The EU’s response to the use of a "sound cannon" against peaceful protesters in Serbia revealed a worrying gap between its proclaimed values and its foreign policy practices. While human rights institutions spoke out clearly, the EU’s highest officials remained reserved, creating the impression that geopolitical interests outweigh their commitment to democracy and human rights. This stance not only disappointed the Serbian public but also once again called into question the EU’s credibility as a promoter of democratic values in the region.
AI generated image
The use of a “sound cannon” against peaceful demonstrators in Serbia on March 15, 2025, raised serious concerns about human rights violations, particularly the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Following the incident, EU institutions faced criticism for their restrained responses. The EU’s failure to take a clear stance was interpreted either as strategic alignment with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić or as inconsistency in defending core European principles - democracy and human rights. Moreover, the lack of an unequivocal condemnation left many wondering whether the EU is truly committed to protecting civil liberties in candidate countries.
Denial Instead of Investigation
On March 15, 2025, Serbia witnessed one of the largest anti-government demonstrations in its recent history. Hundreds of thousands of students and citizens filled the streets of Belgrade protesting widespread corruption and demanding accountability for the (then) 15 victims of a roof collapse at the Novi Sad railway station on November 1, 2024. A fifteen-minute silence - honoring the victims - was abruptly interrupted by the use of an unknown device. According to social media footage and eyewitness accounts, powerful sound waves caused panic among protesters, physical discomfort, injuries, and in some cases, permanent hearing damage.
Outraged by the excessive use of force, the public accused authorities of deploying a banned Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), commonly known as a “sound cannon,” to disperse and intimidate protesters. Instead of launching an investigation to determine what happened, state institutions - including the prosecution and public health services - categorically denied everything.
The deployment of such equipment against civilians quickly attracted international attention and condemnation from human rights organizations and democratic activists, who labeled it a form of state repression aimed at silencing civic dissent. As the news spread, the Serbian public turned its attention to the European Union, given Serbia’s status as an EU candidate. Many expected a strong EU reaction - one that would unequivocally condemn the use of force against peaceful demonstrators and call for an independent investigation.
Lithium, Arms, and Other Interests
In the days following the protests, EU institutions reacted with noticeable restraint. On March 17, European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier stated that the EU was aware of the allegations regarding the use of sound weapons against peaceful demonstrators in Serbia and expected a prompt and transparent investigation by Serbian authorities. However, European Commission officials, including Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, and Marta Kos, refrained from directly condemning the Serbian government’s actions or calling for an independent investigation. This silence did not go unnoticed in Serbia.
Yet, this came as little surprise. For months, the EU had turned a blind eye to mass student protests. Many interpreted this as part of a broader strategy to maintain “stability” in the Balkans as a counter to Russian influence - effectively supporting the current regime despite rampant corruption and rising authoritarianism. Moreover, many believe the EU’s mild response stems from geopolitical interests, particularly access to lithium needed by the German and broader European auto industry. Additionally, France - the EU’s second most powerful member - secured a €2.7 billion arms deal with Serbia, selling 12 fighter jets and pursuing major infrastructure projects, including in Belgrade’s airport, metro, railways, and nuclear cooperation.
A particularly controversial moment came when French President Emmanuel Macron, just a day after the incident, tweeted his support for President Vučić, stating: “I’m pleased to see President Vučić continue advancing Serbia’s European integration and contributing to regional stability. France remains a committed partner in the Balkans.” During Vučić’s visit to Paris in early April, Macron again expressed support for Serbia’s leadership. These messages sparked sharp criticism in Serbia and across the EU for ignoring Serbia’s political crisis and prioritizing France’s strategic interests over human rights.
Brussels’ Support for the “Non-competent Institution”
Vučić’s invitation to Brussels on March 25 - interpreted as direct support for his policies - provoked strong reactions. Many citizens were shocked to see EU leaders meet with Vučić amid Serbia’s deep political and social crisis.
