Overview
The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has adopted two opinions on the adopted judicial reform package:
Although the Speaker of the National Assembly stated on June 12 that an "absolutely positive opinion from the Venice Commission" had been received, the VC document tells a different story. The Venice Commission welcomed the authorities' efforts in reforming the judiciary; however, not all recommendations from the urgent opinion were implemented.
Specifically, the VC found that 7 recommendations were fulfilled, but that this was not the case for 2 specific recommendations, nor for the general one.
Unfulfilled Venice Commission recommendations:
1. Return of prosecutors to the Organized Crime Prosecution (TOK): two prosecutors whose secondments were prematurely terminated have not been reinstated;
2. Autonomy of the Special Department for High-Tech Crime: under the draft law, the Department remains part of the Higher Public Prosecution in Belgrade;
3. Establishment of a new court and prosecution: the legislator is not abandoning the establishment of the Fourth Basic Court and the Fourth Basic Public Prosecution for EXPO purposes, despite the recommendation to conduct a prior analysis of key factors.
The extraordinary session of the National Assembly, with the adoption of the draft laws under emergency procedure following the VC's follow-up opinion on its agenda, was scheduled for June 17.
Specifically, the VC found that 7 recommendations were fulfilled, but that this was not the case for 2 specific recommendations, nor for the general one.
Unfulfilled Venice Commission recommendations:
1. Return of prosecutors to the Organized Crime Prosecution (TOK): two prosecutors whose secondments were prematurely terminated have not been reinstated;
2. Autonomy of the Special Department for High-Tech Crime: under the draft law, the Department remains part of the Higher Public Prosecution in Belgrade;
3. Establishment of a new court and prosecution: the legislator is not abandoning the establishment of the Fourth Basic Court and the Fourth Basic Public Prosecution for EXPO purposes, despite the recommendation to conduct a prior analysis of key factors.
The extraordinary session of the National Assembly, with the adoption of the draft laws under emergency procedure following the VC's follow-up opinion on its agenda, was scheduled for June 17.
1. Sequence of events
Adoption of the laws
The judicial reform package (the Law on Public Prosecution, the Law on the High Prosecutorial Council, the Law on the Organisation and Jurisdiction of State Authorities for Combating High-Tech Crime, the Law on Judges, and the Law on the Seats and Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutions) was adopted by the National Assembly on January 28. The laws were promulgated on January 30, 2026 and entered into force on February 7.
The so-called Mrdić laws were adopted under emergency procedure, without a public consultation process, without opinions from the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, and without consultations with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
The key problems with the adopted provisions concerned the establishment of the Fourth Basic Court and the Fourth Basic Prosecution, the abolition of the independent commission of the High Prosecutorial Council, the weakening of the position of the Supreme Public Prosecution in favour of chief public prosecutors, the downgrading of the specialised prosecution for high-tech crime, the introduction of mandates of up to three years for acting chief public prosecutors, the possibility of re-appointing the same court presidents, and the withdrawal of prosecutors seconded to the Organized Crime Prosecution.
The so-called Mrdić laws were adopted under emergency procedure, without a public consultation process, without opinions from the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, and without consultations with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
The so-called Mrdić laws were adopted under emergency procedure, without a public consultation process, without opinions from the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council, and without consultations with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
The key problems with the adopted provisions concerned the establishment of the Fourth Basic Court and the Fourth Basic Prosecution, the abolition of the independent commission of the High Prosecutorial Council, the weakening of the position of the Supreme Public Prosecution in favour of chief public prosecutors, the downgrading of the specialised prosecution for high-tech crime, the introduction of mandates of up to three years for acting chief public prosecutors, the possibility of re-appointing the same court presidents, and the withdrawal of prosecutors seconded to the Organized Crime Prosecution.
Urgent opinion of the Venice Commission
Shortly after the laws entered into force, the Speaker of Parliament formally requested an opinion from the Venice Commission.
The urgent opinion was adopted on April 24, 2026. The VC criticised the manner in which the laws were adopted, the content of the regulations, and the weakening of guarantees of independence, finding that certain provisions deviate from European standards, and issued nine specific recommendations and one general recommendation.
