Serbia and Montenegro 2005 Progress Report

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Brussels, 9 November 2005

SEC (2005) 1428
Serbia and Montenegro

2005 Progress Report
{COM (2005) 561 final}
1
A. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 3
1. PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE EU AND SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO ............................................................... 4
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION PROCESS ....................... 8
1. POLITICAL SITUATION................................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Democracy and the rule of law ....................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Human rights and the protection of minorities ............................................................................. 17
1.3 Regional issues and international obligations .............................................................................. 22
1.4 General evaluation........................................................................................................................ 25
2. ECONOMIC SITUATION ............................................................................................................................. 27
2.1 Progress towards economic stability and competitiveness ........................................................... 27
3. EUROPEAN STANDARDS ........................................................................................................................... 36
3.1 Internal market.............................................................................................................................. 37
3.1.1. Free movement of goods .................................................................................................................................37
3.1.2. Movement of persons, services and right of establishment .............................................................................38
3.1.3. Free movement of capital ................................................................................................................................39
3.1.4. Customs and taxation ......................................................................................................................................39
3.1.5. Competition.....................................................................................................................................................40
3.1.6. Public procurement .........................................................................................................................................41
3.1.7. Intellectual property law..................................................................................................................................41
3.1.8. Statistics ..........................................................................................................................................................42
3.2 Sectoral policies ............................................................................................................................ 42
3.2.1. Industry and SME ...........................................................................................................................................42
3.2.2. Agriculture and fisheries .................................................................................................................................43
3.2.3 Environment.....................................................................................................................................................44
3.2.4. Transport policy ..............................................................................................................................................45
3.2.5. Energy .............................................................................................................................................................46
3.2.6. Information society and media ........................................................................................................................47
3.2.7. Financial control..............................................................................................................................................48
3.2.8 Other policies ...................................................................................................................................................48
3.3 Justice, freedom and security ........................................................................................................ 48
3.3.1. Visa, border control, asylum and migration ....................................................................................................48
3.3.2. Money laundering ...........................................................................................................................................49
3.3.3. Drugs...............................................................................................................................................................50
3.3.4. Police...............................................................................................................................................................50
3.3.5. Fighting organised crime and terrorism...........................................................................................................51
C. EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP: OVERALL ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 54
STATISTICAL ANNEX..................................................................................................................................... 60
2
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Preface
The European Council in Feira in June 2000 confirmed that
“its objective remains the fullest possible integration of the countries of the Western
Balkans region into the political and economic mainstream of Europe through the
Stabilisation and Association process, political dialogue, liberalisation of trade and
cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs. All the countries concerned are potential
candidates for EU membership”.
In view of the EU-Western Balkan Thessaloniki Summit in June 2003, the General Affairs
and External Relations Council adopted “The Thessaloniki agenda for the Western Balkans:
moving towards European integration”1. The Thessaloniki agenda strengthened the
Stabilisation and Association process by introducing new instruments to support the
countries’ reform and European integration efforts, including European Partnerships. This
agenda was endorsed by the European Council and by the countries of the Western Balkans in
June 2003.
In June 2005, the European Council reiterated that:
“… each country’s progress towards European integration, taking account of the
evolution of the acquis, depends on its efforts to comply with the Copenhagen criteria and
the conditionality of the Stabilisation and Association process. Moreover, in this process,
regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations will remain essential elements of
EU policy.”
The structure of the report is largely the same as that used in previous years and assesses the
implementation of the Stabilisation and Association process. The report:
- describes the relations between Serbia and Montenegro2 and the Union;
- analyses the political situation in Serbia and Montenegro in terms of democracy, the rule of
law, respect for human rights and the protection of minorities;
- assesses the economic situation in Serbia and Montenegro in terms of economic
developments and progress towards economic stability and competitiveness;
- reviews Serbia and Montenegro’s capacity to implement European standards, that is, to
gradually make legislation in key policy areas more compatible with European legislation and
standards;
- examines the extent to which Serbia and Montenegro’s has addressed the European
Partnership priorities.
This report takes into consideration progress since the Feasibility Report published in April
2005. It covers therefore the rather short period from April 2005 to 30 September 2005, which
should be taken into account when reading this report. It looks at whether planned reforms
1
Conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, 16 June 2003.
2
The State Union on of Serbia and Montenegro comprises two member states: the Republic of Serbia and the
Republic of Montenegro. Throughout this Report the terms “Republic(s)’ and ‘republican’ refer to the Republic
of Serbia and/ or the Republic of Montenegro as member states of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro.
The two Republics represent two separate customs territories and pursue distinct customs policies. They apply
duty free access to goods originating in the customs territory of each other under specific rules of origin.
3
referred to in the Feasibility Report have been carried out and examines new initiatives, as
well as assessing the overall level of implementation.
Progress has been measured on the basis of decisions actually taken, legislation actually
adopted and the degree of implementation. As a rule, legislation or measures which are in
various stages of either preparation or Parliamentary approval have not been taken into
account. This approach ensures equal treatment for all countries and permits an objective
assessment of each country in terms of their concrete progress implementing the Stabilisation
and Association Process.
The report draws on numerous sources of information. Serbia and Montenegro has been
invited to provide information on progress made since the publication of the Feasibility
Report. Council deliberations and European Parliament reports and resolutions have been
taken into account in drafting the report.3 The Commission has also drawn on assessments
made by various international organisations, in particular the contributions of the Council of
Europe, the OSCE, the international financial institutions, and non-governmental
organisations.
This report does not cover Kosovo, as defined by the UN Security Council Resolution 1244,
which is dealt with in a separate Progress Report.
2. Relations between the EU and Serbia and Montenegro
Recent developments in bilateral relations

Serbia and Montenegro is participating in the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAP).
Currently, there is no contractual framework between the EU and Serbia and Montenegro.
Political and technical dialogue is carried out through the Enhanced Permanent Dialogue
(EPD), where meetings take place regularly several times a year. Formal contractual relations
between the EU and Serbia and Montenegro should be established through the conclusion of a
Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA). Parts of the SAA would be implemented
through an Interim Agreement until ratification of the SAA is completed.
The Feasibility Report on Serbia and Montenegro’s preparedness to negotiate an SAA was
adopted by the Commission in April 2005. Based on the findings of this report, the
Commission concluded that Serbia and Montenegro was sufficiently prepared to negotiate an
SAA. The Commission therefore recommended to the Council that negotiations should be
opened. At the same time, it urged Serbia and Montenegro to continue to prepare for the
negotiations in a sustained way. In this respect, the Commission pointed out that over the
coming months, in line with the European Partnership, the authorities should make further
significant progress concerning a number of areas, notably cooperation with the UN
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), constitutional issues, the
functioning of democratic institutions, public administration reform and the development of
administrative capacity, judicial reform and the fight against organised crime and corruption.
Moreover, the Feasibility Report stressed that should the Commission note at any time that
the State Union and republican authorities have not lived up to their commitments and have
not satisfactorily addressed the issues highlighted in this Feasibility Report, it will propose to
the Council that the negotiations be suspended.
3
For the European Parliament the rapporteur during the reporting period was Mrs. Doris Pack, MEP. Recently,
Mr. Kacin, MEP, has been appointed as rapporteur for Serbia and Montenegro.
4
The Council endorsed the Feasibility Report and invited the Commission to present the draft
negotiation directives, which the Commission did in July 2005. On 3 October 2005, the
Council adopted the negotiation directives and authorised the start of negotiations. At the
same time, it indicated that the pace and conclusions of the negotiations will depend in
particular on the country’s progress in developing its legislative framework and administrative
capacity, the effective implementation of the Constitutional Charter and full co-operation with
the ICTY. The SAA negotiations were officially opened on 10 October 2005 in Belgrade.
Meanwhile, the Commission has continued to monitor closely the progress made by Serbia
and Montenegro, notably in the context of the Enhanced Permanent Dialogue, where several
sectoral groups have been set up. As a result of the Thessaloniki agenda, the first political
dialogue meeting at ministerial level between the EU and Serbia and Montenegro was held in
June 2004. A second ministerial meeting took place in February 2005.
An EU-Serbia and Montenegro inter-parliamentary meeting, attended by delegations from the
Serbia and Montenegro Parliament and the European Parliament, was held in December 2004.
Although no formal relations exist with the European Economic and Social Committee, an
introductory visit establishing contacts with civil society has taken place. The EU Monitoring
Mission continued to operate on the basis of its Joint Action.
The first European Partnership for Serbia and Montenegro was adopted by the Council in
June 2004 (see part C – European Partnership: Overall Assessment). The short-term
priorities of the European Partnership coincide to a large extent with the recommendations
issued in the context of the Enhanced Permanent Dialogue. In autumn 2004, Serbia and
Montenegro – at State Union level and at the level of the Republics - adopted the respective
components of the action plan addressing the European Partnership priorities. Further to the
discussions held in the framework of the EPD, the authorities have updated the action plan.
As a result of the plan, Serbia and Montenegro has been able to make progress in addressing a
number of the short-term priorities and also some medium-term priorities.
The EU is Serbia and Montenegro’s main trading partner. Trade integration with EU has been
rising since 2000 and the EU share of total imports reached 49% between January and August
2005. For the same period, the EU share of total exports reached 55%. A significant
proportion of both Serbia and Montenegro’s exports are raw materials or goods with a low
level of processing and relatively low value-added. Iron and steel, fruit, vegetables and sugar
constitute the largest components in the case of Serbia. Exports of agricultural goods have
returned to earlier levels. Montenegro’s, exports are dominated by aluminium. By contrast,
the goods imported are generally more highly processed. While there is a positive trend of
increasing imports of capital goods (pointing to higher investment in the country and
underpinning structural reforms), the growth of consumer goods imports remains significant.
