) 811 final} - {SWD(2024) 812 final} - {SWD(2024) 813 final} - {SWD(2024) 814 final} - {SWD(2024) 815 final} - {SWD(2024) 816 final} - {SWD(2024) 817 final} - {SWD(2024) 818 final} - {SWD(2024) 819 final} - {SWD(2024) 820 final} - {SWD(2024) 821 final} - {SWD(2024) 822 final} - {SWD(2024) 823 final} - {SWD(2024) 824 final} - {SWD(2024) 825 final} - {SWD(2024) 826 final} - {SWD(2024) 827 final} - {SWD(2024) 828 final} - {SWD(2024) 829 final} - {SWD(2024) 830 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Serbian  justice  system  has  been  undergoing  substantial  reform  in  recent  years.  The 
implementation  of  the  constitutional  reform  to  strengthen  judicial  independence  is  ongoing 
with further implementing laws to be amended. A new appeal procedure to the Constitutional 
Court for judicial appointments is in place, whereas a considerable number of vacancies for 
judges  and  prosecutors  remains  to  be  filled.  Political  pressure  on  the  judiciary  and  the 
prosecution service remains high. A number of steps have been taken to reduce the space for 
political  influence  on  the  judiciary  and  the  prosecution  services,  although  their  effects  in 
practice  still  need  to  be  observed  and  there  is  little  or  no  follow-up  on  cases  of  undue 
influence. Serbia still lacks a comprehensive court management system that interlinks cases 
across  courts  and  prosecutor  offices.  While  efficiency  shows  a  positive  trend  for  civil, 
commercial, and criminal cases, there are serious challenges in the handling of administrative 
cases and constitutional complaints.  

The adoption of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period of 2023-2028 and the 
accompanying  Action  Plan  are  still  pending.  The  legal  framework  for  the  fight  against 
corruption is broadly in place, however shortcomings exist in practice. Whilst most forms of 
corruption are criminalised, further improvement is needed to establish a robust track record 
on  investigations,  indictments  and  final  convictions  in  high-level  corruption  cases.  The 
Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Organised  Crime  remains  understaffed  and  there  is  the  risk  of 
politically motivated interference into high-level  corruption investigations and prosecutions. 
Shortcomings exist in the verification and enforcement of asset declarations, and on political 
party  financing.  Regulation  on  lobbying  is  limited  in  scope  and  the  legislation  on 
whistleblower protection is not yet aligned with the EU acquis. Public procurement is a high-
risk  corruption  area,  in  particular,  as  regards  several  exemptions  from  the  Law  on  public 
procurement.  

Media  legislation  was  amended  in  2023  to  align  it  with  the  EU  acquis  and  European 
standards.  However,  further  amendments  are  needed  for  full  compliance.  The  Regulatory 
Authority  for  Electronic  Media  fails  to  fully  exercise  its  mandate  to  safeguard  media 
pluralism  and  professional  standards,  and  there  are  also  serious  concerns  about  its 
independence. The Press Council, a self-regulatory body, monitors print media’s compliance 
with  the  Serbian  Journalists’  Code  of  Ethics.  The  measures  for  addressing  transparency  in 
ownership structures and in advertising from state resources, proposed in the media strategy, 
have  yet  to  be  fully  implemented.  Against  the  background  of  complaints  about  biased 
reporting,  issues  of  editorial  autonomy  and  pluralism  of  public  service  media  need  to  be 
addressed.  Journalists  continue  to  face  either  frequent  refusals  by  public  bodies  to  disclose 
information of public importance or no response at all. The safety of journalists is a source of 
concern as is the growing pressure by abusive lawsuits. 

Parliament’s ability to ensure the exercise of necessary checks and balances is constrained by 
issues of effectiveness, autonomy, and transparency, including in terms of the oversight of the 
executive  and  the  law-making  process.  The  process  of  public  consultation  needs  further 
strengthening.  There  are  four  vacant  positions  at  the  Constitutional  Court  still  to  be  filled. 
There are three independent  bodies protecting fundamental  rights,  namely the Ombudsman, 
the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection and the 
Commissioner for the Protection of Equality, but follow-up given to the recommendations is 
not always clear. Although several elements of the legal framework are in place, civil society 
organisations lack an enabling environment for their establishment, operations and financing. 

1 

 
 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The court system in Serbia consists of courts of general jurisdiction, namely 66 basic and 25 
higher courts, 61 courts of special jurisdiction1, six courts of appeal2 and a Supreme Court. 
The latter is  the highest  instance in  the judicial system for both  the general  and the special 
jurisdiction  courts.  The  Constitutional  Court  has  a  broad  jurisdiction  and  is  competent  for 
scrutinising  the  constitutionality  of  legislation.  The  High  Judicial  Council  and  the  High 
Prosecutorial Council decide on appointing, promoting, evaluating, transferring, suspending, 
and dismissing judges and prosecutors3. The prosecution system consists of 58 basic Public 
Prosecutors’  offices,  25  Higher  Public  Prosecutors’  offices  and  four  appellate  public 
prosecutors’  offices mirroring the jurisdiction of  the respective courts.  The Supreme Public 
Prosecution Office (SPPO) of Serbia is the highest public prosecution instance in the country, 
headed  by  the  Supreme  Public  Prosecutor,  who  can  issue  mandatory  instructions  both  of  a 
general nature and in individual cases4. The independence of the judiciary and the autonomy 
of  the  prosecution  service  are  enshrined  in  the  Constitution5.  Serbia  is  yet  to  conclude 
working  arrangements  for  cooperation  with  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office 
(EPPO)6.  The Serbian Bar Association is the framework organisation of Serbian attorneys, 
and its independence is set out in the Constitution.  

Independence  

The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  in  Serbia  is  low  among  both  the  general 
public  and  companies.  Overall,  36%  of  the  general  population  and  34%  of  companies 
perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 20247.  

The  implementation  of  a  constitutional  reform  to  strengthen  judicial  independence  is 
ongoing with further implementing laws to be amended. The Constitution was amended in 
2022 to strengthen judicial independence, notably by transferring the competence to appoint 
judges  and  prosecutors  from  the  National  Assembly  to  the  High  Judicial  Council  and  the 
High  Prosecutorial  Council.  Five  laws8  were  amended  in  February  2023  to  implement  the 

1   These are 16 commercial courts, 44 misdemeanour courts, and the Administrative Court. As regard the latter, 

the next-highest instance is the Supreme Court. 

2   Four  Appellate  Courts  of  general  jurisdiction,  the  Commercial  Appellate  Court  and  the  Misdemeanour 

Appellate Court. 

3   Constitution of Serbia, Art. 150 (2) an Art. 162 92); Law on the High Judicial Council Art. 17; Law on the 

High Prosecutorial Council, Art. 17.  

4   The Supreme Public Prosecutor is elected by the National Assembly with three-fifths majority upon proposal 
of  the  High  Prosecutorial  Council.  He/she  can  issue  mandatory  general  instructions  for  the  conduct  of  all 
chief public prosecutors and individual mandatory instructions for acting in a particular case. Constitution of 
Serbia, Art. 157 and Art. 158. 

5   Constitution of Serbia, Art. 4, Art. 142 and Art. 155.  
6   Serbia  has  expressed  the  intention  to  conclude  a  working  agreement  with  EPPO  and  works  currently  on 
overcoming remaining technical and legal issues. Input from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 127 
and written contribution from Serbia received in the context of the country visit to Serbia, p. 119.   

7   Eurobarometer  survey  FL540,  conducted  among  the  general  public between  14  February  and  27  February 
2024,  and  Eurobarometer  survey  FL541,  conducted  among  companies  between  14  February  and  5  March 
2024.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is  categorised  as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of 
respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good and very good); low (between 30-39%), average 
(between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%).  

8   Law on the High Judicial Council, Law on the High Prosecutorial Council, Law on the Public Prosecutor’s 

Office, Law on Judges and Law on the Organisation of Courts. 

2 

 
 
constitutional  changes.  These  were  overall  positively  assessed  by  the  Venice  Commission, 
which  also  recognised  the  transparency  and  inclusiveness  of  the  process9.  As  part  of  this 
reform  process,  the  High  Judicial  Council10  and  the  High  Prosecutorial  Council11  were 
established in May 2023 in their new composition12. Both Councils have taken measures to 
improve the transparency of their work, including by publishing the agenda and minutes of 
their meetings on their websites and by live-streaming the meetings of the High Prosecutorial 
Council13. Two further implementing laws remain to be amended, namely the Law on Seats 
and  Territorial  Jurisdiction  of  Courts  and  the  Law  on  the  Judicial  Academy14.  The 
Government  is  currently  reconsidering  the  need  to  amend  the  Law  on  Seats  and  Territorial 
Jurisdiction  of  Courts15,  and  intends  to  consult  the  European  Commission  and  the  Venice 
Commission  on  the  draft  Law  on  the  Judicial  Academy16.  Furthermore,  the  details  of  the 
implementing laws are to be specified through the adoption of 37 by-laws by May 2024. To 
date,  sixteen  by-laws  have  been  adopted  by  the  High  Judicial  Council  and  nineteen  by  the 
High  Prosecutorial  Council17.  However,  no  steps  were  taken  on  reforms  concerning  the 
Constitutional Court, in particular with regard to the introduction of a qualified majority with 
an  anti-deadlock  mechanism  for  the  election  of  some  of  the  judges  by  Parliament,  as 
underlined by the Venice Commission18. 

A  new  appeal  procedure  to  the  Constitutional  Court  for  judicial  appointments  is  in 
place, whereas a considerable number of vacancies for judges and prosecutors remains 
to  be  filled.  The  2022  constitutional  amendments  introduced  a  new  appeal  procedure  for 

9   Venice Commission opinion (CDL-PI(2023)005), p. 3.  
10   There are 11 members of the High Judicial Council, namely six judges elected by their peers, four prominent 
lawyers elected by the National Assembly with qualified majority and the President of the Supreme Court as 
“ex-officio” member. If the National Assembly were not to appoint the four prominent lawyers within a legal 
deadline,  a  five-member  Commission  (composed  of  Parliament  Speaker,  President  of  the  Constitutional 
Court, President of the Supreme Court, Supreme Public Prosecutor and the Ombudsman) elects these with a 
majority vote as anti-deadlock mechanism. 

11   There are 11 members of the High Prosecutorial Council, which include five public prosecutors elected by 
their peers, four prominent lawyers elected by the National Assembly with qualified majority, as well as the 
Supreme Public Prosecutor and the  Minister of Justice  as “ex-officio” members. If the National Assembly 
were  not  to  appoint  the  four  prominent  lawyers  within  a  legal  deadline,  a  five-member  Commission 
(composed  of  Parliament  Speaker,  President  of  the  Constitutional  Court,  President  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
Supreme  Public  Prosecutor  and  the  Ombudsman)  elects  these  with  a  majority  vote  as  anti-deadlock 
mechanism. 

12   The transitional provisions of the law on the High Judicial Council and the law on the Prosecutorial Council 
foresaw  that  the  four  lay  members  of  each  Council  needed  to  be  re-elected  (Law  on  the  High  Judicial 
Council, Art.  63;  Law  on  the  High  Prosecutorial  Council, Art.  63).  The  election  procedure  started  on  19 
April 2023 and only one lay member received the required 2/3 majority Parliament. Therefore, the remaining 
seven lay members (three for the HJC and four for the HPC) were selected by the five-member anti-deadlock 
commission on 8 May 2023. Before the voting, the five-member commission held public interviews with the 
candidates.  Candidates  were  shortlisted  by  the  Parliamentary  Committee  on  Judiciary  following  a  public 
competition. 

13   Input from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, pp. 101 ff. and written contribution from Serbia received 

in the context of the country visit to Serbia, pp. 103 ff.  

14   Revised action plan for Chapter 23 adopted in June 2020, action 1.1.3. 
15   Written contribution from Serbia received in the context of the country visit to Serbia, p. 63. 
16   The plan of the Ministry of Justice is to present the amendments to the law on the Judicial Academy at the 
October 2024 plenary of the Venice Commission. Input from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 97.  
17   The two outstanding by-laws are the Courts Rulebook on Procedure and the Rulebook on Administration in 
Public Prosecution Office. Written contribution received from Serbia. See for an original overview of all by-
laws input from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, pp. 97 ff.  

