Venice Commission: Serbia Met Seven of Nine Reforms

The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission published its final report on June 16 on changes to Serbia’s judicial laws, concluding that the country had swiftly enacted most of the key recommendations from an earlier Urgent Opinion. Of nine recommendations, seven were judged fully implemented, while two remain open. The report was adopted after the commission’s 147th plenary session, held on June 12 and 13.

In the document, the commission stated that the Serbian authorities had shown, as the excerpt reads, a substantively cooperative approach and a sincere willingness to cooperate, and that the remaining two recommendations would require time. Ana Brnabic, the Speaker of Serbia’s National Assembly, said the country had received an absolutely positive opinion and announced that the legal changes would come before the next parliamentary session.

The assessment concerns the laws governing the work of prosecutors and courts, an area that became one of the central points of dispute between the governing camp and the opposition during the last electoral cycle. The Venice Commission is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional and judicial matters, so its assessments, though not binding, carry weight in the European integration process.

Which two recommendations went unmet?

The seven recommendations the commission considers implemented relate to specific provisions in the laws on prosecution and the organisation of the judiciary. The two unmet ones, according to the report, touch on substance.

The first, listed as recommendation seven, concerns returning the remaining prosecutors to the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime (TOK). The second, recommendation eight, calls for structural and operational autonomy of the special unit, or office, for high-tech crime. These are segments of the judiciary that handle the most sensitive cases, from organised groups to pressure on the digital space, and it is precisely on these points that part of the profession sees a test of genuine independence.

The government reads the unmet recommendations as technical matters that require additional time and alignment. Voices from part of the legal community argue the opposite, saying these are organisational choices that directly affect who runs the toughest investigations, and under whose control.

How will the verdict shape the electoral context?

Brnabic presented the final report as confirmation of the chosen course and as an argument ahead of the electoral cycle. In her words, the assessment shows that Serbia responded to the objections of European institutions within a short timeframe.

The opposition and part of the profession read the message differently. They do not dispute that seven recommendations were formally enacted, but they argue that the remaining two are not marginal, instead bearing on exactly those parts of the judiciary that should be the most resistant to political influence. In that light, the report is neither a full endorsement nor a full rebuke, but a document both sides can use, each for its own thesis.

The commission left room for further work, noting that the remaining two recommendations would require time. That means the verdict is not a final point but a step in a process that continues through the legal changes announced for the next session of parliament.

The question left to the reader is simple, though not easy: is seven of nine enough to speak of reform, or does the substance lie precisely in the two recommendations still unmet?