Since 2000 Serbia and Montenegro has benefited from Autonomous Trade Measures (ATMs)
granted by the European Community. These measures allow almost all imports originating in
Serbia and Montenegro to enter the EU without quantitative restrictions and exempt from
custom duties. The only exceptions are some beef and fish products, sugar and wine, to which
tariff quotas apply. During the year, following discussions on Serbia and Montenegro’s
customs provisions, the Commission secured preferential access on certain agricultural
products thereby ensuring respect for the provisions of the standstill clause. In addition, an
agreement on trade in textile products between the European Community and the Republic of
Serbia was signed in March 2005 and entered into force in July 20054. Serbia and Montenegro
is the country for which the ATMs have created the largest margin of preference over
4
This agreement does not include Kosovo (UNSCR 1244).
5
competitive suppliers, in particular for fruit, vegetables, leather, chemical and steel products.
However, the overall opportunities offered by the preferences have yet to be fully exploited.
Neither Republic has been able to fully realise the export potential created by the ATMs,
which shows that restructuring efforts of some industries and further reform are still required.
Community assistance
Since 1998 Community assistance to Serbia and Montenegro has totalled more than EUR
2.6 billion. The EC has been providing significant support to Serbia and Montenegro under a
variety of instruments, including CARDS assistance, macro-financial support and
humanitarian aid. In recent years, the emphasis has shifted away from reconstruction and is
now more concentrated on institution-building, economic development and reform, and
support for civil society, in line with the European Partnership recommendations.
The main EC financial instrument in Serbia and Montenegro, the CARDS programme, is
managed by the European Agency for Reconstruction (with the exception of Tempus
programme and Customs and Taxation projects).
CARDS assistance, which supports Serbia and Montenegro’s participation in the SAP, targets
a number of sectoral interventions in support of three broad priorities:
Democratic stabilisation
Good governance and institution-building (including public administration reform, justice and
home affairs and support to customs and taxation)
Economic and social development (including infrastructure, environment and the Tempus
programme5)
The support provided through CARDS in 2005 is mainly focused on European Partnership
priorities, which take into account the political and economic situation in Serbia and
Montenegro and the requirements Serbia and Montenegro must fulfil in order to be able to
implement an SAA. Total CARDS assistance allocated to Serbia and Montenegro in 2005
amounts to EUR 183.5 million (State Union: EUR 7 million, Serbia: EUR 154.5 million,
Montenegro: EUR 22 million).
Serbia and Montenegro also benefits from the regional CARDS programme, which in 2005
has an overall budget of EUR 40.4 million to support actions of common interest for the
Western Balkan region, for example in the fields of infrastructure, institution-building and
cross-border cooperation.
In addition to CARDS assistance, Serbia and Montenegro is also a priority country for the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights and benefits from the LIFE
environmental programme, as well as from the 6th Framework Programme for Research and
Development.
The Commission has agreed with the authorities on a Supplemental Memorandum of
Understanding to grant additional macro-financial assistance to Serbia and Montenegro (up to
EUR 70 million: EUR 45 million grant + EUR 25 million loan). This assistance is expected to
be disbursed in two tranches during 2005 and 2006 provided that external financing needs
5
Under the Tempus programme, the European Commission supports different types of activities, including Joint
European Projects between universities in the EU and the partner countries and Structural Measures aimed at
supporting national reform processes. So far, the Commission has supported a total of 63 co-operation projects in
Serbia and Montenegro.
6
remain and Serbia and Montenegro meets the associated economic reform conditionalities and
performance criteria as laid down in the Supplemental Memorandum of Understanding.
The EU agreed at the 2003 Thessaloniki summit to open participation in Community
programmes to the Western Balkan countries, following the model of previous enlargements.
Therefore, a Framework Agreement between the Community and Serbia and Montenegro on
participation in Community Programmes was signed in November 2004. The Community
ratified the Agreement in May 2005, and Serbia and Montenegro did so in July 2005.
Twinning
In its efforts to help Serbia and Montenegro to strengthen its administrative capacity, the EU
has also decided to extend the “twinning” mechanism to the Western Balkans. “Twinning”
makes the Member States’ public sector expertise available to the partner country through the
long-term secondment of civil servants and accompanying short-term expert missions and
training. The Western Balkans can also draw on Member States’ expertise through “twinning
light” (projects of up to six months’ duration).
A twinning will assist the bodies of the State Union as well as the two Republics which co-
ordinate and support the European Integration process.
The Republic of Serbia started to use the assistance of Member State institutions through the
twinning programme under the CARDS 2004 Annual Programme. The Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management is implementing a twinning project to
strengthen its administrative and policy analysis capacities. The Ministry of Mines and
Energy is implementing a twinning project to assist in the implementation of the unbundling
and reform of the energy sector and to establish national and regional energy markets. The
Ministry of Justice is implementing a twinning project to facilitate the alignment of legislation
and administration with EU standards. A twinning project is also helping the General
Secretariat of the Government of the Republic of Serbia to strengthen policy development and
decision-making at the centre of the Government. A further eight twinning projects are being
prepared under the CARDS 2005 annual programme for Serbia to support the development of
the veterinary, phytosanitary, food-safety laboratory, wine, water, transport and health
administrations as well as to strengthen the ability of the Ministry of Interior to combat
organised crime.
For Montenegro two twinning are under preparation, support to special prosecutor on
organised crime and support to police academy.
7
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STABILISATION AND ASSOCIATION PROCESS
1. Political situation
The conditions of the Stabilisation and Association process were set out in the conclusions of
the General Affairs Council in April 1997. To become EU members, the countries need to
satisfy the criteria established in the Copenhagen European Council conclusions of June 1993.
The Copenhagen political criteria stipulate that countries must have achieved “stability of
institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and
protection of minorities.”
Elements for examination include democratic principles, human rights and the rule of law,
respect for and protection of minorities and regional cooperation. In addition to these, specific
elements of relevance to individual countries are examined, including respect for international
obligations such as peace agreements and cooperation with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
In the Feasibility Report, the Commission found that:
“The functioning of democratic institutions and the respect for rule of law in Serbia
and Montenegro have improved – although this has been slow and sometimes partial
especially owing to the legacy of the past regime.
Some progress has recently been made towards constitutional and legal certainty but it
remains open to challenges. The recent agreement to revise the Constitutional Charter
concerning the State Union Parliament direct elections is a particularly welcome
development. The functioning of the parliaments and the executives has improved but it is
still affected by structural weaknesses.
There are ongoing efforts in both Republics to tackle public administration reform
through intensive legislative activities. However, implementation of this reform is still at
a very early stage. The level of administrative capacity remains generally low. In Serbia,
although unevenly distributed across the various levels and branches of the
administration, there is a core capacity to deal with European integration and notably
with the negotiation of an SAA. In Montenegro, while efforts have been made to reinforce
the European integration structures, this capacity is affected by the lack of human
resources throughout the administration. At the State Union level, administrative capacity
is constrained in particular by the lack of stable budgetary allocations. Army reform has
continued but much remains to be done to ensure effective democratic control.
The overall respect for human and minority rights has significantly improved over the
recent years, but considerable further steps are needed at both the level of legislation and
of enforcement. Accession to the Council of Europe in 2003 and ratification of its key
human rights instruments were a major step forward, but difficulties as to their full
implementation still persist, in particular concerning the Office of the Government Agent
for the European Court of Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the State Union Court.
Respect for minority rights saw progress, but occasional incidents occur. Police ill-
treatment needs further comprehensive action. Little progress has taken place in relation
to the investigation of crimes committed during the previous regime. Freedom of speech
is generally respected, but restrictions to independent media persist. There is no anti-
discrimination legislation and human rights institutions, such as the Ombudsman, need to
be established at all necessary levels and strengthened.
8
As regards the respect of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 on
Kosovo, Belgrade’s constructive engagement on the Kosovo issue will help to advance
Serbia and Montenegro’s European perspective, while obstruction could turn into an
obstacle.
Serbia and Montenegro has recently made significant progress in meeting its
international obligations concerning co-operation with the ICTY after a period where
co-operation had been seriously deficient. There are no more backlogs with regard to
waivers to witnesses. Access to documents has substantially improved, though this
process is still sometimes obstructed by parts of the administration and the army. In
recent months, a significant number of indictees has been transferred to The Hague.
Overall, the political criteria are sufficiently met at this stage for opening SAA
negotiations.”
The section below provides an assessment of political developments in Serbia and
Montenegro since the publication of the Feasibility Report, including the overall functioning
of the country’s executive and its judicial system, the rule of law, respect for human rights
and protection of minorities and regional issues. Such developments are closely linked to
Serbia and Montenegro’s ability to implement the reforms and reach the standards that are
required to make further progress in the Stabilisation and Association process and towards the
EU.
1.1 Democracy and the rule of law

Constitutional and legal certainty has remained precarious. Although the functioning of
the institutions of the State Union has improved in relative terms, their efficiency continues
to be adversely affected mainly by the conflicting interpretations of the Constitutional
Charter. The revision of the Constitutional Charter, which was adopted in June 2005, has
restored the legitimacy of the State Union Parliament but its functioning remains weak. The
State Union Court has started working, although its capacity continues to be limited and the
agreement on the scope of its powers remains largely untested. The State Union Parliament
has still not adopted the State Union legislation that would give a more solid basis to the
financing of the State Union in line with the Constitutional Charter. The recent revision of the
Constitutional Charter also made it clear that the law on the referendum, whereby a Republic
can decide to withdraw from the State Union, “must be based on the internationally
recognised democratic standards” and that the Republic organising the referendum “shall
cooperate with the EU respecting international democratic standards as stipulated by the
Constitutional Charter”. The Venice Commission is expected to deliver an opinion on the
compatibility of the Montenegrin law on referendum with internationally recognised
democratic standards as Montenegro indicated its intention to hold a referendum after the end
of the period prescribed in the Constitutional Charter.