18   Venice Commission, CDL-AD (2021)032, para. 96. 

3 

 
 
judges  and  prosecutors  to  the  Constitutional  Court  against  decisions  of  the  High  Judicial 
Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, which was used for the first time in the context 
of the appointment procedures for judges and prosecutors in 202319. The High Prosecutorial 
Council elected 46 prosecutors in June 2023 and 17 appeals were filed to the Constitutional 
Court  disputing  the  correct  application  of  the  legal  framework  and  lack  of  sufficient 
reasoning for the decision. The Constitutional Court dismissed all of those appeals in January 
2024  through  inadmissibility  decisions.  In  January  2024,  the  High  Prosecutorial  Council 
elected 89 prosecutors, 78 of which have already taken office. For the remaining 11 elected 
prosecutors 14 appeals were submitted to the Constitutional Court, which are not yet decided. 
Currently,  there  are  210  vacancies  out  of  894  public  prosecutors’  positions20.  The  High 
Judicial  Council  appointed  276  judges  between  10  May  and  31  December  2023  and  25 
appeals  were  submitted  against  the  appointments  to  the  Constitutional  Court.  The 
Constitutional  Court  rejected  all  these  appeals  through  inadmissibility  decisions.21.  In  2024 
the High Judicial Council appointed so far 63 judges22. Currently, there are 384 vacancies out 
of  3 102  judges’  positions23.  Both  the  High  Judicial  Council  and  the  High  Prosecutorial 
Council have already opened new competitions in 202424.  

Political pressure on the judiciary and the prosecution services remains high, with little 
or  no  follow-up  by  the  High  Judicial  and  Prosecutorial  Councils,  the  Government  or 
Parliament.  Government  officials,  including  at  the  highest  level,  and  members  of 
Parliament,  continue  to  make  undue  public  comments  on  ongoing  investigations  and  court 
proceedings, including as regards the work of individual prosecutors and judges. While such 
comments  are  in  contradiction  with  the  code  of  conduct  of  members  of  Government  and 
Parliament,  neither  of  those  institutions  have  so  far  acted  in  response25.  In  addition,  these 
incidents  raise  also  questions  of  leaking  of  information  by  institutions  involved  in  criminal 
proceedings,  since  some  of  these  undue  public  comments  contained  information  from 
ongoing  cases  which  was  not  in  the  public  domain.  In  particular,  the  unclear  separation  of 
competences for criminal investigations between the police and prosecution on the one hand, 
and  the  Security  Intelligence  Agency  (BIA)  on  the  other  hand,  poses  additional 
confidentiality  risks26.  In  terms  of  safeguards,  the  current  rules  of  procedure  of  the  High 
Judicial  Council  and  the  High  Prosecutorial  Council,  in  principle,  lay  the  foundation  for  a 

19   Constitution of Serbia, Articles 153 and 165. Stakeholders showed mixed reactions during the country visit 
with regard to this new appeal procedure. While the Supreme Public Prosecutor and the High Prosecutorial 
Council underlined that in their view the new appeal mechanism would lead to delays in the election process 
of  prosecutors,  there  is  also  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  Constitutional  Court  and  stakeholders 
regarding  the  legality  of  inadmissibility  decisions  of  the  Small  Council  of  the  Constitutional  Court  in  this 
subject matter. Written contributions from the Constitutional Court and the Association of Prosecutors in the 
context  of  the  country  visit  to  Serbia  and  Information  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  from  the  High 
Prosecutorial Council and the Supreme Public Prosecutor.  

20   Written contribution from High Prosecutorial Council in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
21    Written contribution received from Serbia.  
22   Written contribution from the High Judicial Council in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
23   Written contribution from Serbia in the context of the country visit to Serbia, p. 89. 
24   The High Prosecutorial Council has currently ongoing competitions for 166 public prosecutors and 37 chief 
prosecutors.  The  High  Judicial  Council  has  opened  four  competitions  for  199  judges  in  2024.  Written 
contribution  from  Serbia  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Serbia,  pp.  89  f.  and  webpage  of  the  High 
Judicial Council. 

25   The  competent  Parliamentary  Committee  on Administrative,  Budgetary,  Mandate  and  Immunity  explained 
that it developed no activities in this regard as it can only act upon complaints, which it has not received. 
Written contribution from Serbia in the context of the country visit to Serbia, p. 68.  
26   This concern was also stated by stakeholders in the context of the country visit to Serbia.  

4 

 
 
more  effective  reaction  and  protection  mechanism  for  judges  and  prosecutors  in  cases  of 
undue  influence.  However,  despite  these  steps  taken,  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  observe  in 
practice  a  significant  reduction  of  undue  influence  on  judges  and  prosecutors  and  a  more 
proactive  role  needs  to  be  exercised  by  both  Councils.  In  2023,  seven  new  requests  for 
protection from undue influence on the work of judges were submitted to the High Judicial 
Council. Proceedings were suspended in two cases, and so far, no undue influence has been 
established in the remaining five cases. In 2023, the High Prosecutorial Council received 33 
requests on alleged undue influence and all 33 cases were deemed unfounded. In 2024, four 
requests of undue influence were submitted to the  High Prosecutorial Council, all of which 
were considered unfounded27.  

The  laws  on  the  Public  Prosecution  Office  and  the  High  Prosecutorial  Council  were 
amended with the aim to strengthen safeguards for prosecutorial autonomy. In line with 
the constitutional  amendments,  the revised laws  on Public Prosecution Office  and the High 
Prosecutorial  Council  contain  new  safeguards  to  strengthen  prosecutorial  autonomy. 
Prosecutors  can  file  complaints  against  mandatory  instructions  to  the  High  Prosecutorial 
Council  in  case  they  consider  the  instructions  as  “illegal”  or  “unfounded”28.  In  2023,  five 
objections to instructions were made and six in 2024, out of which four were confirmed and 
the related mandatory instructions annulled, and seven were rejected29. 

Quality  

Serbia  still  lacks  a  uniform  and  centralised  court  management  system  that  interlinks 
cases across courts and prosecutor offices. Currently not all prosecution offices and courts 
are  covered  by  the  same  case  management  system  and  the  different  systems  are  not 
interoperable.  The  case  management  system  for  prison  administration  has  been  operational 
since  December  2021  and  the  new  case  management  system  for  the  prosecution  offices  is 
expected  to  be  finalised  in  by  the  end  of  2024.  The  implementation  of  the  new  case 
management  system  for  courts  is  currently  stalled30.  While  the  implementation  of  the  ICT 
Strategy  is  ongoing,  the  concrete  state  of  play  is  difficult  to  ascertain31.  In  terms  of  online 
accessibility of information for the general public, the Constitutional Court is taking steps to 

27   Written  contribution  from  Serbia  in  the  context of  country visit  to  Serbia pp.  66  fand  written  contribution 

from High Prosecutorial Council in the context of the country visit to Serbia.  

28   According  to Article  16  of  the  law  on  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  an  immediately  higher  chief  public 
prosecutor may issue mandatory instructions to a lower chief public prosecutor for proceeding in a specific 
case if there is doubt about the effectiveness or legality of their actions, or that of the directly lower public 
prosecutor. Article 17 provides for the legal remedy to the High Prosecutorial Council. 

29   Written contribution from High Prosecutorial Council in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
30   Input from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 112. The project is facing implementation difficulties 
due  to  a  different  interpretation  on  the  scope  of  the  contractual  obligations  for  the  development  of  the 
software between the contractor and the Ministry of Justice. 

31   Serbia has not yet shared an implementation report on the strategy with the Commission. The written input 
contained  no  reference  to  specific  implementation  measures  or  timelines  and  only  general  information  on 
various processes, for example the delivery of computers and ongoing public procurements for the purchase 
of more computers and network protection services, or the adoption of instructions and procedures. See input 
from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, pp. 110 ff. and written contribution from Serbia in the context 
of the country visit to Serbia, pp. 100 ff.  

5 

 
 
improve  visibility  and  transparency  of  its  work  and  to  enable  easier  access  to  the  court 
practice database of both domestic and European Court of Human Rights judgments32. 

While the implementation of the Strategy on Human Resources in the Judiciary 2022-
2026  is  ongoing,  the  low  attractiveness  of  judicial  careers  poses  a  challenge.  The 
implementation  of  the  Strategy  on  Human  Resources  in  the  Judiciary  2022-2026  is 
continuing. However, the activities undertaken so far have focused on problem analysis while 
concrete  follow  up  activities  still  need  to  be  taken33.  Stakeholders  underlined  the  need  to 
make  judicial  careers  more  attractive  including  an  increase  of  the  current  salaries34.  Initial 
and continuous judicial training is delivered by the Judicial Training Academy, which applies 
appropriate  quality  assurance  mechanisms  to  the  whole  training  cycle.  The  Academy’s 
capacity  and  internal  expertise  for  delivering  sufficient  initial  and  continuous  training 
presents potential for further strengthening, in particular for training on EU law35. 

Efficiency 

Efficiency shows a positive trend for civil, commercial, and criminal cases, while there 
are  serious  challenges  in  the  handling  of  administrative  cases  and  constitutional 
complaints.  The  clearance  rate  for  first  and  second  instance  civil  and  commercial  cases 
between  2021  and  2022,  has  improved  significantly  from  74%  to  178%  for  first  instance 
cases,  while  the  disposition  time  in  both  instances  decreased36.  For  criminal  cases  the 
clearance rate and the disposition time improved for both first instance and second  instance 
cases  between  2021  and  202237.  A  negative  trend  was  however  observed  on  administrative 
cases. Due to a stark increase in the number of incoming first instance administrative cases, 
their clearance rate fell from 56% in 2021 to 39% in 2022 and the disposition time increased 

32   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 28. 
33  An  implementation  report  of  the  Strategy  for  Human  resources  in  the  judiciary  2022-2026  has  been 
prepared.. According to the Ministry of Justice the next follow-up activity is the drafting of a separate law on 
position  of  court  and  prosecutorial  staff  after  the  establishment  of  the  respective  Working  Group.  Written 
contribution from Serbia in the context of the country visit to Serbia, p. 102. 

34   Information received in the context of the country visit  to Serbia from the High Judicial Council, the High 
Prosecutorial Council and the Associations for Judges and Prosecutors. In the last years the salaries of judges 
and prosecutors were only raised once as part of a general increase of 10% for the whole public sector as of 
January 2024 with a view to balance the high inflation rate. Written contribution from Serbia in the context 
of the country visit to Serbia, p. 92. 

35   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 26.  
36   For second instance cases the clearance rate increased from 74% in 2021 to 94% in 2022. The disposition 
time decreased for first instance civil and commercial cases from 403 days in 2021 to 299 days in 2022 and 
for  second  instance  cases  from  348  to  326  days.  CEPEJ  (2023),  Dashboard  Western  Balkans  –  Data 
collection 2022. 

37   The  clearance rate for first instance criminal cases improved from 99 % in 2021 to 108% in 2022 and for 
second instance cases by 0,6% to 100 % in 2022. The disposition time decreased for first instance cases from 
145  days  in  2021  to  105  days  in  2022  and  for  second  instance  cases  from  34  to  33  days.  CEPEJ  (2023), 
Dashboard Western Balkans – Data collection 2022. 

6 

 
 
from  1 089 days  in  2021 to  1 528 in 202238. Furthermore, a high  number of cases (41 279) 
are pending before the Constitutional Court, 99.38% of which are constitutional complaints39.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  is  a  dedicated,  autonomous  corruption 
prevention body with competences in areas such as public officials’ conflicts of interest, asset 
declarations, political party and campaign finance and oversight of the implementation of the 
National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  and  the  corresponding  Action  Plan40.  Since  2020,  the 
Agency can also initiate the adoption or amendment of legislation and  provide opinions on 
the assessment of the risk of corruption in draft legislation. The Agency is accountable to the 
National  Assembly,  to  which  it  reports  annually  on  its  operations.  The  Anti-Corruption 
Council  acts  as  a  policy  advisory  body  to  the  Government  with  monitoring  and  policy 
proposal functions. The Government is subject to financial and economic control of the use 
of  public  funds  by  the  autonomous  State  Audit  Institution,  which  is  accountable  to  the 
National Assembly. For the repression of corruption, Serbia has specialised entities in place, 
including the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime which is the main prosecutorial 
body in charge of high-level corruption cases. In addition, there are specialised police units41, 
regional prosecution offices42 and specialised courts43.  

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  is  high.  In  the  2023  Corruption  Perception  Index  by  Transparency 
International, Serbia scores 36/100 and ranks 104th globally44. This perception has remained 
relatively stable over the past five years45.  

The adoption of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period of 2023-2028 and 
the accompanying Action Plan are still pending. Serbia has consulted the Commission on 

38   The incoming first instance administration cases increased by 64% in 2022 compared to 2021, and could not 
be  offset  by  the  13%  increase  in  resolved  cases;  as  a  result,  the  clearance  rate  and  disposition  time 
deteriorated.  The  pending  first  instance  administration  cases  increased  by  59  %  from  2021  to  2022  and 
reached  1.52  cases  per  100 000  inhabitants.  CEPEJ  (2023),  Dashboard Western  Balkans  –  Data  collection 
2022. 

