The European Commission's 2026 Rule of Law Report on Serbia, published on 17 July 2026, finds that legal amendments adopted in January 2026 removed safeguards for prosecutorial autonomy and judicial independence, though subsequent measures addressed most recommendations from the Venice Commission. The report notes that political pressure on the judiciary and prosecution increased significantly, with limited follow-up from oversight bodies.
The document, a Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the broader 2026 Rule of Law Report on the EU, details a series of events beginning in January 2026 when the Serbian Parliament amended five laws under urgent procedure, removing safeguards from the 2023 constitutional reforms. In April 2026, the Venice Commission identified shortcomings and recommended reversing changes to prosecutorial autonomy and reinstating terminated secondments. Between May and June 2026, Serbia adopted new draft amendments and non-legislative measures, and on 16 June 2026 the Venice Commission confirmed that most recommendations had been addressed, though outstanding issues remained regarding two prosecutors, the autonomy of the cybercrime department, and impact assessments for the judicial map. On 18 June 2026, the High Prosecutorial Council reinstated the remaining two prosecutors.
The report highlights that 36% of the general public and 57% of companies perceive judicial independence as 'fairly or very good' in 2026. However, vacancy rates remain high: 164 of 899 prosecutor positions were vacant as of June 2026, and 394 of 2,733 judicial positions were unfilled. The High Judicial Council began audio-visually recording its sessions in 2025, and the High Prosecutorial Council now livestreams its sessions. New magistrate members were elected to both councils on 6 April 2026, though the High Prosecutorial Council election faced delays and procedural challenges.
The report's findings carry implications for several stakeholders. For the Serbian judiciary and prosecution, the reinstatement of prosecutors and adoption of Venice Commission recommendations provide some relief, but ongoing political pressure and high vacancy rates undermine institutional capacity. Serbian citizens and businesses, who perceive judicial independence as relatively positive, may still face inconsistent enforcement and delays due to understaffing. The European Commission, as the report's author, uses these findings to condition Serbia's EU accession progress, with the rule of law chapter remaining a key benchmark. The Serbian government, which acted to address Venice Commission concerns, must now tackle persistent issues of political interference and judicial vacancies to maintain credibility in the accession process.
The report is expected to inform discussions in the European Parliament and the Council, where member states will assess Serbia's progress in the rule of law area as part of the broader enlargement framework.