The authorities at the level of the State Union and the Republics are making efforts to respect
a common understanding on the distribution of powers enshrined in the Constitutional
Charter. In practice, problems persist with regard to the articulation of competences between
the State Union and the Republics in a number of areas, often due to the lack of a constructive
approach. In particular, there has been no progress on harmonising different visa regimes or
developing an integrated border management system at State Union level. As regards those
competences that were transferred to Republic level, inter-republic cooperation has continued
to develop, though mostly not on a formal basis.
9
As regards the revision of the constitutions of the two Republics, no actual progress has
been made, due to the continued lack of consensus within each Republic on completing this
key reform. In Serbia the most controversial issues are the way the new constitution is to be
adopted and the modalities of future decentralisation, while in Montenegro the key issue
remains an apparent lack of political will to engage in substantial reform until after the
referendum. Moreover, since the provisions of the current constitutions largely date back to
the Milosevic era they do not provide all the guarantees that are necessary for the
consolidation of democracy, the rule of law and, in the case of Serbia, full respect for human
and minority rights. This remains a serious concern.
In both Serbia and Montenegro the rule of law remains fragile because of constitutional and
legal uncertainty, structural weakness and undue politicisation of the administration and the
judiciary, the high level of corruption, the pressure exerted by organised crime, and
obstruction from parts of the institutional, political, military and state security systems. While
there is an increasing awareness of this among civil society, few efforts are made by the
authorities to deal with the legacy of the past and reinforce the rule of law. The situation
therefore remains a source of concern.
Parliament
State Union
Further to the revision of the Constitutional Charter, which was adopted in June 2005, direct
elections to the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro – originally planned for March 2005 -
will now be held separately in the two Republics at the same time as elections to the
respective parliaments. The mandate of the current members of Parliament has been extended
until such elections take place, thus retroactively restoring their legitimacy.
The functioning of the State Union Parliament, which has limited competences, has remained
weak. During the reporting period, it has adopted three laws and a number of ratification laws
of international agreements. The State Union Parliament continues to lack specialised staff.
Parliamentary control of the military has remained weak.
The State Union Parliament adopted a Resolution on European integration in June 2005. Even
though it was not approved with a political consensus, this is a welcome development. This
resolution should strengthen the link between internal reforms and EU integration
requirements as well as parliamentary control over the Council of Ministers in that process.
Serbia
The legislative activity of the Serbian Parliament has intensified further. The adoption of the
new Rules of Procedure in June 2005 represents a significant step forward. The new rules
reinforce the role of the parliamentary committees in law-making, with a view to increasing
the efficiency of Parliament’s work. They also strengthen parliamentary control over the
Government and the role of the Committee for European Integration. Parliament continues to
lack specialised staff. Although parliamentary sessions are open to the public, the law-making
process still suffers from inadequate public consultation and does not fully take into
consideration the expertise of relevant professional or international organisations. There has
been no development as regards the electoral legislation.
Recent problems in relation to the transfer of MPs from the opposition to the ruling coalition
have highlighted the need for a clearer regulation of the issue of the parliamentary mandates
and a scrupulous respect of rules concerning incompatibility of functions. The decision of the
Democratic Party (DS) to withdraw from the parliamentary works gives rise to concern.
10
In spite of limited resources, the Committee for European Integration has continued to carry
out valuable work in implementing the priorities from the European Partnership and
amending relevant legislation, although its opinions have not always been fully taken on
board. The Committee, however, has limited expertise to check the compatibility of
legislation with EU standards and relies upon external resources.
Montenegro
In Montenegro, the opposition, which boycotted the work of Parliament from September 2003
until autumn 2004, has still not resumed fully the work in the parliamentary committees. New
rules of procedure are still awaited. The Parliament has continued its intensive legislative
activity. There has been no development as regards electoral legislation.
In June 2005 a Resolution on European integration was adopted with the support of both the
parliamentary majority and part of the opposition. This is a welcome development. This
resolution should strengthen the link between internal reform processes and EU integration
requirements as well as parliamentary control over the Government in that process.
The functioning of the Committee for European Integration remains weak and inadequate, due
on the one hand to political difficulties, and on the other to lack of resources, including
specialised staff. While the relevant bills forwarded by the Government contain a statement
on compatibility with EU standards, the Committee itself has very limited expertise to
perform similar checks.
Government
State Union
No progress has been made as regards the work of the State Union Council of Ministers,
which continues to suffer from structural weaknesses (in particular concerning coordination
and the performance of some individual ministries) and from the problems relating to
compliance with the Constitutional Charter.
The high-level Serbia and Montenegro Council for European Integration, set up to give
political direction and strategic guidance to the country’s EU aspirations, has not met since
April 2005.
The position of the European Integration Office continues to be fragile, due to both a lack of
resources and structural weaknesses as regards its formal status and competences. While the
Office has made efforts to implement the relevant priorities of the European Partnership, it
has not been put in a position to develop technical and administrative guidance for EU
integration-related activities. Coordination with the respective republican institutions has
improved, though some difficulties persist. Co-operation between the European Integration
Office and the State Union Parliament, notably the parliamentary European Integration
Committee, is good but there is no formal mechanism for checking the compatibility of
legislation with EU standards.
With a view to the opening of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations, the
State Union Council of Ministers set up the Serbia and Montenegro negotiating team in July
2005. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was appointed head of the team. Three working groups
were established for those chapters of the agreement where the State Union will lead the
negotiations (preamble, political dialogue, general principles, institutional provisions,
transitional and final clauses, visa/asylum/migration, and harmonisation). The relevant
negotiation platform has been adopted.
11
Serbia
In Serbia the lack of coordination within the Government persists. There has recently been a
worsening of relations with the civil sector and the media both of whom have been raising the
issue of war crimes, and in particular the Srebrenica massacre; this attitude from the side of
the Government reflects a continued failure to appreciate the role that civil society and the
media play in a democratic society and worrying tendencies towards political interference in
their work. Of equal concern have been the apparent attempts by some members of the
Government to interfere with the functioning of the justice system.
A comprehensive strategy for joining the EU was adopted by the Government in June 2005.
This is a welcome document which needs to be further elaborated and followed by increased
involvement of line ministries and agencies in the European integration process. In line with
the October 2004 parliamentary Resolution on EU Integration, the Government regularly
submits reports on the activities in that process, which are usually debated in the
parliamentary Committee for European Integration. The mechanism institutionalised in the
Government Rules of Procedure, whereby every proposed bill must be accompanied by a
statement on compliance with EU standards, has been implemented, with substantial
involvement of the European Integration Office. The Government has shown reluctance to
forward the statement to Parliament, as part of the justification of a bill, in spite of requests by
the Committee for European Integration, which still needs to develop its capacity to produce
such expert reports.
The new Law on Government has upgraded the position of the European Integration Office
by putting it under the responsibility of the Prime Minister, who has in turn delegated
European integration affairs to the Deputy Prime Minister. This Office continues to develop
the institutional capacity for coordination on EU-related issues in cooperation with the
European integration contact points established in all line ministries. It has developed a key
role in the preparation of annual action plans for harmonising Serbian laws with the EU
acquis, and is in charge of submitting quarterly reports on the implementation of these action
plans. The first such report has been prepared and published and contains valuable
information about ongoing activities and future requirements. The Office lacks the
institutional capacity to ensure that the actions by the Government and administration
properly satisfy SAP political criteria.
With a view to the opening of the SAA negotiations, the Serbian Government has appointed
the Deputy Prime Minister as head of the negotiating team and has set up six working groups.
The negotiation platform has been adopted by the Government.
Montenegro
In Montenegro the functioning of the executive continues to be characterised by smooth
decision-making. Implementation capacity remains weak, although the authorities have
undertaken steps to tackle this issue. In spite of the recent adoption of a strategy on the fight
against corruption and organised crime, the environment remains conducive to corruption.
Efforts have been made to take on board the relevant international expertise concerning the
content of some major draft laws in preparation. Cooperation with civil society has continued
to progress on EU-related issues, but the overall situation needs further improvement. NGOs
have protested against government interference in media freedom.
Having consolidated its infrastructure and resources, the Ministry for International Economic
Relations and European Integration is playing an increasing role in the coordination of EU-
related activities, including the preparations for Stabilisation and Association Agreement
negotiations, and should continue to focus on the European integration agenda. There is a
12
standing Government Coordination Group on EU-related issues, involving the line ministries
and relevant agencies. The mandatory statement on the compatibility of draft laws with EU
standards is implemented in the governmental law-making process. The relevant drafts
forwarded to the Parliament contain the statement on compatibility. There are also increasing
references to EU standards or SAP criteria in the text of justifications accompanying some
important bills and forwarded to the Parliament.
With a view to the opening of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement negotiations, the
Montenegrin Government has appointed the Minister for European Integration as head of the
negotiating team and has set up six working groups. The negotiation platform was adopted by
the Government.
Public administration
State Union
No progress has been made as regards the State Union administration, which still lacks any
genuine civil service legislation, with detrimental consequences for the status and
accountability of State Union officials. Furthermore, the precarious financial situation of civil
servants persists.
Serbia
Pending the adoption and full implementation of new laws, the Serbian administration
remains overstaffed but at the same time suffers from a shortage of qualified personnel and
undue political interference, which affects both institutional and policy continuity.
In the context of the reform strategy, the Serbian Parliament adopted the Law on the
Government (which is currently being reviewed by the Serbian Constitutional Court,
following an initiative by the People’s Advocate Office of the President), and the Law on
Public Administration and the Law on Civil Servants. Regulations on the salaries of civil
servants are still pending. The authorities have indicated that most of the by-laws
implementing the Law on the Government have been adopted, with the notable exception of
the new rules of procedures of the Government. A law creating the function of an
Ombudsman was passed in September 2005. This is welcome development. This law now
needs to be implemented in particular by securing adequate budgetary means to the
Ombudsman’s Office. As regards the Provincial Ombudsman in Vojvodina, in spite of limited
resources and infrastructure, the Office has developed a wide range of activities, including ex
officio actions to investigate human rights abuses. There is no specific information on the
follow-up to the Ombudsman’s recommendations, apart from general statistics for 2004
claiming that out of 265 cases 188 were resolved at the level of the Ombudsman while 71
were not receivable.