39   Written contribution from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
40   Law on prevention of corruption. 
41  In the Criminal Police Directorate, the Anti-Corruption Department consists of nine sections: the Department 
of  Coordination  and  Planning  and  the  Anti-  Corruption  sections  in  Belgrade,  Novi  Sad,  Niš,  Kraljevo, 
Subotica, Zajecar, Jagodina and Uzice. 

42   Four  Specialised  Anti-Corruption  Departments  exist  within  the  Higher  Prosecution  Offices  in  Belgrade, 

Novi Sad, Niš and Kraljevo. 

43   Specialised  Anti-Corruption  Departments  exist  in  the  Higher  Courts  in  Belgrade,  Novi  Sad,  Niš  and 
Kraljevo,  which  oversee  first-instance  trials.  Appeals  are  processed  by  the  ordinary  sections  of  the 
corresponding  appellate  courts.  In  Belgrade,  the  Special  Department  for  Organised  Crime  of  the  Higher 
Court  and  the  Special  Department  for  Organised  Crime  of  the  Appellate  Court  have  been  established  to 
investigate corruption with a link to organised crime. 

44   Transparency International (2024), Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. The level of perceived corruption is 
categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public  sector 
corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores between 79-60), relatively high (scores between 59¬50), 
high (scores below 50). 

45   In  2018,  the  score  was  39,  while  in  2023  the  score  decreased  to  36.  The  score  significantly 
increases/decreases  when  it  changes  more  than  five  points;  improves/deteriorates  (changes  between  4-5 
points); is relatively stable (changes from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

7 

 
 
a  new  strategy  2023-202846.  Several  long-standing  recommendations  of  the  European 
Commission on issues such as, improving the track record of confiscating assets in corruption 
cases,  amending  legislation  to  improve  the  capacity  of  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption,  protecting  whistleblowers,  and  investigating  high-level  corruption  cases,  have 
been  included  in  a  new  draft  Strategy47.  The  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  is 
vested  with  the  powers  to  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  strategy  and  action  plan48, 
submitting progress reports to the National Assembly, including recommendations49.  

Most  forms  of  corruption  are  criminalised.  Serbia  has  a  broad  legal  and  regulatory 
framework  in  place  covering  most  corruption  crimes  of  the  UN  Convention  against 
Corruption (UNCAC), to which Serbia is a party. Illicit enrichment is not criminalised. The 
Criminal  Code  was  amended  extensively  in  2016  to  increase  alignment  with  relevant 
international  conventions  on  corruption50  and  to  include  crimes  against  the  economy  and 
crimes  against  official  duty51.  Serbia  is  not  a  signatory  party  to  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery 
Convention. 

Serbia has established specialised departments for suppressing corruption in the public 
prosecutor’s  offices,  courts,  and  the  police.  As  regards  the  repression  of  corruption,  the 
Law  on  the  organisation  and  jurisdiction  of  state  authorities  in  suppression  of  organised 
crime, terrorism and corruption52 is in force. It notably introduced specialisation in the police, 
public  prosecutor’s  offices  and  the  courts  for  these  types  of  crimes,  as  well  as  modern 
prosecution  and  investigation  tools.  This  includes  the  establishment  of  task  forces,  liaison 

46   The  last  strategy  that  Serbia  had  in  place  was  the  National Anti-Corruption  Strategy  for  the  period  2013-
2018; Revised Action plan for the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period 
2013-2018. Anti-corruption benchmarks are included, and implementation is monitored by the Action Plan 
under Chapter 23 of the EU Accession process. 

47  Commission  expert  assessment  of  the  National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  (2023-2028)  and  Action  Plan 

(2023-2024). 

48   It is expected that the draft Action Plan will enter public consultations immediately after the adoption of the 
National  Strategy.  The  deadline  for  the  Action  Plan’s  adoption  is  90  days  following  the  adoption  of  the 
National  Strategy.  Preparation  of  the  second  action  plan  covering  the  period  2024-2028  is  expected  to 
commence following the adoption of the National Strategy and the first Action Plan (2023-2024). 

49   According  to  the  Law  on  Prevention  of  Corruption,  the Agency  can  issue recommendations  for  actions  as 
well as for improvements in the implementation and, when necessary, initiate changes and additions to the 
Strategy.  For  the  purpose  of  coordination  of  monitoring  the  implementation  of  the  National  Strategy,  a 
Working Body is established by Government decision, at the latest 30 days after the adoption of the Strategy, 
according to input from Serbia for the 2024 Rule of Law Report. The annual reports of the Agency for the 
Prevention of Corruption are published on its website.  

50   With these changes, the Criminal Code was aligned to a great extent with inter alia the Council of Europe 
Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, the UN Convention against corruption, the OECD Convention on 
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. 

51   The list of criminal offences against official duty includes: abuse of office (Article 359), public prosecutor or 
his  deputy  (Article 360), dereliction  of  duty  (Article 361), unlawful  collection  and payment  (Article  362), 
spending funds from the budget for a purpose other than designated (Article 362a), fraud in service (Article 
363),  embezzlement  (Article  364),  unauthorised  use  (Article  365),  trading  in  influence  (Article  366), 
soliciting  and  accepting  bribes  (Article  367)  and  bribery  (Article  368),  and  revealing  of  official  secret 
(Article  369).  In  addition  to  those  listed  here,  several  other  criminal  offences  related  to  corruption  are 
included  in  the  criminal  code,  notably:  abuse  of  position  by  a  responsible  person  (Article  227),  abuse 
concerning public procurement (Article 228) and abuse in privatisation procedure (Article 228a), which all 
belong to the group of criminal offences against economic interests. 

52   Law on the organisation and jurisdiction of state authorities in suppression of organised crime, terrorism and 

corruption. 

8 

 
 
officers  and  financial  forensic  specialists53.  The  lack  of  specific  provisions  in  the  law 
regulating the role and mandate of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime as the overall 
coordinator for the special departments of the higher public prosecutors’ offices hinders their 
effectiveness in practice54. The four specialised departments for combating corruption should 
each have one financial forensic expert, yet these positions remain vacant55. 

Further improvements are needed to establish a robust track record on investigations, 
indictments,  and  final  convictions  in  high-level  corruption  cases,  including  the  seizure 
and confiscation of criminal assets. In 2023, the number of final convictions in high-level 
corruption  cases  increased  to  30  from  21  in  the  previous  year.  The  Prosecutor’s  Office  for 
Organised  Crime  ordered  investigations  against  39  individuals  (34  in  2022)  and  59 
indictments  were  issued.  However,  only  ten  indictments  were  confirmed  by  the  courts.  For 
the first time since 2019, one case before the Special Department for Organised Crime of the 
Higher  Court  resulted  in  the  final  confiscation  of  illegally  acquired  assets.  Regarding  the 
confiscation of property gain  on the basis of the criminal  code, there were nine such cases. 
Final  convictions  in  high-profile56  corruption  cases  remain  rare57.  Proactive  criminal 
investigations,  including  pre-seizure  planning  and  a  systematic  tracking  of  money  flows, 
aimed not only at asset recovery, but also at gathering circumstantial evidence of inexplicable 
wealth, are still not common practice58. 

The  Prosecutor’s  Office  for  Organised  Crime,  which  has  jurisdiction  over  high-level 
corruption cases, remains understaffed. Since May 2021, two financial forensic experts59 
have been employed by the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime. However, it still needs 
to recruit six prosecutors to fill all 25 posts60. A key issue in this regard relates to the lack of 
adequate working premises to accommodate new staff. In relation to investigation capacities, 
the  Ministry  of  Interior’s  Service  for  Combating  Organised  Crime  and  Anti-Corruption 
Section continued to investigate high-level corruption on the orders of the Prosecutor’s Office 

53   The  Law  on  organisation  and  competence of  state  authorities  in  suppression  of organised  crime,  terrorism 
and corruption establishes special departments for suppressing corruption in the public prosecutor's offices, 
courts  and  police.  The  special  departments  represent  both  a  regional  and  a  specialised  approach  for 
corruption  criminal offenses.  In  addition,  the  law  includes the  use  of  specific  task  forces  for  investigating 
corruption  related  offences,  comprised  of  police  officers  and  representatives  of  other  relevant  government 
authorities; the appointment of liaison officers for contact with the prosecutor’s office in different authorities 
and  the  police  in  every  authority  which  comes  across  facts  connected  to  financial  crimes  and  introduced 
financial forensic specialists within Public Prosecutor’s offices.  

54   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 36. 
55   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 36. 
56  In 2023, investigations were initiated against the president and judge of the Higher Court in Zajecar and a 
judge of the Misdemeanor Court in Loznica, and indictments were issued against Police Assistant Director, 
the Chief of Police administration in Novi Sad, the Head of Traffic in the police administration of Prijepolje, 
the Head of the Anti-corruption Section in Uzice, Criminal police administration and two police officers. 
57  Similarly, the Freedom House (2024), Freedom in the World Report  is highlighting stakeholders’ views on 
the common practice of political cronyism and close links between the Government and organised crime. 

58  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 53. 
59   They are engaged in all phases of criminal proceedings, but also in proceedings for the extended confiscation 

of proceeds from crime. 

60   The total number of posts is insufficient considering that Serbia has a prosecution-led pre-investigation and 
investigation  system.  Moreover,  the  current  premises  of  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  is  not  sufficient  to 
accommodate new staff. 

9 

 
 
for  Organised  Crime61.  Greater  transparency  of  the  prosecution  service  and  courts,  and 
enhanced  oversight  by  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  over  the  reasoning  provided  for  the 
dismissal  of  criminal  corruption  charges  or  lengthy  corruption  investigations  would 
contribute to strengthening public trust and fostering accountability among law enforcement 
officials62.  

interference 

is  risk  of  politically  motivated 

There 
into  high-level  corruption 
investigations  and prosecutions although new safeguards have been introduced.  In this 
context,  civil  society  organisations  highlighted  in  particular  reluctance  on  the  side  of  the 
prosecution  and  the  police  to  pursue  investigations  against  suspects  of  corruption  who  are 
close  to  political  and  economic  power  as  a  concern63.  There  has  been  a  case,  where 
investigating  prosecutors  of  the  Higher  Public  Prosecution  Office  were  removed  from  a 
corruption and money-laundering case concerning a state-owned enterprise and transferred to 
the General Crime Department in Belgrade, with reportedly insufficient justification64. Their 
removal from the case led to widespread criticism65. The disciplinary charges filed by the two 
deputy  prosecutors  against  their  superiors’  decision  for  transfer  were  dismissed  by  the 
disciplinary prosecutor of the High Prosecutorial Council, maintaining that the transfers were 
in accordance with the law. However, the Commissioner for the independence of prosecutors 
noted that the transfersshould not have taken place while proceedings were ongoing66. New 
safeguards against such transfers and allocations of cases of prosecutors were introduced with 
the  amendments  of  the  law  on  the  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office,  which  now  provides  for  a 
proper written justification and a right of appeal to the High Prosecutorial Council67. 

The  verification  and  enforcement  of  asset  declarations  presents  weaknesses.  Public 
officials  including  Members  of  Parliament  are  subject  to  asset  disclosure  rules68.  Elected 
officials  are  obliged,  within  30  days  of  taking  up  office,  to  file  an  asset  declaration  that 
should reflect their respective situation on election day69. The definition of public official set 
out  in  the  Law  on  prevention  of  corruption,  covers  most  officials  with  top  executive 

61   Serbia  has  committed  to  participate  in  the  second  phase  of  the  multi-country  programme  aimed  at 
“Supporting  a  More  Effective Administration  of  Justice  in  Corruption  and  Organised  Crime  Cases  in  the 
Western Balkans through Trial Monitoring”, which is implemented by the OSCE. 

62  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 36. 
63   Information received in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
64   According to media reporting, the deputy prosecutors were replaced by the anti-corruption department of the 
Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office “without explanation”. European Western Balkans (2023), The corruption 
case in Serbian state company EPS  – What we  know so far?.  N1 (2023), EC: We follow developments in 
Serbian High Public Prosecutor’s Office.  

65   Euronews  Serbia  (02.03.2023)  Protests  in  support  of  the  prosecutors.  2023  Communication  on  EU 

Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 24.  

66   The deputy prosecutors had been working on a corruption case and a money laundering case related to the 
state-owned  Electric  Power  Company  of  Serbia. The  transfer  was  made  in  the  middle of  the  investigation 
and after the arrest of suspects. Even if the Commissioner for Independence assessed that the transfer was 
conducted  in  accordance  with  the  law,  it  noted  that  the  transfer  should  not  have  taken  place  during  the 
proceedings of such a high-profile case. The new judicial legislation implementing the 2022 constitutional 
amendments  has  now  introduced  safeguards  in  relation  to  mandatory  instructions  and  the  reallocation  of 
work within the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 

67   2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 24. 
68   The duty for public officials to file an asset declaration is prescribed in Article 68 of the Law on prevention 

of corruption. 

