As the clock ticks closer to the end-of-2018 deadline for Serbia to harmonise national legislation with European Union standards, the country’s minister responsible for integration, Jadranka Joksimovic, considers the EU-Serbia accession negotiations as an incentive to meet the internal reform goals. Joksimovic notes progress in terms of human rights, media freedom and judicial reforms. On the topic of migration, Joksimovic notes a systemic and institutional solution within the framework of the EU laws and standards that is accompanied by the strategic partnership with Turkey.

Is Serbia ready to join the EU?

Serbia has clearly expressed its strategic preferences. The membership in the European Union is one of the primary foreign policy goals, but also the goal of a significant number of sectors in Serbia. For us in the Government, it is important for the industrial branches and sectors to see the membership in the EU as an instrument used to meet the sectorial goals. That is the only way for the membership in the EU to represent an added value to each of these sectors. The energy sector would develop more if we are integrated and if we invest in joint projects. Agriculture, as a strategic branch for Serbia, has yet to gain momentum by joining the EU. Transport would become meaningful and would develop only if we plan to connect all major routes at the European level and as part of a unique European transport network. Even the challenges we are faced with, like migrations, are easier to solve if we act together. Serbia would continue to build its corridors, solve numerous challenges, but also develop its agriculture; the only question is whether it is better for such corridors, agricultural products and Serbian solutions to the challenges to have a prefix “European”. I am convinced that it is in everybody’s best interest.

The initial agenda had positioned accession talks wrap up until the end of 2018. Is it only Serbia’s fault?

Serbia is not in the position to set goals for the European Union or to pass political decisions on membership on behalf of the EU. However, we may and have to set tasks for ourselves. Our task is to conduct all the necessary reforms to harmonize domestic legislation with the European legislation by the end of 2018. This is important for a number of reasons. First of all, it sends a signal to the commercial sector and the investors about the direction and deadlines for the development of the legal and economic framework in Serbia. On the other hand, it is a message to the State administration to plan the activities well when it comes to harmonizing our legislation with the European, so that these activities would be finalized within the set deadline. Finally, if we fail to set deadlines for ourselves and to plan the activities to be completed within such deadlines, it becomes difficult to make long-term plans for the development of the country. What I would like to see is for the accession negotiations to be observed as an incentive to meet the internal reform goals we have set for ourselves, where the membership is a logical consequence of such met goals.

Nils Mužnieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has pointed that “Serbia has to show more resolve in addressing the legacy of the past, to improve the fight against discrimination and to establish a safer media environment”, on his previous report based on his visit just a year ago in Serbia. Has the government acted in any way, in order to address the persistent impunity for certain serious human rights violations?

One of the most significant results of the Government, in my opinion, is the uncompromising dedication and the fight against all forms of discrimination. This result is based on the improvement of the image and information available to the citizens about the problems faced by the persons being discriminated and on constant work on their visibility and the visibility of the problems they are faced with. Today, there are virtually no minority groups in Serbia whose progress in exercising their rights is not related to the political responsibility of a member of the Government. The second rule is that such members of the Government come from sensitive categories of society. Therefore, we talk about women. The rights of women, the rights of national minorities, the Roma inclusion, but also the rights of the LGBT population are dealt by female members of the Government, and as usually happens with women, they achieve very good results.

In terms of National Parliament legislation process, the European Commission’s accession report underlines the need to curtail the use of urgent legislation procedures, paired with important constitutional reforms, in order to achieve alignment with EU policy. Has the Serbian government and Parliament worked towards that direction?

It is important to emphasize that the urgent procedure does not exclude a discussion in the Parliament and the consideration of the bills at the sessions of the competent Parliament boards. Furthermore, the majority of bills that reach the Assembly go through the public hearing procedure before they are adopted by the Government.

In addition, the regulations aimed to harmonize our legislation with the EU acquis are additionally scrutinized from the point of view of compatibility with the EU legislations. Our action plans for opening of the negotiation chapters go through a separate procedure that implies mandatory consultations with the civil society and independent bodies. When it comes to the laws aimed at harmonizing with the EU acquis and action plans, the possibility of using the urgent procedure is minimal, because we have established a mechanism of wide consultations and additional quality checks of the bills. Our goal is to include all the interested parties in a bill drafting procedure. The constitutional reforms are our obligation within the negotiations with the EU and primarily pertain to the judicial reform. Under the Chapter 23 Action plan in the accession negotiations with the EU, we are under the obligation to conduct the constitutional reform in this area by the end of 2017.

Previously, you made a reference, regarding the freedom of the media in Serbia saying that it will not be a problem on the country’s EU integration course. EU Council and European Parliament have raised awareness towards the need to secure media freedom, as Turkey – EU accession talks warm up. As for Serbia, have the media laws that are now adopted able to answer to criticism?

The set of new media laws, completely harmonized with relevant EU legislation framework, is adopted in August 2014. The Law on Public Information and Media stipulates that the public information is free and it is not subject to censorship and governs the manner in which the freedom of public information is to be exercised.

The Law on Electronic Media regulates organization and operation of the Regulatory body for the electronic media that further provides the establishment of an effective mechanism for quality control of media content and protection of media pluralism. The Law on Public Service Broadcasting guarantees institutional, programmatic and financial independence of the two public services and establish the public interest that the public service is realizing through its core activity.

The implementation of the new media laws provides withdrawal of the state from the media ownership, transparency of the media ownership through the Media Register established in August 2015, transfer to the program co-financing of the project in the field of public information and protection of media pluralism.           

Within the IPA project of the Ministry of Culture and Media (MoCaM) Strengthening Media Freedom (SMF), supported by the European Union in Serbia, a series of training on the implementation of the new media laws and promotion of the best practices and European standards were provided to all stakeholders (media, associations of journalists, judges in the field of media law, members of national minorities…).

On the battle against corruption, Serbia seems not to have done significant progress. How is the Government moving in terms of swiftly adopting proposed legislation changes?

In my opinion, in the system of distribution of powers and responsibilities within the Government, every person should know what their job is. Everyone may be judged based on the results achieved in the area assigned to them.

The executive branch of the government in Serbia has started a systematic battle against corruption based on the improvement of the systemic legislation and initiation of the lawsuits against largest cases of systemic and political corruption. In addition to the modification of the existing laws, new laws were also adopted, such as the Whistle-blower Protection Act.

For this not to be only a dead letter, the major lawsuit have been instigated against the most influential persons and organizations in our society, for whom we believed that there is reasonable suspicion that they have participated in the creation of the environment for systemic corruption. No one can say that there are no results. These were the results of the executive branch of the government. At the same time, the judiciary has processed several major cases. Some of them are still ongoing, whereas decisions have been made in a number of such cases. One of the latest decisions is the first-instance ruling pertaining to the persons involved in systemic corruption in the road construction industry.

About the Judicial System reforms, have the new rules for evaluating judges and prosecutors been implemented? If yes, are the results promising? What are the next steps?

I notice progress in this area as well. Complete results may be expected after the amendment of the Constitution. At this moment, Chapter 23 Action plan shall play an important role for the progress in the entire area; the significance of opening of a new chapter is even greater, and we hope that it would happen soon. In the meanwhile, the evaluation of judges and prosecutors is increasingly becoming a standard practice. The judges are being evaluated by an independent committee appointed by the High Judicial Council. What is important for the citizens to know is that in the future, the work of the judges shall also be evaluated based on the criteria of reasonable time for closing of cases. This should improve the efficiency of the courts. Other procedures, such as disciplinary procedures or adoption of the Ethical code, as well as the measures to achieve transparency, should improve the performance quality of courts. All these measures have been implemented over the past several months.