As regards decentralisation, which is a key issue in the context of the debate on the
constitutional revision, there are concerns on the impact that the recently adopted law on
Government may have on local self-government. There is still a need to grant to
municipalities the right to own and manage properties.
Montenegro
In Montenegro further progress has been made in completing the legislative framework of
public administration reform. In practice, implementation capacities continue to be weak, in
terms of both funds and infrastructure and personnel and training. This is coupled with
problems of poor accountability and continued political interference.
13
The establishment of the Authority for Human Resources Management, which still needs to
become fully operational, is a positive step. The implementation of the legislation is ongoing.
The new recruitment policy is operational but the new organisational structure and new salary
system are still not fully in place.
The Ombudsman’s Office is still at an embryonic stage. The Ombudsman’s annual report,
released in June 2005, notes that relations with the authorities are mostly good, except at local
level, where the lack of understanding of this institution seems to be the key reason for
insufficient cooperation. An awareness-raising campaign was conducted in summer 2005. The
available statistics (for 2004) indicate that in numerical terms the follow-up to the
Ombudsman’s recommendations has been satisfactory (out of 34 recommendations issued, 19
have been complied with and 15 have not).
Some developments have taken place in the field of decentralisation where the Government
has set up a co-ordination body for local government reform. Several laws related to
decentralisation are pending.
Defence reform
Defence is a State Union competence. The reform of the military continues to meet with
significant resistance and obstruction from some political actors and elements within the army
itself. The adoption of the military doctrine is pending. Despite efforts undertaken, the State
Union parliamentary committee which is supposed to ensure democratic control over the
military continues to be weak. This is a source of serious concern. Financial management is
notionally entirely in the hands of civilian institutions (State Union Ministry of Defence and
Council of Ministers, Supreme Defence Council, Governments of the two Republics), but the
overall system of allocation and management of military funds has been the subject of
controversies and confrontations between the State Union and republican (notably Serbian)
authorities, culminating in the recent resignation of the Minister of Defence. The continued
lack of the relevant legislation at State Union level and conflicts between different actors have
added to concern over the transparency of military expenditures and allocation of military
property.
At the same time, reform continues to be constrained by scarce financial resources. The issue
of the ownership and rationalisation of military assets has been only partially resolved by the
establishment of the Fund for military reform, whose legality continues to be disputed. Its
functioning is also affected by the decision-making on the disposal of assets, which is subject
to cumbersome procedures involving prior consent by the republican governments: this has
led to sales of military assets in Serbia being blocked.
There have been further personnel changes and downsizing. Although the Ministry of
Defence, with international assistance, has been making efforts to minimise the social impact,
redundancies have led to protests and in some cases social unrest.
There is still resistance within the military system to the rule of law and cooperation with the
ICTY.
Serbia and Montenegro is seeking membership of NATO’s Partnership for Peace, but this is
contingent upon full cooperation with the ICTY.
Judicial system
As regards the structure of the judiciary, the two Republics have two autonomous judicial
systems, formally linked only by the authority of the State Union Court. Montenegro’s
authorities have not yet found a satisfactory solution for the premises of the State Union Court
14
which, according to the Constitutional Charter, should be located in Podgorica. The State
Union Court continues to sit temporarily in Belgrade, with the bulk of its budget coming from
Serbia. The State Union Court, which has nine appointed judges and only basic equipment
and support staff, has inherited more than 1000 unsolved cases from the former Federal
Constitutional Court and Federal Court. In the course of 2005, the State Union Court has
reportedly solved 350 cases, out which 50 concerned constitutionality and legality. According
to the authorities, there is now agreement on the exact scope of the State Court’s powers
(notably with regard to vetting of the constitutionality of acts of the Republics and the
implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights) though the decision–making
procedures of the Court need to be improved. Pending these modifications, the agreement on
the scope of powers remains largely untested.
The transfer of powers of military justice to civilian courts, which took place in January 2005,
has been implemented smoothly as regards criminal and civil matters. To this effect, in Serbia
specialised departments have been formed within the regular courts. Concerning
administrative matters, there is a considerable backlog of 3500 administrative cases inherited
from the former Supreme Military Court. In Montenegro, these cases are dealt with by the
administrative courts established earlier in 2005. In Serbia, the administrative courts which
will take over the administrative cases will be established only in 2007.
Judicial cooperation between the Republics, which includes the mutual recognition of court
decisions in both civil and criminal matters and honouring requests for legal aid between the
courts, has continued to develop on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding signed by
the two Ministries of Justice in June 2004. Good cooperation exists in practice, although it
depends on professional and personal relations rather than on a systematic and sustainable
approach.
In Serbia the judiciary has continued to exhibit serious weaknesses. Its independence
continues to be severely undermined by political pressure on the appointment of judges and
prosecutors and their activities, and the system remains heavily burdened with the legacy of
the previous regime. On the positive side, steps have been taken to ensure the effective
functional independence of the War Crimes Prosecutor.
The lack of adequate resources to ensure financial sustainability and provide for better
functioning is reflected in the continuing inefficiency of the justice system. At present, with
the Justice Ministry solely responsible for the judicial budget, there is limited scope and
capacity for the judiciary to influence budgetary decisions so that they address actual needs.
Serbia has so far failed to provide the legislative framework and to create and support an
institution with the mandate to develop and implement a comprehensive training programme
for judges. There is neither initial induction training for newly appointed judges nor
continuing legal education for sitting judges. The Judicial Training Centre remains a very
weak institution. Present training activities for the judiciary are donor-driven, with little
coordination or direction provided by Serbian authorities, and are very limited in terms of
participating practitioners, scope of training and results achieved.
In spite of efforts to improve legislative provisions (mainly in the area of civil law) aiming at
shortening procedures and measures to deal with the sizable backlog of cases, the continuing
inefficiency of the judicial system represents a serious obstacle to the reform process.
As regards the reform of criminal legislation, the Criminal Code and the law on witness
protection were adopted in September 2005. The revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and supplementing legislation as well as the law on police are still pending.
15
Finalisation of the Serbian Government’s judicial reform strategy has been delayed. Although
the strategy defines as priorities the independence, accountability and efficiency of the
judicial system, it also includes worrying provisions on the reappointment of judges after the
initial limited mandate of five years, which in the absence of clear, professional criteria and
transparency in the appointment procedure severely undermine the independence of the
judicial system. Equally worrisome are the provisions placing the prosecutor system under the
Ministry of Justice, in particular given the envisaged transfer to prosecutors of all the
investigative tasks so far attributed to the investigative judges. Once it has been aligned with
relevant international standards, the success of this important reform process will largely
depend on the political will to implement it and on securing the full support and involvement
of the legal professions and practitioners in its future implementation.
Despite considerable improvements in the legislation in both criminal and civil matters in
Montenegro, proper implementation remains a source of serious concern. Although the
legislative provisions on the organisation of the judicial system have been amended to secure
the independence of the judiciary, in practice this is often obstructed by political influence
over the appointment procedure for judicial positions, in the absence of clearly defined
criteria for the appointment of judges and prosecutors and swift implementation of these
criteria.
The Judicial Training Centre, which is still a largely donor-dependent institution, has
continued to provide training of appointed judges, mostly on the implementation of the
European Convention on Human Rights. The law envisaging comprehensive training of
judges and prosecutors and the strengthening and financial viability of the Judicial Training
Centre has not yet been adopted
Following the establishment of the administrative and appellate courts in January 2005, some
additional judges have been appointed with a view to clearing the backlog of inherited cases
and handling the increased volume of new cases. Delays in court proceedings are the main
category of complaints brought to the attention of the Ombudsman.
The Special Prosecutor for Organised Crime has been appointed and the Office is now
operational, but only modest results have been achieved so far in addressing the issue of
organised crime, compared to the scale of the problem and the threat it represents to society.
There has been little progress as regards the implementation of the witness protection law, due
to insufficient cooperation between the judiciary and the police and inadequate financial
support.
In both Republics, care should be taken to further develop the legal framework for witness
protection, in such a way as to ensure that the safety of vulnerable witnesses is appropriately
balanced with the accused's right of defence.
Anti-corruption policy
International surveys continue to indicate that Serbia and Montenegro suffers from a high
level of corruption.
In May 2005 the Serbian Government submitted to the Parliament a strategy for the fight
against corruption, developed with Council of Europe assistance. This strategy needs now to
be adopted by the Parliament. In the meantime, problems have emerged with the preparation
of the Action Plan for implementation and the establishment of the lead institution, the anti-
corruption body, whose role and relationship with the existing structures remain to be fully
defined. The Anti-Corruption Council, established as a focal point and an advisory body to
the Serbian Government in 2001, has finalised several reports on alleged corruption cases,
16
involving high-ranking officials, but the serious allegations raised and documented were not
further investigated or properly addressed by the Government.
Conflicts of interest remain a concern, as there have been delays in implementing the new
legislation and the results so far have been limited. The Government is still reluctant to fully
implement the law on free access to information. This continues to undermine transparency in
public policies. While the law on the financing of political parties has had some positive
effects in terms of increased financial transparency, problems still exist with the content of the
law and its implementation.
In Montenegro anti-corruption activities are still far from sufficient. At present, the central
institution is the Anti-corruption Initiative Agency, which has no investigative or operational
authority. This is one of the reasons for the lack of tangible results over the years, despite the
numerous cases of corruption reported by the NGO sector. A joint strategy against corruption
and organised crime was adopted by the Government in August 2005. It was developed under
the lead of the Ministry of Interior, including input from the relevant ministries, agencies,
civil society and international organisations. Under this strategy, the central body responsible
for implementation will have investigative and operational powers.