69   Article 68 Law on prevention of corruption. 

10 

 
 
functions70. However, certain individuals with potentially high influence, such as advisors to 
the president, prime-minister and ministers and heads of cabinets, are not considered public 
officials71. The Agency for the Prevention of Corruption is responsible for the monitoring and 
verification  of  public  officials’  asset  declarations.  Its  role  was  strengthened  by  the 
amendments to the Law on prevention of corruption72, but sanctions for non-compliance are 
uncommon73. The human and technical resources of the Agency are too limited to carry out 
its  corruption  prevention  tasks  in  a  comprehensive  manner74,  considering  that  of  the 
approximately 30 000 officials on the national register, as per the annual verification plan for 
2023,  the  Agency  verifies  the  asset  declarations  of  around  270  public  officials.  This 
represents less than 1% of all asset declarations in the public sector and asset declarations of 
high-level public officials are not prioritised75. 

The Anti-Corruption Council, in its advisory role to the Government, remained active 
in  exposing  and  analysing  cases  of  systemic  corruption,  however  there  is  very  limited 
follow up on its findings. The Government does not systematically consult the Council on 
draft legislation, and it does not systematically follow up on the reports and recommendations 
produced by the Council. The Council is not invited to attend Government sessions to present 
reports,  conclusions  and  recommendations76.  The  Council  lacks  the  financial  and  human 
resources  to  carry  out  its  work77.  No  steps  were  taken  in  recent  years  to  additionally 
strengthen the Anti-Corruption Council’s budgetary resources, nor to address the significant 
number of vacant positions78. The Council’s reliance on open-source data is a limiting factor 
to its work79.  

70   Article 2 of the Law on prevention of corruption. 
71   GRECO (2022), Fifth Evaluation Round,Serbia Evaluation Report, p. 4. 
72   The  law  enhances  the  Agency’s  independence,  financial  and  human  resources,  and  competences.  In 
particular, the Government cannot suspend, postpone or limit the funds intended for its operation without the 
consent of the director. It can, inter alia, provide opinions on the implementation of the Law on prevention of 
corruption  of  its  own  motion,  file  criminal  charges, request  the  initiation  of  misdemeanour  or  disciplinary 
proceedings, to initiate proceedings based on anonymous complaints and ex officio, and assess draft laws for 
risks of corruption. See Law on prevention of corruption, art. 6. 

73   Freedom House (2024), Freedom in the World Report. 
74   Similarly, GRECO  (2022),  Fifth Evaluation Round, Serbia Evaluation Report,  recommendation xiii, p. 26, 
para. 97, recommends that asset and income declarations of persons with top executive functions be subject 
to  regular  substantive  control  and  that  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  be  provided  with 
adequate resources for that purpose. 

75   Selection of cases for asset declaration verification is in part done randomly and in part established by an 
annual  verification  plan.  In  the  event  a  criminal  offense  is  detected,  Agency  submits  a  report  to  the 
competent Public Prosecutor’s Office.  

76   In  2023,  the  Council  prepared  three  reports  and  did  not  receive  any  feedback  that  the  reports  have  been 
considered,  and  in  particular whether  the  suggestions for  overcoming  the  problems  have  been  accepted  or 
rejected.  

77   Information received from the stakeholders in the framework of the country visit to Serbia. 
78   Presently the Council has six members out of 11. The Council proposed the appointment of new members to 
the Government in June 2023, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, but they are yet to be appointed 
(Information  provided  by  the  Council  during  the  Serbia  country  visit).  In  July  2017,  the  Government 
appointed two new members without consulting the Council as provided for in the Rules of Procedure (see 
2018 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 21). 

79   GRECO (2022), Fifth Evaluation Round, Serbia Evaluation Report, point 46, p.14: “The preparation of the 
Anti-Corruption  Council’s  reports  has  been  slowed  down  by  difficult  and  slow  access  to  the  necessary 
information and documents in the authorities’ possession.” 

11 

 
 
Lobbying is regulated by law however shortcomings exist considering the limited scope 
of  that  law.  Lobbying  is  regulated  in  a  dedicated  Law  on  lobbying  since  201980.  The  Law 
regulates, among others, the conditions and manner of lobbying, lobbying rules, registry and 
records related to lobbying. It requires interested representatives to register respectively in the 
Register of Lobbyists and the Register of Legal Entities Conducting Lobbying81 of which the 
Agency  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  plays  a  role  in  the  process  of  registration  and 
supervision of lobbyists and lobbying entities While it is positive that lobbying is regulated 
by  law,  the  scope  of  the  law  is  limited  in  that  only  contacts  made  formally  in  writing  to 
persons with top executive functions is considered lobbying82. Moreover, neither the records 
kept  by  the  state  authorities  on  lobbying  contacts,  nor  the  annual  report  of  lobbyists83 
submitted to the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption are made public84.  

There are weaknesses in the enforcement and oversight of political party and campaign 
financing.  Campaign  finance  is  primarily  regulated  by  the  Law  on  financing  political 
activities85  and  the  Law  on  prevention  of  corruption86.  The  2022  amendments  to  the  legal 
framework  for  political  party  and  campaign  finance  addressed  some  previous  ODIHR 
recommendations,  including  by  lowering  donation  limits,  introducing  interim  reporting  on 
donations  and  expenditures,  and  setting  ceilings  on  political  party  membership  fees  and 
loans87.  However,  other  long-standing  ODIHR  recommendations  remain  unaddressed, 
including  those  concerning  the  absence  of  a  campaign  expenditure  limit,  lack  of  rules  on 
campaigning by third parties, and the effectiveness of the oversight mechanism88. Moreover, 
whilst the Law prescribes a criminal offence related to the financing of political entities, the 
criminal  code  does  not  contain  provisions  necessary  to  implement  its  criminal  provisions, 
which limits its effectiveness in practice89. During the 2023 parliamentary election campaign, 
the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption received 48 complaints for violations of the Law 
on  financing  political  activities  and  issued  ten  reprimand  measures90.  Moreover,  28  reports 

80   Law on lobbying. 
81   The law stipulates that lobbying starts with a written notice addressed by the lobbyist to the lobbied person. 
The lobbied person is to notify the Anti-Corruption Agency of such contacts within 15 days. Moreover, the 
state authority of the lobbied person must maintain a record of contacts with the lobbyist. 

82  GRECO (2022), Fifth Evaluation Round, Serbia Evaluation Report, point 64 ff. Any other form of contacts 

is excluded from the law. 

83  Registered  lobbyists  are  required  to  submit  an  annual  activity  report  to  the  Agency  for  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption, with information on lobbying clients, lobbied persons and the subject matters of the lobbying. 
84   GRECO  (2022)  Fifth  Evaluation  Round,  Serbia  Evaluation  Report,  recommendation  ix,  p.  19,  para. 
68recommends that (i) the notion of lobbying  encompassed in the Law on lobbying be expanded to cover 
contacts with persons with top executive functions (PTEFs) whether they have been formalised in a written 
request  or  not;  (ii)  contacts  between  PTEFs  and  lobbyists/third  parties  that  seek  to  influence  the  public 
decision-making process be disclosed as well as the names of the participants and subject-matters discussed. 

85   Law on financing political activities. 
86   Law on prevention of corruption. 
87   Law on financing political activities. 
88   OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (2024), Final report; pp. 15 ff.; 2022 joint Venice Commission, 

OSCE/ODIHR report (December 2022), CDL-AD(2022)046, p. 22 ff. 
89   OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (2024), Final report; p. 17. 
90   Based on these complaints, 39 decisions were taken. Of the ten reprimand measures issued, in two cases the 
Agency issued a decision establishing violation of the Law, which was the basis for initiating misdemeanour 
proceedings.  In  addition,  the  Agency  initiated  nine  proceedings  against  political  entities  ex  officio. 
Furthermore, As regards the 2024 local elections campaign, the Agency received 38 complaints and issued 
ten reprimand measures. In addition, the Agency received 31 reports due to suspicion of violation of the Law 
on prevention of corruption as regards misuse of public resources for promoting political parties and issued 
reprimand measures in seven such cases. It initiated ex officio proceedings in ten cases that are still ongoing. 

12 

 
 
were  submitted  to  the  Agency  due  to  suspicion  of  violation  of  the  Law  on  prevention  of 
corruption as regards misuse of public resources for promoting political parties. In ten cases, 
the  Agency  established  that  high-ranking  public  officials  violated  these  requirements  and 
consequently  issued  reprimand  measures91.  No  decisions  on  violating  the  Law  on  the 
prevention  of  corruption  were  published  before  election  day,  which  reduced  its  dissuasive 
effect92.  

The  Law  on  prevention  of  corruption  includes  a  definition  of  conflict  of  interest  and 
prohibits  public  officials  from  obtaining  any  personal  benefits  or  advantages  for 
themselves or third  parties through their public office functions93. A system  is  in  place 
for  public  officials  to  report  ad  hoc  conflict  of  interests  in  the  decision-making  process, 
subject to administrative sanctions, such as a fine for failure to comply94. In 2023, the Agency 
for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  which  is  the  monitoring  and  oversight  body  over  public 
officials’  conflicts  of  interest95,  detected  issues  and  rendered  decisions  in  107  cases,  out  of 
which 19 related to conflicts of interest and nepotism of public officials96. Regarding ad hoc 
declarations of conflicts of interest notified by public officials, the Agency has also given a 
total  of  32  opinions,  including  measures  to  manage  the  conflict-of-interest  situation,  where 
such  a  situation  is  established97.  As  of  July  2024,  18  such  opinions  have  been  issued98. 
Shortcomings exist, in particular with regard to the law’s personal scope, as the rules do not 
extend to all high-ranking public officials99 who are particularly vulnerable to corruption.  

The Law on protection of whistleblowers is yet to be aligned with the EU acquis. Since 
2015, the legal framework provides protection through the court system for persons reporting 
suspicions  of  corruption  or  any  other  illegal  actions  in  cases  where  they  may  suffer 
consequences,  in  particular  regarding  their  employment  status.  Whilst  the  law  provides  a 
broad  scope  in  terms  of  its  application,  there  is  room  for  improvement  to  ensure  full 
alignment  with  EU  acquis  and  to  strengthen  support  mechanisms  for  whistleblowers 

91   Information received from the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in the context of the country visit to 
Serbia.  The  majority  of  measures  required  the  removal  of  information  published  on  political  party  media 
outlets to be removed in the case where public funding for an activity was presented erroneously as being 
paid for by the political party. 

92   OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission  (2024),  Final  report, ¨The law should be amended to require 
the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption to promptly make public its decisions on violation of the Law 
on prevention of corruption during election campaigns, along with any related appeals.’ 

93   Article 40 Law on prevention of corruption. 
94   Failure to notify a potential conflict of interest can lead to a fine between approximately EUR 850 and EUR 

1 200.  

95   According  to Art.  43  Law  on  Corruption  Prevention,  the Agency  can  initiate  procedures  upon  report  by  a 
natural  or  legal  person  as  well  as  ex  officio  to  decide on  the  existence  of  a  conflict  of  interest  within  two 
years  from  the  day  of  learning  of  actions  or  inactions  of  a  public  official  that  raised  suspicion  of  the 
existence  of  a  conflict  of  interest,  if  five  years  have  not  elapsed  since  the  action  or  inaction  of  a  public 
official that raised suspicion of the existence of a conflict of interest.  

96   Information received from the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in the context of the country visit to 

Serbia. 

97   Information received from the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in the context of the country visit to 

Serbia. 

98 Written contribution received from Serbia. 
99   For  example,  the  Chiefs  of  Cabinet  of  the  Prime  Minister  or  Deputy  Prime  Minister  or  special  and 
government  advisers  are  not  obliged  to  declare  ad  hoc  conflicts  of  interest,  see  GRECO  (2022),  Fifth 
Evaluation Round, Evaluation Report Serbia, p. 21, para. 74. 

13 

 
 
including  the  provision  of  legal  aid100.  In  particular,  the  law  does  not  expressly  include  all 
types of disclosures and persons, such as former employees, and it does not explicitly protect 
whistleblowers in the event that their disclosure is not grounded101.  

