The new European Commission’s Report on Serbia was published on 4 November. Prior to that, two very strongly worded and substantial resolutions of the European Parliament on the state of democracy and the rule of law in Serbia, The Rule of Law Report for Serbia, and the more reserved approach of the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, during her visit to Belgrade in mid-October, had already indicated a more reserved stance towards the Serbian authorities and negative assessments. The previous report was released only two days before the collapse of the canopy in Novi Sad, making this an opportunity to systematically assess the situation in the country under altered circumstances.
Image source: EU Council/Christos Dogas
For several years now, we have witnessed a trend in which the European Commission's reports on Serbia have become increasingly critical, although still framed within the boundaries of the diplomatic language of the Brussels administration. The findings are communicated much more openly and directly, both in the report itself and in the public statements about it. It is explicitly stated that senior Serbian officials are spreading an anti-European narrative, and that under such conditions, along with the deep social polarization, there is little confidence in their promise to meet all membership criteria by the end of 2026.
The European Commission identified backsliding in the area of freedom of expression, and from a comparative perspective, placed Serbia among the countries lagging behind in the accession process - particularly behind its neighbors, Montenegro and Albania. While the authorities continue to repeat promises and announce the opening of Cluster 3, the report sends a clear message that such a decision is not on the horizon.
Average progress and readiness ratings remain almost unchanged, Chapters 23 and 24 show decline
The average ratings progress over the past year and the overall level of readiness for membership across thirty-three of the 35 Chapters have remained almost unchanged. Only in one chapter (4 - Free movement of capital) has the level of readiness increased per half a point, while progress was more balanced - accelerated in twelve chapters and reduced in fifteen. The most significant improvement by two points on a scale of 1 to 5 was recorded in Chapter 3 (Right of establishment and freedom to provide services) and Chapter 13 (Fisheries). The largest decline was noted in Chapter 25 (Science and research), which has even been provisionally closed.
In Chapters 23 (Judiciary and fundamental rights) and 24 (Justice, freedom and security), which are regularly monitored by the prEUgovor Coalition, progress dropped by one point on the scale, with the report providing an explanation for this trend. For the first time, it was recorded that there has been no progress at all in Chapter 23, while the already poor state of freedom of expression has turned into backsliding. This marks a precedent for Serbia which had previously received such a negative assessment only in Chapter 31 due to insufficient alignment with the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Numerous recommendations in the Report are being repeated, sometimes with stronger wording. This time, the implementation of the normative and institutional framework for the protection of human rights is listed as an urgent priority. In the area of the judiciary the level of readiness for membership has even decreased by half a point, which in practice represents regression, although it is formally marked as “no progress.” It should be emphasized that the constitutional reform of the judiciary was the only notable result this government had demonstrated in Chapter 23 in previous years, although it was clear from the outset that this was insufficient. Progress cannot be measured by laws if those laws are systematically ignored and deliberately circumvented.
A new development in Chapter 24 is the concern raised over Serbia’s practice of granting citizenship to Russian nationals. This has been identified as the security risk for the EU. The European Commission cannot require Serbia to stop this practice, as citizenship decisions fall within the exclusive competence of each state, but it demands that rigorous security checks be carried out on such individuals. It should be noted that investigative journalists have uncovered that hundreds of Russians have obtained Serbian passports through an expedited procedure, which is reserved for cases deemed to be “of special interest to the Republic of Serbia”. Among them are individuals directly linked to the Russian Federal Security Service and profiteers from the war in Ukraine who are under EU sanctions.
Below, we present the comments of the prEUgovor coalition members in the areas they regularly monitor-from the fight against corruption and the protection of human rights to police reform and asylum and migration policies.
Democracy in the shadow of protests, incidents, and growing social polarization
What stands out in this section is that the report makes no mention of the “counter-protests” organized by the authorities - which ought to be relevant, particularly in terms of the potential hidden party or budgetary costs, the involvement of individuals from criminal structures, and the unequal treatment by the police. As an example of the violation of university autonomy and academic freedom, the report cites the reduction of salaries for teaching staff during this period.
