European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos underlined that Serbia must meet a series of strict criteria in order to continue accessing funds from the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans.
Experts, however, believe that the current authorities are incapable and unwilling to undertake the systemic social changes required to meet these demands, as doing so would mark the beginning of the end of their mode of governance.
First and foremost, Kos emphasised that it is essential for Serbia to fully align its judicial laws with the recommendations of the Venice Commission, thereby ensuring genuine independence of the judiciary from political influence. In addition, the Commissioner stated that the Serbian authorities are required to suspend the implementation of any legal provisions that are contrary to European standards and that undermine the rule of law.
With regard to democratic processes, Kos made it clear that the disbursement of tranches directly depends on the holding of free and fair elections, as well as on the cessation of repression against civil activists and protest participants. Particular emphasis was placed on media freedom, where the regime is required to carry out a thorough reform of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) in order to restore its professionalism and independence.
Finally, the Commissioner reminded that Serbia must demonstrate continuous and measurable progress in aligning its foreign policy with the decisions of the European Union, primarily with regard to the introduction of restrictive measures against Russia. Given that Serbia is significantly lagging behind in reforms that were scheduled for implementation in 2024, June 2026 marks the final deadline set by the European Commission for fulfilling outstanding obligations. This raises the question: is there the political will and the real capacity for the current regime to meet these requirements by June?
Journalist Nedim Sejdinović told Danas daily that the regime will certainly not be inclined to fulfil these demands, as the “media blackout”, alongside the repressive apparatus and organised crime, constitutes one of its key pillars.
“It will probably try once again to simulate compliance, to buy time, to perform its already familiar “antics”, but it is very important that the media community, representative associations of journalists and media outlets, do not participate in yet another regime farce. They know the score by now,” he stated.
Vučić would forgo far greater sums than those expected from the Growth Plan funds simply to retain power. “He and his associates are financially secure for five or six generations ahead, and they certainly do not care how this type of sanction will affect citizens,” Sejdinović concludes.
Political analyst Đorđe Vukadinović says that there is a serious dilemma as to whether this government can meet these conditions at all, at any point. He adds that, as far as the June deadline is concerned, it is clearly impossible even if the will existed – which he considers highly questionable – let alone to meet them in any substantive way that would result in meaningful change.
“These demands are very reasonable and indeed are a prerequisite for having at least somewhat free and acceptable elections. One should not harbour illusions that conditions could be perfect, but this is necessary for elections to differ, at least to some extent, from the scenes we have witnessed in recent local elections and in previous years,” he assesses.
He also emphasises that both time and political will are necessary at this moment, and that if one is considering meeting the conditions by June, it is evident that neither is present, regardless of the regime’s attempts to “at least simulate goodwill” in order to secure European funds. However, Vukadinović notes that even with such presumed willingness, issues such as cleaning up the voter register and ensuring media freedom cannot be resolved in a month or two, nor through a few appearances by certain opposition leaders on public service broadcasters and national-frequency television channels.
According to him, however, if Brussels and Marta Kos truly wanted to bring about change, “and not merely obtain an alibi before their voters and the European Parliament”, they would have to insist on the substantive implementation of conditions relating to the rule of law and media freedom.
“Media freedoms are a minimal prerequisite for holding free elections, and this must not be reduced to the issue of filling seats on the REM Council, as that is something the authorities can do ‘quickly’. A fundamental transformation in the media sphere, at the level of political dialogue and institutional functioning, requires a basic timeframe of at least six to nine months so that these changes are not merely cosmetic or superficial. Therefore, all of this by June is absolutely impossible,” Vukadinović concludes.
Lawyer Nikola Lakić notes that Serbia has never had an independent judiciary, adding that the executive branch has always exerted influence over both the courts and the prosecution, noting that the so-called “Mrdić laws” serve precisely to ensure that the prosecution is controlled by the executive authorities and individuals within it who are loyal to Aleksandar Vučić.
“It is precisely the European Union that insists on standards which would require Serbia to have an autonomous and independent judiciary, separated from the executive branch and its influence. It is entirely normal for the EU to insist on compliance with certain standards that a candidate country, in this case Serbia, must meet in order to become a member or to access its funds,” he says.
According to him, the current regime can pass anything in Parliament, stressing that the issue is not whether laws can be amended to align with EU standards, but whether Aleksandar Vučić is willing to do so.
“With an independent judiciary, his ministers, mayors, and close associates could come under investigation by the prosecution, as has theoretically been the case until now, but in the end they could also be convicted of serious criminal offences,” Lakić states.
He recalls that an official opinion from the Venice Commission regarding laws on the prosecution is still pending. However, he notes that even without such a written opinion, it is quite clear that the so-called “Mrdić laws”, which he claims were essentially devised by Aleksandar Vučić while Mrdić was merely the formal proposer, undermine the independence of the prosecution. Lakić emphasises that it would have been better for Serbia not to have adopted these laws at all, or to pass new ones restoring the previous state of affairs.
“The independence of the judiciary has been undermined by the actions of Aleksandar Vučić and his associates. Nevertheless, this constitutionally proclaimed independence can only be guaranteed by the judiciary itself, by resisting pressure from the executive and by judges defending their profession through associations. I believe that this is currently very difficult, as both the prosecution and the judiciary are deeply politicised and placed under the control of a single individual,” he concludes.
(Danas, 22.04.2026)