The recommendations were as follows:
1. To revert to a non-hierarchical system for decisions on objections to mandatory instructions and to devolution and substitution decisions.
2. The competence to decide on objections to the annual work programme of a Public Prosecutor’s Office should remain with the High Prosecutorial Council.
3. Rather than requiring prior consent, the law should specify the conditions under which the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office has a duty to notify the Ministry of Justice of cooperation agreements it plans to enter into with international counterparts within the framework of existing treaties on mutual legal assistance.
4. The provisional appointments of Chief Public Prosecutors should be limited to one year, without the possibility of reappointment.
5.The possibility of reappointing Chief Public Prosecutors to the same office after the expiry of the initial term of office should be excluded.
6. The possibility of renewing temporary assignments should be removed, and such assignments should be limited to prosecutorial positions of the same level. Temporary assignments should remain exceptional.
7. The public prosecutors whose temporary assignments were prematurely terminated should be reinstated and a mechanism should be introduced to ensure that the positions occupied by temporarily assigned prosecutors in the TOK can be gradually filled by means of regular appointments.
8. Greater structural and operational autonomy should be ensured for the Special Department for High-Tech Crime, in line with the technical complexity of its mandate and the national character of its jurisdiction;
9. The fixed terms of office of court presidents should be non-renewable as a rule, with the possibility of a renewable term in limited and exceptional circumstances.
10. Additional studies and impact assessments should be carried out regarding the reorganisation of the court and prosecution network, based on a comprehensive analysis of key factors, including an examination of the causes of existing problems and a careful assessment of possible alternative measures for addressing them.
The opinion emphasised that only the recommendation concerning the specification of the conditions under which the Supreme Public Prosecution is obliged to notify the Ministry of Justice of cooperation agreements does not necessarily require a legislative procedure, while the recommendation on the return of seconded prosecutors and mechanisms for filling prosecutorial positions in the Organized Crime Prosecution can be partially implemented through action by the High Prosecutorial Council.
The urgent opinion was adopted on April 24, 2026. The VC criticised the manner in which the laws were adopted, the content of the regulations, and the weakening of guarantees of independence, finding that certain provisions deviate from European standards, and issued nine specific recommendations and one general recommendation.
The recommendations were as follows:
1. To revert to a non-hierarchical system for decisions on objections to mandatory instructions and to devolution and substitution decisions.
2. The competence to decide on objections to the annual work programme of a Public Prosecutor’s Office should remain with the High Prosecutorial Council.
3. Rather than requiring prior consent, the law should specify the conditions under which the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office has a duty to notify the Ministry of Justice of cooperation agreements it plans to enter into with international counterparts within the framework of existing treaties on mutual legal assistance.
4. The provisional appointments of Chief Public Prosecutors should be limited to one year, without the possibility of reappointment.
5.The possibility of reappointing Chief Public Prosecutors to the same office after the expiry of the initial term of office should be excluded.
6. The possibility of renewing temporary assignments should be removed, and such assignments should be limited to prosecutorial positions of the same level. Temporary assignments should remain exceptional.
7. The public prosecutors whose temporary assignments were prematurely terminated should be reinstated and a mechanism should be introduced to ensure that the positions occupied by temporarily assigned prosecutors in the TOK can be gradually filled by means of regular appointments.
8. Greater structural and operational autonomy should be ensured for the Special Department for High-Tech Crime, in line with the technical complexity of its mandate and the national character of its jurisdiction;
9. The fixed terms of office of court presidents should be non-renewable as a rule, with the possibility of a renewable term in limited and exceptional circumstances.
10. Additional studies and impact assessments should be carried out regarding the reorganisation of the court and prosecution network, based on a comprehensive analysis of key factors, including an examination of the causes of existing problems and a careful assessment of possible alternative measures for addressing them.
