Fight Against Corruption in the Executive Branch and the Police – A Year of Missed Opportunities

The Government of Serbia will not meet the recommendations for preventing corruption in the executive branch and the police that it received from GRECO in 2022, even by the second deadline, which expires in ten days, according to an analysis published today by Transparency Serbia.

With regard to legislation, in 2025 neither the Law on Internal Affairs was adopted nor was the Law on the Prevention of Corruption amended, although drafts of these acts had been prepared in previous years precisely because of GRECO’s recommendations. No attempt was made to reduce the space for corrupt influence over law-making by expanding the scope of application of the Law on Lobbying, as recommended by GRECO. Amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information were prepared, but the GRECO recommendation to enable appeals when information is denied by the Government or the President of the Republic was not taken into account at all. Moreover, instead of ensuring - through amendments to its Rules of Procedure, that all laws are preceded by public debate, the Government introduced new grounds for excluding public consultations.

The research showed that there was no willingness to implement even some of the least demanding recommendations, which do not require amending any legislation. The best example is the publication of the names of all advisers and special advisers and their areas of engagement. Not only has the Government of Serbia failed to proactively publish basic information about persons advising the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers, but it also refuses to provide this information upon requests for free access to information. Similarly, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption once again failed this year to include members of the Government and the President of the Republic in its annual plan for reviewing asset and income declarations. The Government also failed this year to appoint additional members to its Anti-Corruption Council or to consider that body’s reports. During this year, the Ministry of Interior did not publish guidelines for the application of the Code of Police Ethics, which was amended in 2024 based on GRECO recommendations.

What is not only concerning but also paradoxical is that over the past twelve months, during which citizens identified corruption as the main problem in society, and many took part in mass protests with a strong anti-corruption component, the authorities failed to recognize the opportunity to demonstrate greater commitment, at least for self-promotional reasons, by working on GRECO recommendations. Likewise, despite a declarative commitment to the “European path,” where fulfilling GRECO recommendations is among the priorities, the current draft Action Plan for the Anti-Corruption Strategy envisages that some activities will be implemented as late as 2028.

Certain statements and actions by representatives of the authorities have widely opened the door for Serbia to weaken its anti-corruption system in these two important areas, instead of strengthening it. This particularly concerns the situation of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime, which, according to GRECO recommendations, should be granted additional powers. On the other hand, it is precisely the Ministry of Justice, responsible for preparing the legislative amendments that would enable this, that questions the need for the existence of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime.

Description of the Recommendations

According to GRECO findings from June 2024, Serbia satisfactorily implemented only one recommendation (Recommendation XXII—to promptly establish a body responsible for recording and evaluating gifts and to significantly reduce the value of occasional gifts that police officers may retain) out of the twenty-four recommendations contained in the Fifth Round Evaluation Report. Of the remaining twenty-three recommendations, GRECO assessed ten as partially implemented and thirteen as not implemented at all.

According to Transparency Serbia, the recommendations that could have the greatest impact on the executive authorities and that have not yet been implemented relate to: regulating conflicts of interest for advisers to the President, the Prime Minister, and ministers; strengthening the system for reviewing asset and income declarations of executive officials; regulating informal lobbying; enabling citizens to appeal to the Commissioner when the Government of Serbia or the President of the Republic refuse or ignore a request for access to information; mandating public consultations for all laws; limiting the immunity of members of the Government in cases of corruption-related criminal offenses; and strengthening the Government’s Anti-Corruption Council.

Of great importance is also the recommendation to expand the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime to cover potential corruption involving all high-ranking officials, including the President of the Republic. Serbia adopted a law regulating the prosecution of high-level corruption cases and assigned jurisdiction to this special prosecutor’s office, but while the list of the highest officials subject to its jurisdiction includes, for example, assistant ministers, it does not include the President of the Republic or Members of Parliament.

At the same time, the most important unfulfilled recommendations regarding the work of the police are: the urgent adoption and public presentation of a strategic document on preventing corruption in the police, with identified risk areas and clearly defined objectives; and updating the Code of Police Ethics and supplementing it with implementation guidelines.

There are also recommendations to take measures to prevent politically motivated appointments of police officers to the highest positions; to ensure that procedures leading to the appointment of the Director of Police and other senior management positions involve more open and transparent competitions; and to conduct integrity-related security checks of police officers at regular intervals throughout their careers.

Analysis of Corruption Risks in Legislation

Ministries generally fail to comply with the legal obligation to analyze corruption risks in legislation, while the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and the National Assembly do too little to remedy this situation. According to Transparency Serbia’s findings, among the laws adopted in 2025, ministries were obliged to request an opinion from the Agency on corruption risks in at least 28 cases. However, they did so for only four laws.

The obligation to request such an opinion applies to the following areas: healthcare, education, taxation, customs, local self-government, public sector governance, construction and spatial planning, public procurement, privatization, public enterprises and other legal entities owned by the state, police, political party financing, and repression. In 2025, this obligation was most frequently violated by the Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure and the Ministry of Finance. As a result, some regulations that sparked major controversy, such as the “legalization law”, were not subjected to analysis.

The Agency issued opinions on four laws and one regulation (amendments to the Law on Free Access to Information, amendments to the Law on Textbooks, amendments to the Law on Civil Servants, and the Law on Salaries of Civil Servants and Public Employees), but did not publish these analyses.

In addition to direct violations of the legal obligation, risk analysis was in some cases circumvented in another way - by having controversial laws proposed directly by Members of Parliament, as was the case with the “special law” concerning the General Staff.

Appointment of Officials to Senior Positions

The Government of Serbia has continued to violate an obligation under the Law on Civil Servants that has existed for two decades - to appoint officials to senior positions in state administration (e.g., assistant ministers, ministry secretaries, directors of special organizations) following a conducted public competition. Not only does the “acting” (ad interim) status persist instead of a professional administration, but many decisions appointing acting officials are unlawful.

According to Transparency Serbia’s analysis, the Governments of Serbia led by Miloš Vučević and Prof. Dr. Đuro Macut adopted a total of 977 decisions appointing acting officials between 7 May 2024 and 21 August 2025. In only 197 cases (20.16%) were acting officials appointed in accordance with the law. The only positive change compared to the previous Government (led by Ana Brnabić) relates to a reduced share of retroactive decisions. There were 74 such cases (7.56%), of which 54 decisions were doubly unlawful - not only retroactive, but also lacking any legal basis for appointing an acting official. In the most extreme case, a decision was adopted as many as 59 days after the date from which the acting official’s mandate was purported to have begun.

In the following 153 cases, the 2024 Government unlawfully extended acting status for individuals appointed by the previous Government. Finally, the Governments of 2024 and 2025 adopted another 553 unlawful decisions (56%) during this period, appointing acting officials even though another acting official had already occupied the same position for three months. These are often situations in which unlawful “acting status” has been maintained for many years.

Trends are also negative. In the first four months of work of the current Government of Serbia, the share of unlawful acting appointments reached as high as 85.65%.