The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has officially published its highly anticipated follow-up opinion on Serbia’s sweeping and controversial judicial reform package, colloquially known as the “Mrdić Laws.”
While the European legal watchdog praised Belgrade for successfully executing seven out of nine urgent structural recommendations, it issued a stern warning that two core, critical recommendations regarding operational autonomy and prosecutor tenure remain unresolved.
The legal assessment drops at an incredibly tense moment: the National Assembly of Serbia is scheduled to convene a high-stakes parliamentary session tomorrow, Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 11:00 AM, to vote on the revised draft amendments of these five foundational judicial laws.
1. The Two Deficits: Where Serbia Fell Short
The Venice Commission’s report meticulously breaks down the exact legal adjustments implemented by Serbian authorities, drawing a sharp line between procedural progress and deep systemic compliance.
The Unresolved Core Recommendations Breakdown
[ KEY RECOMMENDATION 7 ] ──► THE ORGANIZED CRIME PROSECUTOR (TOK)
• PASSED: The Commission acknowledged that the institutional capacity of the
Prosecution for Organized Crime (TOK) was reinforced, replacing temporary,
vulnerable assignments with regular, long-term legal appointments.
• FAILED: Two out of eleven public prosecutors whose temporary deployments
to TOK were prematurely terminated have still not been reinstated to office.
[ KEY RECOMMENDATION 8 ] ──► HIGH-TECH CRIME AUTONOMY (VTK)
• IN PROGRESS: Changing the election process for the head of the Special
Department for High-Tech Crime is a positive, praiseworthy first step.
• THE ULTIMATUM: The watchdog notes this will ONLY be deemed fully implemented
if the recently formed Working Group finishes its structural analysis inclusively,
on time, and locks it in with explicit statutory autonomy.
2. Political Clash Over the “Positive” Assessment
Prior to the formal publication of the document, Speaker of the National Assembly Ana Brnabić aggressively preempted the narrative, publicly celebrating what she characterized as a total victory for the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS).
Competing Narratives Surrounding the Venice Commission Findings
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ [ THE STATE'S STANCE (BRNABIĆ) ] ─────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ • Claims the Council of Europe gave an overall "positive opinion." │ │
│ • Boasted that the executive branch successfully defended at least │ │
│ three major legal solutions that had faced fierce domestic criticism.│ │
│ │ │
│ [ THE JUDICIAL UNION REBUSH ] ────────────────────────────────────┤ │
│ • The Judicial Administration Union hit back immediately, revealing │ │
│ that these controversial judicial amendments completely failed to │ │
│ receive the necessary baseline support from the High Prosecutorial │ │
│ Council (VST). │ │
│ │ │
│ [ THE CENTRALIZATION THREAT ] ────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ • Legal watchdogs and opposition blocs argue the text still permits │
│ unprecedented top-down centralist pressure, allowing the supreme │
│ hierarchy to suffocate the independence of lower-tier prosecutors. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
“The Commission welcomes the establishment of a specialized Working Group to redesign the network of courts and public prosecutors… However, to achieve full compliance, these analyses must lead directly to robust legislative overhauls.”
— Extract from the Venice Commission’s Concluding Opinion
3. Mapping the Scope of the “Mrdić Package”
The legislative package—authored and aggressively championed by SNS Member of Parliament Uglješa Mrdić—serves as a complete overhaul of how justice is administered and politically insulated across the country.
| Statute Under Review | Declared Reform Goal | Criticisms & Structural Risks |
| Law on the Public Prosecution | Streamlining administrative hierarchies and clearing caseload backlogs. | Dilutes individual prosecutor autonomy; subjects local cases to high-level political vetoes. |
| Law on the High Prosecutorial Council | Standardizing performance evaluations and promoting internal talent. | Creates an insular voting bloc easily manipulated by legislative majorities. |
| Law on Judges & Court Seats | Optimizing geographical jurisdictions and regional court perimeters. | Weaponized to redistribute non-aligned judges away from high-profile corruption benches. |
With the parliamentary bells set to ring tomorrow morning, the ruling majority intends to pass the amendments by leveraging its robust legislative numbers. However, the Venice Commission’s explicit declaration that key rule-of-law indicators remain unfulfilled means that Belgrade’s ongoing negotiations for European integration will continue to face major, unyielding legal roadblocks from Brussels.