Regarding elections, the European Commission notes that a comprehensive reform is still needed and that the priority recommendations of the ODIHR must be implemented. These are explicitly identified as the: “separation of state and party, inclusiveness and comprehensiveness of the electoral reform, audit of the voter register and transparency of voter list data, greater oversight of election campaigns and their financing, and measures to enable media freedom and independence.”
The report further mentions that an inclusive working group had been established within the National Assembly but failed to reach consensus or produce results, and that by February, representatives of civil society and the opposition had withdrawn from it. It also discusses the opinions issued by the ODIHR on draft laws concerning the revision of the voter register and the related public hearings, concluding that in October “the ruling party and expert CSOs reached an agreement on the draft law which remains to be adopted.” The European Commission does not, however, address the extent to which the ODIHR's previous recommendations have been implemented, nor the fact that no opinion was requested on the latest draft, or the objections raised by certain opposition parties regarding the proposed legal solutions.
The Commission recalls that the Constitutional Court has still not ruled on the request to annul the December 2023 elections. It also references the assessments of domestic observers regarding the election in Zaječar and Kosjerić, as well as the developments surrounding the illegal constitution of the Zaječar City Assembly, while refraining from offering its own assessment on these matters.
A weak Parliament, a dominant president, and civil society under threat
Regarding the National Assembly, the European Commission points to the need to strengthen its effectiveness, independence, and transparency, as well as the role of the opposition. It highlights the lack of genuine political debate, noting that the work of the parliament is almost entirely dictated by the government, and that sessions have been marked by tensions, aggressive rhetoric, and incidents. It also observes that the speaker of the parliament has acted with bias in some cases, directly engaging in polemics with opposition members. The practice of merging debates on unrelated legislative proposals has continued. The Commission also notes that, contrary to parliamentary rules, the motion for the dismissal of the Speaker was not included on the agenda.
In the area of democratic governance, the Commission conveys - through a very diplomatic formulation what critical observers in Serbia point out to on a daily basis: that the President, in practice, exercises powers that go beyond the constitutional framework.
This section also addresses the situation of civil society, which the Commission notes is facing growing pressure, attacks, and restrictions on its work. Cases of surveillance and spying on human rights defenders and journalists have been documented, as well as an increase in strategic lawsuits (SLAPPs) that hinder their activities. Police raids in February 2025 and earlier accusations of money laundering are interpreted as forms of pressure. It is particularly important that the report explicitly states that the Commission is monitoring the outcome of the so-called “List” case from 2020 which prEUgovor has consistently highlighted in its Alarm reports.
Due to the lack of institutional support and response to attacks, several organizations have withdrawn from government working groups and from the Council for Cooperation with civil society. The report notes transparency in funding and the criteria for allocating public funds remain major challenges, while the effects of the Civil Society Strategy and Action Plan have yet to become visible.
Fight against corruption: even the “limited” progress assessment an overstatement
The European Commission's annual report on Serbia gives significant attention to corruption (the term appears no fewer than 63 times) and includes some valuable observations and assessments. The overall impression is that the Commission has missed an opportunity to adequately address, or even acknowledge, some of the most pressing issues. Moreover, in the context of today's Serbia, it is disheartening that the Commission found grounds to assess that there has been any progress, even “limited” in the fight against corruption and in the area of public procurement.
The report notes that an action plan for the anti-corruption strategy has been adopted, yet makes no mention of the fact that there have been no tangible results from its implementation (not even a progress report).
It mentions that the investigations following the Novi Sad tragedy remain incomplete but fails to note that the executive branch has been actively obstructing them, including through a campaign against the Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime (TOK) and the lack of cooperation by the police. In this context, the message may be implicit in the claim that the role of the TOK is insufficiently recognized in the legal framework, although this is uncertain, as the emphasis is placed solely on the coordination rule that TOK should play in relation to the anti-corruption departments of higher public prosecutors’ offices.