The Law on Conflict of Interests has been implemented with difficulty and contains
problematic provisions allowing members of parliament to be members of boards of public
companies. This legislation needs to be reviewed in line with international standards. The
laws on political parties and their financing are being implemented with difficulty. Political
parties failed to fully observe the legal deadlines and procedures for reporting financial assets
and the financial management of electoral campaigns. Moreover, this law was further
amended in May 2005 in a way that undermines the principle of equity in the election process
and abolishes the upper limit for budgetary allocations. Other laws are still only in
preparation, such as the draft law on free access to public information, which was backed by
the NGO sector but is currently in the parliamentary procedure.
Serbia and Montenegro continued to participate in the Council of Europe’s GRECO initiative
(Group of States against Corruption). Evaluation visits in the two Republics took place in
September 2005.
1.2 Human rights and the protection of minorities
Observance of international human rights law

In April 2005 the period for the implementation by Serbia and Montenegro of the
commitments it undertook when joining the Council of Europe came to an end. The Council
of Europe’s assessment stated that “after more than two years of Council of Europe
membership, Serbia and Montenegro has now honoured a large number of accession
commitments, in particular when it comes to signature and/or ratification of Conventions and
even more so adoption of relevant legislation.” The Council of Europe pointed out a number
of areas requiring further efforts, in particular constitutional reform, reconciliation and facing
the past, local democracy, the functioning and independence of the judiciary and prosecution
service, and protection of minorities. Serbia and Montenegro continues to be subject to post-
accession monitoring on a quarterly basis.
As regards the uniform implementation of international obligations throughout Serbia and
Montenegro, the authorities claim that the role of the State Union Court’s of the convention
on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been clarified but practical implementation
remains to be realised. While the State Union Council of Ministers adopted the decree on the
17
appointment of a state agent in February 2005, the agent was appointed in September, and the
appointment of his deputy is still pending. Moreover, there are concerns about the budget
allocations for the agent’s office for 2005. In the meantime, around 750 cases against Serbia
and Montenegro are pending before the European Court of Human Rights. Other Council of
Europe conventions, such as the European Charter on Regional and Minority Languages and
the revised European Social Charter, should be ratified shortly.
As regards the right to the protection of personal data, Serbia and Montenegro have ratified
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal
Data (ETS No. 108) in September 2005. However, it is a matter of concern that this has been
done without the previous adoption of an appropriate national Law.
Civil and political rights

No progress has been made on enforcing the Serbian Law on the Accountability for Human
Rights Violations (the “Lustration” Law).
As regards mass graves identified in Serbia, to date, no indictment has yet been brought.
In the area of the prevention of torture and ill-treatment, limited progress has been made in
Serbia as regards the investigation of all allegations of human rights violations during the
state of emergency in March / April 2003. The parliamentary Committee for Security and
Defence concluded in May 2005 that “unselective detentions” and “human rights abuses and
torture” took place in that period, but the issue is a source of continuing political
confrontation. The Office of the Inspector-General in the Serbian Ministry of Interior reported
that out of 37 cases brought to its attention in that context, 20 were rejected as unfounded, 6
torture cases were confirmed and 11 are still being investigated.
Efforts to implement the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture have continued,
for example by educating relevant parts of the State Union and republican administrations. No
progress has been made by the authorities in reacting to the cases brought by the UN
Committee against Torture. The lack of transparency and adequate information concerning
the number of possible cases of police torture and the measures taken remains a major
problem in both Republics. In Serbia, the Office of the Inspector-General in the Serbian
Ministry of Interior has continued its work. To date there has been little concrete information
as to the outcome of various cases and any sanctions against the police officers alleged to
have committed abuses. The independence of the internal control system needs to be
maintained and reinforced. In Montenegro, human rights NGOs continue to claim that police
torture during detention is a problem, but that action is often obstructed by the police itself.
The new Montenegrin Law on Police provides for internal control mechanisms, which now
need to be fully implemented. Notably, police ill-treatment in the prison in Spuz (September
2005) needs to be fully and transparently investigated.
In Serbia, the reform of pre-trial detention is contingent on the comprehensive revision of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, which is still pending. In Montenegro, the Code of Criminal
Procedure in force since 2003 limits the possibility of pre-trial detention to serious
circumstances and to specified cases only, where the prescribed penalty must be ten years of
imprisonment or more. The principle that proceedings should be conducted without undue
delay is introduced in such cases, as well as provisions on mandatory defence.
Prison conditions remain precarious in both Serbia and Montenegro because of legislative,
administrative and infrastructural problems. The recently adopted Serbian reform of the
legislation on the execution of penal sentences and on juvenile offenders needs to be fully
implemented. In the meantime, efforts have been made to improve prison conditions in
18
several correctional facilities in order to meet the requisite standards, in particular as regards
conditions in prison hospitals. This is becoming particularly relevant in the most serious cases
which entail longer prison sentences, such as organised crime and war crime cases.
As regards access to justice, the basic legal framework on legal aid is laid down in the current
State Union constitutional provisions referring to equality before the law, the right to legal
protection, representation and defence. In Serbia mandatory defence is provided for in the
case of serious criminal charges and in the case of police detention. In civil cases, the right to
free defence is mainly defined in terms of the cost of the lawsuit and limited thereto. At
present there is a lack of coherent planning and management of legal aid, with the result that
laws are not being applied and there is no clear mechanism for ensuring the quality of legal
aid. In Montenegro the system of free legal aid has not yet been introduced. In criminal cases,
some provisions exist for serious cases and in instances of financial hardship. In civil cases,
some aid is available to meet costs. In practice, the existing provisions are not being fully
implemented.
As regards religious freedom, there are constitutional guarantees of freedom of thought,
conscience and religion at all levels. In Serbia there has been no progress in the adoption of
new legislation, which needs to be in accordance with international standards concerning the
equality of religious organisations and the principle of separation of church and state. There
have been considerable delays in legal proceedings concerning religiously motivated
incidents, notably the burning of mosques in the aftermath of the March 2004 violence in
Kosovo. In Montenegro the legislation regulating the status of religious communities is
obsolete and needs further improvements to be fully in accordance with international
standards. As regards conscientious objection, the Decree on civilian service has been
implemented with difficulty, as the number of alternative institutions assigned for this purpose
has proved to be insufficient. Furthermore, the Decree was amended in January 2005 in a non-
transparent manner, with the introduction of what seem to be undue restrictions, although the
Ministry of Defence insisted that their aim was to counter perceived abuses of the right to
conscientious objection.
Freedom of expression and media in Serbia saw improvements through the abolition of prison
sentences for slander/libel and replacement by fines. There are also occasional cases of state
officials in Serbia publicly denigrating and even threatening journalists, which undermine
media freedom. This problem has escalated recently, with acts being targeted particularly at
media which are critical of the Government and, more specifically, those that advocate the
need to address the legacy of the past, including war crimes and organised crime. The new
amendments to the Broadcasting Law, adopted in August 2005, which are widely contested
by professional organisations, contain provisions that undermine the independence of
electronic media, in particular at municipal level, by introducing further delays in the
timeframe for privatisation. The amendments centralise the work of the Broadcasting Council
and no longer recognise the specificity of Vojvodina as a multicultural region. In Montenegro
media freedom suffers from political interference. In April 2005, NGOs protested against the
distribution by the Montenegrin Ministry for Foreign Affairs of a media analysis critical of
the media that were not seen as supporting independence, and suggesting government
interference, notably with the editorial policy of the state broadcasting company. The
legislation regulating media concentration has not been adopted.
The Serbian law on free access to public information is still not being fully implemented. The
Office of the Commissioner for public information became operational only in June 2005; the
Agent also reports problems concerning the administration’s understanding of the law and its
continuing ignorance and frequent reluctance to comply. In Montenegro similar legislation is
still pending in Parliament.
19
New legislation on freedom of association is still pending in Serbia. Meanwhile, there
continue to be difficulties with the status of both political associations and representatives of
civil society, due to the lack of a proper legal framework. Montenegro has a satisfactory law
on NGOs, but further action is still needed on the issue of tax exemptions. In May 2005
Montenegro also adopted the new law on public associations, which appears to be in line with
international standards.
As regards non-discrimination, while Serbia and Montenegro is a signatory to all relevant
international instruments, including Protocol 12 to ECHR (this protocol entered into force in
May), there has been no progress in the adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law,
although specific laws have been adopted or are in preparation in both Republics, addressing
gender equality and protection of vulnerable groups. Legislation in Serbia and Montenegro
only very sporadically mentions prohibition of sexual discrimination as a separate obligation
(media and labour legislation). According to human rights organisations, discrimination based
on sexual orientation is a problem. In general terms, it appears that the level of protection
against discrimination in Serbia and Montenegro is still far from the EU standards requiring
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial
or ethnic origin and the establishment of a general framework for equal treatment in
employment and occupation, irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
orientation.
As for property rights, both individual and communal, there has been limited progress in
Serbia concerning preparation of new legislation in cooperation with the Council of Europe.
The restitution fund reportedly has at its disposal 42 million euros. Meanwhile, the law on
registration of nationalised property was adopted in May 2005, stipulating July 2006 as the
deadline for registration. Former owners regarded this law as a further undue delay in the
restitution process. There has been no progress concerning the restitution of church property
either. In Montenegro, the implementation of the law adopted in March 2004 has been
difficult. The restitution fund increased in 2005 as privatisation revenues grew; the municipal
commissions established to deal with restitution requests have rendered several first instance
decisions. None of these is enforceable at the moment, and they have therefore not yet been
fully implemented.
