by Ivana Milićević
Research Forum,
European Movement in Serbia
Column – Research Forum, European Movement in Serbia
Context overview – Serbia’s progress amidst student protests?
On March 15, 2025, Belgrade witnessed an unprecedented protest following the tragic collapse of the newly renovated railway station canopy in Novi Sad, which killed 16 people. The renovation project was marked by extensive corruption and illegalities, prompting massive student-led anti-corruption demonstrations. Students have been in blockade of their faculties for months, with the seemingly simple requests which demonstrate social demands for transparency, rule of law, and institutional accountability, gathering historical support from all around Serbia. While the demands remain unfulfilled, the pressure on protesters and universities has intensified, even culminating by the use of sound weapon at the protesters during commemorative 15-minute silence.
These alarming events, however, cannot be viewed as incidents, but rather escalation of the years of democracy decline and erosion of the rule of law, political rights and civil liberties in Serbia. Under the rule of Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), Serbia became an electoral autocracy with one of the most substantial deteriorations on a global level, facing significant declines in democracy, freedom and corruption scores on relevant global rankings.
Eventually, the concerning events in Serbia echoed in international public, alarming citizens’ associations and academic community. However, the European Union remained remarkably silent for too long. Even though the protests’ demands align closely with its proclaimed core values, insisting on democracy, rule of law and human rights, the EU not only failed to support the protests, but its officials clearly signalled that Vučić’s regime still has the support of Brussels. In his visit to Serbia in January 2025, Gert Jan Koopman, the EU’s Director-General for Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood (DG ENEST), refrained from addressing the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding the collapse of the Novi Sad railway station canopy or acknowledging the significance of the historic protests that had emerged in response. Instead, he commended Serbia’s “steady progress” towards the EU.
This could seem surprising if one would refer to the European Commission progress reports on Serbia, which have for years urged Serbian authorities to step up their efforts to fight corruption, ensure independence of the judiciary, and guarantee freedom of expression. But the ruling regime in Serbia has had EU’s support for years, mostly due to the promise of maintaining stability in the region, but also willingness to endorse strategic projects of the EU and its member states. In that context, the recent statements by the EU officials, praising Serbia’s progress in the accession process, come as less surprising, but raise serious concerns of the credibility of EU’s conditionality policy, particularly with regard to the new enlargement methodology.
Responding to the calls for EU’s more active role and principled reaction, made by members of the European Parliament, Serbia’s professors and esteemed public figures from different spheres, EU research grantees and many more, the Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos issued an open letter, with an aim to “recall what the European Union stands for”. While carefully avoiding any direct reference to the student protests or their demands, Kos did address a critical issue, emphasising that, when properly implemented, the accession process strengthens anti-corruption efforts, upholds judicial independence, and ensures institutional accountability. However, this raises a question of what are the impacts of the process if it is undermined by the lack of credibility, political interference, and the neglect of its core principles.
Despite a Letter of concern signed by a number of EU Parliamentarians, who warned about risks of “further reinforcing perceptions that the EU ignores democratic backsliding and gravely alienating the Serbian people from the EU”, EU Commissioner for Enlargement reported about a “constructive meeting” with president Vučić, discussing Serbia’s steps on its EU path. Such an approach seriously undermines principles underlined by the new enlargement methodology and reaffirmed by the Growth Plan for the Western Balkans, which was apparently discussed during the meeting. According to these principles, the reforms in the fundamentals should determine the overall progress in reforms and navigate the process dynamic. Therefore, notions of Serbia’s progress without addressing the critical issues of democracy and rule of law raise serious credibility concerns.
Unsurprisingly, the post by Marta Kos was met with bitter reactions, to which she tried to respond in an interview, stating that students’ demands align closely with what the European Commission asks from Serbia, as it stagnates with implementation of crucial reforms. Despite her trying to dismiss the disapproving reactions as intentions to “judge her work based on 280 characters”, such statements not only send strong political messages, but also reflect the EU’s approach towards Serbia in recent years, and as such cannot be reduced to a poorly put X post. While the European Parliament took a much more critical stance towards violence against peaceful protesters and attacks on journalists and civil society in Serbia, the European Commission kept the appeasing approach through indirect and vague statements, signalling the lack of unified and systematic position within the EU.
