According to the assessment of the Venice Commission, the new package of judicial laws currently on the agenda of the National Assembly of Serbia fully satisfies seven of the nine recommendations contained in its April opinion. The opinion was issued after the adoption of a package of laws proposed late last year by Uglješa Mrdić, a member of parliament from the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS).
Legal experts and international institutions assessed the adoption of Mrdić’s laws in January as backsliding in the field of the judiciary and an affront to its independence. The package was adopted after parts of the prosecution – primarily the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime (TOK) – initiated several proceedings against high-ranking members of the SNS during 2025.
Parts of the judiciary publicly protested against Mrdić’s laws, while the European Union suspended payments from the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans. As confirmed by officials from both Serbia and the EU, although no formal decision was adopted, amendments to the laws became a prerequisite for the continuation of payments from this instrument, whose total value for Serbia exceeds €1.5 billion. Very soon after receiving strong messages from the EU, the government began signaling that it would amend the laws in accordance with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
According to our interlocutors, the long-term consequences of Mrdić’s laws will remain in the areas that were left unresolved by the legal revisions, such as the organization of the prosecutor’s office for high-tech crime, but also in the message sent by the executive and legislative branches to the judiciary that they have no problem changing the rules of the game within a short period of time.
On the other hand, there is a perception that the government will “score points” with the European Union, even though this is not an improvement of the situation but rather the correction of damage caused by the government itself. However, this is not the first time something like this has happened.
What is being restored to the original state
Mrdić’s laws opened the possibility for court presidents and chief public prosecutors to be elected multiple times, for the same person to be appointed acting chief public prosecutor several times, and for the same prosecutor to be seconded to the same prosecutor’s office more than once. According to interpretations, all of these solutions would strengthen executive influence over the judiciary.
The new package of laws abolishes all of these possibilities and restores the situation to what it was before January 2026. It also reinstates the independent commission to which prosecutors may file objections regarding mandatory instructions. In addition, the requirement introduced by Mrdić’s laws – that the Supreme Public Prosecutor must obtain the consent of the Minister of Justice in order to engage in international cooperation – has been removed.
Lidija Komlen Nikolić, president of the Presidency of the Association of Prosecutors of Serbia, told our portal that through these legislative solutions, the state has fulfilled what was requested, although only after both the public and the Venice Commission had been warned by the professional associations about the shortcomings of the initial versions of the revised judicial laws in early May.
“But we will see what the implementation of the laws themselves will look like, as well as whether prosecutors will fight for their independence,” says Komlen Nikolić, adding that if they do not, no law can help.
The new laws also introduce some new solutions, such as clarifying the composition of the complaints commission, specifying the forms of international cooperation conducted by the Supreme Public Prosecutor, and lowering the voting threshold in the High Prosecutorial Council when it cannot reach a decision on the appointment of acting chief prosecutors and secondments. Instead of 8 out of 11 votes, only 6 will now be required.
Komlen Nikolić explains that these clarifications were introduced at the insistence of the Venice Commission, especially the so-called “anti-deadlock” mechanism – that is, reducing the number of votes required.
What remains unresolved
Of the two Venice Commission recommendations that had not been resolved at the time of the publication of the opinion, one concerned two prosecutors from the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime (TOK) whose secondments ended under the provisions of Mrdić’s laws and whom the High Prosecutorial Council had not reappointed. They are Irena Bjeloš, who worked on the “Konjuh” case, involving the seizure of a high quantity of drugs at the premises of an SNS member, and Aleksandar Barac, one of the prosecutors in the “Canopy” case, an investigation into the financial flows regarding the reconstruction of the Novi Sad railway station, which tragically collapsed in November 2024.
These two prosecutors were finally reappointed to TOK on the third attempt at a session of the High Prosecutorial Council on 18 June. Previously, there had not been a majority in the council in favor of their secondment.
Lidija Komlen Nikolić says that attention should not be focused on individual personnel decisions, but that it is likewise inappropriate to terminate someone’s mandate through the transitional and final provisions of a law, which happened to these two prosecutors due to Mrdić’s laws.
“But again, secondments are not a good way to solve staffing shortages. The Venice Commission also pointed this out—you have to appoint people to a full term,” says Komlen Nikolić.
Of the 25 prosecutors in the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime (TOK), the majority have still not been formally appointed to a full term and remain temporarily seconded from other prosecutor’s offices.
The second unresolved issue identified in the Venice Commission’s opinion concerns the organization of the prosecution units responsible for high-tech crime, which were reorganized under Mrdić’s laws into a department of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade. The new law proposes only that the head of the department will no longer be appointed by the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade, who is considered an ally of the ruling party, but instead by the High Prosecutorial Council.
However, the Venice Commission has concluded that this change alone is insufficient to guarantee the independence of the prosecution service responsible for high-tech crime. A working group tasked with drafting legislation that would address this issue has been established, but it remains unclear when it will complete its work.
In what condition is the judiciary emerging from the “Mrdić Laws” episode?
Commenting on the long-term damage caused by Mrdić’s laws, Lidija Komlen Nikolić argues that it can primarily be viewed from the perspective of an indirect threat by the legislative and executive branches to the judiciary.
According to her, the message being sent is: “Look at what we can do in a short period of time – we can amend laws even if we have to bear consequences in terms of European integration.”
Jovana Spremo, coordinator of the Working Group for Chapter 23 of the National Convention on the European Union, told our portal that, as far as increasing control over the judiciary is concerned, the government succeeded in some respects through Mrdić’s laws and failed in others.
“What they lost are the provisions concerning court presidents, chief public prosecutors, and the complaints commission, which they will have to restore to their original state. But what they did achieve was weakening the position of the Supreme Public Prosecutor and keeping the high-tech crime prosecution service on a short leash,” says Spremo.
One change introduced by Mrdić’s laws that will remain in force is that decisions on secondments will be made by the High Prosecutorial Council rather than by the Supreme Public Prosecutor. This solution had already been recommended by the Venice Commission during the constitutional reform process in 2022, but the government did not implement it at the time, a decision that was interpreted as reflecting the better relationship that then existed between the executive branch and Supreme Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac.
As for TOK, Spremo believes that the authorities did not fully succeed in carrying out their intentions, but they did manage to significantly slow the institution down.
“Points” with the European Union?
Spremo notes another problematic consequence of Mrdić’s laws: increasingly, they are being mentioned as one of the three issues that the European Commission will consider when assessing Serbia’s progress.
“The government artificially created an issue that will now generate positive reactions and progress in the European integration process. Putting Mrdić’s laws alongside the appointment of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media and electoral legislation as a pre-condition for progress by the EU makes no sense, yet that is exactly what is happening,” says Spremo.
In that sense, she argues, the episode surrounding Mrdić’s laws has been very positive for the government and very negative for Serbia.
“The government created, out of nothing, a problem on which it will now earn points because it will partially or fully remove it. And this is not the first time they have done this. The same thing happened with the 2022 constitutional reform – a very poor initial solution that everyone criticized as a regression, followed by a more acceptable solution that was welcomed as a major step forward,” concludes Jovana Spremo.
Whether, and to what extent, the correction of Mrdić’s laws will unblock Serbia’s European integration process and the release of funds from the Growth Plan remains to be seen.
