The European Commission published its annual enlargement reports yesterday. We report the key findings of the Report on Serbia in the area of democracy, rule of law and economic criteria:
“Tangible improvements and further reforms are needed in the conduct of elections. It is vital that all outstanding recommendations by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) and the Council of Europe bodies are fully implemented, in a transparent and inclusive process and well ahead of any new elections.
Parliament’s effectiveness and oversight function remain hampered by the low frequency of sessions and the lack of genuine political debate. Public scrutiny and involvement in the legislative process were limited and debates continued to be marked by tensions between the ruling coalition and the opposition. Parliamentary rules of procedure and the Code of Conduct to penalise offences by parliamentarians need to be consistently applied.
The institutions in charge of the EU integration process are in place. The government has advanced its strategic objective to meet all EU criteria by the end of 2026 but is yet to show genuine political will to deliver on EU-related priorities and speed up the preparations accordingly. The current deep societal polarisation, as well as persistent anti-EU rhetoric, run counter to this objective. The authorities have yet to achieve more proactive and objective communication about the EU and Serbia’s accession process. The increasingly difficult environment for civil society has led to the decision by civil society organisations to suspend cooperation with the authorities. This has in turn affected the inclusiveness of the EU integration process.
The government was in a caretaker capacity between 19 March (when Parliament took note of the Prime Minister’s resignation) and 16 April 2025, when a new government was appointed. The reform of the local government system continued to advance slowly.
Civil society organisations (CSOs) in Serbia operate in an increasingly difficult environment. Since the start of the protests, CSOs advocating for the rule of law have faced intensified verbal attacks and smear campaigns, including by high-level officials. Complaints were filed against the use of spyware targeting human rights defenders and journalists. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) increasingly hindered CSOs’ work. Several foreign CSO representatives, including from EU Member States, were expelled from Serbia and some were subsequently banned from entering the country. In February 2025, the police searched the offices of four CSOs at the request of the Special Anti-Corruption Department of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade. To date, the searches have not resulted in any judicial proceedings and they have been widely perceived as an act of pressure on civil society. Cooperation between the government and CSOs has been under strain. There is still significant scope to improve the transparency of public funding to civil society.
Serbia is between having some and a moderate level of preparation in the area of the judiciary. No progress was made overall during the reporting period. Whilst the case management system for prosecutor offices was finalised, Serbia still lacks a comprehensive court case management system. Several judges and prosecutors were elected in 2024 and 2025, but a considerable number of vacancies remain to be filled. Undue pressure on the judiciary remains a concern, with little or no follow-up from relevant institutions, and there are concerns about prosecutorial autonomy. Four vacant positions at the Constitutional Court still need to be filled. Serbia has yet to show a genuine commitment to investigating and adjudicating war crimes cases, including by appointing a Chief Public Prosecutor for War Crimes.
Serbia is between having some and a moderate level of preparation in the fight against corruption. Overall, it has made limited progress. In December 2024, Serbia adopted an action plan for the national anti-corruption strategy for 2024-2025. Overall, corruption is prevalent in many areas and remains an issue of concern. The canopy collapse at Novi Sad railway station prompted widespread public protests over corruption and the perceived lack of accountability and transparency in government infrastructure and construction projects. The authorities launched investigations into alleged corruption linked to the tragic incident, which have yet to be completed. There is a need for stronger political will to tackle corruption effectively, establish a robust track record and put in place a robust criminal justice response, including action on high-level corruption. The role and mandate of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime is insufficiently regulated in the law. Targeted risk assessments and specific measures are also needed to tackle corruption in the most vulnerable sectors.
While Serbia’s legislative and institutional framework for upholding fundamental rights is broadly in place, implementation of this framework needs to be improved as a matter of priority. Independent bodies have issued only little, or late, public reaction to human rights violations in the context of the protests. While freedom of assembly was generally ensured and protests allowed to take place, the safety of participants was not always guaranteed, and several violent incidents against demonstrators and journalists occurred, with reported cases of excessive use of force by the police. To date, only some perpetrators have been prosecuted, while several others were pardoned from criminal prosecution by the President. Such incidents intensified over the summer. The European Court of Human Rights issued an interim measure on the alleged use by the authorities of a sonic weapon for crowd control at demonstrations in Belgrade; there was no credible follow-up yet by the authorities which denied such use.
Serbia has some level of preparation in the area of freedom of expression. Although Serbia amended its media legislation to align further with the EU acquis and European standards, there was backsliding during the reporting period as the environment for journalists, media professionals and outlets seriously worsened. Recurrent statements by high-level officials on the work of journalists have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression. Cases of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) increasingly hindered the work of investigative media. The media laws of 2023 have also been inconsistently implemented. In particular, the media regulator, REM, failed to fully exercise its mandate and serious concerns persisted regarding its independence in practice. The Parliament did not elect a new REM Council by the legal deadline of 4 November 2024 and, as a result, Serbia has been without the decision-making body of the media regulator since then. However, the process of selection has recently advanced with international facilitation. Political and economic influence on the media, including on editorial policy, is a source of serious concern.
Serbia is between having some and a moderate level of preparation in the field of justice, freedom and security and has made limited progress. Serbia continued to contribute to the management of mixed migration flows to the EU by playing an active and constructive role and by cooperating effectively with its neighbours, EU Member States and EU agencies. The EU-Serbia status agreement entered into force on 1 April 2025. Serbia took steps to align with the EU visa policy by reinstating visa requirements for nationals of Kuwait, Mongolia, Oman and Qatar in December 2024. However, Serbia’s visa policy is still only partially in line with the EU list of visa-required third countries. The acquisition of visa-free travel rights to the EU for nationals of Russia by granting them Serbian citizenship poses potential security risks for the EU.
Serbia has some level of preparation and has made limited progress in the fight against organised crime. Authorities continued to cooperate actively with the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), Eurojust, Europol and Interpol, notably on drugs trafficking and the fight against organised crime groups.
Serbia has a good level of preparation and has made limited progress in developing a functioning market economy. In 2024, economic activity was robust, but slowed markedly in the first half of 2025 while external imbalances increased. The budget deficit turned out lower than planned in 2024 9 and monetary policy remained relatively tight, which helped inflation return to the target band. The banking sector remained stable, and the labour market improved further. Serbia postponed the full application of some fiscal rules and the reform of the public sector wage system faced further delays. State aid rules are not always implemented due to strong political pressure to provide financial assistance to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and large foreign investors. SOEs continue to have an outsized presence in many structurally important sectors. The business environment is hampered by red tape, weaknesses in the rule of law and limited efficiency and transparency of the public administration. The government has interfered significantly in the goods market by instituting on a very short notice a 20% margin cap for a wide variety of goods from 1 September 2025 for the following 6 months. While it is intended to benefit consumers through lower inflation, the measure risks causing market distortions and having a negative impact on investment.
Serbia is between a moderate and a good level of preparation and has made some progress in coping with competitive pressure and market forces in the EU. The manufacturing and service sectors are well-developed, benefiting from close economic integration with the EU. Serbia has made some progress in facilitating the school-to-work transition. Educational outcomes are below the OECD average and public spending on education and research remains below the EU average. There are wide infrastructure gaps, especially in certain sectors, despite higher government investment. Digital transformation is well advanced. SMEs still face obstacles, including an uneven playing field compared with large companies and foreign investors.”
