Venice Commission on Serbia's Judicial Laws
At its 147th plenary session on June 12 and 13, the Venice Commission is expected to issue its final opinion on Serbia's set of judicial laws, with Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabic attending.
- At its 147th plenary session on June 12 and 13, the Venice Commission is reviewing opinions for several countries, including Serbia.
- Four laws are on Serbia's agenda: on public prosecution, on the High Prosecutorial Council, on judges, and on the seats and jurisdiction of courts.
- After a preliminary opinion and Belgrade's reply, the final opinion is expected, weighing on judicial independence along the European path.
- Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabic is attending the session.
The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission is set to deliver its final opinion on Serbia’s set of judicial laws at its 147th plenary session, held in Strasbourg on June 12 and 13. The commission is reviewing opinions for several other countries at the same gathering, but for Belgrade this is one of the key items, since its assessment concerns the independence of the judiciary, a question at the heart of negotiations on European Union membership. Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabic is attending the session.
Four pieces of legislation are on the agenda: the law on public prosecution, the law on the High Prosecutorial Council, the law on judges, and the law on the seats and jurisdiction of courts. Ever since the drafting stage, part of the professional community and certain Brussels representatives have argued that some provisions could undermine the independence of the courts and the prosecution. The commission has already issued a preliminary opinion, to which the Serbian side responded, so a final position is now expected.
The Venice Commission is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. Its opinions are not legally binding, but they carry considerable political weight, particularly for countries in the EU accession process. The body’s assessments are frequently cited in European Commission reports and in the working groups for the chapters covering the rule of law.
What exactly does this assessment measure?
The core of the assessment answers a single question: how far the new legal solutions have moved the appointment and dismissal of judicial officials away from the influence of the executive and legislative branches. The commission typically examines how members of the High Prosecutorial Council are selected, the guarantees for the permanence of judicial office, and the criteria for determining the seats and jurisdiction of courts, whether they are clear and known in advance or leave room for discretionary tailoring. A final opinion usually contains a list of recommendations, divided into those that must be met and those that are desirable.
For Serbia, the stakes are concrete. Chapters 23 and 24, covering the judiciary and fundamental rights, have long been the benchmark for the pace of progress in talks. A positive assessment makes it easier to argue that reform is on the right track, while a list of serious objections supplies ammunition both to the domestic opposition and to critics in Brussels.
Why does Brnabic’s presence matter?
The Assembly Speaker is attending the session at a moment when parliament is under public scrutiny over a separate set of laws as well. Brnabic announced that, following a second opinion from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), electoral laws will be a priority in the Assembly’s work. That puts two themes, judicial and electoral reform, on overlapping timelines and before the same European addresses.
The Venice Commission’s final opinion will not change the laws on its own, but it will shape the next round of debate. If the recommendations are serious, the Assembly faces the question of whether and how to incorporate them. What do you think, how much will the assessment from Strasbourg actually influence what the final judicial framework in Serbia looks like?