The  practice  of  appointing  acting  top  civil  servants  in  public  administration  and  in 
public  enterprises  in  breach  of  the  Law  on  civil  servants  remains  to  be  addressed102. 
With respect to transparency and integrity within the public administration, there has been no 
sizeable reduction in the excessive number of acting senior manager posts but an increase, as 
of March 2024 to 57% of filled positions occupied by people in an acting capacity, compared 
with  55%  in  June  2023103.  In  addition,  non-civil  servants  continued  to  be  appointed  on  an 
acting basis after the legal deadline of July 2019, in breach of the Law on civil servants104. 
The similar issue of acting directors in state-owned enterprises – 22 out of 34 – has yet to be 
addressed105. 

Public  procurement  is  a  high-risk  corruption  area,  in  particular  as  regards  several 
exemptions from the Law on public procurement. Public procurement is regulated by the 
Law  on  public  procurement106.  Whilst  the  Law  provides  for  basic  principles  in  the  public 
procurement system, there are widely used ways to circumvent its application107. Auditing of 
public finances is carried out by the State Audit Institution (SAI), an independent body. The 
SAI  found  irregularities  in  18.8%  of  the  total  value  of  public  procurement  contracts  they 
inspected  in  2023108.  However,  serious  resource  constraints  limit  the  scope  of  its  audits109. 
Safeguards stipulated in the Law on public procurement110 have not been applied to a number 
of recent  large-scale investment  projects111, which are particularly  vulnerable to  corruption. 
Stakeholders also report on a government practice of tailor-made procurements, irregularities 
in  tender  procedures  and  fast-track  tendering  in  government  procurements,  all  presenting  a 
risk  to  fair  competition  and  transparency112.  Corruption  allegations  have  been  raised  in 
privatisation processes, where potential buyers are announced prior to the bidding process or 
single bids procedures are applied113. A positive step was made with the repeal of the Law on 
special procedures for linear infrastructure projects, which seriously undermined the effective 
implementation  of  the  Law  on  public  procurement.  However,  challenges  exist  in  ensuring 

100  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 37. 
101  Regional Anti-Corruption Initiative (2021), Gap Analysis of Whistleblower Protection Laws in the Western 

Balkans and Moldova, pp. 89 ff.  

102  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 37. 
103  Statistics  provided  by  the  Serbian  authorities  in  the  context  of  regular  policy  dialogue  on  Public 

Administration reform (Public Administration Reform Special Group of 19 April 2024). 

104  Transparency International (2023), National Integrity System Serbia. 
105  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 37. 
106  Law on public procurement. 
107  Transparency  International  Serbia  (2023),  Civil  Society  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Chapter  II 

(Prevention) and Chapter V (Asset Recovery) of the UNCAC in Serbia.  

108  In 39 of the audited entities, it was determined that the procurement of goods, services and works was not 
carried  out  in  accordance  with  the  aforementioned  law  in  660  cases,  corresponding  to  an  amount  of  8.73 
billion dinars. Report on the State Audit Institution for the year 2023, p. 28.  

109  Bertelsmann Stiftung (2024), Serbia Country Report 2024. 
110  Articles 204-220 of the Law on Public Procurement. 
111  For  example,  this  is  reportedly  the  case  for  the  state-funded  Belgrade  Waterfront  project,  the  Moravski 
corridor  highway  constructed  by  Chinese  companies,  the  South  Stream  gas  pipeline  and  the  ESCP  2027 
exhibition area, see Freedom House (2024), Freedom in the World Report. 

112  Information received from civil society in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
113  Bertelsmann Stiftung (2024), Serbia Country Report 2024. 

14 

 
 
that  exemptions  from  the  Law  on  public  procurement  are  in  line  with  the  EU  acquis,  in 
particular in the context of intergovernmental agreements114. Other areas of particular risk to 
corruption include State-owned enterprises, concessions, bankruptcy proceedings and public-
private partnerships115. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

In  Serbia,  freedom  of  expression  and  media  freedom116  as  well  as  access  to  official 
documents are guaranteed by the Constitution and legislation, namely the Law on electronic 
media, the Law on public information and media, the Law on public service media and the 
Law on free access to information of public importance. The first two laws were amended in 
October  2023  to  align  them  with  the  EU  acquis  and  European  standards,  however  further 
amendments  are  needed  for  full  compliance117.  The  independence  of  the  Regulatory 
Authority for Electronic Media (REM) is guaranteed by the Law on electronic media.    

The  Regulatory  Authority  for  Electronic  Media  fails  to  fully  exercise  its  mandate  to 
safeguard  media  pluralism  and  professional  standards  and  there  are  also  serious 
concerns  about  its  independence.  REM  is  responsible  for  issuing  television  and  radio 
broadcasting licences and for ensuring compliance of media service providers with the Law 
on electronic media. The Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) 2024 considers the risk regarding 
the independence and effectiveness of the media authority to be medium (65%)118. All four 
television  channels  with  national  frequency  had  their  licences  renewed  by  REM  in  2022 
despite  the  fact  that  they  had  received  warnings  from  REM  due  to  violations  of  their  legal 
obligations  during  the  previous  period.  Several  of  these  channels  continued  to  violate 
applicable rules in 2023119. In August 2022, REM published a call for the allocation of a fifth 
media  service  licence  with  national  frequency,  which  has  still  not  been  awarded  within  the 
deadline published in the call, without proper justification for the delay120. REM has not been 
effective  either  in  countering  foreign  information  manipulation  or  interference,  most 
obviously in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine121. The new Law on 

114  Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 85. 
115  See the reports of the Anti-Corruption Council.  
116  Serbia ranks 98th in the 2024 Reporters without Borders World Press Freedom Index compared to 91st in the 

previous year. 

117  In their regular policy dialogue with the European Commission, the Serbian authorities have committed to 
amending the two laws, as well as adopting a new third law on public service media, by the end of 2024. 

118  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, pp. 9, 16. 
119  For  example,  in  May  2023,  in  the  context  of  tragic  mass  shootings  in  Serbia,  REM  appeared  before  the 
Parliament’s Committee for Culture and Information to present its report on media monitoring for the period 
October 2022 to March 2023, reflecting also on the topic of violence in media. Despite the fact that several 
TV channels broadcast content that encourages overt or covert hatred or violence, including by providing a 
platform  for  convicted  war  criminals,  REM  concluded  that  all  of  the  media,  except  one,  overall  met  the 
provisions  set  out  in  the  Law  on  electronic  media.  During the  reporting  period,  several TV  channels  with 
national frequencies, including TV Pink and Happy TV, fell short of their own commitments and obligations 
on programming for children, culture and education, based on which they had obtained a (renewed) national 
frequency. 2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 44. 

120  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 44. As for the delay, REM refers to the 
ongoing appeal procedure for the renewal of the four other national frequencies. Written contribution from 
Serbia.  

121  Russia  Today’s  (RT)  international  channel  in  the  English  language  was  not  banned  by  REM  and  is  still 
broadcast  in  Serbia  on  the  cable  TV.  In  addition,  in  November  2022,  RT  launched  a  local  RT  Balkan 
multimedia  web  platform  in  the  Serbian  language,  also  hosting  government  representatives  in  its  video 

15 

 
 
 
electronic media reinforced the mandate and regulatory competences of REM, giving it a new 
possibility  to  impose  financial  penalties,  which  has  not  yet  been  used122.  The  Law  on 
electronic media depoliticises the process of nominating REM Council members and requires 
that a new REM Council is appointed within one year of the entry into force of the law, by 4 
November 2024. There are doubts, however, as to whether this modification is sufficient to 
ensure  REM’s  independence  vis-a-vis  the  state  administration123.  The  law  also  introduced 
shorter  deadlines  for  REM  to  act  on  complaints  during  electoral  campaigns  but  in  its  final 
report  on  the  parliamentary  elections  of  December  2023,  OSCE/ODIHR  found  that  REM 
“maintained a passive approach”124.  

The Press Council, a self-regulatory body, monitors print media’s compliance with the 
Serbian  Journalists’  Code  of  Ethics.  Prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  new  law  on  public 
information  and  media  in  October  2023125,  the  print  media  with  the  most  violations  of  the 
Code of Ethics recorded by the Press Council126 were not precluded from receiving public co-
funding,  and  in  effect  continued  receiving  it,  especially  at  local  level127.  The  effective 
enforcement of the new provisions will need to be monitored128. 

The  measures  for  addressing  transparency  in ownership  structures  and  in  advertising 
from state resources proposed in the  media strategy have yet to be fully implemented. 
Political and economic influence on the media remains a source of concern129. From January 
2025 a new management  information system  will provide systematic information  on public 

format. On the other hand, REM rejected in December 2022 Sputnik’s application in the public competition 
for  the  issuance  of  licences  for  the  provision  of  radio  media  services  for  the  Belgrade  area.  2023 
Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 44. 

122  Article 39 of the Law on electronic media: "If the media service provider does not act in accordance with the 
imposed measure of temporary prohibition of publication of programme content or the measure of temporary 
prohibition of publication of advertising messages, the Regulatory Authority shall pass a decision imposing a 
fine on it by way of indirect coercion until it acts in accordance with the imposed measure. The amount of 
the fine shall be determined within the framework provided by the law regulating the general administrative 
procedure." Also,  it is worth noting that  REM held only four regular sessions in 2023, which are the only 
kind  of  sessions  for  which  minutes  are  published  (other  sessions  were  held  in  an  ad  hoc  manner); 
information received in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
123  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, pp. 16-17. 
124  OSCE/ODIHR  Election  Observation  Mission  (2024),  Final  Report,  p.  20.  REM  has  not  adhered  to  the 
shorter deadlines and did not publish a comprehensive report on the electoral campaign in a timely manner. 
In its regular policy dialogue with the European Commission, REM justified the delays by referring to the 
Post  of  Serbia’s  strike  during  that  period  and,  more  generally,  to  the  lack  of  time  in  preparing  for  the 
enforcement of the recently adopted new law. After the elections, on 26 December 2023, REM published a 
report that contained data  on the two public broadcasters and four cable operators, but not yet on the four 
television channels with national frequency. 

125  The new law improved legal provisions on the transparency of calls for public co-funding of media content 

by laying down binding criteria for complying with the Code of Ethics. 

126  Press Council (savetzastampu.rs). 
127  This includes those outlets having been handed down court convictions. 
128  During  the  country  visit  to  Serbia,  journalists  associations  expressed  concern  about  the  effective 
enforcement of that new law and the fact that new calls were published in early 2024 with reduced public 
funding  in  several  municipalities  and  that  the  remaining  public  funding  might  be  awarded  through  less 
transparent processes such as the procurement of information services and advertising.  

129  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 45. In addition, media outlets that report 
in a government-friendly manner receive much more financial support – for example via public co-funding 
of  media  content  and  public  procurement  -  from  the  government  than  other  media  outlets;  information 
received in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 

16 

 
 
co-funding of media  content which will be fed into the media register130, as foreseen in the 
media strategy131. Due to improved rules regarding media ownership transparency, the 2024 
Media  Pluralism  Monitor  has  reduced  the  medium  risk  score  to  50%132.  As  regards  other 
sources of public  funding, including  advertising, the strategy’s objective  to  present them  in 
the  media  register  in  a  transparent,  comprehensive  and  user-friendly  manner  has  yet  to  be 
implemented133.  Similarly,  the  media  sector  privatisation  process  planned  by  the  media 
strategy  has  yet  to  be  completed.  Recent  legislative  changes  overturned  the  ban  on  state-
owned  enterprises  owning  media  outlets134,  causing  concern  among  stakeholders,  such  as 
journalists associations  and civil  society organisations, of increased state influence over the 
media135. The new legislation clarified the rules for assessing media pluralism in the sense of 
preventing  concentration  of  media  ownership136.  The  2024  Media  Pluralism  Monitor 
considers there to be a medium risk regarding the plurality of media providers137 (63%), but 
the  risk  regarding  editorial  independence  from  commercial  and  owners  influence  is  high 
(83%)  and  so  is  the  risk  regarding  editorial  independence  of  the  media  (83%)138.  The 
implementation of safeguards to protect media pluralism and editorial independence has yet 
to  be  improved  and  will  need  to  be  closely  monitored.  In  its  final  report  on  the  December 
2023  elections,  OSCE/ODIHR  found  a  “bias  in  the  media”  during  the  campaign139.  This 
disparity is more pronounced in non-electoral periods140. 

Against  the  background  of  complaints  about  biased  reporting,  issues  of  editorial 
autonomy  and  pluralism  of  public  service  media  need  to  be  addressed.  Stakeholders, 
such as civil society organisations monitoring democracy and rule of law matters, complain 
about  biased  reporting  in  favour  of  the  government141,  which  is  supported  by  aggregated 
data142. The appointment and dismissal procedures and criteria of public broadcasters - Radio 
Television Serbia (RTS) and Radio Television Vojvodina (RTV) - are defined in the Law on 
public  service  media143.  As  the  members  of  the  management  boards  of  RTS  and  RTV  are 

130  Articles 31 seq. of the Law on public information and media. 
131  Adopted by the Government on 30 January 2020. 
132  2024  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  Serbia,  p.  19.  In  the  2023  edition  of  the  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor the medium risk score was at 58%; 2023 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, p. 16. 

