Serbia’s judicial framework is formally aligned with European standards, yet recent legislative changes and institutional pressures call into question the genuine independence of the public prosecution service
At the outset, I would like to recall the obligations Serbia has undertaken in the EU accession process, primarily the alignment of its constitutional and legislative framework with the values of the rule of law and judicial integrity.
The adoption of judicial laws in May 2023 was seen as a step forward in European integration. Constitutional amendments and related legislation were supported by the European Union, the Council of Europe and Serbia’s highest state officials.
Since then, significant social changes have taken place. The tragedy in Novi Sad on 1 November 2024 triggered student-led protests and heightened public awareness of the role of the judiciary, particularly the public prosecution service, in safeguarding institutional accountability.
Already deeply polarized, Serbian society became further divided following these events, affecting the media, institutions and citizens alike.
The work of the public prosecution service has since come under increased public and political scrutiny.
Although constitutional changes were expected to reduce political influence, concerns resurfaced after the recent amendments to judicial legislation.
These amendments were adopted within an exceptionally short timeframe, without obtaining opinions from the judicial councils or consulting the Venice Commission. Just over a month passed between their submission to Parliament and publication in the Official Gazette.
Despite warnings from legal experts and objections by the European Commission, which described the changes as a step backwards, the National Assembly adopted the legislation. State officials nevertheless continue to insist that Serbia remains on its European path.
Although formally aligned with European standards, recent legislative changes and institutional pressures are weakening the mechanisms designed to safeguard prosecutorial independence
Following pressure from domestic and European institutions, the amended laws were forwarded to the Venice Commission, which is expected to issue an urgent opinion on their compliance with international standards in June 2026.
Two issues are particularly problematic.
The first concerns the abolition of the commission of the High Prosecutorial Council, which had played an important role in protecting independence by reviewing objections to binding instructions.
The second relates to the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime. Under transitional provisions, all seconded prosecutors must return to their home offices within 30 days. As 11 of its 20 prosecutors are currently seconded, this measure will significantly reduce operational capacity.
This contradicts European Commission recommendations to strengthen institutional and staffing resources in the fight against organised crime and corruption, especially in light of recent high-profile investigations.
The High Prosecutorial Council remains central to safeguarding prosecutorial independence and should therefore be strengthened rather than weakened.
The continued presence of the Minister of Justice and the Supreme Public Prosecutor within the Council undermines its constitutional role.
Delays in appointments and insufficient protection from undue influence have further weakened institutional safeguards.
As a result, public prosecutors are increasingly seeking protection through media engagement. In a polarised environment, this may generate public support, but also exposes them to pressure and tabloid campaigns.