At the session on October 3, the Government of Serbia adopted the Reform Agenda, a plan of measures to be taken in the next few years in order to gain access to funds from the European Union's Growth Plan for the Western Balkans.
The Reform Agenda contains 98 measures in four prioritized areas, among which, at the insistence of the EU, are the Fundamentals (Cluster 1). Moreover, one of the specific objectives of the Growth Plan is to “further strengthen the fundamentals of the enlargement process, including the rule of law and fundamental rights, the functioning of democratic institutions…” In accordance with the “Fundamentals first” approach and the EU conditionality policy, the fulfillment of obligations from this area is considered a condition for withdrawing provided funds.
For 21 measures within the section on the Fundamentals, the Government of Serbia is requesting a total of slightly more than 370 million euros. The Reform Agenda contains measures with semi-annual deadlines from December 2024 to the end of 2027, and EU payments are expected to follow those deadlines after a positive assessment of fulfillment.
The reform agendas of Serbia and other Western Balkan countries except Bosnia and Herzegovina were green-lighted at the EU Council level on October 11, which enables the first transfer of funds before the end of the year.
Coalition prEUgovor regularly monitors the state of affairs and advocates for substantial reforms in Cluster 1. It shares its impressions of the adopted document below, in principle and in selected areas.
General comments
The process of drafting the Reform Agenda during 2024 was not transparent and inclusive, but limited by the rules of confidential negotiations between the Government of Serbia and the European Commission. Some members of the prEUgovor coalition gave their comments on the Draft Reform Agenda that was presented to them at the session of the parliamentary European Integration Committee on July 18, to which they were invited through the National Convention on the European Union. The comments were made in an oral discussion at a session that was closed to the public, but detailed written comments were subsequently submitted.
The adopted Reform Agenda gives the impression that there was no room for those comments to be really considered and adopted, and the general remarks remain. Although the areas included in the Reform Agenda are important and altogether well chosen, the proposed solutions do not correspond to the scale of the problems in the given areas. Certain measures from the action plans for chapters 23 and 24 are only repeated with postponed deadlines after the original deadlines have been substantially exceeded. Precise indicators for monitoring implementation have not been defined for all measures. Some measures are vague or inadequately formulated, probably partly due to the English-Serbian translation. All this will make it difficult to implement the Reform Agenda and measure the achieved results.
The implementation of the Reform Agenda must not further delay the activities foreseen in the action plans for chapters 23 and 24 and measures from other strategic documents.
Functioning of democratic institutions
It is of potentially great importance that the list of measures to be implemented includes the fulfillment of Serbia's obligations regarding the recommendations of international organizations, such as the ODIHR and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. Within the first set of tasks, it is requested that a working group be formed by the end of this year in accordance with the recommendations of the ODIHR, that a thorough revision of the voters registry be carried out according to the recommendations of the ODIHR, and that a new Council of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) be elected, in accordance with with the Law on Electronic Media, and in a transparent and inclusive process. For all tasks, it was stated that ODIHR would verify their fulfillment.
As for the first task, the mere formation of the Working Group does not represent a solution to the problem, because even if it reaches agreement on the proposal for amending the regulations, its success will depend on whether the proposals it submits will be included in the procedure and whether they will be addressed by the National Assembly at the first following session.
The fundamental revision of the voters registry is one of the most urgent tasks related to the ODIHR recommendations, and it is appropriate that the set deadline for its fulfillment is short, but it is probably impossible that it can be realized by the end of 2024 in full, because it partly depends from the success of international cooperation (when checking whether the persons who are registered as voters based on the registered place of residence really have a place of residence in the Republic of Serbia). In the best case, by the end of the year, the Law on the Single Electoral Roll could be amended and a commission established to deal with the revision, but its implementation requires a much longer time.
As regards the election of new members of the REM Council, even if a public call is announced tomorrow, the task from the Reform Agenda has not been fulfilled, because the legal deadline for announcing that call expired more than two months ago.
It is important to note that the Reform Agenda does not specify deadlines for the fulfillment of other recommendations that are related to the above - for instance, the initiation of procedures to investigate possible abuses related to the voters registry or the work of REM. The potential for improving the situation would be significantly greater if such measures were included as well.
