Last week, Serbian media reported that the Government of Serbia had instructed all state institutions to pay special attention, when drafting laws and by-laws, to their alignment with the EU acquis and to whether proposals had been previously consulted with the European Commission. This would not be unusual if Serbia
Sofija Popović
Last week, Serbian media reported that the Government of Serbia had instructed all state institutions to pay special attention, when drafting laws and by-laws, to their alignment with the EU acquis and to whether proposals had been previously consulted with the European Commission. This would not be unusual if Serbia had not already been negotiating full EU membership for more than 12 years, during which such alignment is expected to be a routine activity for candidate countries.
At the most recent session of the National Assembly, all 40 items on the agenda of the second regular spring sitting were adopted. In addition to numerous laws, MPs approved several intergovernmental agreements, decisions, and strategies.
Among them was a set of laws presented as “European,” including the ratification of the Convention on the Bureau of the European Civil Aviation Conference, the ratification of the agreement between the EU and Serbia on the country’s association to the “EU4Health” programme, as well as the Law on the Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking in Human Beings and the Protection of Victims.
These are only some of the “activities” undertaken by the Serbian Government on its path towards the European Union, while top state officials continue to reiterate on a daily basis that the accession process remains one of the country’s key priorities.
To that end, a new Operational Team was established at the end of January, at the initiative of the President, tasked with accelerating Serbia’s alignment with EU legislation across various, largely technical, areas.
At the same time, Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos has stated that the European Commission is assessing whether Serbia meets the conditions for the disbursement of funds under the EU Growth Plan, following the recent adoption of judicial laws that the Commission sharply criticised as a step backwards.
Although the authorities present EU integration as a priority, anti-European rhetoric continues to spread, alongside increasingly sharp criticism directed at Members of the European Parliament who have pointed to rule of law concerns in Serbia.
Asked how Brussels views the authorities’ attempts to accelerate reforms and whether President Aleksandar Vučić enjoys trust in the EU, Iliriana Gjoni, a research analyst at Carnegie Europe, told European Western Balkans that it is difficult to speak of any shift in Brussels’ perception in favour of Belgrade.
“When Serbia is discussed, while the primary focus remains on Montenegro and Albania as frontrunners, the emphasis is on judicial reforms, which in recent months have signalled that Serbia is not on a credible reform path towards the European Union. Support for more limited models of integration, such as access only to the Single Market or the Schengen Area, further reinforces the impression that there is no clear strategic commitment on Serbia’s side to full integration based on European values: the rule of law, democracy, and the protection of human rights,” Gjoni said.
According to her, the issue is not merely the pace of reforms, but the broader question of political orientation and the depth of alignment with European standards.
“As a result, discussions in Brussels increasingly revolve around the credibility of Serbia’s European path, rather than individual reform announcements. While pledges to accelerate reforms are noted, trust at this stage is not built through rhetoric, but through concrete institutional changes and political signals demonstrating genuine readiness to align with the EU,” Gjoni added.
Bojana Selaković, coordinator of the National Convention on the EU (NCEU), said last week at the presentation of the publication “State of Democracy in Serbia 2025,” organised by the Centre for Contemporary Politics, that the Serbian authorities are doing everything except what Brussels is asking for.
“When we were supposed to focus on technical alignment as a state, we failed to do so. Instead, the authorities in Serbia offered transactional arrangements that no one had requested. Now that this is no longer sufficient, the Government has turned to technical reforms which, had they been implemented seven or eight years ago, might have led the accession process in a completely different direction,” Selaković said.
According to her, none of the government’s recent steps are producing tangible results, adding that such moves tend to dominate Serbian media coverage and discussions among certain diplomats in Belgrade for only a single day.
Brussels’ rhetoric grows sharper
Gjoni notes that rhetoric from Brussels has become more direct in recent months, adding that Commissioner Marta Kos has clearly signalled that there will be less tolerance for backsliding in democracy and the rule of law, including Serbia’s alignment with the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.
“We have also heard that some Member States have openly raised the possibility of suspending funds from the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans in Serbia’s case. At the same time, there is still no full consensus within the EU: countries such as France, Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia have often shown greater willingness to support Serbia,” Gjoni said.
She added that political trends in some of these countries raise questions about whether they indirectly reflect the type of political trajectory in Serbia that finds understanding within parts of the Union.
“At the same time, it should be noted that over the past year and a half the EU has not had a fully clear strategy for responding to political developments in Serbia. Institutionally, the European Commission’s counterpart is the government in Belgrade, and the EU must maintain a constructive dialogue with the authorities, even as problems become increasingly evident, as was the case during last year’s student protests. That is why, for example, many found it somewhat contradictory that senior Serbian government officials participated in the European Commission’s Enlargement Forum in Brussels just weeks after one of the EU’s most critical assessments of democratic backsliding in the country,” Gjoni explained.
She assess Brussels is also closely monitoring internal political dynamics and remains uncertain whether ongoing protests could lead to a change of government, which further explains why the EU is seeking to keep communication channels open with the current authorities.
While the European Union is calling for clear reforms in key areas related to the rule of law, Serbia’s president, together with Albania’s prime minister Edi Rama, recently suggested that Serbia would be interested in an EU membership model without veto rights.
Asked how such proposals are viewed in Brussels, Iliriana Gjoni assesses that discussions on alternative membership models appear to have lost momentum, as EU Member States show limited readiness for accelerated enlargement, even in the case of Ukraine.
“In that context, proposals such as the one put forward by Aleksandar Vučić and Edi Rama have not been particularly well received. Signalling interest in a different model of membership is a political prerogative of any government, but in Brussels such proposals are often perceived as attempts to seek shortcuts instead of implementing the reforms necessary for full membership. Their proposal was not only about a model without veto rights, but also one that would, at least for a certain period, stop short at the level of access to the Single Market and the Schengen Area. At the same time, it is important to stress that the European Union neither can nor should act as an arbiter of internal political processes in candidate countries,” Gjoni said.
According to her, change must come from within societies themselves, which is why the role of civil society, academia, and student movements is particularly important, even though they often operate in a complex environment marked by significant pressure.
“It is equally important that these movements preserve their democratic and inclusive character, as any drift towards radicalisation or nationalist rhetoric can, in the long run, weaken precisely those social forces that advocate for the European path. In this context, there is still room for progress in Serbia,” Gjoni concluded.