133  This concern was shared by journalists’ associations during the country visit to Serbia. 
134  Article 39 Law on public information and media. 
135  OSCE/ODIHR,  Election  Observation  Mission  (2024),  Final  Report,  p.  19.  Information  received  in  the 

context of the country visit to Serbia. 

136  Articles 53 seq. Law on public information and media. 
137  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, p. 20; while the TV market is highly concentrated, the 

radio and print markets are only moderately concentrated. 

138 2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, pp. 22 and 26. 
139  OSCE/ODIHR  found  that  the  president  and  the  ruling party  combined  were  featured  in  91 per  cent  of  the 
non-election related newscasts on national channels and were generally portrayed in a positive tone, further 
tilting the playing field. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (2024), Final report, p. 20.  

140  According  to  a  local  CSO  monitoring  democracy  and  rule  of  law  matters,  during  the  January  2023-April 
2024  period  the  ruling  party  was  covered  in  91%  of  airtime  in  the  central  news  shows  of  five  television 
channels with national coverage, compared with 9% for opposition parties. 

141  Information received in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
142  OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (2024), Final  Report: “Some 64 per cent of the non-election-

related news on RTS1 […] and 52 per cent of the regional public RTV1 featured the president”.  

143  Article  17.  The  changes  introduced  in  October  2023  in  the  Law  on  electronic  media  regarding  the 
appointment and dismissal of REM Council members have not yet impacted the appointment and dismissal 
of public broadcasters boards as a new REM Council will be appointed only within one year of the entry into 
force of the new Law on electronic media (see above). 

17 

 
 
appointed and dismissed by a two-third majority of the REM Council, issues concerning the 
latter’s independence are relevant also for the independence of RTS and RTV144. The 2024 
Media  Pluralism  Monitor  provides  a  medium  risk  assessment  (63%,  albeit  bordering  on  a 
high  risk)  regarding  the  independence  of  public  service  media145.  Serbia’s  media  strategy 
identified shortcomings in the public service media legislation, which the Serbian authorities 
have  committed  to  revise  by  the  end  of  2024  to  ensure  a  long-term  and  stable  method  of 
funding146,  to  strengthen  procedures  for  the  election  of  managing  boards  members,  to  lay 
down  guarantees  for  editorial  autonomy,  particularly  for  the  editorial  boards  of  news 
programmes, and to provide for the election of a commissioner for professional standards and 
relations with the users of public broadcasting services147. 

Journalists  continue  to  face  either  frequent  refusals  by  public  bodies  to  disclose 
information  of  public  importance  or  no  response  at  all.  The  Law  on  free  access  to 
information of public importance provides for a subjective right of information against public 
authorities and the possibility to file a complaint with the Commissioner for Information of 
Public Importance and Personal Data Protection if access is denied or if the authority remains 
silent148.  The  Commissioner  is  an  independent  authority  appointed  by  Parliament  by  an 
absolute majority. According  to  stakeholders the  situation has deteriorated over the last  ten 
years,  with  requests  covering  topics  like  corruption  being  systematically  denied149.  The 
Commissioner  can  execute  its  decisions  through  indirect  coercion  by  imposing  fines  to  the 
public authority for non-fulfilment of obligations deriving from its decisions.  However, the 
impossibility  to  ensure  administrative  execution  of  the  Commissioner’s  decisions  by  direct 
coercion  remains  one  of  the  main  concerns150.  In  2023,  the  rate  of  execution  of  the 
Commissioner’s  decisions  was  74.83%  (72.9%  in  2022)151.  An  additional  constraint  for 
journalists is the limitation imposed on reporting of ongoing criminal proceedings in the Law 
on public information and media152.  

The safety of journalists is  a source of  concern, as is  the growing pressure by abusive 
lawsuits. Cases of verbal  attacks,  smear campaigns, threats  and violence against journalists 
continued  both  at  national  and  local  level,  including  verbal  and  physical  violence  against 
female  journalists.  Journalists’  associations  recorded  an  increase  in  the  total  number  of 
registered  attacks  in  2023  (183,  compared  with  137  in  2022)153.  Recurring  statements  by 

144  This concern has also been raised in the 2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, p. 29. 
145  2024 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report Serbia, p. 29. 
146  The partial budget financing of RTV was extended to 2024, which is a temporary solution. 
147  The last two elements are mentioned in the second, draft, action plan accompanying the media strategy. 
148  Articles  22,  30  Law  on  free  access  to  information  of  public  importance.  A  complaint  cannot  be  lodged, 

however, against decisions made by, inter alia, the government.  

149  Information received from civil society organisations in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
150  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 34. 
151  Commissioner for information of public importance and personal data protection (2024), Annual Report for 

2023. 

152  Article 85: “Information from ongoing criminal  procedure may be published only if presented on the main 
hearing or if received or may have been obtained from a public authority on the basis of the law governing 
access to information of public importance.” 

153  Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS), Annual report 2023; NUNS noted an increase in 
physical  attacks,  pressures  and  verbal  threats  and  a  decrease  in  attacks  and  pressures  against  property. 
Another  journalist  association,  UNS,  also  found  an  increase  in  physical  attacks  (from 10  in 2022  to  16  in 
2023)  and  pressures  (from  21  to  52)  but  a  small  decline  in  threats  (from  140  to  131).  UNS  news 
(03.01.2024), ‘In 2023, twice as much pressure and almost twice as many physical attacks than in 2022, the 
number  of  threats  reduced’. The  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and 

18 

 
 
 
high-level  officials  on  the  daily  and  investigative  work  of  journalists  threaten  media 
freedom154. Despite such statements having been made also in Parliament, the administrative 
committee  in  charge  of  the  application  of  the  Code  of  Conduct  of  the  Parliament  has  not 
found  any  violation155.  According  to  stakeholders,  most  pressure  comes,  by  far,  from 
politicians156.  There  was  also  an  increase  in  strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation 
(SLAPP), notably launched by members of national and local authorities157. This increasing 
trend  puts  pressure  on  the  media’s  financial  and  human  resources’  capacity.  A  standing 
working group on the safety of journalists facilitates the swift reaction of the police and the 
prosecution  service  to  cases  of  attacks  and  threats.  However,  according  to  journalists’ 
associations, after an initial prompt reaction and recording of the cases, few resulted in final 
convictions158.  Regarding  the  work  of  the  commission  tasked  with  looking  into  three  cases 
involving  the  murders  of  journalists159,  and  after  the  much-delayed  publication  in  February 
2024 of an acquittal decision at second-court instance court, the murder of journalist Slavko 
Ćuruvija  in  1999  remains  unpunished  after  25  years.  In  2023,  the  public  prosecution  for 
organised  crime  declared  itself  again  incompetent  in  the  case  of  the  murder  of  journalist 
Milan Pantić, perpetrated in 2021, and returned the file to the Higher Prosecution Office in 
Jagodina160. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Serbia  is  a  parliamentary  democracy  with  a  unicameral  Parliament  (National  Assembly) 
composed of 250 Members of Parliament that holds the constitutional and legislative power 
and  elects  the  Government  and  other  high-ranking  officials,  including  judges  of  the 
Constitutional  Court  and  the  Ombudsman.  Legislative  proposals  can  originate  from  a 
Member of Parliament, the Government,  the assembly of the autonomous province, at  least 
30 000 voters, or the Ombudsman and the National Bank of Serbia within their competences. 
The President of the Republic, who has limited executive powers under the Constitution, is 
directly elected for a five-year term, renewable once. The Constitutional Court decides on the 
compatibility  of  laws,  other  general  acts  and  international  treaties  with  the  Constitution,  as 

safety of journalists reports seven cases of attacks and (death) threats since June 2023, the Media Freedom 
Rapid Response project 31 of such cases during the same period, see European  Centre for Press and Media 
Freedom,  Mapping  Media  Freedom,  Serbia  country  profile.  Serbia’s  Supreme  Public  Prosecution  Office 
provided  the  following  official  statistics:  “During  2023,  75  cases  were  formed  in  the  Public  Prosecution 
Offices  in  connection  with  events  against  persons  who  perform  tasks  of  public  importance  in  the  field  of 
information.  In  these  cases,  until  31  December  2023  the  following  actions  were  undertaken:  in  9  cases 
conviction was rendered; in 6 cases criminal complaints were rejected; in 8 cases an official note that there 
are  no  legal  grounds  for  criminal  prosecution  was  issued;  in  5  cases  court  trial  is  ongoing  based  on  the 
indictments  of  the  public  prosecutor;  in  3  cases  the  evidentiary  actions  (investigation)  are  ongoing;  in  38 
cases  request  for  gathering  necessary  information  was  submitted;  in  6  cases  potential  perpetrator  was  not 
identified even after undertaking pre-investigative actions. The first-instance or final decision was rendered 
in 23 cases, which represents 30.67% of the total number of cases.” 

154  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, pp. 41-42. 
155 This parliamentary committee acts upon complaints. Based on the complaints received so far, it has not found 

any violations in the cases of statements against journalists. 
156  Information received in the context of the country visit to Serbia. 
157  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 42. 
158  Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Serbia. Associations  also  find  that  prosecutors 

have a rather narrow interpretation of what constitutes a direct threat against a journalist. 

159  As referred to in Chapter 23 interim benchmark. European Union Common Position, Chapter 23: Judiciary 

and Fundamental Rights, AD 20/16, p. 28.  

160  Regular updates provided by the Serbian authorities in the framework of the enlargement process. 

19 

 
 
well  as  on  constitutional  complaints  against  individual  acts  and  on  a  new  appeal  procedure 
for  judges  and  prosecutors  against  decisions  of  the  High  Judicial  Council  and  the  High 
Prosecutorial  Council161.  Serbia  has  three  independent  bodies  in  the  area  of  fundamental 
rights,  the  Ombudsman162,  the  Commissioner  for  Information  of  Public  Importance  and 
Personal  Data  Protection163  and  the  Commissioner  for  the  Protection  of  Equality164;  their 
independence is regulated in the legislation165. 

Parliament’s  ability  to  ensure  the  exercise  of  necessary  checks  and  balances  is 
constrained by issues of effectiveness, autonomy, and transparency, including in terms 
of  the  oversight  of  the  executive  and  the  law-making  process.  Public  confidence  in  the 
functioning of democratic institutions, including Parliament has also been negatively affected 
due  to  the  frequent  recourse  to  early  elections166.  Over  the  last  four  years,  there  have  been 
three parliamentary elections, namely in June 2020, April 2022, and December 2023167. This 
led  to  considerably  shortened  mandates  of  national  Parliament  and  long  periods  of 
Government acting in a caretaker capacity.168 Following its dissolution on 1 November 2023, 

161  Moreover,  the  Constitutional  Court  is  competent  for  deciding  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  between  courts  and 
other  state  bodies  of  different  levels,  election  disputes  outside  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  and  on 
prohibiting political parties, trade union organisations, citizen’s associations and religious communities. The 
terminology “other general acts” includes also statutes and general acts of autonomous provinces and local 
self-government units. The competences of the Constitutional Court are regulated in Art. 45 ff. of the Law on 
the Constitutional Court. 

162  According  to  the  Law  on  the  Ombudsman  (2021),  the  Ombudsman  shall  protect  the  rights  of  citizens, 
control  the  work  of  government  agencies  and  ensure  that  human  and  minority  rights  and  freedoms  are 
protected and promoted. The Ombudsman shall also perform the duties of National Preventive Mechanism 
against Torture, National Independent Mechanism for monitoring the implementation of the Convention on 
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings.  

163  As  per  the  Law  on  Free  Access  to  Information  of  Public  Importance  (last  amended  in  2021),  the 
Commissioner  for  Information  of  Public  Importance  shall  monitor  the  enforcement  of  the  law  by  public 
bodies,  initiate  or  give  opinions  on  draft  legislation,  and  decide  on  complaints  against  the  rulings  of 
government  agencies  that  have  violated  the  rights  regulated  by  the  Law.  The  competence  of  the 
Commissioner  was  extended  to  the  field  of  personal  data  protection  by  the  adoption  of  the  first  Law  on 
Personal data Protection in 2008 (new law adopted in 2018). 

164  According to the Law  on Prohibition of Discrimination (last amended in 2021), the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality shall issue opinions and recommendations in specific cases of discrimination, submit 
requests  to  institute  misdemeanour  proceedings,  monitor  the  implementation  of  legislation,  and  initiate  or 
provide opinions on draft legislation. 