There is a well developed and very active civil society in Serbia and Montenegro. Its situation
remains precarious, notably in Serbia due to the continued lack of adequate legislation and the
knock-on effect on financial sustainability. In Montenegro there is a law dating from 1999,
but this needs further improvements, in particular concerning the financial position of NGOs,
but also their participation in public policy. The Montenegrin Government has still not
adopted the platform for cooperation with the NGO sector. In both Republics NGOs remain
heavily dependent on donor support. The authorities have made efforts to take the opinions of
the civil sector on board, notably in the area of poverty reduction; parliaments have become
more open, allowing NGOs to attend sessions; both the Serbian Office for European
Integration and the Montenegrin Ministry for European Integration have signed special
memoranda of cooperation with NGOs. On the other hand, the administration continues to
show insufficient understanding of the genuine role of NGOs in a democratic society: in both
Republics NGO activities that imply criticism of the government, and in particular those that
draw attention to sensitive, often unpopular issues, are publicly denigrated.
Economic and social rights

Serbia and Montenegro signed the revised European Social Charter in March 2005, but its
ratification is pending.
20
As regards gender equality, in spite of the fact that there are no legal restrictions, the
representation of women in public life (in parliaments and governments at all levels) remains
poor, as is their practical access to job opportunities. The situation is difficult, largely because
there is neither a general anti-discrimination law nor specific legislation or coordinating
activities on gender equality (although the latter is in preparation). The existence of Councils
for Gender Equality has so far produced limited results. There is thus an urgent need to
prepare Actions Plans for gender equality. One of the most important gender problems in
Montenegro is the high level of domestic violence. In Montenegro, the trafficking of women
remains a source of concern.
No development has taken place as regards respect for the rights of the child, in particular to
eliminate discrimination against minority and disabled children. The issue of childcare centres
remains to be tackled.
As regards socially vulnerable and disabled persons, there is still no specific legislation
regulating the rights of persons with special needs in Serbia. In Montenegro the law on the
protection and implementation of the rights of persons with mental disorders was adopted in
May 2005. In practice, disabled people in both Republics often remain subject to
discrimination. Access to social services is still difficult. The de-institutionalisation of the
mentally ill has not even started.
As regards labour rights, both Montenegro and Serbia have new, comprehensive legislation.
In Serbia, a new labour law was adopted in May 2005. Enforcement remains rather weak.
As regards social dialogue, competences are held at the level of the Republics. Social
dialogue takes place mainly at the tripartite level, whereas bipartite social dialogue is at an
embryonic state yet. Employers associations are not sufficiently developed and both
employers' associations and trade unions need to further develop their technical and
administrative capacities. In Serbia, the Economic and Social Council has started meeting but
the representativeness criteria set to participate in the council have led to disputes between
social partners concerning legitimacy and representations rights. In Montenegro, the
Government is now planning to set up a revamped version of the Economic and Social
Council. Neither in Serbia nor in Montenegro is the Economic and Social Council perceived
by stakeholders as an independent, neutral and a powerful advocate.
Minority rights, cultural rights and the protection of minorities

Serbia and Montenegro is a signatory to all relevant international instruments in this area. It
has ratified the Framework Convention for Protection of National Minorities, and the
ratification of the European Charter of Local and Regional Languages is pending.
International agreements have been signed by Serbia and Montenegro with countries in the
region (Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia).
The establishment of National Councils for minority groups under the 2002 Minorities Law
has continued, although in Serbia only. The initial difficulties concerning the funding of their
activities have been resolved, and the financing of the Councils has now been institutionalised
in the Serbian budget. The legislation needed to regulate their status and work, which is in
preparation, has still not been adopted. Despite improvements, ethnically motivated incidents
still occur, reflecting the legacy of the past decade and systemic issues in the implementation
of existing standards.
Sporadic incidents have been reported across Serbia, including in Vojvodina, directed against
minority populations, particularly ethnic Hungarians. These incidents are not the result of a
deliberate policy of the authorities but the authorities’ response need to be more resolute and
21
timely. The high-profile Council for National Minorities, chaired by the Serbian Prime
Minister, which was established in October 2004 after the incidents in Vojvodina, has taken a
proactive role and has initiated follow-up measures to the recommendations formulated by the
European Parliament on the basis of the fact-finding mission that took place in January 2005,
concerning notably education and, albeit so far with limited results, the judiciary and law
enforcement. It is necessary, however, to introduce more transparency and regular
information sharing to all interested parties and public in general about the activities of the
Council.
As for Southern Serbia, the coordinating body, which was restructured and re-activated in
March 2005, was fully constituted in June 2005, with the high-level participation of the
Serbian President and Prime Minister. Since its reconstitution, some progress has taken place
in field of education but local politicians have expressed concern about the working of the
body, and in particular the level of engagement of line ministries. In September, for unrelated
political reasons, the head of the Coordination Centre was replaced.
Montenegro has continued to prepare its own legislation, although this has been seriously
delayed by the lack of political consensus, particularly about the arrangements for the political
representation of minorities. In practice, respect for human and minority rights is mostly
satisfactory, though there is still insufficient representation of minorities in public
administration, despite constitutional guarantees.
Work has continued on the integration of the Roma, but the situation of this community
remains precarious. There is continuing discrimination against Roma people, whose economic
and social conditions are difficult (the percentage of poverty among Roma is four to five
times higher than the national average). On the basis of the comprehensive Strategy for
Integration and Economic Empowerment of Roma, drafted by the State Union Ministry for
Human and Minority Rights (as part of the activities concerning the Decade of Roma
Inclusion, 2005-2015), a number action plans in the areas of media, social protection,
displaced persons, women and returnees have been prepared by the relevant Serbian
ministries and are awaiting approval. In practice there is little cooperation between this State
Union Ministry and the Montenegrin authorities, which have prepared a separate action plan
for Montenegro. Implementation of Roma rights remains difficult: in both Republics there is a
lack of accurate statistics on their real number, and a significant proportion of the Roma
population do not possess basic personal documents. In addition, prejudices against this
minority group among the majority population are strong and have in some cases been
hampering plans for their resettlement; similar problems have been impeding activities
relating to the education of Roma children. Resources for implementation are scarce, and the
governments rely heavily on donor support, notably in the process of readmission. The
situation of Roma people who are internally displaced is particularly difficult in both
Republics.
1.3 Regional issues and international obligations

Cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is
an international obligation for Serbia and Montenegro as a UN Member State and as a
signatory of the Dayton / Paris Agreements. It is also an obligation under the Council of
Europe post-accession commitments and an integral part of the EU’s political conditionality
under the Stabilisation and Association process. ICTY cooperation is an international
obligation for Serbia and Montenegro as a whole and therefore also concerns the Republic of
Montenegro.
22
In the report submitted to the UN Security Council in June 2005, the ICTY Prosecutor noted
that significant progress had been made, but that the authorities’ policy of “voluntary
surrenders” had reached its limits. One handover took place on the eve of the endorsement of
the Feasibility Report by the EU Council of Ministers in April. Another handover took place
in mid-September as a result of the co-operation between Belgrade’s authorities and
Republika Srpska. The Belgrade’s authorities have also contributed to the arrest of two
indictees in Argentina and Russia, who have not yet been transferred to The Hague. There are
still a number of indictees at large, in particular Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, who
need to be brought to justice. The authorities are expected to take action in this respect.
The National Council for Cooperation with ICTY, chaired by the State Union Minister for
Human and Minority Rights, has continued to take important decisions concerning waivers
for witnesses and access to documents; there is no backlog of ICTY requests. The
implementation of the Council’s decisions is still sometimes obstructed by those in the
administration and the army in possession of documents but unwilling to cooperate with the
ICTY. The Montenegrin members have not resumed their participation in the Council.
Serbia and Montenegro has not yet fully aligned itself with the EU common position on
freezing the assets of ICTY fugitives. The State Union draft law on freezing the assets of
ICTY fugitives is pending before the State Union Parliament. In the meantime, the Serbian
judiciary has issued an order freezing these assets. In Montenegro, no such an order has been
issued, as the authorities claim that no ICTY fugitive has registered property there. If they
had, an order to freeze their assets could be issued on the basis of the existing criminal
legislation.
As regards domestic war crimes trials, domestic courts have continued to be cooperative and
are doing good work in trying some low-profile cases (notably the Ovcara case). Some further
steps have also been taken to improve their organisational and infrastructure capacities. The
recent amendments to the Criminal Code introduce new offences of crimes against humanity
and genocide, but the important issue of command responsibility has been only partially
addressed by making failure to prevent and notify criminal activity against humanity a crime.
Cooperation with the police continues to be insufficient, and both the judiciary and the police
are still subject to heavy political pressure. The overall political climate is such that there is no
guarantee that any high-profile war crimes trials could be conducted in a fair and transparent
manner. As regards Montenegro, the trial concerning the deportation of a number of Bosnian
refugees in 1992 has started.
Serbia and Montenegro continues to have a positive attitude towards the International
Criminal Court (ICC). Serbia and Montenegro has consistently refused to sign bilateral
agreements giving exemptions from ICC jurisdiction. It should continue to do so.
There are no major problems in Serbia and Montenegro’s compliance with the Dayton
Agreement, apart from the outstanding cases relating to cooperation with ICTY. There have
been mixed developments as regards the need to address the issue of war crimes, with the
most notable positive being the actions by the Serbian President concerning the
commemoration of Srebrenica.
Full respect of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, governing the current
status of Kosovo, is an obligation for Serbia and Montenegro as a UN member and a key
requirement for regional stability.
The Belgrade-Pristina sectoral dialogue has been making progress. Four working groups on
technical areas of mutual interest are in place: Energy, Returns, Transport and
Telecommunications and Missing Persons. Both delegations have been able to travel to both
23
Pristina and Belgrade without hindrance. In general, there is a need to intensify the frequency
of the dialogue.
With few exceptions, Kosovo Serbs, who massively boycotted the elections, are still not
participating in the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government (PISG). The participation of
Kosovo Serbs in these institutions, in order to voice their legitimate concerns about the
implementation of the UN-led Kosovo standards, is now crucial and should be encouraged by
Belgrade.