The report states that a “stronger political will” is needed to deliver a more effective blow to corruption, including high-level corruption. However, it means entirely unclear what this means, because any serious investigations into potential corruption would inevitably involve at least some of those expected to demonstrate that very political will.
The report calls for targeted risk analyses to be conducted in order to counter corruption in sensitive sectors.
Repeated recommendations, unaddressed accountability
The report notes that last year's recommendations have been “implemented only to a limited extent” and that they remain largely unchanged. Progress is still being called for in the investigation of high-level corruption cases, the implementation of all GRECO recommendations (with a particular emphasis on the need for the Government to maintain a “constructive relationship” with its Anti-Corruption Council), and the implementation of the existing and adoption of a new action plan. The only area where some “progress” has been recorded concerns the adoption of the previously mentioned Action Plan - which in practice remains unimplemented.
Statistical data on corruption prosecutions reveal negative trends. In a separate section, the report also refers to the fact that a campaign of arrests for corruption and various offences labeled as corruption- related was launched following an announcement by the President of the Republic, raising concerns about the independence of public prosecutors in their decision-making.
The report merely cites the figures on the implementation of GRECO recommendations, which were already known a year ago, without noting that almost no concrete action has been taken in the meantime.
A few sentences are dedicated to the Agency for Prevention of Corruption, where the report highlights the need to strengthen human resources, as well as to enhance the Agency's independence, impartiality, and accountability, without offering any explanation of the reasons behind current inadequate situation.
In the section on the fight against corruption, significant attention is devoted to public procurement, where the report criticizes the use of exceptions, encourages the proactive publication of contracts, procurement procedures and oversight reports, and calls for improved whistleblower protection in order to enhance public trust. All these issues are also linked to the recommendations and the work of the State Audit Institution.
Public procurement: Continued evasion of rules
Public procurement is addressed in a dedicated chapter of the report which refers negatively to the special law adopted for EXPO 2027, as well as to the government regulation on selecting a strategic partner for the construction of solar power plants. Some of the key issues are also discussed in other chapters of the report. For instance, under Serbia-EU relations, it states that the companies from EU member states have been prevented from competing due to state-to-state agreements.
Here too, the report records “limited progress”, while the recommendations remain largely the same-aligning public private-partnership (PPP) and concession rules with EU standards, with particular emphasis that PPP projects should be implemented in accordance with public procurement procedures. Furthermore, the report calls for ensuring that intergovernmental agreements comply with public procurement principles and are consistent with the EU rules. Finally, it once again recommends strengthening the capacities of several institutions responsible for public procurement oversight.
In this section, the report fails to address one of the most prominent issues in Serbia over the past year - the publication of contracts for infrastructure projects, and that even after the Novi Sad tragedy, the Government has not deemed it necessary to change its persistent practice of non-transparent contracting.
Fundamental rights: No progress and rising violence and hate speech
The European Commission's observations on fundamental rights, presented in the section on the report's key findings, confirm the conclusions of the prEUgovor coalition’s Alarm reports - that Serbia has made no progress and continues to ignore the recommendations issued in previous years.
For the coming year, the report particularly emphasizes that Serbia should: “adopt and allocate sufficient resources to implement the pending strategies or action plans on violence against women, deinstitutionalisation, anti-discrimination - including the rights of LGBTIQ persons - and violence against children; actively counter hate crimes and build up a track record of investigations and convictions.”
In the field of non-discrimination, The Commission highlights the need for further alignment of the legal framework with the EU acquis and European standards (concerning hate speech, xenophobia, and racism), including the directives setting minimum standards for equality bodies. It underlines the importance of consistent implementation of the Anti-Discrimination Strategy and notes that adoption of the new action plan (AP) has been delayed.