165  Article  3  of  the  Law  on  the  Ombudsman; Article  32  of  the  Law  on  Free Access  to  Information  of  Public 

Importance and Article 1 of the Law on Prohibition of Discrimination. 

166  OSCE/ODIHR,  Election  Observation  Mission  (2024),  Final  Report,    p.  1.  See  also  Joint  Opinion  of  the 
Venice  Commission  and  the  OSCE/ODIHR  on  the  constitutional  and  legal  framework  governing  the 
functioning  of  democratic  institutions  in  Serbia  -  Electoral  law  and  electoral  administration  (CDL-
AD(2022)046, para 22: “To enable a more level playing field in the elections, the Venice Commission and 
ODIHR further recommend that Article 109 of the Constitution be interpreted in the sense that the President 
only dissolves parliament on the basis of a well elaborated proposal and preferably only when necessary due 
to the parliamentary situation, thus limiting recourse to early elections. […].” 

167  According to preliminary conclusions of the International Observation Mission led by OSCE/ODIHR, “[t]he 
17 December [2023] early parliamentary elections, though technically well-administered and offering voters 
a  choice  of  political  alternatives,  were  dominated  by  the  decisive  involvement  of  the  President  which 
together  with  the  ruling  party’s  systemic  advantages  created  unjust  conditions.”  OSCE/ODIHR  Election 
Observation Mission (2023), Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions.  

168  See  also  Joint  Opinion  of  the  Venice  Commission  and  the  OSCE/ODIHR  on  the  constitutional  and  legal 
framework  governing  the  functioning  of  democratic  institutions  in  Serbia  -  Electoral  law  and  electoral 
administration  (CDL-AD(2022)046,  para  152:  “In  its  2007  opinion  on  the  Constitution,  the  Venice 
Commission  found  that  the  Constitution  established  a  “clearly  parliamentary  system”  with  a  “relatively 

20 

 
 
 
and  parliamentary  elections  on  17  December  2023,  there  was  no  regular  parliamentary 
activity  until  22  April  2024,  when  the  first  plenary  session  of  the  new  convocation  was 
called, except for the constitutive session of 6 February 2024, the election of its leadership on 
20  March  2024  and  appointments  of  members  of  working  bodies  and  parliamentary 
delegations  that was completed by early April169. The Parliament’s agenda is  driven by the 
executive,  as  nearly  all  adopted  laws  and  proposed  bills  in  2023170  were  tabled  by  the 
Government, and almost all plenary sessions were called within the minimum advance notice 
of  24  hours,  despite  rules  stipulating  that  this  should  only  be  used  in  exceptional 
circumstances.  The  result  is  limited  possibilities  for  Members  of  Parliament  to  propose 
changes  to  the  agenda  or  table  amendments171,  as  well  as  limited  opportunities  for  public 
scrutiny and involvement in the legislative process. There is also a practice of amalgamating 
large  numbers  of,  often  unrelated,  agenda  and  legislative  items  into  a  single  item  on  the 
agenda,  making  detailed  scrutiny  and  debate  difficult172.  Parliamentary  oversight  of  the 
executive is also weak. No session with questions to the Prime Minister and the Government, 
which should take place monthly when Parliament is in session173, was held since June 2023. 
Moreover,  debates  in  the  Parliament  are  marked  by  tensions  with  reports  of  derogatory 
language and occasional incidents174. The rules of procedure are not systematically applied, 
and penalties and fines are only issued to opposition Members of Parliament175. 

The  process  of  public  consultations  needs  further  strengthening.  While  public 
consultations  were  conducted  for  all  draft  policy  planning  documents  in  2023,  this  was  the 
case  for  only  36%  of  the  draft  laws  and  by-laws  for  which  public  consultations  were 
mandatory176.  Despite  the  legal  obligation  to  provide  information  on  the  results  of  public 
consultations177,  reports  are  neither  systematically  published,  nor  are  explanations  regularly 
provided on the acceptance or otherwise of comments received178. There is no central body in 
charge  of  the  quality  control  of  public  consultations,  including  on  the  e-consultations 

weak” President of the Republic and a “very strong Prime Minister”. The President, despite being directly 
elected,  shall  “express  state  unity”  (Article  111  of  the  Constitution),  and  is  called  to  perform  a  neutral 
function in government formation (Article 112.3). While it is not for the Venice Commission and ODIHR to 
define the political system in Serbia, the current lack of distinction between the President and parliamentary 
politics, in particular during the election campaign, indicates that the Venice Commission’s 2007 assessment 
of the political system no longer reflects its actual functioning.” See further Freedom House Report (2024) 
Nations in Transit: Country Report Serbia.  

169  Moreover, for the revised 2023 budget, the minimum deadline of 15 days between sending the proposal to 
Parliament  and  tabling  it  for  plenary  debate  and  adoption  was  not  respected  and  no  discussion  on  it  took 
place prior to the vote. See also 2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 12 f. 
170  By end of May 2024, Parliament only debated and voted on legislative amendments to two laws related to 

elections.  

171  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 12. 
172  In October 2023, for the first session of the regular autumn sitting, 60 agenda items (including items such as 
the 2024 budget, the set of two media laws, and ratification of the Free Trade Agreement with China) were 
tabled as one discussion point for a first reading general debate. 

173  Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly, Article 205.  
174  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 12. 
175  Ibidem. 
176  Statistics  provided  by  the  Serbian  authorities  in  the  context  of  regular  policy  dialogue  on  Public 
Administration reform (Public Administration Reform Special Group of 19 April 2024). Regarding the draft 
laws only, a public hearing was conducted for 36 draft laws which is 42% of the total number of draft laws. 
Written contribution from Serbia.  

177  Article 36 of the Law on the planning system adopted on 19 April 2018. 
178  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 17. 

21 

 
 
platform  established  in  2021.  Civil  society  organisations  reported  that  the  time  given  for 
public  consultations  was  not  sufficient,  and  that  their  comments  on  draft  laws  of  public 
interest  were  rarely  taken  into  account179.  Regarding  public  scrutiny  of  the  Government’s 
work,  the  Government  adopted  and  published  the  2022  report  on  its  work  as  well  as  the 
annual  Government  work  plan  for  2023.  Overall,  in  2023,  only  19  implementation  reports 
(23%)  out  of  the  81  policy  planning  documents  were  published180.  Agendas,  minutes,  and 
conclusions of government sessions are still not publicly available.  

There  are  four  vacant  positions  at  the  Constitutional  Court  of  Serbia  still  to  be  filled. 
The  Constitutional  Court  has  currently  four  vacant  positions,  of  which  two  are  to  be 
appointed by the Supreme Court based on a proposal by the High Court Council and the High 
Prosecutorial  Council  and  the  other  two  judges  shall  be  elected  by  the  National  Assembly 
based  on  a  proposal  from  the  President.  The  High  Judicial  Council,  the  High  Prosecutorial 
Council and the President  are yet  to  make their  proposal  and there is  no time limit  for this 
process181.  

On 1 January 2024, Serbia had 14 leading judgments of the European Court of Human 
Rights pending implementation182. At that time, Serbia’s rate of leading judgments from the 
past  ten  years  that  remained  pending  was  at  27%,  and  the  average  time  that  the  judgments 
had  been  pending  implementation  was  almost  7  years183.  The  oldest  leading  judgment  has 
been pending implementation for more than 16 years184. The relevant group of cases concerns 
instances where the applicants' rights to a fair trial were violated due to excessive length of 
different types of judicial proceedings – civil, family-related, and commercial. Additionally, 
some cases highlight the absence of an effective remedy within the domestic law to address 
complaints  about  procedural  delays.  As  regards  the  respect  of  payment  deadlines,  on  31 
December 2023 there were 52 cases in total awaiting confirmation of payments (compared to 
51  in  2022)185.  On  1  July  2024,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending  implementation 
had remained 14186. 

179  Ibidem, pp. 15 and 17. 
180  Statistics  provided  by  the  Serbian  authorities  in  the  context  of  regular  policy  dialogue  on  Public 

Administration reform (Public Administration Reform Special Group of 19 April 2024). 

181 According to the Serbian Constitution (Art. 172) five judges of the Constitutional Court shall be elected by 
the  National  Assembly  from  among  ten  candidates  proposed  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  five  are 
appointed by the President from among ten candidates proposed by the National Assembly, and five by the 
general session of the Supreme Court from among the ten candidates proposed by the High Court Council 
and the High Prosecutorial Council in a joint session. 

182  The adoption of necessary execution measures for a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

183  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2024.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network on Enlargement Countries for the 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 2. 

184 Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 17 July 2007, Jevremovic v. Serbia, 3150/05, pending 

implementation since 2007. 

185  Council  of  Europe  (2024),  Supervision  of  the  execution  of  judgments  decisions  of  the  European  Court  of 

Human Rights – 17th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers – 2023, p. 138.   

186  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 

22 

 
 
There  are  three  independent  bodies  working  in  the  area  of  fundamental  rights  in 
Serbia, but follow-up given to the recommendations is not always clear. The Ombudsman 
is  the  national  human  rights  institution  (NHRI)  accredited  with  A-Status187  and  its  tasks 
include  ensuring  that  human  rights,  rights  of  persons  belonging  to  minorities,  and 
fundamental  freedoms  are  promoted  and  protected  188.  In  addition,  there  are  two  other 
independent  bodies  in  the  area  of  fundamental  rights,  namely  the  Commissioner  for 
Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection and the Commissioner for the 
Protection of Equality. These three independent bodies face common challenges with regard 
to their resources. For all three bodies, the planned increase in staff has not taken place and 
the number of filled posts is below staff systematisation plans189. Staff turnover in the Office 
of the Ombudsman continues to hamper its efficiency190. Furthermore, there is no systematic 
follow-up  on  the  recommendations  of  the  independent  bodies191.  According  to  the 
Ombudsman’s 2023 report, the percentage of its recommendations that were followed up by 
the  authorities  under  the  control  procedure  increased  to  78%  (in  2022  this  was  63%)192. 
Stakeholders  considered  that  the  independent  bodies  needed  to  address  violations  of 
fundamental rights more vocally193. 

Although  several  elements  of  the  legal  framework  are  in  place,  civil  society 
organisations  lack  an  enabling  environment  for  their  establishment,  operations  and 
financing. The space for civil society is rated as ‘obstructed’194. Civil society organisations 
and  human  rights  defenders  operate  in  a  polarised  environment.  Smear  campaigns  are 
conducted against several civil society organisations and their financing, including by high-
level  officials195.  Despite  the  fact  that  verbal  attacks  were  also  made  in  Parliament,  the 
administrative  committee  in  charge  of  the  application  of  the  code  of  conduct  of  Parliament 
did not find any violation196. Organisations and individuals that criticised the authorities have 
been put under pressure, in particular those participating in protests against the glorification 
of war criminals197, in  support of environmental protection, in  the ‘Serbia against violence’ 

187  Accreditation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).  
188  The law requires only an absolute majority for the election, deviating from the Venice Principles which set 
out  that  the  Ombudsman  should  preferably  be  elected  by  an  appropriate  qualified  majority.  Venice 
Commission, Principles on the protection and promotion of the Ombudsman institution, CDL AD(2019)005, 
para 6. 2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 39.  

189  Ibidem, pp. 37-40, 46. 
190  Ibidem, p. 39. 
191  Annual reports are submitted to the parliament by 15 March of each year, which then adopts conclusions on 
them. The 2022 and 2023 annual reports were not yet discussed in a plenary session of the parliament. Based 
on the parliament’s review of previous annual reports prior to 2022 parliamentary discussions tend to remain 
general and do not focus on key recommendations.  

192  Annual report of the Ombudsman 2023 (available on its website ombudsman.rs). However, it is not clearly 
explained  in  the  report  how  the  Ombudsman  verifies  that  a  recommendation  has  been  followed  up 
appropriately. 

193  Information received in the context of the country visit to Serbia from civil society organisations.  
194  Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed. 

195  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 15.  
196  Ibidem, p. 15. 
197  For example, in October 2023, a female activist was fined for disturbing public order and peace for throwing 
eggs at a graffiti image of a convicted war criminal. After she had refused to pay the fine of 100,000 dinars 
(approximately 850 EUR), the court ordered to replace part of her fine with a 60-day detention. N1 (2024), 
Human  rights  activist  ordered  to  jail  for  throwing  eggs  at  Mladic  mural;  Civil  Rights  Defenders  (2023), 
Serbia: Charges against a convicted activist must be dropped.  

