Priebe's reports, conducted in two neighboring countries, have proven to be useful tools for evaluating and guiding reforms, providing clear guidelines for improvement in key areas. However, their success largely depends on the political will and ability of countries to implement the necessary, deep and sustainable reforms. Knowing that the local authorities lack political will, what should citizens and the international community do with Priebe's team's evaluations?
After the adoption of the resolution of the European Parliament on the elections in Serbia on February 8, the initiative to send an expert mission obviously attracted the most attention. Namely, in the fifth point of this Resolution, the European Parliament "calls on the European Commission to launch an initiative to send an expert mission to Serbia in order to assess the situation in connection with the recent elections and the development of the post-election situation in order to facilitate the preconditions for establishing the necessary social dialogue in order to restore trust public and trust in institutions, and to assess and address systematic issues of the rule of law in Serbia, taking as an example Private reports.
Neither experts, nor civil society, nor the opposition question the importance of the arrival of such a mission in our public opinion. They seem to agree that the mission, and the report that would follow, would bring Serbia closer to democratic changes. This perspective is correct in principle, but in order for the report itself to contribute to democratic processes, it is necessary to understand what kind of scope it had before, in what contexts, and that other democratic actors must do their part.
photo: ap / dragan perkovski...and Nikola Gruevski, 2016.
NEIGHBORHOOD EXPERIENCES
The Priebe reports are named after Reinhard Priebe, an experienced German lawyer who led the European Union's expert teams tasked with assessing judicial systems and fighting corruption in countries aspiring to EU membership. These reports are known for not using diplomatic vocabulary, and provide detailed analysis and recommendations for reforms in key areas such as the rule of law, judicial independence, the fight against corruption and organized crime, free and fair elections or media freedom. The assumption is that in Serbia, the expert mission will focus more on the manipulations during the elections, but - given that they include a wide range of other problems - it will not be able to bypass other areas either.
Priebe's team was first hired in 2015 to assess the political crisis in Macedonia, focusing on the judicial system and the media. At the time, he pointed to serious shortcomings in the judicial system, political polarization, control of the media and the presence of corruption. As a result, the report recommended a series of reforms, which have been partially implemented and led to improvements in certain areas, including an overhaul of the judicial system and the strengthening of media freedom.
Pribe's report for Bosnia and Herzegovina, made during 2019, analyzed in detail the judicial system of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the challenges in the fight against corruption and recommended concrete steps for reforms. It was part of the broader efforts of the European Union to support the reform process in Bosnia and Herzegovina and strengthen the rule of law as a key element in starting the process of European integration.
In the countries that were the subject of the Pribe report, progress was noted in implementing the recommended reforms, although the degree of success varied. Judicial reforms, the fight against corruption and improving media freedom were among the key areas where some progress was made. It is important to emphasize that in the case of Macedonia, Pribe's mission came amid political crisis, protests and a major wiretapping scandal that had already upset the public. Many see this report as a help in democratic changes, but without the domestic public who presented the changes, it would not have had results. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, it served more to better trace the path to the EU, in order to start the candidacy process, in which key reforms have yet to take place.
Thus, although the reports provided a positive impetus for reforms, the slowness of implementation and the lack of political will in some cases led to a lack of results. Issues such as deep political polarization, resistance to change within the justice system, and the continued presence of corruption continue to pose challenges in these countries.
Pribe reports have proven to be useful tools for evaluating and guiding reforms, providing clear guidance for improvement in key areas. However, their success largely depends on the political will and ability of countries to implement deep and sustainable reforms.
ABOUT THE THEORY, REALITY AND HAVING A SPINE
The reasons why it would be good to have a Pribe report for a democratic country (although it is not made for such countries) are multiple. It would provide an unbiased assessment of the situation in key areas that are essential for the European integration process, allowing a realistic view of the necessary reforms. Through detailed recommendations, the report would indicate concrete steps that the state can take in order to maintain fair and free elections, improve the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of the fight against corruption. The publication of such a report should serve as an incentive for the government to undertake the necessary reforms by raising awareness of the importance and urgency of these issues. The report could also contribute to greater transparency in the work of institutions, and increase responsibility in the implementation of reforms. By demonstrating commitment to reforms and openness to international evaluation, the authorities could increase citizens' trust in the process of European integration and in the institutions of the system. The Pribe report could also serve as a basis for obtaining additional support and advice from the EU and other international partners in the reform process.
In essence, the Pribe report has the potential to be a valuable instrument for identifying key challenges and encouraging comprehensive reforms that are necessary to progress towards EU membership and to achieve improvements in quality of life and the rule of law in the country.
When we take into account the situation in Serbia, we are faced with reality, including problems in the implementation of the recommendations of such reports. One of the main challenges is the lack of political will among the current authorities to undertake the necessary reforms, especially in areas that could weaken their control or influence. Without a firm commitment to reforms, it is difficult to expect significant changes.
The challenges in maintaining the independence of the judicial system and preventing political influence on the courts and prosecutor's offices are significant. Reforms that would focus on strengthening the independence of the judicial system have already encountered resistance from the authorities, and it is unlikely that such recommendations would be implemented.
All previous reports, including the reports of the European Commission, the ODIHR reports on the elections, those of international organizations and the like, pointed to restrictions on media freedom and pressure on journalists and media that criticize the government. Changes in this area require political will and democratic government, and only then a systemic approach and reform of media laws.
