BELGRADE – One in four laws adopted in the area of Fundamentals across the Western Balkans between 2020 and 2025 received a negative assessment from the European Commission, domestic civil society organizations, or both, according to the policy study “Flawed Reforms: How Western Balkan Countries Undermine the Rule of Law in EU Accession” published by the Centre for Contemporary Politics in cooperation with the Jacques Delors Institute. The findings point to persistent shortcomings in the region’s reform efforts, particularly in areas central to the EU accession process.
The analysis covers 89 laws or sets of laws and one constitutional amendment across Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. The database draws on five European Commission Enlargement Packages published between 2021 and 2025, comparing the Commission’s assessments with those of domestic civil society organizations.
The results vary considerably across the region. Bosnia and Herzegovina recorded the highest share of negatively assessed legislation, at 40%, followed by Serbia (33%), Albania (29%) and Montenegro (20%). Kosovo (18%) and North Macedonia (17%) recorded comparatively lower figures. Across all six countries, the most problematic legislative changes concerned three particularly sensitive areas: elections, the judiciary and media regulation.
Negative assessments fell into three categories: procedural criticism, missed opportunities and backsliding. The European Commission most frequently identified missed opportunities (nine cases), while explicitly pointing to backsliding in only two instances, involving Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia. Domestic civil society organizations took a considerably more critical position, identifying eight cases of legislative backsliding.
The discrepancy between these assessments is particularly notable. In 9% of the cases examined, the European Commission issued a positive or neutral assessment despite domestic civil society organizations raising serious concerns about backsliding or procedural shortcomings. Examples include Albania’s 2021 Law on the Registration of Non-Profit Organizations, Bosnia and Herzegovina’s 2022 Public Procurement Law, Kosovo’s 2023 Electoral Code and Montenegro’s 2024 Law on the Public Broadcaster (RTCG).
According to the policy study, such inconsistencies risk undermining the credibility of both EU institutions and domestic civil society, particularly when warnings from local actors are not adequately reflected in the EU’s own evaluations.
Nor has criticism consistently translated into legislative improvements. Of five major legislative acts that attracted substantial criticism from both the European Commission and civil society organizations over their content – including media legislation in Serbia and North Macedonia and access to information laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina – only one has so far been satisfactorily amended. The sole example of a successful revision is the Law on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Recommendations: Clearer standards and greater accountability
To address these shortcomings, CSP calls on the European Commission to establish clear standards for the quality of legislative reforms in the area of Fundamentals and apply them consistently throughout the accession process. As the organization stresses, “the European Commission should set clear red lines regarding the quality of reforms in the area of Fundamentals and apply them consistently”.
The proposed measures include an early-warning mechanism developed in cooperation with domestic civil society organizations, enabling problematic legislative proposals to be identified before their adoption. Closer coordination between EU institutions and local civil society is also needed to address discrepancies in reform assessments. Finally, the Commission should establish clear deadlines and concrete consequences for governments that fail to meet agreed standards.
The findings point to a broader problem extending beyond the quality of individual laws: the persistent gap between formal legislative commitments and meaningful reform. Without consistent assessments, stronger engagement with domestic oversight actors and tangible consequences for non-compliance, the EU’s rule of law conditionality risks losing much of its credibility and influence.
The policy study was published within the project Think Tanks for the Future of EU Enlargement (TFEP), supported by the Open Society Institute – Sofia.