23 

 
 
protests,  as  well  as  domestic  election  observers198.  There  has  been  a  significant  increase  in 
recent years in the number of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), notably 
launched  by  members  of  national  and  local  authorities,  against  human  rights  defenders199. 
The  implementation  of  the  2022-2030  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  for  creating  a  stimulating 
environment for the development of civil society has started, but measurable progress has yet 
to  be  demonstrated200.  A  Council  for  cooperation  and  development  of  civil  society  was 
established  in  September  2023.  In  terms  of  public  funding  of  civil  society,  key  challenges 
exist  with  regard  to  the  transparency  of  awarding  procedures.  These  challenges  include  the 
lack  of  consultations  with  CSOs  when  planning  priority  activities,  the  lack  of  transparent 
criteria for approving financial and non-financial support or for selecting independent experts 
in evaluation commissions, and insufficient transparency in the reporting on spent funds201.  

198  OSCE/ODIHR,  Election  Observation  Mission  (2024),  Final  Report,  p.  24:  “Following  the  26  December 
publication of a report by Centre for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA) alleging organized 
voter  migration  related  to  the  local  elections,  authorities  and  pro-government  media  publicly  accused  the 
organization  of  destabilizing  the  country’s  constitutional  order”.  See  also  2023  Communication  on  EU 
enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 15.  

199  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 6.  
200  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 15. 
201  2023 Communication on EU Enlargement policy, Serbia Report, p. 15. The Serbian authorities informed that 
the Action Plan for the implementation of the Open Government Partnership 2023-2027 as well as the draft  
Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategy for Creating an Enabling Environment for Development 
of Civil Society 2024-2026 (planned adoption by September  2024) foresee  the development of an ex-post 
analysis  of  the  effects  of  the  previous  implementation  of  the  Regulation  on  funds  for  encouraging 
programmes of public interest implemented by associations. 

24 

 
 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2024 Rule of Law report 
can 
https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2024-rule-law-report-targeted-
found 
stakeholder-consultation_en . 

be 

at 

Agency  for 
https://www.acas.rs/eng/pages_eng/annual_reports_1.  

the  Prevention  of  Corruption  of 

the  Republic  of  Serbia,  Annual  Reports, 

Anti-Corruption  Council  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia,  Annual  Reports,  http://www.antikorupcija-
savet.gov.rs/en-GB/page/home/.    

Association  of 
(2023),  https://www.uns.org.rs/sr/desk/UNS-
(UNS) 
news/154344/uns-ova-baza-u-2023-godini-dvostruko-vise-pritisaka-i-gotovo-dvostruko-vise-fizickih-
napada-nego-u-2022-godini-broj-pretnji-smanjen.html.   

Journalists  of  Serbia 

Bertelsmann  Stiftung  (2024),  Serbia  Country  Report  2024,  https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-
report/SRB.  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2023),  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2024,  Country 
report for Serbia.  

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2024),  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2024,  Country 
report for Serbia.  

CEPEJ (2023), Towards a better evaluation of the results of judicial reforms in the Western Balkans - 
“Dashboard  Western  Balkans”  data  collection  2022,  https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/towards-a-
better-evaluation-of-the-results-of-judicial-reforms-in-the-western-balkans-dashboard-western-
balkans-.  

Civil  Rights  Defenders  (2023),  Serbia:  Charges  against  a  convicted  activist  must  be  dropped 
https://crd.org/2023/10/05/serbia-charges-against-a-convicted-activist-must-be-dropped/. 

Commissioner  for  Information  of  Public  Importance  and  Personal  Data  Protection  (2024),  Annual 
Report 
https://www.poverenik.rs/images/stories/dokumentacija-
nova/izvestajiPoverenika/2023/Godi%C5%A1nji_izve%C5%A1taj_2023.pdf.  

2023, 

European  Union  Common  Position  (2016),  Chapter  23:  Judiciary  and  Fundamental  Rights, 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/AD-20-2016-INIT/en/pdf. 

Council of Europe (2024), Supervision of the execution of judgments decisions of the European Court 
of Human Rights – 17th Annual Report of the Committee of Ministers.   

Council  of  Europe:  Venice  Commission  (2019),  Principles  on  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the 
Ombudsman institution, CDL AD(2019)005.  

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2021), Opinion CDL-AD(2021)032. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2023), Opinion CDL-PI(2023)005.  

Council  of  Europe: Venice  Commission,  OSCE/ODIHR  (2022),  Joint  Opinion on  the  constitutional 
and  legal  framework  governing  the  functioning  of  democratic  institutions  in  Serbia  -  Electoral  law 
and electoral administration, CDL-AD(2022)046.  

Constitutional Court, Written contribution from the Constitutional Court in the context of the country 
visit to Serbia. 

Euronews  Serbia  (2023),  Protest  podrške  premeštenim  tužiteljkama,  organizatori  izneli  tri  zahteva, 
(Protests  in  support  of  the  prosecutors),  https://www.euronews.rs/srbija/politika/79688/protest-
podrske-premestenim-tuziteljkama-organizatori-izneli-tri-zahteva/vest.   

25 

 
European  Centre  for  Press  and  Media  Freedom,  Mapping  Media  Freedom,  Serbia  country  profile, 
https://www.ecpmf.eu/monitor/mapping-media-freedom/.  

European Commission (2018), 2018 Communication on Enlargement Policy, Serbia Report. 

European Commission (2023), 2023 Communication on Enlargement Policy, Serbia Report. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights (2007),  Judgment of the  European  Court  of Human  Rights of 17 
July 2007, Jevremovic v. Serbia, 3150/05. 

European Implementation Network on Enlargement Countries (2024), Contribution for the 2024 Rule 
of Law Report. 

European 
https://www.eppo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-03/EPPO_Annual_Report_2023.pdf  

Prosecutor’s 

Annual 

(2024), 

Public 

Office 

Report 

2023, 

European  Western  Balkans  (2023),  The  corruption  case  in  Serbian  state  company  EPS  –  What  we 
know  so  far?,  https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2023/03/27/the-corruption-case-in-serbian-state-
company-eps-what-we-know-so-far/.    

Freedom 
https://freedomhouse.org/country/serbia/freedom-world/2024. 

Freedom 

(2024), 

House 

in 

the 

World 

Report, 

Freedom  House 
https://freedomhouse.org/country/serbia/nations-transit/2024.  

(2024),  Nations 

Transit 

in 

2024, 

Country 

Report 

Serbia. 

Government  of  the  Republic  of  Serbia  (2022),  2022-2030  Strategy  and  action  plan  for  creating  a 
society, 
stimulating 
https://www.minljmpdd.gov.rs/doc/Strategy-for-Creating-an-Enabling-Environment-for-the-
Development-of-Civil-Society-in-the-Republic-of-Serbia2022to2030.docx.  

development 

environment 

civil 

the 

for 

of 

GRECO (2022), Fifth Evaluation Report, Evaluation Report on Serbia on Preventing corruption and 
promoting integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies, 
https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco/evaluations/serbia.   

High  Judicial  Council,  Written  contribution  from  the  High  Judicial  Council  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit to Serbia.  

High Prosecutorial Council, Written contribution from the High Prosecutorial Council in the context 
of the country visit to Serbia. 

Independent  Association  of  Journalists  of  Serbia  (NUNS),  Annual  reports  2022  and  2023, 
https://www.bazenuns.rs/srpski/napadi-na-novinare.  

Media Freedom Rapid Response Project, Serbia profile, https://www.mfrr.eu/monitor/. 

N1  (2024),  Human  rights  activist  ordered 
https://n1info.rs/english/news/human-rights-activist-ordered-to-jail-for-throwing-eggs-at-mladic-
mural/ 

throwing  eggs  at  Mladic  mural,  

jail  for 

to 

N1  (2023),  EC:  We  follow  developments 
https://n1info.rs/english/news/ec-we-follow-developments-in-serbian-high-public-prosecutor-s-
office/. 

in  Serbian  High  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office, 

National  Anti-Corruption  Strategy  of 
https://archive.rai-see.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Serbia-National_Anti-
Corruption_Strategy_2013-2018.pdf  

the  Republic  of  Serbia  for 

the  period  2013-2018, 

Ombudsman 
https://ombudsman.rs/index.php/izvestaji/godisnji-izvestaji.  

Republic 

Serbia 

the 

of 

of 

(2023), 

Annual 

report 

2023, 

26 

 
OSCE/ODHIR International Observation Mission (2023), Early Parliamentary Elections, Statement of 
Preliminary Findings and Conclusions, https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/6/8/560650_1.pdf.  

OSCE/ODIHR  International  Observation  Mission  (2024),  Serbia,  Early  Parliamentary  Elections,  17 
December 2023: Final Report, https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/serbia/563505.  

Prosecutors Association of Serbia, Written contribution from the Prosecutors Association received in 
the context of the country visit to Serbia.  

Regional Anti-Corruption  Initiative  (2021),  Gap Analysis  of  Whistleblower  Protection  Laws  in  the 
Western  Balkans  and  Moldova,  https://rai-see.org/php_sets/uploads/2021/10/RAI-GAP-Analysis-
English.pdf.  Reporters  Without  Borders 
Index, 
https://rsf.org/en/country/serbia.  

(2024),  World 

Freedom 

Press 

Republic  of  Serbia,  Action  Plan  for  Chapter  23  (of  the  EU  Accession  process)  (2016), 
https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/files/Action%20plan%20Ch%2023.pdf.  

Action 
Republic 
https://www.acas.rs/storage/page_files/Revised%20Action%20Plan%20for%20Chapter%2023.pdf  

Revised 

Chapter 

Serbia, 

Plan 

for 

23 

of 

(2020), 

Revised Action plan of the Republic of Serbia for the implementation of the National Anti-Corruption 
Strategy 
https://www.mpravde.gov.rs/files/2-
2013-2018, 
%202.%20Revised%20AP%2023%20Anti-corruption.docx.  

period 

the 

for 

Serbian Government, Input for the 2024 Rule of Law Report and written contribution from Serbia in 
the context of the country visit to Serbia.  

State Audit  Institution  (2024).  Report  on  the  work  of  the  State Audit  Institution  for  the  year  2023, 
https://www.dri.rs/storage/newaudits/Izvestaj%20o%20radu%20DRI%20za%202023%20god.pdf.  

The  Council  of  Europe  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists, 
https://fom.coe.int/en/accueil.  

Transparency International (2023), National Integrity System Serbia. 

Transparency International (2024), Corruption Perceptions Index 2023.  

Transparency  International  Serbia  (2023),  Civil  Society  Report  on  the  implementation  of  Chapter II 
(Prevention) and Chapter V (Asset Recovery) of the UNCAC in Serbia.  

UNS news (03.01.2024), In 2023, twice as much pressure and almost twice as many physical attacks 
than in  2022, the  number of  threats  reduced,  https://www.uns.org.rs/sr/desk/UNS-news/154344/uns-
ova-baza-u-2023-godini-dvostruko-vise-pritisaka-i-gotovo-dvostruko-vise-fizickih-napada-nego-u-
2022-godini-broj-pretnji-smanjen.html. 

Website  of  the  High  Judicial  Council,  https://vss.sud.rs/sr-lat/saop%C5%A1tenja/javni-konkurs-za-
izbor-sudija-sl-gl-rs%E2%80%9D-br2424-od-22-marta-2024-godine  

Website of the Press Council, https://savetzastampu.rs/en/ 

27 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Serbia 

The Commission services held hybrid meetings in March 2024 with: 

•  A11 Initiative 
•  Agency for the Prevention of Corruption 
•  Anti-Corruption Council 
•  Appellate Court 
•  Appellate Public Prosecution Office 
•  Association of independent electronic media (ANEM)  
•  Association of media 
•  Asylum Protection Center 
•  ATINA 
•  Autonomous Women’s Center 
•  Basic Public Prosecution Office 
•  Belgrade Centre for Human Rights 
•  BIRN 
•  BIRODI 
•  Child Rights Centre 
•  Commissioner  for  Personal  Data  Protection  and  Access  to  Information  of  Public 

Importance  

Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia 

•  Constitutional Court 
•  CRTA 
•  Government Secretariat for Legislation 
•  High Judicial Council 
•  High Prosecutorial Council 
•  Higher Court 
•  Higher Public Prosecution Office 
• 
•  Judges Association of Serbia 
•  Ministry of European Integration 
•  Ministry of Interior 
•  Ministry of Justice 
•  MODS 
•  Ombudsman 
•  Partners Serbia 
•  Police specialised department for corruption 
•  Prosecutor Association of Serbia 
•  Radio Television Serbia (RTS) 
•  Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) 
•  Slavko Curuvija Foundation 
•  Special Department for Suppression of the Corruption 
•  Special Public Prosecution Office for High-Tech Crime 
•  Special Public Prosecution Office for Organized Crime  
•  State Audit Institution 
•  Supreme Court 
•  Supreme Public Prosecution Office 
•  Transparency Serbia 

28 

 
•  UNS 
•  YUCOM 

29