Overview of proposed amendments
The Law on the Prevention of Corruption and the Law on Financing Political Activities have been entirely excluded from the process. It is not known who prepared these draft amendments, nor on the basis of which criteria. The proposals were forwarded to the members of the Working Group for the Improvement of Electoral Conditions by the Secretariat of the National Assembly, even though this working group has effectively not existed for a year, after representatives of civil society and the opposition withdrew precisely due to the lack of transparency, inclusiveness, legality, and respect for procedures - shortcomings that are now being repeated in this very process.
Even within the three laws covered by the proposed amendments, key provisions related to the prevention of electoral abuse and electoral engineering remain untouched. Although the amendments are formally presented as fulfilling ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations, they take a highly selective approach, addressing primarily cosmetic changes, implementing only one of the ODIHR priority recommendations, and avoiding those recommendations that address structural issues.
On 2 February 2026, the National Assembly proposed amendments to the electoral laws (the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament, the Law on Local Elections, and the Law on the Constitutional Court). The proposed amendments relate to the following issues:
Even within the three laws covered by the proposed amendments, key provisions related to the prevention of electoral abuse and electoral engineering remain untouched. Although the amendments are formally presented as fulfilling ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations, they take a highly selective approach, addressing primarily cosmetic changes, implementing only one of the ODIHR priority recommendations, and avoiding those recommendations that address structural issues.
On 2 February 2026, the National Assembly proposed amendments to the electoral laws (the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament, the Law on Local Elections, and the Law on the Constitutional Court). The proposed amendments relate to the following issues:
Although the proposed amendments aim to implement certain ODIHR recommendations (Nos. 2, 11, 12, 20, and 24), and some are partially or fully aligned with CRTA’s recommendations, they are predominantly technical or “cosmetic” in nature.
The amendments do not address the key and structural problems of the electoral process in Serbia, which CRTA has consistently identified based on findings from its observation missions conducted at all electoral levels. These findings point, inter alia, to the existence of phantom electoral lists, falsification of voters’ signatures, insufficient professionalism of the election administration and ineffective protection of electoral rights.
The amendments do not address the key and structural problems of the electoral process in Serbia, which CRTA has consistently identified based on findings from its observation missions conducted at all electoral levels. These findings point, inter alia, to the existence of phantom electoral lists, falsification of voters’ signatures, insufficient professionalism of the election administration and ineffective protection of electoral rights.
Proposals Contrary to CRTA’s Recommendations
I Abolition of the restriction “one voter – one statement of support for an electoral list”
Proposed solution
The proposed solution addresses ODIHR Recommendation No. 11 and stipulates that a voter may give statements of support to multiple electoral lists.
CRTA's recommendation
CRTA proposes deleting the proposed amendment.
Rationale
Although this legislative amendment formally refers to ODIHR recommendations, in practice it creates an institutional framework for electoral engineering. It enables the proclamation of a large number of factually fictitious electoral lists that do not contribute to political pluralism, but instead serve exclusively to allow a single political party to secure a majority in electoral commissions and other election management bodies in order to outvote other members during decision-making.
In this way, the electoral process is influenced through the instrumentalization and multiplication of electoral lists, whereby decisive control over the election administration is achieved through the technical operation of collecting voters’ signatures of support. This solution is particularly concerning in light of previously identified and documented irregularities in electoral processes, including the systemic abuse and falsification of statements of voter support in order to gain control over election commissions. For example, CRTA recorded well-founded suspicions of signature falsification in the case of seven proclaimed electoral lists in the 2023 Belgrade elections.
These lists are not nominated for the purpose of genuine political participation, but primarily to secure majorities in electoral commissions and polling boards, as well as to confuse voters through list names that imitate those of real (mostly opposition) political actors and to create an illusion of political pluralism. Despite the long-standing presence of these practices, none of the responsible actors have been held accountable to date - there have been no judicial outcomes in the proceedings that have been initiated.
Therefore, in order for this solution to produce exclusively positive effects - strengthening pluralism and freedom of association - rather than negative ones, it would first be necessary to ensure efficient and timely action by the prosecution and the courts in all election-related proceedings, so as to break with the practice of impunity. This should be followed by a reform of the electoral administration, particularly with regard to the appointment of members and deputy members in the extended composition of electoral commissions. As addressing these issues is not foreseeable at this specific moment, CRTA considers that this is not the appropriate time to introduce such a solution into the legal framework.