The opinion emphasised that only the recommendation concerning the specification of the conditions under which the Supreme Public Prosecution is obliged to notify the Ministry of Justice of cooperation agreements does not necessarily require a legislative procedure, while the recommendation on the return of seconded prosecutors and mechanisms for filling prosecutorial positions in the Organized Crime Prosecution can be partially implemented through action by the High Prosecutorial Council.
Activities of the Ministry of Justice Working Group
The Minister of Justice established a Working Group for the preparation of amendments to laws in the field of the judiciary in order to align them with the Venice Commission's recommendations on April 28, 2026.
According to available information, the legislative package underwent five rounds of amendments during the working group process. In May, two public hearings were held to discuss the legislative changes, and the first version of the drafts was submitted to the Venice Commission on May 8, 2026, when a follow-up opinion was formally requested.
A week later, Venice Commission rapporteurs held an online meeting with the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Minister of Justice to review the drafts, and the final version (on which the follow-up opinion was given) was submitted to the VC on May 18, 2026.
In addition, the versions of the drafts submitted to the Venice Commission (translated into English) differed from the final versions published on the Ministry of Justice's website in terms of the technical structure of the text.
According to available information, the legislative package underwent five rounds of amendments during the working group process. In May, two public hearings were held to discuss the legislative changes, and the first version of the drafts was submitted to the Venice Commission on May 8, 2026, when a follow-up opinion was formally requested.
A week later, Venice Commission rapporteurs held an online meeting with the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Minister of Justice to review the drafts, and the final version (on which the follow-up opinion was given) was submitted to the VC on May 18, 2026.
In addition, the versions of the drafts submitted to the Venice Commission (translated into English) differed from the final versions published on the Ministry of Justice's website in terms of the technical structure of the text.
Follow-up opinion of the Venice Commission
The follow-up opinion was adopted on June 12, 2026 and was only published and made available to the public on June 16. In the meantime, government representatives stressed that it constituted an absolutely positive opinion and the highest marks for the proposed solutions.
The VC document contains an overview of the relevant circumstances, a review of the draft provisions, and an assessment of the fulfilment of all recommendations from the urgent opinion.
The VC document contains an overview of the relevant circumstances, a review of the draft provisions, and an assessment of the fulfilment of all recommendations from the urgent opinion.
2. Assessment of compliance with Venice Commission recommendations
In the follow-up opinion, the VC found that 7 recommendations from the urgent opinion had been fully met by the submitted drafts (recommendations nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9). These are recommendations requiring a return to solutions from previous legislation, i.e. the abandonment of the January amendments.
At the same time, the recommendations were not (fully) fulfilled that concerned the Law on the Seats and Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutions (general recommendation), the Law on the Organisation and Jurisdiction of State Authorities for Combating High-Tech Crime (recommendation no. 8), and the consequences of the Law on Public Prosecution in the form of the premature termination of temporarily seconded prosecutors to the Organized Crime Prosecution (recommendation no. 7).
Recommendation no. 1 (decision-making system on complaints against mandatory instructions and decisions on devolution and substitution)
Given that the authority to decide on these complaints is returned to an independent commission within the High Prosecutorial Council (instead of the solution granting this authority to the chief public prosecutor), the VC found the recommendation fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 2 (High Prosecutorial Council decision-making on complaints against the annual work plan)
The proposed solution reintroduces the authority of the Collegium of the Supreme Public Prosecution to decide on complaints against the annual work plan of the public prosecution. For this reason, the VC considers the recommendation from the urgent opinion to be fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 3 (notification of the Ministry of Justice regarding cooperation agreements)
The draft law abandons the requirement to obtain the consent of the executive branch in the area of international cooperation. Instead, it prescribes an obligation for the Supreme Public Prosecution to notify the Ministry of Justice in advance of cooperation protocols with the prosecutions of other states and international judicial organisations in accordance with international treaties. Prior notification is not required for making contacts or exchanging information and documents. On this basis, the VC found the recommendation fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 4 (limitation of temporary appointments of public prosecutors to a one-year mandate without the possibility of extension)
The draft law accepts the limitation of the mandate of acting public prosecutors to one year without the possibility of extension, for which reason the VC found the recommendation fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 5 (exclusion of the possibility of re-appointing chief public prosecutors after the expiry of their mandate)
Under the proposed amendments, a chief public prosecutor may not be re-elected to the same position after the expiry of the six-year mandate (contrary to the solution adopted in January). The VC found that such an amendment is fully in line with the recommendation from the urgent opinion.