According to the Reform Agenda, by the end of next year, it is planned to adopt appropriate regulations to implement the key recommendations of the ODIHR and the Council of Europe and to improve the capacities of the Republic Electoral Commission (REC) and establish its secretariat. The description of the activity overlooks that legislative amendments are necessary in order to fulfill the latter measure. Without that, REC cannot even have a secretariat, as it is foreseen.
Fight against corruption
When it comes to the fight against corruption, there are not many activities that are set as a condition for receiving EU aid and loans. The adoption of the Action Plan for the Anti-Corruption strategy is requested, “after consultation with the European Commission”. There is no mention of consultations within Serbia, nor any qualitative feature of the Action Plan. Therefore, it turns out that it is only up to the European Commission to assess whether the Government has properly fulfilled its obligation. What is certain is that the work did not start well. Namely, about a month ago, the Ministry of Justice started drafting the Action Plan, but only for the period until the end of 2025, and the Reform Agenda calls for the adoption of the AP for the period until the end of 2028.
Another measure is to increase the number of prosecutors and judges in special departments for combating corruption, according to adopted plans. Here we see that the fulfillment of something is sought that should have already been realized. The second and more important thing is the fact that the current capacities in prosecutor's offices and courts are planned according to the number of cases of prosecution of corruption, and that the number of cases itself is very far from the actual level of corruption in Serbia. In order to achieve much greater proactivity of the public prosecutor's offices, as is absolutely necessary, the level of capacity should be planned accordingly.
With the third measure, it is requested to “improve the balance of the results of effective and efficient investigations, criminal prosecutions, final judgments, temporary and permanent confiscation of property, including cases of high-level corruption”. Here too there are no additional evaluation criteria, so it could very easily happen that the condition is met without any substantial progress being made (e.g. increasing the number of convictions from 21 to 23). That's why we proposed, when we got the opportunity, to reformulate the activity so that the goal is more clearly defined, but also sufficiently ambitious. In general, much more important than increasing the number of detected cases or convictions is that there are no cases of suspected high-level corruption, for which evidence or substantiated suspicions have been publicly presented, without being investigated by the public prosecution.
Certain measures from other parts of the Reform Agenda, which relate to public procurement, public investment planning and state-owned enterprises, are also very important for the fight against corruption. And here the main objection is that some good measures (e.g. the repeal of special laws that deviate from the Law on Public Procurement) are only planned for 2027. In other words, only for the time when several billion euros will be spent without applying the Law on Public Procurement based on a special law for EXPO 2027.
Fundamental rights
The Reform Agenda for the area of Fundamental Rights takes over part of the content from the Revised Action Plan for Chapter 23. This represents yet another postponement of the deadlines for the implementation of already planned activities. It is emphasized that Serbia has established a comprehensive legal and political framework for gender equality and that the existing Law and Strategy introduce new and improve existing mechanisms. However, while the document was drafted, the Constitutional Court of Serbia issued a Decision that initiated the procedure to determine the unconstitutionality of the Law on Gender Equality and suspended the execution of individual acts and actions undertaken based upon the Law. The Reform Agenda does not mention this fact, which may have consequences for the “comprehensive legal framework” on which the presented measures are based.
In the mentioned area, it has been planned to adopt a “legislative package” with the aim of achieving improvement and significant progress. It seems that it has not been taken into account that in addition to good solutions, legal amendments can also bring bad solutions or alter good ones. Thus, the amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Law (prepared for more than three years) were recently put into public debate within a month (together with three other judicial laws), which is the minimum legal term, completely disproportionate to the importance, scope and number of considered laws.
Moreover, the amendments to the Criminal Code do not contain the solutions that women's organizations proposed to the working group. For example, the definition of rape and sexual violence was not harmonized with the Istanbul Convention, the proposal to make the misuse of a video of sexual content (so-called revenge pornography) a criminal offense was rejected (regardless of the alarming number of these and other crimes caused by the misuse of digital media and the Internet), and the proposal to make femicide a new crime was also rejected.
