Opposition: Venice Commission opinion solves nothing

The Venice Commission’s positive assessment, delivered at its plenary session on June 12, has been presented by the government as confirmation that Serbia is on the right track in reforming its judiciary. National Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabic said the commission gave an absolutely positive opinion on the draft changes to the set of judicial laws. The opposition and part of the legal profession read the same document differently: the opinion, they say, does not touch what has been contested from the start.

The dispute is not about form but about substance. The laws in question, known publicly as the Mrdic laws, are politically motivated in the opposition’s view, with the aim of shielding the government’s top tier in the Generalstab affair. A positive assessment of the constitutional framework, critics argue, does not mean the objections to the specific powers redistributed by the amendments have been resolved.

What does the opposition object to in the text?

Two changes are most often cited as problematic. First, the Special Department for High-Tech Crime, which until now operated as a separate unit, has become part of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office. Second, prosecutors at the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime are now appointed by the High Prosecutorial Council, instead of by the Supreme Public Prosecutor as before.

As critics read them, both measures change who has the final say in sensitive cases and who selects the prosecutors who run them. These are technical provisions with political consequences, because they determine how exposed the prosecution is to executive influence. That is precisely why, the opposition says, the commission’s finding on alignment with standards fails to answer the question that started the dispute: who these arrangements actually benefit.

Part of the profession shares that concern. Experts point out that moving the Special Department for High-Tech Crime into the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office changed its standing, and that the new procedure for appointing prosecutors at the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime shifts where decisions are made. The commission’s opinion, they add, leaves room for interpretation because it assesses a draft, not the practice that has yet to follow.

How does the government read the same finding?

The government stresses that the opinion is positive and treats that as signal enough. Brnabic said the commission gave an absolutely positive opinion, which in her view dispels any doubt about the quality of the proposed solutions. The next step rests with parliament: after the opinion, the texts of the laws are to be aligned with the recommendations the commission issued.

That is where new friction can arise. A positive opinion almost never means an opinion without a single remark, so debate will move to how far the recommendations are written in and whether they touch the very two provisions the opposition considers decisive. The government sees routine alignment in this; the opposition sees a test of seriousness. The outcome of that alignment will determine whether the commission’s finding stays a government argument or becomes the basis for fresh objections.

One question neither side is sidestepping for now remains open: can a positive assessment of a draft law settle a dispute that, in the opposition’s view, is not about the letter of the law but about whom that letter serves?