EditSerbia and the European Union: cold, colder
The recent European Parliament visit underscores a profound distrust from a key EU institution toward an aspiring member state's government
The regime led by Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić greeted a delegation from the European Parliament, visiting Serbia on January 23, 2026, to evaluate the country’s political landscape, with open hostility, verbal assaults, provocations, and insults. This confrontational approach is a well-worn tactic, largely aimed at rallying the ruling coalition’s voter base. Yet, the regime’s more egregious action came days later: the adoption of amendments to judicial laws that erode the independence of the judiciary and the autonomy of prosecutors’ offices—a clear regression on Serbia’s path to European Union membership.
The EP Delegation mistreated by Vučić’s régime
The nine-member European Parliament (EP) delegation, headed by Portuguese MEP Marta Temido, conducted a series of meetings in Belgrade with government officials, opposition leaders, civil society representatives, media outlets, and university figures. In a calculated move, an exhibition on the World War II Ustasha death camp at Jasenovac was installed in the National Assembly lobby just seven days before their arrival. This served dual purposes: as a pointed provocation toward Croatian MEP and EP Rapporteur for Serbia Tonino Picula, and as fodder for further attacks on both the delegation and the parliamentary opposition.
A day prior to the visit, Serbian authorities claimed the delegation had requested entry through side hallways to evade the exhibition “dedicated to the victims of the genocide in Jasenovac.” Picula’s office rejected this as “manipulation aimed at discrediting the European Parliament mission.” Off-the-record sources informed N1 TV that the request for an alternative entrance was indeed made, but to avoid journalists, not the exhibit. Ultimately, the delegation viewed the display, and Picula directly refuted the allegations in response to questions from the pro-regime Informer TV. Notably, four Informer TV crews pursued the MEPs and opposition members through parliament corridors – even in restricted areas – highlighting the regime’s intent to weaponize the exhibition for propaganda.
Vučić opted for low-level engagement, with the highest-ranking official meeting the delegation being Minister of European Integration Nemanja Starović. Even this encounter was laced with provocation: the ministry featured an exhibition of photographs from Croatia’s 1995 Operation Storm, involving the expulsion of Serbs. Starović, as quoted by the ministry, explained that the display was erected in August 2025 following Picula’s alleged insult to the Serbian people via a 1995 photo of himself with a machine gun. He vowed the exhibit would remain as long as Picula served as rapporteur.
Government officials lambasted the MEPs both before and during their stay, accusing them of arriving “uninvited” without consulting Serbian institutions, thus showing disrespect. Vučić declared, “I do not want to meet with haters of Serbia such as Picula and others like him,” while Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabić condemned their “brutal and inappropriate meddling in Serbia’s internal affairs.” Picula and Slovenian MEP Vladimir Prebilič bore the brunt of the criticism, particularly after Prebilič’s January 24 meeting in Novi Sad with six activists facing charges of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, as well as dismissed professors from universities in Novi Sad and Novi Pazar.
At the core of these assaults is Vučić’s strategy to consolidate support among ruling coalition voters in an election year. Through pro-regime media like Informer TV, he propagates a narrative portraying MEPs as adversaries of Serbia, positioning himself as the nation’s defender while depicting the opposition as collaborators with these “enemies.”
Pro-European opposition parties inadvertently aided this narrative by urging the delegation to impose targeted sanctions on government officials, condition EU funds on reforms, or redirect aid to NGOs and media promoting democratization. On the same day, Green-Left Front co-president Radomir Lazović was physically assaulted by an unidentified man shortly after leaving parliament—likely in retaliation for his sanctions advocacy, which would undermine Vučić’s interests.
The Mission’s outcome
The opposition can take some solace in the visit’s results. Temido highlighted “concerning reports” of repression, financial and administrative pressures on academics, and curbs on media freedoms. She demanded transparent investigations into allegations of excessive force against protesters, emphasizing that freedoms of assembly and speech are non-negotiable, and that protesters’ and journalists’ safety must be protected. Participants in the meetings reported the delegation’s shock at the revelations: “They knew the situation was bad, but could not imagine it was that bad,” with reactions described as sincere and emotional.
The delegation’s presence underscores a profound distrust from a key EU institution toward an aspiring member state’s government, necessitating an on-the-ground fact-finding mission. This signals significant backsliding in critical areas for EU accession. Over the next month, the group will compile a report for the EP’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), which dispatched the mission.
Temido’s most significant announcement was the delegation’s intent to return, indicating ongoing scrutiny of Serbia’s rule of law and democratization efforts. She specifically pledged to monitor amendments to judicial laws that threaten judicial independence—amendments already condemned by the European Commission this week.
EC criticism of ‘Mrdić’s laws’
On January 28, Serbian MPs passed amendments to judicial laws proposed by Serbian Progressive Party MP Ugljesa Mrdić. Experts decried the changes and the lack of substantive debate, warning they would terminate over half the prosecutors at the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime, halting ongoing investigations and trials. Critics view this as the regime’s maneuver to obstruct current probes and preempt future ones. In response, the Judicial Authority Union called for an immediate strike by judges and prosecutors to safeguard judicial independence and the rule of law.
Mere hours after adoption, the European Commission issued a statement deeming the amendments a blow to judicial independence and prosecutorial autonomy—a “major step back” on Serbia’s EU path. The Commission urged an urgent reversal, labeling the changes incompatible with prior reforms and obligations to bolster judicial autonomy. EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos stressed that the amendments constrain judicial independence, risking a reversal amid the EU’s renewed enlargement momentum.
Vučić could withhold his signature, citing procedural flaws like Mrdić’s failure to consult the High Judicial Council and High Prosecutorial Council. While this might echo past tactics – igniting and then extinguishing crises – he is unlikely to do so. Recent statements suggest his aim is to maintain Serbia’s EU trajectory without full commitment. This is evident in his reluctance to implement Brussels’ demands: sanctions on Russia, accountability for the 2023 Banjska clash in northern Kosovo, judicial independence, an autonomous media regulator, or curbing EU disinformation.
In summary, these events paint a chilling picture of Serbia’s EU relations: a regime prioritizing domestic consolidation over genuine reforms, met with increasing EU vigilance. As the delegation’s report looms and judicial amendments face scrutiny, Serbia’s European aspirations hang in the balance, demanding urgent course correction to thaw the frost.
Caption: Illustrative photo. A man reads demands as students gather outside the Prosecutor’s Office for Organized Crime (TOK) to support investigators probing the redevelopment deal in Belgrade, Serbia, 20 November 2025. EPA/ANDREJ CUKIC
Updated: January 29, 2026 - 15:52
