At the end of March, the Government of the Republic of Serbia adopted amendments to two regulations: the Regulation on Regulatory Impact Assessment and the Regulation on the Methodology for Developing Public Policy Documents. These amendments introduce the possibility to exempt laws and strategic documents developed within the EU accession process from the obligation to conduct impact assessments and public consultations. In practice, this means that for a large number of laws and public policies, their effects on citizens and the economy will no longer be evaluated, nor will there be an obligation to hold open public debates.
The amendments introduce a new provision stipulating that, in such cases, the standard consultation rules prescribed by the laws governing the planning system and public administration will not apply. Instead, reference is made to the rules governing negotiations with the European Union. However, this framework is neither clearly defined nor publicly accessible in a way that would ensure transparency and meaningful public participation.
Additionally, these regulations are exempted from the requirement to conduct impact assessments, and the role of the Republic Secretariat for Public Policies in overseeing the quality of these processes has been removed. Alignment with EU law can have genuine reform potential for a candidate country only if the rules are adapted to the domestic institutional system and social context. Otherwise, they remain inapplicable or produce no tangible effects for citizens. Until now, the Republic Secretariat for Public Policies played a key role in assessing this alignment within the legislative process.
A particular concern is the broad scope of this exemption. Most reforms currently undertaken by Serbia are directly linked to the EU accession process. This means that these amendments potentially cover nearly all significant laws and strategic decisions, rather than only narrowly defined negotiation documents. Furthermore, the provision referring to “other obligations towards international organizations” is not clearly specified, leaving room for arbitrary application.
It is especially troubling that this approach creates space for the instrumentalization of the EU integration process as a justification for expedited and non-transparent lawmaking. By its very nature, the EU accession process requires the opposite: inclusiveness, transparency, participatory decision-making, and broad public consultation. Using it as grounds to circumvent these standards represents a serious departure from the European principles to which Serbia has formally committed.
Impact assessments and public consultations are not administrative obstacles; they are essential tools for informed and effective policymaking. Their removal means that citizens, experts, and civil society organizations are deprived of the opportunity to participate in shaping policies that directly affect their lives, whether or not those policies are linked to Serbia’s EU accession process.
