19. September 2025

Die folgenden Ausschnitte aus ausgewählten Quellen enthalten Informationen zu oben genannter Fragestellung (Zugriff auf alle Quellen am 19. September 2025):

·      Der Standard: Richter und Staatsanwälte wagen in Serbien ein bisschen Unabhängigkeit, 23. Mai 2025
https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000271248/richter-und-staatsanwaelte-wagen-in-serbien-ein-bisschen-unabhaengigkeit

„Seit vergangener Woche schon haben Studierende und andere Aktivisten das Gericht und die Staatsanwaltschaft in Novi Sad blockiert. Sie möchten damit auf die Situation anderer Aktivisten und Aktivistinnen aufmerksam machen, die seit März festgehalten werden. Am Dienstag zeigte dies nun Konsequenzen. Drei der Inhaftierten wurden aus der Haft entlassen. Sie stehen nun unter Hausarrest. Marija Vasić, Lazar Dinić und Lado Jovović sind Teil der Protestbewegung in Serbien, die seit vergangenem November Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Transparenz fordern. […] Der autokratisch regierende serbische Präsident Aleksandar Vučić kritisierte nach der Entlassung aus der Haft umgehend die Entscheidung der Richter. Er warf den Richtern vor, ‚kriminelle Schritte‘ begangen zu haben. Die drei Aktivistinnen und Aktivisten werden nun im Hausarrest für mindestens drei Monate überwacht. […]

Im Fall dreier weiterer verhafteter Aktivisten, die noch immer in Haft sind, wird noch eine Entscheidung erwartet. Studierende und Bürger und Bürgerinnen erklärten, dass sie die Blockade des Gerichts und der Staatsanwaltschaft so lange fortsetzen werden, bis alle freigelassen sind. Demonstrierende in Serbien müssen seit Monaten mit Gehaltskürzungen, mediale Hetzkampagnen und Verhaftungen rechnen. Auslöser der monatelangen Proteste war am 1. November der Einsturz eines Vordachs des Bahnhofs in Novi Sad. Dabei kamen 16 Menschen ums Leben. Die Entscheidung der Richter in Novi Sad zeigt jedoch, dass Vučić und sein Regime offensichtlich an Kontrolle verlieren und die Gewaltenteilung in Serbien – also die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz und der Medien – durch die Massenproteste gestärkt wurde.“ (Der Standard, 23. Mai 2025)

·      MDR – Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk: Wenn Protest zu "Terrorismus" gemacht wird, 10. Juni 2025
https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/welt/osteuropa/politik/serbien-harte-gangart-gegen-demonstranten-studenten-hungerstreik-100.html

„Der Fall der Lehrerin Marija Vasić, die auf Grund konstruierter Vorwürfe verhaftet wurde und im Gefängnis einen Hunger- und Durststreik begann, bewegt in Serbien die Gemüter. […] In Folge ihres Hunger- und Durststreikes intensivierten sich die Proteste für ihre Freilassung und die ihrer fünf Mitgefangenen: Studenten und Bürger blockierten das Kreisgericht in Novi Sad. Deshalb, wegen des lauten Aufschreis eines Teils der Öffentlichkeit und weil das Europaparlament sich besorgt wegen des Gesundheitszustands von Vasic äußerte, ordnete kurze Zeit später das Gericht für die Professorin und zwei ihrer Mitstreiter Hausarrest an. Mittlerweile sind nun auch die drei anderen aus der Haft entlassen und in den Hausarrest überführt worden. […]

Diese Entscheidung kam beim Präsidenten nicht gut an: Teile der Justiz seien auch in die ‚Farbrevolution‘ eingespannt oder hätten ‚dem Druck der Straße nachgegeben‘, donnerte Vučić darauf empört. Er würde alle Staatsanwälte und Richter ablösen, die die Gesetze und die Verfassungsordnung nicht verteidigten, warnte er zuvor, unzufrieden wie ‚mild‘ die Justiz gegen rebellierende Studenten vorgehe. Daraufhin unterzeichneten fast 600 Richter und Staatsanwälte eine Petition in der es heißt: Es sei allerhöchste Zeit, dass Richter und Staatsanwälte, die bisher stillschweigend die Unterwerfung der Justiz beobachtet hätten, ihre Stimme erheben und sich widersetzen.“ (MDR, 10. Juni 2025)

·      ICJ – International Commission of Jurists: Serbia: Political leaders must cease interference with the judiciary, 10. September 2025
https://www.icj.org/serbia-political-leaders-must-cease-interference-with-the-judiciary/

„The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) condemns the escalating pattern of public attacks on the Serbian judiciary by senior political figures, which gravely undermines judicial independence and the integrity of the justice system. Judges, prosecutors, and lawyers must be able to carry out their professional duties without fear of intimidation, retaliation, or political reprisal.

