STRASBOURG – The Venice Commission has published today its urgent opinion on the amendments to a set of five laws governing the judiciary and the prosecution service which were adopted on 28 January 2026 by the National Assembly of Serbia. These amendments were proposed by Uglješa Mrdić, an MP of the Serbian
EWB
STRASBOURG – The Venice Commission has published today its urgent opinion on the amendments to a set of five laws governing the judiciary and the prosecution service which were adopted on 28 January 2026 by the National Assembly of Serbia. These amendments were proposed by Uglješa Mrdić, an MP of the Serbian Progressive Party. The Commission reiterates that this opinion was requested by Ana Brnabić, President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia.
It is stated that the Commission “has identified several shortcomings in the amendments which, viewed both individually and cumulatively, undermine some of the safeguards which existed previously and were designed to protect the autonomy of the public prosecution service and judicial independence”. Therefore, seven “key recommendations” are made by the Commission.
The Commission finds that the “new legislative solution, whereby the competence to decide on the temporary assignments (secondments) of public prosecutors has been transferred to the High Prosecutorial Council is acceptable”, but, at the same time, it notes that there are shortcomings that should be addressed.
“The Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime should be adequately staffed through ordinary appointments”
When it comes to the specific recommendations, the Commission states “that individual prosecutors’ objections against hierarchical decisions and annual work schedules should be decided by a commission of the High Prosecutorial Council and not by the higher-ranking Public Prosecutor’s Office”.
In addition, it notes that prior authorisation by the Minister of Justice (envisioned by the amendments) of international cooperation agreements should not be required, but “these agreements should simply be notified to ensure co-ordination”.
The third point refers to the recommendation that “provisional appointments of Chief Public Prosecutors should be limited to one year, without the possibility of reappointment”.
“Furthermore, reappointments of Chief Public Prosecutors to the same office after the expiry of their mandate should be excluded”, the Venice Commission remarks.
Also, it has been recommended by the Commission that “temporary assignments (secondments) of public prosecutors should only be possible to positions at the same level and should not be renewable”.
The fifth point refers to the recommendation that “mechanism should be introduced to ensure that the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime is adequately staffed through ordinary appointments”.
The Commission clarifies that “pending the implementation of such a mechanism, all the public prosecutors whose temporary assignments were terminated before their expiry pursuant to the amendments should be reinstated to safeguard the continuity of ongoing investigations”.
In addition, it assesses that “greater autonomy should be granted to the Special Department for Cybercrime, with due respect for its specialised role and its nationwide jurisdiction”.
Finally, the Venice Commission recommends that “the fixed terms of office of court presidents should be non-renewable as a rule, with limited exceptions for small courts”.
The amendments were adopted without transparency and debate
The Venice Commission also underlines that legislative changes in such important areas for society should be prepared “with due respect for the principles of transparency, inclusiveness, and democratic debate”.
“Regretting that these principles were not duly followed in the process of adoption of the amendments, the Commission encourages the authorities to apply them more systematically and more rigorously throughout the subsequent phases of this legislative process”, the press release reads.
Also, the Commission “notes and welcomes the commitment recently expressed by the Serbian authorities to take all the necessary steps to address these recommendations and stands ready to provide further assistance in this matter, notably through the assessment of the future draft legislative amendments”.
“The urgent opinion will be presented to the Venice Commission for endorsement at its Plenary Session in Venice on 12-13 June 2026”, it clarifies.