Credibility issues – between stability guarantees and commercial interests
While 2025 was once seen as the year for the new EU enlargement, today it is clear that this target remains years away. The responsibility for stagnation in reforms undoubtedly lies with the candidate countries, which have often been slow and inconsistent in their implementation. However, the incentives for these reforms have not always been credible on the EU’s side as well, considering what now seems to be a prolonged period of “enlargement fatigue”.
Changing geopolitical circumstances and crises the EU faced have sidelined enlargement on its agenda, leaving the space for strengthening the position of local actors who tend to present themselves as keepers of stability in the region. Growing external demands for stability led to Brussels legitimising the so called “stabilitocracies” – the regimes with authoritarian tendencies which supposedly offer stability, overlooking democratic backsliding and suspension of fundamental reforms on the EU accession path. There were hopes that the introduction of the new enlargement methodology would help overcoming this burden, as it was introduced to reinforce credibility by putting a stronger focus on fundamental reforms, starting with the rule of law and functioning of democratic institutions. The new methodology provided a framework for a more dynamic process by organising chapters in six thematic clusters, emphasising the fundamental reforms included in the first cluster – which shall be open first and closed last, as the overall progress in the accession process depends on reforms in the rule of law, judiciary and fundamental rights. However, the results of its implementation proved to be very limited.
By attempting to revitalize its enlargement policy, Brussels sought to address both the EU’s crisis as a normative power and, more pragmatically, to maintain its influence in the Western Balkans in the face of growing external competition. The ongoing war in Ukraine has added a new layer of complexity to the EU’s approach, reintroducing a geopolitical logic of the enlargement, once again leading to prioritisation of stability in the region. While at first it seemed that it may bring urgency to the process, it soon became clear that the EU’s approach towards the region has not substantially changed, as the fundamental reforms remained shadowed by geopolitical and strategic interests. This raises serious concerns about mutual understanding of the criteria by which the progress in the accession process is being assessed, further diminishing its credibility and significantly harming the public perception and attitudes towards the EU. While the support for membership marked a trend of decline in recent years, it is particularly indicative that 35% of Serbian citizens believe that their country will never become a member of the EU, portraying alarming lack of trust in the process’ credibility.
The EU’s reluctance to provide clear support for protests against corruption, repression and deterioration of democracy in Serbia seems to be another example of the compromised credibility of the enlargement process, which threatens not only to further undermine the presumed “transformative power” of enlargement, but also questions its founding principles. If there is a political will for EU to position as a factor of change and preserve its relevance in the light of growing demands for democratisation in Serbia, it should undertake serious steps to restore credibility of conditionality policy and enlargement perspective, ensuring that the promise of membership remains a genuine incentive for democratic reforms rather than a geopolitical bargaining tool for candidate countries’ governments.
Policy proposals for enhancing credibility of the enlargement process
- Prioritising fundamental reforms
- The EU must rigorously uphold the principle of “fundamentals first” in the accession process, ensuring that progress is assessed through a comprehensive and transparent evaluation of key democratic reforms, including judicial independence, anti-corruption measures, media freedom, and human rights. Interim benchmarks need to be consistently applied to ensure that fundamental reforms are mandatory before opening or closing negotiation chapters in other areas.
- Deepening engagement with civil society and independent actors
- The EU should clearly and unequivocally demonstrate its support for actors that promote democratic reforms, media independence, and anti-corruption efforts, and sharply, timely and consistently address any repression over civil society, academic community and workers in candidate countries. Engaging in a structured dialogue with these actors would support local ownership, democratisation and decentralisation of the process.
- Reshaping public messaging on enlargement
- The EU’s official statements on accession must clearly address core issues of the accession process rather than rely on diplomatic statements that can be misinterpreted as tacit support for governments failing to implement necessary reforms. EU spokespersons and institutions should adopt a principled communication approach, ensuring a coherent voice on the enlargement and alignment with the progress reports findings and conclusions.
You can download the column in PDF by clicking HERE.