Recommendation no. 6 (abolition of the possibility of extending temporary secondments)
The draft Law on Public Prosecution abolishes the possibility of a temporarily seconded prosecutor being re-seconded to the same prosecution after three years have elapsed. It is also emphasised that temporary secondment is carried out exceptionally due to the need for the efficiency of the prosecution's work if this cannot be ensured through other organisational measures, and the procedure for deciding on secondment within the High Prosecutorial Council is specified. The VC considers that such a solution corresponds to the given recommendation.
Recommendation no. 7 (return of public prosecutors to the Organized Crime Prosecution and establishment of mechanisms for regular appointments)
The VC found that ongoing procedures (open competition for regular appointment) strengthen the institutional capacities of the Organized Crime Prosecution. However, it also found that 2 of the 11 public prosecutors whose temporary secondments were prematurely terminated have not been reinstated, which is why the recommendation has not been fully implemented.
Recommendation no. 8 (greater structural and operational autonomy for the High-Tech Crime Department)
The new proposal entails that the head of the department is appointed by the High Prosecutorial Council (instead of the chief public prosecutor), while possession and demonstrated knowledge of information technology is introduced as a condition for the head and assigned prosecutors. However, the Special Department remains part of the Higher Public Prosecution in Belgrade.
Although the Ministry of Justice established a special working group to further consider operational autonomy, the Venice Commission emphasises that this recommendation will be considered fully implemented only when the working group concludes its work in an inclusive manner, within a reasonable timeframe, and when this is followed by a legislative amendment or reform ensuring greater structural and operational autonomy for the Special Department.
Recommendation no. 9 (non-renewable mandate for court presidents)
The draft Law on Judges excludes the possibility of re-appointing the same court president to the same position. The VC considers this recommendation fulfilled.
General recommendation on the court and prosecution network
Despite the VC's recommendations to carry out prior analyses of the need for reorganisation of the judicial and prosecutorial bodies, the draft Law on the Seats and Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutions maintains the establishment of the Fourth Basic Court and the Fourth Basic Public Prosecution. The proposal only changes the deadlines – the start of application of the law is postponed to March 1, 2027 (instead of July 1, 2026), while the deadline for adopting the act on internal organisation and systematisation is moved to January 1, 2026 (instead of May 1, 2026). A Working Group for further studies has also been established.
In the context of this issue, the VC emphasised that detailed studies and impact assessments should as a rule be carried out before the adoption of a final legislative solution, particularly when it contains a fixed date of application, which is why the recommendation can be considered implemented only when the working group produces its analysis in a comprehensive and inclusive manner, within the set timeframe, and the process results in the adoption of legislative amendments.
These are recommendations requiring a return to solutions from previous legislation, i.e. the abandonment of the January amendments.
At the same time, the recommendations were not (fully) fulfilled that concerned the Law on the Seats and Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutions (general recommendation), the Law on the Organisation and Jurisdiction of State Authorities for Combating High-Tech Crime (recommendation no. 8), and the consequences of the Law on Public Prosecution in the form of the premature termination of temporarily seconded prosecutors to the Organized Crime Prosecution (recommendation no. 7).