Finally, the same is required by all the other topics that such a report would cover - corruption, manipulation during the election process, attacks on civil society and any criticism, impact on regional stability. The citizens of this country should look at the bigger picture, but the international community should also see if this government wants to solve the problems or if it actually sustains itself by usurping them. A report similar to Priebe's could undoubtedly help with just that.
The very implementation of the report's recommendations would require a comprehensive approach that includes legislative changes, institutional strengthening and a cultural change in the way the country is governed. It would also require the strong support and engagement of the international community, as well as the active participation of citizens and civil society in the struggle for democracy. In the end, neither the international expert group nor its report can bring us democracy. They can be a tailwind, but we have to provide the back – or, rather, the backbone – ourselves.
What is happening in the country and the world, what is in the newspapers and how to pass the time?
Every Wednesday at noon In between arrives by email. It's a pretty solid newsletter, so sign up!
Pursuant to the Agreement signed by Partyarch Porfirije and Đuro Matsut on Vidovdan this year, the Government approved 763.100.000 dinars to the SPC. 234.800.000 dinars were immediately paid to the church, and the rest should be paid by the end of November 2026. The document obtained by "Vreme" shows that this money - that is, about 6,5 million euros - is intended for the construction of a new music hall measuring 2315,33 square meters. It is not clear which mosaic it is because the interior decoration was completed in 2020. The public was alarmed by two facts: public money was paid into one of the accounts that SPC has in "Alta Bank", and the second is the suspicion that the money in cash was taken out of Serbia and handed over to certain partners in Moscow. Dejan Nakić is mentioned as the whistleblower, and according to numerous sources of "Vremena" from the Serbian Orthodox Church, he has been mentioned before for various controversies related to the business of the Church.
What can the new government do with people from the security system who have accepted to wage a special, hybrid war against the majority of their citizens on behalf of a regime? What should we do with people who have accepted such rules of the game? We need to get rid of the burden they represent, because they are not capable of doing their job. No, it's not retaliation. From the beginning, the student movement insisted that the state system be regulated, and this implies very radical measures in the security system, where people who have received high salaries for years to follow and harass opponents of the government sit. They have to leave the service. If they're all like that, they all have to go
Students for "Vreme" about their experiences with BIA
Invitations to "friendly talks", accusations of espionage, recruitment attempts, threats and surveillance. Doroteja Đenisijević and Lazar Mišić, students of the Faculty of Agriculture, tell "Vreme" what their meeting with the Security and Information Agency was like and what happened when they refused to cooperate
Hidden equipment in a college amphitheater, spyware on a student's phone, surveillance by prosecutors and private conversations on television. After the political change, the question remains as to who manages that system. Judge Milimir Lukić demands the abolition of Bija, an independent investigation and the opening of the file. Predrag Petrović warns that the Service could survive this change too - through new allies
From the documentation that BIRN had access to, it is clear that there were reasons for the National Bank of Serbia (NBS) to enter into a detailed control of the work of Alta Bank much earlier, and some of the risks that the control of the central bank found at the end of October 2026 existed for more than a year. The question is why the NBS did not react earlier
At the moment when the institutions of the Republic are destroyed, when Vučić's octopus is still alive, when people are disgusted by the injustice and the stench left behind by the Essenes regime, we have, as Machiavelli said, only civic virtue as the fuel with which we can return to the beginning
The four independent members of REM are an example of perseverance and civic responsibility. Rodoljub Šabić even, upon leaving the premises of REM, after the sentencing of the Informer, experienced that the Essenes insulted him, hit him with their hands and feet. But that too will soon be over
Vučić pardoned the batterers and Dijana Hrkalović. The election winners should abolish the sultan's power that allows one man to run afoul of the entire judicial system
The archive of the weekly Vreme includes all our digital editions, since the very beginning of our work. All issues can be downloaded in PDF format, by purchasing the digital edition, or you can read all available texts from the selected issue.
Is it true what the oppositionists, but also political analysts, not only domestic ones, claim, that after the European Parliament's Resolution on Serbia, the progressive election frauds and the catastrophic state of democracy in our unfortunate country - nothing will be the same again? It probably is, but even if this document represents, as some say, "the beginning of the end of the Serbian Progressive Party", it does not mean that the end of the agony we are living in is already around the next corner and that everything will pass without serious turbulence.
How will the latest Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation in Serbia affect Serbia's credit rating and borrowing in 2024? This is an important question, because Serbia is facing a period of significant public investments. The share of investment in GDP is projected to be around 26,5 percent in 2024/2025. year, which is an increase from 18,2 percent in the period 2010-2019. year. As is known, public investments in Serbia are mostly financed by borrowing, which depends on the country's credit rating. The credit rating is most affected by political or economic instability. The resolution cannot destabilize the situation in Serbia, but it announces that a future one may be able to
The media controlled by the regime, as usual, reported with one voice: The EP resolution is a null matter, but it represents an attack on the sovereignty of freedom-loving Serbia (so null and such a threat?), and Serbia recorded a huge diplomatic victory in New York. Of course, those who publish this know that it is something, but now it is a PR plan from Vučić's cabinet and you just have to follow it. And what is the reality and the actual situation on the ground