The report points out that no procedure has yet been initiated for appointing the commissioner for the protection of equality. Acts of violence and hate speech particularly targeted human rights defenders, Roma, LGBTIQ persons, and migrants-all issues covered in the Alarm report published in May 2025.
Regarding gender equality, the findings are fully consistent with those previously presented by the prEUgovor coalition. The European Commission reiterates that Serbia’s legal framework requires alignment with the EU acquis and European standards, and that implementation remains weak within an unfavorable context, including the suspension of the Gender Equality Law and delays in adopting the corresponding action plan. The report stresses the need for additional efforts to eliminate gender stereotypes from textbooks and public discourse, as well as to collect gender disaggregated data.
Numerous groups of women continue to face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. It was also observed that women played a prominent role in the recent protests and were disproportionately exposed to violence, intimidation, and targeted attacks - issues that were likewise documented in the Alarm reports.
Serbia lacks reliable data and systemic support for women victims of violence
The European Commission's report notes that violence against women and domestic violence remain widespread in Serbia. It highlights the absence of disaggregated data by types of violence (including digital and obstetric violence) and by the relationship between perpetrator and the victim. There is no reliable official femicide statistics, while data collected by women's organizations indicate an increase in number of murdered women who had previously reported violence.
The report warns that Serbia needs to align its legislation with the EU Directive on Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence, and to implement the recommendations of the baseline GREVIO report (2020), many of which were reiterated in the first thematic GREVIO report (2025). These include, among other things, amending the definitions of rape and sexual harassment in the Criminal Code.
It is further noted that the few available support services for victims of gender-based and domestic violence are mostly provided by civil society organizations operating with limited budgets, and that the transparency and fairness in public funding must be improved. The capacities and resources of safe houses remain insufficient, and equal access to services for all women is still lacking.
The report also points out that police protocols and the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence do not sufficiently involve or refer to specialized organizations, nor do they adequately include victims themselves in the process of developing individual support and protection plans. All of these issues have already been discussed in previous Alarm reports.
Rights of the child remain neglected
The legal framework on children's rights still needs to be further aligned with the EU acquis and the European standards, including the European Commission's recommendations on integrated child protection, along with improved implementation. The report also highlights that Serbia has yet to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’s Third Optional Protocol on a Communication
Procedure. It notes participation of children in recent protests, recalling that the Convention guarantees children the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression in a safe and peaceful manner.
The report further points out that sectoral protocols for the protection of children from violence have not been adopted, nor has any new strategy in this area. The Council for the Rights of the Child did not meet in either 2024 or 2025. It is emphasized that the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence should be amended to ensure that every child who witnesses violence is granted protection and that the Family Law should be revised to explicitly prohibit corporal punishment.
The new law on Juvenile Offenders and Criminal Justice Protection of Juveniles has still not been adopted. They report underlines the lack of comprehensive, disaggregated data by age and gender, including for Roma children and children with disabilities. A disproportionately high number of children with disabilities remain institutionalized in large residential facilities, where violations of their rights persist, and the ban on placing children under the age of three such institutions is still not fully enforced.
Fight against organized crime: strengthening police autonomy and eliminating the role of the Security Agency (BIA)
In the 2025 European Commission’s report, Serbia’s progress in police reform and the fight against organized crime is assessed as limited. Ensuring the operational autonomy of the police is once again identified as a priority in this area. This priority is also reflected in Serbia’s Reform Agenda, while the new law on internal affairs was not adopted within the deadline (June 2025). The role of security services in criminal investigations is criticized more sharply than before, with the report now calling for this role to be eliminated rather than merely “re-assessed,” as stated in previous reports.