When it comes to amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to appeal the status of a particularly sensitive witness is provided for, among other things. If this amendment is adopted, it will violate the level of already achieved rights, become another tool of the perpetrator of violence to intimidate the victim, to prolong the already lengthy procedures and, possibly, deter prosecutors and judges from making decisions on the approval of that right.
It has also been planned to adopt amendments to the Family Law by the end of 2024, so that it be harmonized with the Criminal Code and the Law on Prevention of Domestic Violence (although the amendments to the latter Law are only planned for the end of 2025). In addition to the aforementioned regulations, the “legislative package” in this area also includes the Law on Juvenile Offenders and the Criminal Protection of Minors.
The adoption of the Action Plan (AP) for the period 2024-2025 for the Strategy for Preventing and Combating Gender-Based Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (2021-2025) is also foreseen, after a public debate, by the end of 2024. It remains unclear how the implementation of the planned strategic measures for one year will compensate for the lack of AP for the previous period (as well as for the current year), while meeting the goals set by the Strategy.
According to the Reform Agenda, by the end of 2026, a central record of all types of violence covered by the Istanbul Convention, including domestic violence, should be introduced, a national network of support services for victims and witnesses of crimes should be established in 20 higher courts in Serbia, and the number of service users in the community by licensed service providers should be increased by 18%. It should be pointed out that in Serbia there are 25 higher courts and 66 basic ones (174 local self-government units) and that victims and witnesses of criminal acts with elements of violence are often heard before the basic prosecutor's offices and courts, as well as that they need support from the moment a criminal complaint is filed, and not only when the trial starts. It remains to be seen how these long-delayed tasks will be realized, and above all, what quality the records, service providers and services will be.
Police reform and the fight against organized crime
PrEUgovor coalition commends the fact that strengthening operational autonomy of the police is included in the Reform Agenda, in accordance with the priorities highlighted for Chapter 24 in the last European Commission’s Annual Report on Serbia. Ensuring the operational independence of the police from the influence of politics and organized crime is a prerequisite for the effective implementation of all other activities from the Action Plan for Chapter 24. However, this measure has so far been largely ignored by the Government of Serbia. The two drafts of the Law on Internal Affairs that the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs put up for public discussion in 2021 and 2022 contained controversial provisions, among other things, regarding the role of the Minister of Internal Affairs in relation to the operational work of the police.
We welcome the incentive from the European Commission to regulate this issue in an appropriate manner. However, we believe that the proposed measure from the draft Reform Agenda is sketchy and imprecise, as it leaves room for pro forma normative changes, without a real change towards the stated goal. Namely, it is not enough to adopt “the Law on internal affairs addressing the issue of police autonomy from the Ministry of Interior”. A similar norm is already contained in the existing Law on Police, and in two versions of the Draft Law on Internal Affairs. The law should provide for conditions to ensure operational autonomy of the police in practice. It is necessary to envisage protection mechanisms and remove controversial provisions that enable the influence of the Minister of Internal Affairs on the work of the police. It is also of essence to monitor how this principle is enforced in practice.
In addition, we draw attention to the related measures that need to be envisaged in order to achieve the result of a more effective fight against organized crime, while guaranteeing the operational independence of the police. Namely, it is necessary to remove the participation of intelligence and security services from criminal investigations, especially bearing in mind the recent practice of appointing an active official of the ruling party or the ruling coalition to head the Security and Information Agency.
Moreover, given that the police director is a professional who should protect the police from the influence of politics, and that this position has been vacant in Serbia for almost three years, one of the first measures that the government should implement in order to strengthen the operational independence of the police should be announcing a public competition for this position as soon as possible. The government must not wait for the adoption of the Law on Internal Affairs to conduct this competition, especially when the deadline is set for June 2025.
Combating traficking in human beings
The final version of the Reform Agenda contains a description of the Law on Suppression and Prevention of Trafficking in Human Beings, which makes an ambitious promise to resolve all legal and procedural deficiencies in this area and create legal prerequisites for better procedural guarantees, protection, guaranteeing the human rights of all participants in criminal proceedings and a focus on protection of human trafficking victims. The steps and activities related to the adoption of the law are also detailed in the final text of the Reform Agenda. The adoption of the law is in the section of the document that contains measures to fight organized crime.
