Brnabic Hits Back at Opposition Over Judiciary Laws
Serbia's parliament speaker accused the opposition of misleading the public by claiming a different draft of the judiciary laws was sent to the Venice Commission than to MPs.
- Parliament speaker Ana Brnabic responded to claims by the opposition bloc "Platform for a European Serbia" about amendments to the judiciary laws.
- Brnabic accused the opposition of misleading the public by alleging that a different text of the laws was sent to the Venice Commission than to MPs.
- She described the move as an attempt to discredit Serbia and its institutions.
- The exchange lands amid pre-election tension, days before June 27 and Vidovdan on June 28.
The speaker of Serbia’s National Assembly, Ana Brnabic, hit back on Monday at claims by the opposition coalition “Platform for a European Serbia” regarding amendments to the country’s judiciary laws, calling the claims false. At the center of the dispute is the Platform’s assertion that one version of the laws was handed to the Venice Commission while a different one was put before MPs.
Brnabic called that assertion a manipulation of the public. In her telling, it is an attempt to discredit Serbia and its judicial system before both domestic and foreign audiences at the very moment constitutional matters are before parliament. The speaker insisted that the text under review by the Venice Commission is the same one now in procedure in the chamber, and that no two parallel documents exist.
What exactly does the opposition allege, and how does the government respond?
The Platform’s objection comes down to a procedural but politically sensitive point: if the Council of Europe body received a version that differs from the one MPs will vote on, then, by that logic, the entire process is called into question. The Venice Commission is an advisory body whose opinion Serbia routinely seeks when it amends laws in the constitutional and judicial sphere, so any doubt about the authenticity of the submitted text carries foreign-policy weight as well.
Brnabic, for her part, offered a mirror-image argument. She maintains that the opposition makes contradictory claims, including about President Aleksandar Vucic, and that the reasoning shifts depending on the moment and the audience being addressed. The speaker insisted the documentation is single and publicly available, and that claims of a double text are easily checked against the material already in parliamentary procedure.
The fight over the judiciary laws is not new. Judicial reform, the way judges and prosecutors are selected, and the role of the High Judicial Council have divided the government and the opposition for years, and Venice Commission opinions are regularly cited as ammunition by both sides. What is different now is the sharpness of the charge: the claim of “two texts” is not about the substance of any single provision, but about the honesty of the process itself.
Why is the clash erupting right now?
The timing is not incidental. The reaction comes amid pre-election tension, just before June 27 and Vidovdan, marked on June 28, when public attention is at its peak. In that climate, even a procedural question quickly becomes a symbol of a wider argument over who is telling the truth about the state of Serbia’s judiciary.
For now, the chamber has issued no detailed explanation that would compare, point by point, the version submitted to the Venice Commission with the one before MPs, which would be the fastest way to confirm or rebut the “two texts” claim. Until that happens, the dispute remains a matter of word against word, with each side filling the gap with its own interpretation.
Do you think publishing both documents side by side would settle this dispute fastest?