‘These sustained acts of interference gravely undermine the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the justice system in Serbia,’ said Radmila Dragicevic-Dicic, ICJ Commissioner and Former Justice of the Supreme Court of Serbia. ‘We know from experience that when Judges, are unable to carry out their professional duties without fear of intimidation, retaliation or political reprisal, the human rights of everyone are at risk’.

In recent months, high-ranking officials – including the President, the Speaker of Parliament, and the Minister of Justice – have made inappropriate comments on pending cases and sharply criticised judicial decisions in politically sensitive matters. A striking example came after the Novi Sad Court of Appeal’s ruling of 20 May 2025, which replaced pre-trial detention with house arrest for three defendants accused of plotting ‘offences against the constitutional order.’ President Aleksandar Vučić labelled the detainees ‘terrorists’ and accused the courts of ‘capitulating to a foreign-financed coloured revolution agenda.’ Speaker of Parliament Ana Brnabić praised ruling party members accused of violent assaults as ‘heroes,’ while criticising the judiciary for releasing anti-government activists. Meanwhile, Minister of Justice Nenad Vujić urged judicial oversight bodies to review specific court decisions, despite lacking any legal authority to do so.

These statements have been amplified by pro-government media campaigns that have smeared judges, prosecutors and lawyers, often portraying them as ‘traitors’ or foreign agents.

Judges presiding over politically sensitive cases have been subjected to personal attacks, with private data – including photographs, phone numbers, and family details – published in the press and broadcast on television. Such actions have fuelled threats against judges, including death threats, and created a climate that undermines both the independence of the judiciary and the presumption of innocence. The latest attacks occurred after 28 August, when pro-government media targeted a judge from Novi Sad who declined to order detention for two protesters, branding her a ‘Judge Terrorist’ and calling her decision the greatest scandal in the history of the Serbian judiciary. A similar incident took place on 24 July, when a judge of the High Court of Valjevo refused a detention request for four protesters and was subsequently vilified in pro-government outlets, with her personal information widely circulated. Since July, four pre-trial judges from the High Court of Belgrade have faced continuous media harassment, and one has received death threats. The campaign has also extended to the prosecution service. Since late July, Bojana Savović, the High Prosecutor of Belgrade, has faced sustained attacks after appearing on independent media outlets, where she spoke about police brutality, disproportionate use of force, and the duty of prosecutors to investigate allegations of torture.

Since early 2025, Serbia has experienced an increased civic unrest, including mass protests under the banner ‘Serbia Against Violence.’ Against this backdrop, officials have increasingly used rhetoric portraying judges, prosecutors and civil society as ‘enemies of the State’ while deploying coordinated campaigns to pressure courts and discredit independent actors. Tensions culminated on 28 June 2025 during mass anti-government protests, when police used unnecessary and disproportionate force against peaceful demonstrators, students, lawyers, and observers, including an attempted intrusion into the University of Belgrade Law Faculty. The Bar Association of Serbia and other professional bodies condemned these actions as a grave threat to judicial independence and as ‘gross violations’ of the right to assembly and institutional autonomy. In response to these developments, an informal group of judges and prosecutors, ‘Defending the Profession’, has issued a series of public statements highlighting political pressures, media harassment and institutional passivity. The group reacted to the recent attacks on judges and prosecutors and appealed to the International Association of Judges and other international bodies for support in defending judicial independence in Serbia.“ (ICJ, 10. September 2025)

·      Europäische Kommission: 2025 Rule of Law Report – Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Serbia, 8. Juli 2025
https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/298f86d5-723b-4d3e-90b4-98ea24d9c885_en?filename=2025%20Rule%20of%20Law%20Report%20-%20Country%20Chapter%20Serbia_0.pdf

„I. JUSTICE SYSTEM

Independence

The level of perceived judicial independence in Serbia continues to be low among both the general public and companies. Overall, 30% of the general population and 36% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ in 2025. The perceived judicial independence among the general public has decreased in comparison with 2024 (36%), while among companies it has slightly increased in comparison with 2024 (34%).

The implementation of the constitutional reform to strengthen judicial independence continued. […] Political pressure on the judiciary and the prosecution services remained high, with little or no follow-up by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Councils, the Government or Parliament. Government and public officials at the highest level, including the President, and members of Parliament continued to make undue public comments on ongoing investigations and court proceedings, including as regards the work of individual prosecutors and judges. These comments included criticism of judicial decisions and threats with removal addressed to judges and prosecutors. While the associations of judges and prosecutors defended judges and prosecutors in some of these instances, the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council have so far remained largely passive. In 2024, five new requests for protection from undue influence were submitted to the High Judicial Council and ten requests were submitted to the High Prosecutorial Council, which found undue influence had been exerted in certain cases. Additionally, the Government and the Parliament have so far not acted in cases of undue public comments by their respective members, although such comments appear to be in contradiction with their code of conduct.

