Where did any positive evaluations related to anti-corruption in the EC report on Serbia come from?
Although the annual report of the European Commission gives corruption a significant place (the word is mentioned as many as 63 times), and brings some good observations and evaluations, the general impression is that the European Commission missed the opportunity to adequately review or even note some of the most important problems. In addition, in the reality of today's Serbia, it seems devastating that the EC found room to assess that there is any, even "limited" progress when it comes to the fight against corruption and in connection with public procurement.
It is mentioned that an action plan for the anti-corruption strategy was adopted, but there is no mention of the fact that there are no results of its implementation (or even a report).
It is mentioned that the investigations after the Novi Sad tragedy are still incomplete, but not that the executive power is actively obstructing them, including the campaign against the Prosecutor's Office for organized crime (POOC) and the lack of police cooperation. In this context, the message may have been sent through claims that the role of POOC is not sufficiently recognized in the regulations, although this is not certain either, because the emphasis is placed only on the coordination that POOC should perform over the anti-corruption departments of higher public prosecution offices.
It is said that "stronger political will" is needed for a more effective crackdown on corruption, including high-level corruption, but it is not entirely clear what is meant, as such investigations of possible corruption would inevitably include at least a portion of those who are expected to show political will.
It was requested that targeted risk analyzes be carried out in order to combat corruption in sensitive sectors.
It is noted that last year's recommendations were "implemented only to a limited extent" and remained largely the same. Thus, progress is still being sought in the investigations of cases of high corruption, the implementation of all GRECO recommendations (with particular emphasis on the need for the Government to have a "constructive relationship" with its Council for the fight against corruption), and the implementation of the existing and adoption of a new Action Plan. Literally the only point where some "progress" was recorded refers to the adoption of the previously mentioned and not implemented in practice Action Plan.
In the prosecution of corruption, the statistical presentation shows negative trends. In a separate section, the report looks at the fact that the campaign of arrests is due to corruption and various criminal acts that have been called corrupt, and all after the announcement of the President of the Republic, and that this creates fears regarding the independence of the actions of public prosecutors.
The Report only states the data on the fulfillment of the GRECO recommendations, which were known even a year ago, but not that almost nothing has been done about them in the meantime.
In this part of the report, a significant place is devoted to public procurement, where the application of exceptions is criticized, proactive publication of contracts, data on the procurement process and monitoring reports is encouraged, as well as the protection of whistleblowers in order to raise the level of public trust. All this is connected with the recommendations and work of the State Audit Institution.
Several sentences are dedicated to the Anticorruption Agency, where it is discussed the need to strengthen personnel capacities, but also to raise the level of its independence, impartiality and responsibility, which comes without explaining the reasons that caused the current situation to be inadequate.
Public procurement is dealt with in a separate chapter, where a special law for EXPO 2027 is mentioned in a negative context, as well as the regulation on the selection of a strategic partner for the construction of solar power plants. Some of the important problems are reviewed in other chapters of the report, e.g. in the framework of the relationship between Serbia and the EU (denied the possibility for companies from the EU to compete due to interstate agreements).
Here, too, "limited progress" was noted, and the recommendations remained almost the same - harmonizing the rules on public-private partnerships (PPP) and concessions with European ones, but it was especially emphasized that PPP projects should be implemented according to public procurement rules. Furthermore, in the case of interstate agreements, the rules are required to follow the principles of public procurement and to be in line with EU rules. Finally, it was again recommended to strengthen the capacity of several authorities responsible for public procurement. In this part, the report does not deal with one of the main topics in Serbia during the past year - the publication of contracts on infrastructure projects, that is, the situation that even after the tragedy in Novi Sad, the Government did not find it necessary to change the practice of non-transparency of contracting.