Recommendation no. 1 (decision-making system on complaints against mandatory instructions and decisions on devolution and substitution)
Given that the authority to decide on these complaints is returned to an independent commission within the High Prosecutorial Council (instead of the solution granting this authority to the chief public prosecutor), the VC found the recommendation fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 2 (High Prosecutorial Council decision-making on complaints against the annual work plan)
The proposed solution reintroduces the authority of the Collegium of the Supreme Public Prosecution to decide on complaints against the annual work plan of the public prosecution. For this reason, the VC considers the recommendation from the urgent opinion to be fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 3 (notification of the Ministry of Justice regarding cooperation agreements)
The draft law abandons the requirement to obtain the consent of the executive branch in the area of international cooperation. Instead, it prescribes an obligation for the Supreme Public Prosecution to notify the Ministry of Justice in advance of cooperation protocols with the prosecutions of other states and international judicial organisations in accordance with international treaties. Prior notification is not required for making contacts or exchanging information and documents. On this basis, the VC found the recommendation fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 4 (limitation of temporary appointments of public prosecutors to a one-year mandate without the possibility of extension)
The draft law accepts the limitation of the mandate of acting public prosecutors to one year without the possibility of extension, for which reason the VC found the recommendation fulfilled.
Recommendation no. 5 (exclusion of the possibility of re-appointing chief public prosecutors after the expiry of their mandate)
Under the proposed amendments, a chief public prosecutor may not be re-elected to the same position after the expiry of the six-year mandate (contrary to the solution adopted in January). The VC found that such an amendment is fully in line with the recommendation from the urgent opinion.
Recommendation no. 6 (abolition of the possibility of extending temporary secondments)
The draft Law on Public Prosecution abolishes the possibility of a temporarily seconded prosecutor being re-seconded to the same prosecution after three years have elapsed. It is also emphasised that temporary secondment is carried out exceptionally due to the need for the efficiency of the prosecution's work if this cannot be ensured through other organisational measures, and the procedure for deciding on secondment within the High Prosecutorial Council is specified. The VC considers that such a solution corresponds to the given recommendation.
Recommendation no. 7 (return of public prosecutors to the Organized Crime Prosecution and establishment of mechanisms for regular appointments)
The VC found that ongoing procedures (open competition for regular appointment) strengthen the institutional capacities of the Organized Crime Prosecution. However, it also found that 2 of the 11 public prosecutors whose temporary secondments were prematurely terminated have not been reinstated, which is why the recommendation has not been fully implemented.
Recommendation no. 8 (greater structural and operational autonomy for the High-Tech Crime Department)
The new proposal entails that the head of the department is appointed by the High Prosecutorial Council (instead of the chief public prosecutor), while possession and demonstrated knowledge of information technology is introduced as a condition for the head and assigned prosecutors. However, the Special Department remains part of the Higher Public Prosecution in Belgrade.
Although the Ministry of Justice established a special working group to further consider operational autonomy, the Venice Commission emphasises that this recommendation will be considered fully implemented only when the working group concludes its work in an inclusive manner, within a reasonable timeframe, and when this is followed by a legislative amendment or reform ensuring greater structural and operational autonomy for the Special Department.
Recommendation no. 9 (non-renewable mandate for court presidents)
The draft Law on Judges excludes the possibility of re-appointing the same court president to the same position. The VC considers this recommendation fulfilled.
General recommendation on the court and prosecution network
Despite the VC's recommendations to carry out prior analyses of the need for reorganisation of the judicial and prosecutorial bodies, the draft Law on the Seats and Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutions maintains the establishment of the Fourth Basic Court and the Fourth Basic Public Prosecution. The proposal only changes the deadlines – the start of application of the law is postponed to March 1, 2027 (instead of July 1, 2026), while the deadline for adopting the act on internal organisation and systematisation is moved to January 1, 2026 (instead of May 1, 2026). A Working Group for further studies has also been established.
In the context of this issue, the VC emphasised that detailed studies and impact assessments should as a rule be carried out before the adoption of a final legislative solution, particularly when it contains a fixed date of application, which is why the recommendation can be considered implemented only when the working group produces its analysis in a comprehensive and inclusive manner, within the set timeframe, and the process results in the adoption of legislative amendments.
3. Emergency adoption of new draft laws
Despite the fact that three Venice Commission recommendations remain unfulfilled - the implementation of which requires additional time and action by working groups or competent authorities - the five draft laws were submitted to the parliamentary procedure under emergency procedure and placed on the agenda of an extraordinary parliamentary session just five days after the receipt of the follow-up opinion.