In this way, the electoral process is influenced through the instrumentalization and multiplication of electoral lists, whereby decisive control over the election administration is achieved through the technical operation of collecting voters’ signatures of support. This solution is particularly concerning in light of previously identified and documented irregularities in electoral processes, including the systemic abuse and falsification of statements of voter support in order to gain control over election commissions. For example, CRTA recorded well-founded suspicions of signature falsification in the case of seven proclaimed electoral lists in the 2023 Belgrade elections.
These lists are not nominated for the purpose of genuine political participation, but primarily to secure majorities in electoral commissions and polling boards, as well as to confuse voters through list names that imitate those of real (mostly opposition) political actors and to create an illusion of political pluralism. Despite the long-standing presence of these practices, none of the responsible actors have been held accountable to date - there have been no judicial outcomes in the proceedings that have been initiated.
Therefore, in order for this solution to produce exclusively positive effects - strengthening pluralism and freedom of association - rather than negative ones, it would first be necessary to ensure efficient and timely action by the prosecution and the courts in all election-related proceedings, so as to break with the practice of impunity. This should be followed by a reform of the electoral administration, particularly with regard to the appointment of members and deputy members in the extended composition of electoral commissions. As addressing these issues is not foreseeable at this specific moment, CRTA considers that this is not the appropriate time to introduce such a solution into the legal framework.
Other CRTA recommendations related to statements of voter support:
Proposals Partially Aligned with CRTA’s Recommendations
I Training for members of LECs and PBs
Proposed solution:
The proposed solution addresses ODIHR Recommendation No. 2 and prescribes the competence of the Republic Electoral Commission (REC) to conduct training and issue certificates valid for three years. Additionally, the REC is obliged to maintain a register of persons holding valid training certificates. Authorized nominators are required to propose to LECs and PBs exclusively persons who hold a valid certificate of completed training. LECs are also obliged to assist the REC in organizing and conducting training.
CRTA's recommendation:
Prescribe that authorized nominators are obliged to propose to LECs and PBs persons who have completed training and passed an exam for a license to work in election administration.
Rationale
The proposed amendments represent a step forward in the professionalization of the mid- and lowest levels of election administration; however, the envisaged solutions are insufficient. Specifically, the amendments do not require passing a licensing exam, but only attendance at training. Introducing a mandatory licensing exam (as recommended by CRTA) would ensure the substantive achievement of the goal of these amendments—strengthening the professional capacity of the election administration.
However, concerns remain regarding the capacity of the Republic Electoral Commission to implement such activities, given that Serbia does not have a professional electoral administration. In addition, the issue of supplementary training during the three-year period in which the license remains valid should be addressed.
This is particularly important in light of the frequent amendments to electoral legislation in Serbia.
However, concerns remain regarding the capacity of the Republic Electoral Commission to implement such activities, given that Serbia does not have a professional electoral administration. In addition, the issue of supplementary training during the three-year period in which the license remains valid should be addressed.
This is particularly important in light of the frequent amendments to electoral legislation in Serbia.
Other CRTA Recommendations Aimed at Professionalization and a More Significant Role of Election Administration:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur. Nisi magna velit in non. Maecenas nec interdum sit lorem scelerisque ullamcorper.
II Status of National Minority Electoral Lists
Proposed solution
The proposed solution partially tightens the criteria for acquiring the status of a national minority electoral list. This is particularly evident in the new provisions relating to the name of the list and its composition (regarding the mandatory registration of a majority of candidates on the list in the special voter register for national minorities). However, by prescribing that a list shall be rejected only if the first candidate on the list is publicly recognizable as a member of another political party that is not a national minority party, the previously applicable criterion - relating to all candidates on the list—has been relaxed. These proposals adresses ODIHR Recommendation No. 20.
CRTA's recommendation
Rationale
The proposed solutions more effectively address problems that have arisen in this area, namely, circumvention of the law and abuse of privileged conditions for nominating national minority electoral lists.
The requirement that a majority of candidates on a national minority list be registered in the special voter register is based on a discriminatory ground and is in direct conflict with Article 5 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, which stipulates that no one may suffer harm for expressing their national affiliation or for refraining from doing so.
By prescribing that the REC refuse to grant national minority list status to a list where any candidate is publicly recognizable as a member of a non-minority political party, or as a civil society activist associated with issues unrelated to national minorities or their protection, the intended objective of the disputed provision could be largely achieved without discriminating against members of national minorities.
Concerns also remain regarding how judges of the Administrative Court and higher courts will interpret and apply such legal provisions, in light of their previous practice in adjudication - namely, that all parties registered in the Register of National Minority Parties are granted the status of a national minority party in the electoral process, regardless of whether they meet the conditions prescribed by the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament.