Talks with EU leaders—including Ursula von der Leyen, António Costa, Marta Kos, and Kaja Kallas - focused on Serbia’s EU accession, the growth plan, regional security, and the broader geopolitical context, with the Jadar lithium project looming in the background. Although von der Leyen reiterated key EU demands - electoral reform, media freedom, and credible anti-corruption efforts - she made no mention of the alleged use of crowd-control weapons like the sound cannon.
A key criticism concerns the fact that topics discussed with the Serbian president - who faces the gravest legitimacy crisis of his term - fall outside his constitutional authority. This issue was raised in an interview with Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos, who responded with a counter-question: “If not with him, who do we talk to?” However, by engaging with the president on matters beyond his legal competence, Brussels contributes to the erosion of Serbia’s institutional order. Damage control efforts, such as Kos’s later visit to Serbia and her reiteration that the EU stands with the students and their demands, failed to ease public criticism.
Critics warn that by prioritizing geopolitical stability over democracy and human rights, the EU sends a dangerous message - to both the Serbian authorities and its citizens - that it is willing to tolerate “stabilocrats” and authoritarian practices as long as they don’t threaten regional stability or EU interests. This could undermine the EU’s influence in driving democratic reforms and erode the transformative potential of the EU accession process in the Balkans. The EU’s failure to clearly condemn the use of force against peaceful demonstrators left many in Serbia disillusioned with the European project and doubtful of the Union’s genuine commitment to democracy, rule of law, and human rights.
European Parliament on the Side of Human Rights
While EU leaders largely remained silent, some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) condemned the use of crowd-control weapons against peaceful citizens. Gordan Bosanac, a Green/EFA MEP, was among the most outspoken voices calling for an independent international investigation into the incident. Bosanac and several Green colleagues criticized the EU’s response, stating that the use of sonic weapons against peaceful demonstrators is a blatant violation of fundamental rights. The Greens called on the EU to hold Serbia accountable and ensure it meets its obligations on democracy and human rights.
Other MEPs expressed similar concerns, stressing that Serbia’s EU accession must depend on its respect for democratic principles, including the right to peaceful assembly. They emphasized that the EU must not shy away from confronting Belgrade on human rights and must demand a full and independent investigation into the March 15 events.
The European Parliament’s stance contrasts sharply with the far more cautious responses from the European Commission and member state leaders, highlighting the growing divide between the EU’s diplomatic leadership and lawmakers focused on protecting individual rights.
A Critical Voice from the European Court of Human Rights
In addition to MEPs, international human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressed concern. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), previously critical of Serbia’s human rights record, did not immediately respond. However, on March 24, 2025, the Court formally requested that the Serbian government answer key questions - concerning the legality of such weapons, the legal basis for their use, and the steps taken to protect citizens from arbitrary force.
This came after civil society organizations filed a lawsuit on behalf of 47 citizens who claimed to be directly affected by the sound cannon. The Court’s request signaled that the handling of public protests in Serbia was no longer treated as a purely domestic matter but had entered the scope of European legal scrutiny. This increased pressure on the Serbian government to justify its use of force against its own citizens.
The ECHR’s involvement is a turning point, showing that international legal mechanisms can succeed where political pressure fails. This is especially important as it underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the potential breach of European human rights standards - including the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Given Serbia’s formal aspiration for EU membership, the Court’s investigation carries broader implications—it reminds both Belgrade and Brussels that adherence to human rights standards is a core prerequisite for integration into the European community. After reviewing the submitted evidence, the ECHR issued a provisional measure instructing Serbia to refrain from using sound devices for crowd control. The Court invited all 47 individuals to submit formal complaints by May 28, 2025. Should the Court rule in their favor, the resulting judgment could confirm state responsibility and significantly influence future EU diplomatic policy toward Serbia - especially within the accession process.
Author: Maja Bjeloš, Senior Researcher at the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy
The article was originally published in Serbian language in the Belgrade Open School’s monthly bulletin “Progovori o pregovorima”, No. 119, April 2025.
This article is part of the project financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Italian Republic. The content of this publication represents the views of its authors and in no way represents the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.