Venice Commission Backs Serbia's Judicial Law Changes

Speaker of the National Assembly Ana Brnabic announced from Venice that the Venice Commission, following its plenary session on June 12, issued a positive opinion on amendments to five of Serbia’s judicial laws. According to her, the changes will reach lawmakers as early as next week. The subject touches directly on the independence of the judiciary, which gives every step in this process political weight far beyond the procedural.

Brnabic stressed that the whole process was completed in four months, counting from the request Serbia filed on February 10. By her account, that is a brisk pace for an advisory body of the Council of Europe that usually works to its own calendar. “We received an absolutely positive opinion, and as early as next week we are entering parliament with the changes to these judicial laws,” the parliament speaker said.

The specific concerns the government accepted relate to jurisdiction and the manner of decision making. The commission praised the solution under which the assignment of prosecutors is no longer the arbitrary decision of the supreme public prosecutor, but instead passes to the High Prosecutorial Council. It also accepted a recommendation to lower the majority required for decisions in that council from eight votes to six, but only when a decision is not reached within thirty days. The change aims to avoid deadlock in the council’s work.

What exactly do these laws change?

The background to the whole process is a set of amendments adopted in January, on the proposal of Serbian Progressive Party lawmaker Ugljesa Mrdic. From the outset, those amendments drew objections from part of the legal community and the opposition, who warned that some provisions could weaken the autonomy of the prosecution and strengthen political influence over staffing decisions. The Venice Commission’s opinion was sought as an external check on those concerns, and is now presented as confirmation that the government entered into dialogue and accepted some of the criticism.

It is worth separating two things that can easily blur together at first glance. A positive opinion does not mean the original laws were flawless, but rather that the changes the government now offers, with the accepted recommendations, are assessed as a step in the right direction. The commission as a rule issues recommendations rather than pass or fail verdicts, so the political significance of its document lies precisely in how many of those recommendations end up in the final text before lawmakers.

The next move is in parliament

Next week will be the real test. Receiving a positive opinion in Venice is one thing, and faithfully carrying its recommendations into a legal text voted on in Belgrade is another. The opposition will almost certainly demand a comparison between what the commission recommended and what appears in the amendments, while the government will seek to present the entire process as proof of readiness to reform the judiciary along European standards.

For now, the undisputed facts remain: the opinion is positive, the recommendations on the prosecutorial council have been accepted, and the date of debate is near. What remains to be seen is whether the final text will truly reflect everything that was praised in Venice. Do you think the amendments before parliament will faithfully carry the Venice Commission’s recommendations, or will the key points become contested again in debate?