There are concerns with regard to prosecutorial autonomy, and the effectiveness and confidentiality of criminal investigations are hampered by shortcomings in law and practice. The launch of major initiatives by the prosecution, including an anti-corruption operation and the search of the offices of four NGOs, which both took place in February, followed public statements made by high level public officials. This raised concerns with regard to prosecutorial autonomy, including by numerous stakeholders. Furthermore, public comments made by officials continue to raise concerns about leakage of information by institutions involved in criminal proceedings, since some of these comments contained information from ongoing cases which was not in the public domain. Several shortcomings in law and practice contribute to the risk of information leaks and hamper the effectiveness of investigations. In particular, the legal framework mandates the Security Information Agency to initiate criminal proceedings for certain types of offences with international elements and the Criminal Procedure Code provides that, in addition to the police, special investigative measures are carried out by the Security Information Agency and the Military Security Agency. However, in practice, the police cannot intercept communications without the support of the Security Intelligence Agency. In addition, the police still lacks sufficient operational autonomy from the Ministry of Interior.“ (Europäische Kommission, 8. Juli 2025, S. 2-3)

Eine deutsche Zusammenfassung des EU-Rechtsstaatlichkeitsberichts der EU finden Sie unter folgendem Link:

·      KAS – Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung: EU-Rechtsstaatlichkeitsbericht 2025, 31. Juli 2025
https://www.kas.de/de/laenderberichte/detail/-/content/eu-rechtsstaatlichkeitsbericht-2025

Ähnliche Informationen wie im EU-Rechtsstaatlichkeitsbericht finden sich auch in folgendem Bericht:

·      Europäische Kommission: Serbia 2024 Report, 30. Oktober 2024
https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/3c8c2d7f-bff7-44eb-b868-414730cc5902_en?filename=Serbia%20Report%202024.pdf

·      Euronews Albania: EU concerned about rule of law in Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia, 16. September 2025
https://euronews.al/en/eu-concerned-about-rule-of-law-in-albania-serbia-montenegro-and-north-macedonia/

„EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, said on Tuesday that the bloc remains concerned about the state of the rule of law in candidate countries in the Balkans – Albania, Serbia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia – even though there has been noticeable progress in this area. ‘Interference in judicial procedures, pressure on officials investigating corruption, and the politicization of media regulators continue, which is unacceptable,’ Kos said at a press conference. She made these remarks after a meeting of the EU General Affairs Council, where ministers from several member states and candidate countries discussed the rule of law in the Union.“ (Euronews Albania, 16. September 2025)

·      Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2025 - Serbia, 2025
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2129101.html

„Is there an independent judiciary? […]

The independence of the judiciary is compromised by political influence over judicial appointments, and many judges have reported facing external pressure regarding their rulings. Politicians regularly comment on judicial matters, including by discussing ongoing cases or investigations with the media.“ (Freedom House, 2025, F1)

„Does due process prevail in civil and criminal matters? […]

Due process guarantees are upheld in some cases, but corruption, lack of capacity, and political influence often undermine these protections. Among other problems, rules on the random assignment of cases to judges and prosecutors are not consistently observed, and mechanisms for obtaining restitution in civil matters are ineffective. High-profile, politically sensitive cases are especially vulnerable to interference.“ (Freedom House, 2025, F2)

·      USDOS – US Department of State: 2023 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Serbia[1], 23. April 2024
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2107724.html

„E. DENIAL OF FAIR PUBLIC TRIAL

The constitution and law provided for an independent judiciary, but the government did not consistently respect judicial independence and impartiality. Independent international and domestic NGOs and monitoring bodies reported the judiciary was susceptible to corruption and political influence. Government officials and members of parliament continued to comment publicly regarding investigations, court proceedings, or on the work of individual judges and prosecutors. This commentary was perceived to harm judicial independence and contributed to the perception of political influence over the courts. In February the Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office in Belgrade reassigned two prosecutors, Bojana Savovic and Jasmina Paunovic, after the arrest of six suspects charged with embezzlement involving the publicly owned Electric Power Industry of Serbia. Many observers alleged the reassignments were politically motivated.

The government continued implementation of its 2021-2026 National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes; however, international and domestic monitoring groups reported the pace and scope of investigations and prosecutions was insufficient.

Trial Procedures

The constitution and laws provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and the judiciary generally enforced this right. The length of trials, transparency of procedures, and judicial efficiency, however, remained points of concern.

Defendants had the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay, although authorities could close a trial to the public if the trial judge determined it was warranted for the protection of public order and morality, national security, the interests of a child, the privacy of a participant, or during the testimony of a state-protected witness.“ (USDOS, 23. April 2024, Section 1E)