Belgrade and Kosovo Serbs (the latter apparently disunited) have also dismissed the Kosovo
Decentralisation Plan. A positive step was, however, taken in mid-September, when
delegations from Pristina and Belgrade met to discuss decentralisation, in a meeting organised
by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy and hosted by the Austrian Foreign Ministry. This
encounter facilitated an exchange of views and greater understanding of respective positions.
There needs to be now a greater compromise that allows more concrete progress to be
achieved in this important issue. Moreover, the fact that representatives of the Provisional
Institutions of Self-Government taking part in regional initiatives and conferences have
experienced difficulties in entering Serbia continues to be an issue that needs to be followed
up.
In line with UNSCR 1244, Belgrade should encourage participation with a view to promoting
the development of a democratic, multi-ethnic society in Kosovo in the interests of all Kosovo
communities. Furthermore, Belgrade’s constructive engagement in the Kosovo issue will help
to advance Serbia and Montenegro’s European prospects, while obstruction could become an
obstacle.
The high number of refugees and internally displaced persons continued to aggravate
already difficult socioeconomic conditions in both Republics. Furthermore, the precarious
situation of this vulnerable population group has a significant impact upon the overall political
situation and the current trend towards radicalisation in the country.
According to data released by UNCHR in January 2005 after the comprehensive refugee re-
registration exercise, there are currently around 140 000 refugees and 245 000 registered
internally displaced persons. The fall in the number of refugees is partly due to the
implementation of new legal provisions allowing dual citizenship, as some people lost refugee
status by acquiring Serbia and Montenegro citizenship. Serbia and Montenegro is also
participating in the regional initiative on the return of refugees with Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Croatia. Although dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina on the important issue of
returns of internally displaced persons has not progressed, some co-operation was achieved
between Kosovo and Montenegro with the establishment of a protocol on the returns of
internally displaced persons.
In Serbia the authorities continue their efforts on both repatriation and local integration, in
cooperation with partners in the region. The implementation of the agreement on the return of
refugees with Bosnia and Herzegovina has continued to facilitate safe returns. There has been
no progress in the adoption of new refugee legislation.
Montenegro has prepared its own national strategy to allow either repatriation (or removal to
a third country) or local integration, but financial resources for its implementation are scarce,
thus affecting prospects for putting the strategy into practice. According to the relevant
international organisations, practical problems concerning labour and related rights for
refugees still occur, but the authorities are taking action to address the issue through
legislative changes.
24
The unresolved situation concerning the practical exercise of voting rights for internally
displaced persons from Kosovo who are currently in Montenegro but wish to vote in the
Serbian elections persists. The two Republics need to work together to ensure that internally
displaced persons do not remain disenfranchised.
Serbia and Montenegro has continued to pursue a policy aimed at improving relations with all
its neighbours with a view to contributing to regional stability. It continues to take part in
intensive multilateral cooperation. Under the auspices of the Stability Pact, Serbia and
Montenegro has concluded the full network of bilateral FTAs with all the Western Balkan
countries and with Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova. The FTA with the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia has been also revised. It is now critical that these international
commitments are also fully implemented.
Bilateral relations with all countries, in both the political and the commercial sphere, have
continued to improve, though sporadic problems recur. Some important issues are still
outstanding, notably border demarcation with Croatia and BiH and the suits pending against
Serbia and Montenegro before the International Court of Justice, filed by these two countries.
The celebration of the tenth anniversary of Operation Storm by Croatia and the reaction to this
in Serbia also placed a strain on bilateral relations. On the other hand, the high-level presence
of Serbia and Montenegro at the Srebrenica commemoration was an important gesture
contributing to regional reconciliation. Recently, new tensions have occurred in relations
between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the non-recognised Macedonian Orthodox Church,
affecting generally good relations with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
1.4 General evaluation

As regards the political situation and the state of democracy and rule of law in Serbia and
Montenegro, constitutional and legal certainty has remained precarious. While the legitimacy
of the State Union Parliament has been restored and functioning of the Serbian parliament has
improved with the adoption of new rules of procedures, the overall functioning of democratic
institutions remains affected by structural weaknesses. No actual progress has taken place as
regards the revision of the Constitutions of the two Republics.
Constitutional issues in Serbia and Montenegro, notably with respect to the relationship
between its two constituent Republics and the functioning of the institutions of the State
Union, should be addressed in a constructive spirit and in full respect of the Constitutional
Charter of Serbia and Montenegro. This applies also to a possible referendum on
independence of either Republic. Such a referendum will have to comply to and
internationally recognised democratic standards, in the light of the forthcoming
recommendations of the Venice Commission.
There has been progress in both Republics concerning the legal framework of public
administration reform, but the implementation of this reform is still at a very early stage. No
progress has taken place as regards the reform of State Union public administration. The level
of administrative capacity remains generally low. The administrative structures with a view to
the SAA negotiations have been set up at the level of State Union and the two Republics.
Defence reform continues to meet serious obstruction, due to insufficient democratic control
and lack of transparent financial management.
The State Union Court has started working although its capacity remains weak and the
agreement on the scope of its powers is still largely untested. The transfer of powers of
military justice to civilian courts has been implemented smoothly, with the exception of the
considerable backlog of the administrative cases. The judiciary has continued to be affected,
25
especially in Serbia, by serious weaknesses and its independence is undermined by undue
political interference.
Corruption remains a serious concern. Some progress has taken place with the development of
anti-corruption strategies which now need to be finalised – in Serbia - and effectively
implemented.
As regards the respect for human rights, Serbia and Montenegro has made progress in
implementing the commitments undertaken by when joining the Council of Europe notably
with the appointment of Government Agent for the European Court of Human Rights. There
have been problems with regard to freedom of expression and civil society. Cases of police
ill-treatment have occurred. Little progress has taken place in relation to the investigation of
crimes committed during the previous regime. There is no comprehensive anti-discrimination
legislation yet. Respect for minority rights has continued to see some progress, but incidents
still occur.
Serbia and Montenegro achieved significant progress in co-operation with the ICTY in the
run-up to the Commission Report on the preparedness to start SAA negotiations, in particular
delivering a significant number of indictees to The Hague Tribunal. Since then there
continues to be good co-operation with regard to waivers to witnesses and access to
documents, though this process is still sometimes obstructed by parts of the administration
and the army. Serbia and Montenegro has made some further, though limited, progress to
bring remaining fugitives to justice. This progress must be continued until full co-operation
with ICTY is achieved.
As regards the respect of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 on Kosovo,
Belgrade has intensified dialogue with Pristina on technical matters of common interest.
However, it has not actively encouraged Kosovo Serbs to participate in the Provisional
Institutions of Self-Government. Belgrade’s constructive engagement on the Kosovo issue
will help to advance Serbia and Montenegro’s European perspective, while obstruction could
turn into an obstacle.
Regional co-operation at the multilateral and bilateral level continues to improve, although
sporadic problems occur.
26
2. Economic situation
While this Report updates the Feasibility Study of spring 2005, the economic chapter
occasionally refers to older data, due to data limitations. The economic developments since
April 2005 are included in the paragraph on progress towards economic stability and
competitiveness.
2.1 Progress towards economic stability and competitiveness
Serbia
Reform momentum was regained. The government’s commitment to macroeconomic
stabilisation and structural reform has been volatile. While there seems to be some consensus
on the need for market-oriented reforms, the population’s perception of their standard of
living having fallen vis-à-vis the late eighties and early nineties serves sometimes as a
limitation to otherwise fast economic reforms.
Economic activity accelerated in 2004. Real GDP growth in Serbia reached an estimated
7.5%, mainly supported by services, in particular retail trade (17.9%), as well as agricultural
production (19.8%) and industrial output (7.1%). In the first half of 2005, GDP grew by 6.1%
year-on-year, driven by a large expansion of services, more than compensating a decline in
manufacturing output.
Republic of Serbia - Main Economic Trends
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Real GDP growth Percent 5.2 5.1 4.5 2.4 8.6 6.1 1st half
Inflation rate Percent (average) 69.9 91.1 21.2 11.3 9.5 17.1 Jan-Sep
Percent (end-of-period) 113.5 39.0 14.2 7.6 13.4 16.5 Sep
Unemployment rate Percent of labour force NA 12.2 13.3 14.6 18.5 NA
General govt balance (1) Percent of GDP NA -1.2 -3.7 -2.3 -0.3 NA
Trade balance (4) Percent of GDP -21.0 -24.5 -25.2 -23.6 -31.0 -21.0 1st half
Current account balance Percent of GDP -7.1 -9.7 -12.9 -12.3 -15.5 -7.6 1st half
Current account balance Percent of GDP -3.9 -4.6 -8.9 -7.3 -13.1 -6.6 1st half
External debt (4) Percent of GDP 132.0 103.2 76.5 69.9 62.0 54.0 1st half
Billion EUR 12.3 13.3 12.5 12.6 12.0 11.6 1st half
Debt–export ratio (4) Percent 600 595 491 461 354 268 1st half
Foreign direct investment Percent of GDP 0.3 1.4 3.6 6.9 4.3 5.5 1st half
Million EUR 27.1 184.2 594.3 1242.0 826.4 664.0 1st half
(1) Before grants. (2) After grants. (3) Net. (4) For 2000-2004 Serbia and Montenegro together. For 2005 Serbia only.
Sources: national authorities, IMF, EC estimates
The negative savings-investment balance led to widening of external deficits. Domestic

investment grew strongly while national savings declined, particularly in the non-government
sector, resulting in a widening of the savings-investment balance to 13.1% of GDP in 2004.