Problematic conduct by the police and the Security Information Agency (BIA) toward participants in civic and student protests is discussed in the section on freedom of assembly. According to the report, police officers used excessive force, including against journalists and minors, with allegations of the use of toxic gas and sonic weapons - claims that authorities deny. At the same time, plainclothes officers detained demonstrators, confiscated their phones, and conducted searches, while the BIA conducted so-called “informational interviews” perceived as a form of intimidation. Recommendations on mandatory visible police identification have not been implemented, and only a small number of police brutality cases have reached the courts, indicating a lack of accountability and the selective application of the law.
The number of convictions in organized crime cases increased in 2024, but the number of indictments declined, pointing to weakness in coordination between the prosecution and the police. The Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime remains understaffed and under-resourced, and financial investigations are not conducted systematically.
Concern is also raised over the frequent use of plea bargains, which may contribute to a perception of impunity. On a positive note, Serbia’s cooperation with Europol, Eurojust, Interpol, and CEPOL has been evaluated favorably, leading to the arrest and dismantling of several criminal groups.
Combating human trafficking: law still pending, victims suffer from institutional lack of coordination.
In the area of combating human trafficking, the European Commission's criticism are almost identical to those the prEUgovor coalition has been raising for many years. Namely, Serbia needs to implement GRETA recommendations, provide significantly better protection for victims, ensure more effective investigation of labor exploitation, and improve coordination among institutions responsible for combating trafficking in human beings, both at the national and local levels.
The report notes that the Law on the Prevention and Suspension of Human Trafficking and Protection of Victims has been drafted but not yet adopted. Although civil society organizations remain the main providers of support to victims, they continue to face insufficient and unstable funding. The Program for Combating Human Trafficking (2024-2027) is being implemented, but better coordination among institutions- both nationally and locally is urgently needed.
In 2024, Serbia reported 34 convictions for human trafficking, seven of which were related to organized crime. The Center for the Protection of Victims identified 71 victims of human trafficking (compared to 66 in 2023). A Commission emphasizes the need for stronger victim protection during court proceedings, as well as for improved investigation and prosecution of cases, particularly those involving labor exploitation and foreign nationals.
Serbia actively participates in 11 out of 22 EU EMPACT operations targeting the most serious forms of cross-border crime, demonstrating its commitment to combating human trafficking. Nevertheless, it commissioned stresses the need to further strengthen the capacity to identify victims of trafficking among migrants and to fully implement GRETA's recommendations, including the enhancement of Labor inspection mechanisms and proactive financial investigations in cases of human trafficking and organized crime.
Partial alignment with EU standards in the areas of migration, asylum and visas
The 2025 European Commission report on Serbia notes partial alignment of the legislative and institutional framework in the areas of migration, asylum, and visa policy with the EU acquis, while emphasizing the need to strengthen implementation and inter-institutional coordination. The report once again stresses the necessity fully aligning Serbia’s visa policy with that of the EU, as the list of countries enjoying visa free travel still diverges from EU standards - a situation assessed as potential security risk.
Migration management is assessed as stable, with a decrease in irregular crossings and improved border control and measures against migrant smuggling. However, the report does not address data on legal migration for the growing number of foreign workers, which directly affects entry control systems and labor protection mechanisms. It also lacks analysis of the relationship between these trends and serious obligation to develop legal migration pathways that prevents secondary movements toward the EU, one of the priorities of the European migration policy.
In the area of asylum, the Commission points to the need to improve the quality of decision-making and access to rights, with particular emphasis on strengthening the mechanism for state funded free legal aid.
The report notes incidents from January and March 2025, when representatives of foreign civil society organizations and journalists including EU nationals were denied entry or expelled from Serbia on the grounds of being considered a “security risk”. These cases highlight the need for greater transparency and adherence to the fundamental rights of foreign nationals.
In the area of returns, the report mentions significant progress in concluding readmission agreements (with Kazakhstan, Iceland, Ukraine, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal). However, it does not sufficiently emphasize the need to further develop the return system in line with EU standards, particularly with regard to respecting fundamental rights and international law during forced involuntary return procedures.