Headlines
European Legal Experts Tell Serbia to Improve Judiciary Laws
Published by Global Banking & Finance Review®
Posted on April 24, 2026
2 min readLast updated: April 24, 2026
Add as preferred source on GoogleQuick Summary
A Venice Commission panel has issued an urgent opinion on Serbia’s January judiciary reforms, citing major flaws—particularly in prosecutorial autonomy and court leadership—and urged nine recommendations. Failure to address these may jeopardize approximately €1.5 billion in EU funding tied to EU acc
European Legal Experts Call on Serbia to Improve Flawed Judiciary Reforms
International Scrutiny and Recommendations for Serbia's Judiciary Reforms
BELGRADE, April 24 (Reuters) - Serbia's contested reform of its judiciary, needed for the country's EU accession bid, has major flaws that must be fixed, a panel of international legal experts said on Friday.
Criticism from Domestic and International Stakeholders
Reforms of Serbia's judiciary have triggered sharp criticism from judges and prosecutors who say they boost the rule of populist President Aleksandar Vucic, while undermining the rule of law and the fight against corruption and organised crime.
European Union Concerns and Financial Implications
After warnings from the European Union that it may freeze 1.5 billion euros in grants and loans due to the slow progress of needed reforms, Belgrade sought an opinion from the Venice Commission, a panel of international law experts at the Council of Europe, a human rights body.
Venice Commission's Assessment of the Reforms
In a non-binding opinion on Friday, the commission said the changes in the judiciary and the prosecution system had lacked a "meaningful public debate... consultation with national stakeholders, and a thorough impact assessment".
The commission also said it had identified "concerning shortcomings" in the disputed laws.
Impact on Prosecutorial Autonomy
"Viewed both individually and cumulatively, (shortcomings) remove previously existing safeguards designed to protect prosecutorial autonomy," it said.
Key Changes in the Judicial System
The Serbian judicial reforms include limiting the mandate of chief public prosecutors and granting court presidents - responsible for court administration - greater powers over judges.
Recommendations for Improvement
The commission recommended nine steps that Serbian authorities must take to improve the laws, including the reinstatement of temporarily assigned prosecutors whose appointments have been prematurely terminated and also making the fixed terms of court presidents mostly non-renewable.
Government Response and Future Steps
The government did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.
Earlier this year, Vucic said Serbia would adapt the judiciary reforms to conform with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.
($1 = 0.8558 euros)
(Reporting by Aleksandar Vasovic; Editing by Gareth Jones)
Key Takeaways
- •Venice Commission’s urgent opinion (24 April 2026) highlights lack of transparency and weakened judicial independence, recommending restoring safeguards like non-renewable court president terms and meaningful stakeholder consultation (coe.int).
- •EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos warned that around €1.5 billion in EU grants and loans remain “under a question mark” due to democratic backsliding, including interference with judiciary, protests, and media (apnews.com).
- •Serbia passed the contested judiciary reforms in January without broad debate, granting stronger powers to court presidents and undermining prosecutorial independence—criticized by both domestic legal professionals and EU bodies (ansa.it).
References
Frequently Asked Questions about European legal experts tell Serbia to improve judiciary laws
1Why are Serbia's judiciary reforms controversial?
The reforms have faced criticism for undermining judicial independence and potentially boosting the influence of the country’s executive branch.
2What could Serbia risk if judiciary reforms are not improved?
Serbia risks losing 1.5 billion euros in EU grants and loans if it fails to address the flaws highlighted by the European Union and the Venice Commission.
3Who provided the expert opinion on Serbia’s judiciary laws?
The Venice Commission, an advisory panel at the Council of Europe, issued a non-binding opinion on the reforms.
4What changes does the Venice Commission recommend for Serbia's judiciary?
Recommendations include reinstating prosecutors whose terms ended early and limiting the renewal of court presidents' fixed terms.
5How has the Serbian government responded to the recommendations?
The government did not immediately comment, but President Vucic previously said laws would be adjusted in line with the Venice Commission.
