Venice Commission says Serbia's judicial reforms threaten EU bid, demand fixes

Serbia’s judicial overhaul hit a new wall on Friday as the Venice Commission said the changes carry major flaws and must be fixed if Belgrade wants to keep its path to European Union membership open. The warning lands at a sensitive moment, with Brussels having already said it could freeze 1.5 billion euros in grants and loans if Serbia failed to make enough progress on the rule of law.

The commission’s urgent opinion focused on amendments adopted by Serbia’s National Assembly on 28 January 2026 and proposed by Uglješa Mrdić, a Serbian Progressive Party lawmaker. Ana Brnabić, president of the assembly, requested the review in a letter dated 10 February 2026, underscoring how closely the government now needs outside validation for a reform package that has triggered intense domestic criticism.

In its assessment, the commission said the changes lacked meaningful public debate, proper consultation with stakeholders and a thorough impact assessment. It also found concerning shortcomings that, taken together, remove safeguards designed to protect prosecutorial autonomy. Those safeguards matter in Serbia, where judges and prosecutors have long complained that legal changes can be used to tighten political control while weakening anti-corruption work and efforts against organized crime.

The opinion singled out rules affecting objections to hierarchical decisions, annual work programmes, prior consent by the justice ministry for international cooperation, provisional appointments and reappointments, temporary assignments of prosecutors, cybercrime jurisdiction, the Law on Judges and the territorial jurisdiction of courts and public prosecutor’s offices. Among its recommended fixes, the commission said temporarily assigned prosecutors should be reinstated if their appointments were cut short, temporary assignments should be limited to the same level and should not be renewable, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime should be staffed through ordinary appointments. It also said provisional appointments of chief public prosecutors should be limited to one year without reappointment, and that reappointments to the same office after mandate expiry should be excluded.

The ruling party has argued that the overhaul is part of Serbia’s EU-facing reform agenda, but the wider context points to a familiar tension between accession demands and political control at home. The European Commission said in its 2024 rule-of-law chapter that political pressure on the judiciary and prosecution service remained high, while a considerable number of vacancies still had to be filled. Serbia was included in the enlargement-country rule-of-law chapters for the first time that year, a sign that Brussels sees the issue as central to accession.

Aleksandar Vucic said earlier in 2026 that Serbia would adapt the reforms to conform with Venice Commission recommendations. On Friday, the government did not immediately comment. The choice now is stark: accept changes that would strengthen judicial independence, or keep testing how far EU patience can stretch before Serbia’s membership bid slows further.