First of all, we remind you that in Serbia, the last verdict for human trafficking in the form of organized crime was passed more than a decade ago. Also, the current activities related to the updating of the Standard Operating Procedures for dealing with victims of human trafficking, which are presented as a necessary link with the future law, do not match the announced improvements at any point. On the contrary, specialized civil society organizations and independent experts are deeply concerned that the collapse of a system built for more than a decade is underway. Despite its shortcomings, the existing system represents a good basis for adequate protection and support for victims of human trafficking in Serbia.
PrEUgovor member ASTRA, made proposals to the Draft Reform Agenda aimed at the need to strengthen the institutional response to human trafficking, improve intersectoral cooperation, improve victim protection, more efficient use of resources and alignment with international standards. Also, the need for better implementation of existing laws, strengthening the role of specialized organizations, as well as protecting the rights of migrant workers was emphasized. Finally, the need for improving the selection and collection of data, more transparent management of funds and prevention of secondary victimization of trafficking victims was pointed out. None of the proposals were accepted.
Fight against terrorism and violent extremism
Priorities, measures and activities in the prevention and fight against extremism and terrorism in the Reform Agenda and its annex are scattered, insufficiently interconnected and inappropriate, and Serbia should have already implemented most of the activities. Therefore, we should not expect that the Reform Agenda will have any practical effect in this area, but will only represent the basis for the Government of Serbia to withdraw 27 million EUR from the EU.
In this area, Serbia has determined that there are two groups of priority needs:
- adoption of a new strategic document for the fight against terrorism and violent extremism,
- mapping the groups that are most vulnerable to radicalization, and defining concrete measures taken to prevent violent extremism, as well as providing a consistent response to the activities of extreme right-wing groups.
Within the second group of priorities it is unclear why the mapping of the groups most vulnerable to radicalization, as well as the definition of measures to prevent violent extremism, is planned, because this should be an integral part of (creating) the strategy, which should be completed by June 2025, a year and a half before the second priority group (December 2026). In addition, for the realization of the second priority, three groups of activities are foreseen, which are reduced to defining risks, tasks, resources and procedures without measuring the results in practice. Only for activities of various types of definition, the Government of Serbia will withdraw slightly more than 13 million euros, and these activities rather fall under the first priority, which refers to the strategic document and the action plan for its implementation.
Providing a consistent response to the activities of extreme right-wing groups is very important because numerous studies indicate the growth of the extreme right in Serbia, which is also a consequence of the lack of an adequate response to its activities. Serbia has a good normative framework for an adequate response to the activities of the extreme right, but the problem is that its consistent application is lacking, for which the authorities in Serbia are responsible. A consistent response to the activities of the extreme right implies consistent sanctioning of violent acts of these groups and individuals, in real and virtual space, and clear and continuous condemnation of such activities by the authorities. It is also very important to consistently apply regulations that would sanction content in the media that tolerates or promotes extreme right-wing attitudes and values.
Finally, it is important to note that the findings presented in the analysis of the main problems for this area in the Reform Agenda are not reflected in the Annex to the Agenda. Namely, in the analysis of the problem, the infiltration of terrorists through migratory flows, the connections of organized criminal and terrorist groups, especially in the field of financing terrorism, and the availability of weapons, which encourages violence and terrorism, are highlighted as the main challenges in this area. Right-wing extremism, however, was not mentioned in the problem analysis of the Reform Agenda, but was found in its annex among the priorities.
Migration
We support the efforts of the Government of the Republic of Serbia to speed up the implementation of all initiated reforms in order to make faster progress on the path to membership in the European Union. We note that the prioritization of measures from the Reform Agenda should not slow down the dynamics of reforms defined in other strategic documents within the accession process, which refer to the field of migration in the broadest sense, including, among others, the issue of asylum, visa policy, border control and Schengen.
The steps envisaged by the Reform Agenda do not fully reflect the scope of reforms needed in the area of migration within Chapter 24. Therefore, we hope that the withdrawn funds will contribute to the continuity and even progress of all reforms in the mentioned areas. Also, we hope that the European Commission will insist on maintaining this even and comprehensive reform process.