The Serbian Anti-Corruption Agency continues to face criticism for its limited response to high-profile abuses of power, raising concerns about the effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms in the country.
Under Serbian law, the Agency can file criminal charges if it finds that a public official has intentionally failed to report accurate information on assets and income. However, experts say the practical impact of these tools is undermined by inaction from executive authorities, Parliament, the judiciary, and prosecutors.
Political corruption is widely seen as a root cause of democratic decline in Serbia, experts note. According to the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention, corruption threatens the rule of law, democracy, human rights, and economic development. Economists describe systemic corruption as a form of “kleptocratic governance,” where state power is exploited for personal gain.
Since the early 2000s, anti-corruption enthusiasm has waned in Serbia. Weak legislation, incomplete institutional reforms, and clientelist networks have allowed political elites to benefit from entrenched corruption. Observers say foreign actors limit their interventions to critical assessments, while public support remains weak due to economic pressures and cultural norms.
The 2008 law assigned the Agency oversight of conflicts of interest, party financing, and implementation of the national anti-corruption strategy. While it can verify officials’ asset declarations and submit criminal complaints, it cannot conduct full investigations. GRECO, the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption monitoring body, has highlighted gaps in transparency, discretionary reporting by officials, and low penalties for violations.
Recent controversies, such as Prime Minister Đura Macuta’s refusal to disclose sources of funds for a €1 million villa purchase, illustrate ongoing elite impunity. Critics say reforms to the Agency’s leadership selection process have further weakened independence, as appointments are now subject to parliamentary majority influence rather than multi-stakeholder panels.
Experts warn that without changes in power structures, public awareness, and political will, anti-corruption measures will remain symbolic. They call for increased transparency, stronger oversight of financial transactions, open media, civil society involvement, and competition in political processes.
“Cleaning up the entrenched corruption in Serbia requires sunlight as a disinfectant,” the report concludes, emphasizing public scrutiny as the most effective tool for reform.