The requirement that a majority of candidates on a national minority list be registered in the special voter register is based on a discriminatory ground and is in direct conflict with Article 5 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of National Minorities, which stipulates that no one may suffer harm for expressing their national affiliation or for refraining from doing so.
By prescribing that the REC refuse to grant national minority list status to a list where any candidate is publicly recognizable as a member of a non-minority political party, or as a civil society activist associated with issues unrelated to national minorities or their protection, the intended objective of the disputed provision could be largely achieved without discriminating against members of national minorities.
Concerns also remain regarding how judges of the Administrative Court and higher courts will interpret and apply such legal provisions, in light of their previous practice in adjudication - namely, that all parties registered in the Register of National Minority Parties are granted the status of a national minority party in the electoral process, regardless of whether they meet the conditions prescribed by the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament.
Other CRTA Recommendations Regarding the Status of National Minority Electoral Lists:
Prescribe an obligation for the election commission to seek the opinion of the competent national minority council on whether a given electoral list may qualify as a national minority list. Such an opinion would not be binding but would ensure equal treatment of all electoral lists and potentially prevent circumvention of the law.
III Urgency of proceedings before the Constitutional Court
Proposed solution
The proposed solution establishes the urgency of proceedings before the Constitutional Court in electoral disputes (an eight-day deadline for election management bodies to submit necessary documents and a thirty-day deadline for repeating the entire electoral process or part thereof), addressing ODIHR Recommendation No. 24.
CRTA's analysis
CRTA considers that these amendments cannot produce positive effects, given the Court’s long-standing inefficiency and the close ties of some of its judges with the ruling party in Serbia. Furthermore, no specific deadline has been defined for the Court to act in urgent election dispute proceedings, which renders this solution incomplete. In the current socio-political environment, the implementation of such a change - although normatively justified - may lead to a further erosion of public trust in the judiciary.
CRTA's recommendation
Reasonably short and clearly defined deadlines should be established for the Constitutional Court to adjudicate election appeals, while allowing for an extended timeframe for the conduct of repeat elections.
IV Abolition of Grounds for Rejecting Electoral Lists
Proposed solution
The proposed solution effectively abolishes the grounds for (automatic) rejection of electoral lists and provides submitters with the opportunity to remedy deficiencies within 48 hours. This addresses ODIHR Recommendation No. 12.
CRTA's recommendation
CRTA proposed this solution.
Rationale
CRTA considers that these amendments may have positive effects by encouraging pluralism in the electoral process. The change is in line with a recommendation CRTA advocated following the elections held in December 2023. In practical terms, submitters of electoral lists are granted the right to correct formal or technical deficiencies identified by the commission. Such a solution may be particularly important at the local level, where groups of citizens - often without legal support - participate in elections and are therefore more prone to making such mistakes. Finally, it should be noted that CRTA has observed a practice among local electoral commissions of so-called “fishing” for electoral lists, that is, actively searching for formal deficiencies in the documentation (as covered by Article 77) in order to potentially prevent certain lists from participating in local elections.
Proposals Not Covered by CRTA Recommendations but Considered Positive:
I Authority to which an appeal in the electoral process is submitted
Proposed solution
This solution unequivocally establishes that appeals are submitted to the election commission, resolving disputes that arose in previous electoral processes. There is no ODIHR recommendation related to this issue.
CRTA's analysis
CRTA welcomes this solution, as it eliminates potential problems in the interpretation of the law. In practice, the question arose as to where an appeal should be submitted — directly to the Administrative Court or through the Republic Electoral Commission. Since the Law had not previously defined this clearly, the proposed solution enhances legal certainty and, in a procedure that is urgent and subject to short deadlines, ensures that anyone entitled to lodge an appeal can do so properly, without the risk of submitting it to the wrong authority.
Additionally, during the electoral process, the Republic Electoral Commission is obliged to keep its registry office open at all times. In that sense, it is unfounded to speculate about the possibility of abuses at this stage or about preventing any person with standing from submitting an appeal.
Additionally, during the electoral process, the Republic Electoral Commission is obliged to keep its registry office open at all times. In that sense, it is unfounded to speculate about the possibility of abuses at this stage or about preventing any person with standing from submitting an appeal.
II Specification of Deadlines for Challenging Decisions on Electoral Lists (Local Elections)
Proposed solution
The proposed solution clearly specifies deadlines for challenging decisions on electoral lists. Although the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament had previously been applied mutatis mutandis, these provisions have now been effectively transposed, with appropriate alignment to the terminology of the Law on Local Elections. There is no ODIHR recommendation related to this issue.
CRTA's analysis
CRTA welcomes this solution, as it removes a potential point of dispute, although the Belgrade Higher Court had already adopted a position on this matter.
