Prosecutors from Serbia's specialized anti-corruption office staged an unprecedented walkout protest as new judicial laws took effect, raising fundamental questions about the country's commitment to rule of law and its path toward European Union membership.
Prosecutors at the Public Prosecutor's Office for Organized Crime (JTOK) walked out of their offices in a coordinated protest against amendments that will strip the office of more than half its prosecutors within thirty days. The changes, reported by investigative outlet KRIK, require prosecutors on temporary assignment to return to their home offices by early March.
The new law will force 11 of the office's 20 prosecutors to leave JTOK, effectively gutting the institution at a moment when it has launched high-profile corruption investigations against sitting government ministers. The prosecutors issued a stark statement questioning "who will benefit from this law amendment" and warning that the office's work would be "seriously endangered and virtually disabled."
The timing is particularly significant. In recent months, JTOK has opened investigations into Tomislav Momirović and Goran Vesić, both former construction ministers, over corruption in the reconstruction of the railway line between Belgrade and the Hungarian border. The office has also indicted Culture Minister Nikola Selaković in the "Generalštab" case, with proceedings scheduled to begin this week.
The protest drew immediate condemnation from Brussels. European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos wrote on social media that the Serbian parliament's decision to "limit judicial independence" represents "a serious step backward on Serbia's European path." For an EU candidate country, such direct criticism from the commissioner responsible for accession negotiations carries considerable weight.
The amendments were introduced by Uglješa Mrdić, a legislator from the ruling Serbian Progressive Party, and passed without the public consultation that typically accompanies judicial reforms. Legal experts and civil society organizations condemned the process as fundamentally undemocratic. The haste with which the laws were adopted—giving prosecutors just thirty days to vacate their positions—suggests a deliberate effort to disrupt ongoing investigations.
In the Balkans, as across post-conflict regions, the path forward requires acknowledging the past without being imprisoned by it. Yet Serbia's judicial reforms appear designed not to strengthen institutions but to weaken them precisely when they challenge political power. The protest by prosecutors is rare in a region where judicial independence has historically been fragile, and it signals the alarm of career professionals who see their work being deliberately undermined.
The prosecutors announced they would continue staging ten-minute daily protests before scheduled trials, a symbolic but powerful demonstration of professional dissent. Their protest contrasts sharply with the hunger strike staged recently by Uglješa Mrdić himself, who demanded changes to the judiciary—though his demands, unlike those of anti-corruption activist Dijana Hrka, have now been implemented through parliamentary action.
For the European Union, Serbia's backsliding on judicial independence poses a dilemma for the bloc's enlargement strategy. Brussels has repeatedly emphasized that rule of law reforms are non-negotiable prerequisites for accession, yet Serbia has shown increasing willingness to adopt measures that move in precisely the opposite direction. The EU's response will test whether enlargement conditionality has real teeth or whether geopolitical considerations will override institutional standards.
The prosecutors' walkout also reflects growing citizen demands for accountability. Following tragedies such as the Novi Sad railway station collapse, which killed 15 people, Serbian citizens have organized sustained protests demanding prosecution of officials responsible for corruption and negligence. The dismantling of the specialized anti-corruption prosecutor's office sends an unmistakable signal that such accountability will be blocked rather than delivered.
What happens in Serbia reverberates across the Western Balkans. If a candidate country can gut its anti-corruption institutions without significant consequences, it undermines the credibility of the EU accession process throughout the region. Conversely, a strong European response could reinforce the message that there are no shortcuts to membership and that institutional quality matters as much as geopolitical alignment.
The prosecutors standing outside their offices in Belgrade represent more than professional grievance. They embody the tension between Serbia's stated European aspirations and the reality of governance that treats independent institutions as obstacles rather than foundations of democratic statehood. Their protest asks a question that extends beyond Serbia: whether the promise of European integration can withstand determined efforts to hollow out the institutions that make integration meaningful.