The current account deficit before grants reached 15.5% of GDP. Exports grew by 25.8% in
euro terms and imports by 33.6%. Exports covered a mere 36% of imports. Private
remittances continued to be high at 14% of GDP while FDI reached a mere 4% of GDP in
2004. Between January and July 2005, the deficit of the balance of goods and services has
declined by 21% compared to the same period a year earlier as exports and imports grew by
37% and 4.5%, respectively. Foreign exchange reserves continued to increase in 2005 and
reached EUR 4.1 billion end-August. External debt declined to 62% of GDP or 2.5 times
27
projected exports of goods and services for the year 2004. However, despite the July 2004
debt reduction by London Club creditors, the debt-to-GDP ratio has remained relatively high
as an increasing share of the external deficit is financed by debt.
Inflationary pressure has mounted. Twelve-month inflation (retail price index) accelerated to
13.8% in December 2004 and to 16.5% in September 2005, driven by buoyant domestic
demand, increases in administered prices, rising cost of fuel imports, strong wage growth and
the one-off effect of the VAT introduced in January.
Employment remains low and unemployment high. Official figures of registered unemployed
show an unemployment rate of 32.4% at end-2004, as compared to 27.2% three years earlier.
Adjusted for those who are registered as unemployed but pursue activities in the informal
sector of the economy the unemployment stands at below 20%. Long-term unemployment
concerns around 70% of the unemployed. Employment is on a declining trend and the
employment rate stood at 57.9% in 2003. Employment flexibility and legislation have, in
general been improving, but some deterioration of flexibility has also been reported. The
impact of newly created companies on job creation has remained insignificant so far.
However, the informal sector is estimated to account for an estimated 30% of total
employment. The Serbian government adopted an ambitious employment strategy for the
period 2005-2010 in April 2005, which describes general conditions and steps to be taken in
order to achieve the strategy’s projected goal of reducing the unemployment rate to 10.5%.
Progress with regard to employment and social policy is part of the work towards European
standards. Further efforts to establish economic and social rights as well as to promote
employment and encourage social dialogue will contribute to improving governance and
economic performance.
Monetary policy remained unchanged. The National Bank of Serbia attempted to follow a
policy to balance the objective of maintaining price stability with external competitiveness
and continued to implement its flexible “managed float” exchange rate regime. The Serbian
dinar depreciated against the euro by 13.4% in 2004 and 5.7% during the first seven months
of 2005. In 2005, authorities re-focused their priorities on keeping inflation in check and
aimed for a slower depreciation.
Fiscal retrenchment continued. The consolidated general budget deficit of Serbia for 2004
was reduced to 0.3% of GDP from 2.3% in 2003. Reflecting strong domestic demand and
improved tax enforcement efforts, fiscal revenues grew to 45.2% of GDP from 42.7% in
2003. In particular customs and excise revenues grew strongly. Expenditures were generally
under tight control, although new social security arrears vis-à-vis the private sector were
recorded. Reportedly, the introduction of the VAT in January 2005 helped to boost revenues,
but expenditure remained high. For 2005 a fiscal surplus is projected.
The overall macroeconomic policy mix was tightened. The overall macroeconomic policy
mix has been tightened in the second half of 2004. In particular an expansionary wage policy
(the average real wage grew by 10.4%) has led to wage increases above productivity growth
and has been undermining broadly stability-oriented fiscal and monetary policies. However,
in the second half of 2004 there was a tangible deceleration of real wage growth, which
broadly continued in 2005. To help curb the high domestic absorption, the fiscal policy
stance has been significantly tightened in 2004 and 2005. To curb strong credit growth
consumer credit regulation has been tightened in December 2004. While this had some
mitigating impact on consumer lending rapid growth in credit to enterprises continued
unabated.
Prices are broadly liberalised. Price controls on most goods and services are abolished,
except for oil and oil derivatives, medicines, one type of bread and flour, coal and gas for
28
heating, electricity, postal services, telecommunication services and railway traffic. Electricity
prices were increased to 3.6 euro cent per kWh in 2004, to catch-up with cost recovery.
Further adjustments were implemented in July 2005 and in line with dinar depreciation and
rising world oil price new adjustments have been announced. Administered prices (including
fuel) account for 40% in the retail price index.
The share of the private sector in GDP remains small and the level of competition low.
Despite progress in privatisation in recent years a competitive and dynamic private sector has
not yet been established. The share of the private sector in Serbia remains low, whereas state
and social ownership still governs a large part of Serbia’s output. The absence of a larger
share of private sector activity is a substantial obstacle for the provision of a dynamic supply
of competitive domestic products and services, and adversely effects inflation and external
accounts.
Privatisation has been progressing, but is far from completed. The total number of privatised
companies reached 1,524 by end-May 2005, of which 43 were sold through tenders, 1,175
small and medium sized enterprises were sold through auctions, and shares of 324 enterprises
were floated at the Belgrade Stock Exchange. The process of restructuring some 76 large and
insolvent companies, which were selected by the Privatisation Agency for restructuring,
progressed slowly. However, the adoption of amendments to several key laws (such as the
laws on privatisation, share fund and financial markets) in May 2005 might help accelerate
this process. Of particular importance is the provision which will allow for debts towards the
state and state bodies to be automatically written off prior to privatisation. Substantial
progress has been made in restructuring and privatisation of the banking system. Most
importantly, the sale of Jubanka was successfully completed in February 2005 for EUR 152
million. Two other state-owned banks have recently been sold and three are currently in the
process of being privatised. However, two large and systemically important banks still
remain state-controlled and efforts would need to be accelerated to privatise a majority in
these two banks to a strategic investor. By the end of April 2005 the share of foreign
ownership in total bank assets had risen to 52%. The restructuring of network industries, such
as the energy, telecommunications and transport sector is still in its initial phase. There is a
certain progress in the creation of a necessary regulatory framework and establishment of
well-equipped regulatory agencies for these sectors.
Loss-making state-owned enterprises continue to hinder the development of a dynamic private
sector. In the Serbian economy, highly indebted socially-owned companies, that need to be
closed or restructured and privatised, and state-owned companies with a high number of
surplus work-force still play a predominant role.
Administrative barriers to market entry have been reduced, but the business environment is
still hampered by bureaucratic obstacles and lack of access to finance. The average time
needed to register a company has been substantially reduced to 10 days from over 51. In
addition, the initial capital requirement has been significantly lowered from USD 5,000 to
EUR 500. The latter was one of the major reasons for the high number of new companies
established in the first few months of 2005. While the registration itself is not regarded as a
key impediment for starting a business, there are still many bureaucratic obstacles which are
hampering enterprise creation. In particular, there remains scope for improvement in a
number of areas which impact the business environment, including corporate governance and
financial reporting standards. In this context it is also important to mention that the World
Bank registers remarkable progress during the 12 last months in Serbia.
Exit barriers remain high while the new bankruptcy law still needs to be implemented. The
average time to resolve bankruptcies is 2.6 years at a cost of 23% of the estate value and a
29
recovery rate of 16.6%. A centre for enforcement of bankruptcy procedure at the
Privatization Agency was established in February 2005. It acts as a bankruptcy administrator
for companies with the majority of state or socially-owned capital. At end-May, 39 enterprises
were under its control. However, no bankruptcy procedure has yet been completed.
The slow and inefficient functioning of the judiciary system is seriously hampering the
economy. With regards to the execution through courts, the average number of days
necessary to execute the court procedures is over 1,000. Sale of housing premises is subject
to high taxes, while it takes almost 200 days to register a property with a transaction tax of
5%. The real estate cadastre is in poor condition and almost 80% of all houses and
apartments are not registered.
Competition in the banking sector has been increasing. At end 2004, 46 banks operated in
the Serbian market. This number has further declined to 40 at end-September 2005 and
included 14 majority foreign banks which are among the largest in terms of financial strength.
However, in spite of the relatively high number of banks, their capacity (measured by overall
credit activity relative to GDP) and efficiency remains low. The interest rate spread remained
high and at end-August 2005 the average deposit and lending rates stood at 3.3% and 13.4%,
respectively. Reflecting an increasing confidence in the banking sector in line with progress
in bank restructuring, remonetisation continued. Broad money increased from about 20% of
GDP at end-July 2005 to 26% at end-July 2005. Euroization, measured as the share of
foreign-currency deposits in total deposits, rose by 3.3 percentage points in one year, reaching
69% at the end of June 2005. Buoyant economic activity, pent-up demand for durable
consumer goods and a surge in foreign borrowing by commercial banks and the corporate
sector resulted in a lending boom. As a result, the share of credit as a percentage of GDP
exceeded 19% at end-June 2005.
A capital market has begun to develop, but is still in an early stage. Securities’ trading
volumes have been on the rise recently and the overall market capitalisation at the BSE
(including bonds) has sharply increased from EUR 3.7 billion in October 2004 to over
EUR 5 billion in February 2005.
The National Bank of Serbia (NBS) implemented prudential measures to reduce
macroeconomic and prudential risks. Since January 2005 the stock of commercial banks’
foreign borrowing of maturities of up to 4 years and all new foreign borrowings by
commercial banks independent of maturities are subject to a minimum reserve requirement of
21%, thereby reducing the bias in favour of foreign-sourced funding. Effective April 2005,
all short-term deposits of foreign banks with banks operating in Serbia are equally subject to
the 21% reserve requirement. In July 2005, the reserve requirements on enterprises’ foreign
currency deposits and commercial banks’ foreign borrowing were increased from 21% to
26%. Moreover, to reduce prudential risks, the NBS increased the capital adequacy ratio from
8% to 10%, effective as of April 2005. After assuming responsibility for insurance
supervision, the NBS stepped up enforcement of prudential requirements in this sector,
leading to the withdrawal of the licenses of about half of the insurance companies operating in
Serbia.
Educational attainment remains low. Serbia has a relatively low average level of education as
only about 53% of its adult population had secondary or tertiary educational attainments.
This fact, together with a largely obsolete technology, helps to explain why the country’s
most successful exports are lower-level processed goods and unskilled labour-intensive
products. Vice versa, the predominance of low skilled activities and jobs have not encouraged
up-grading of the labour force's formal skills.
30
Investment expenditure accounted for 18.5% of GDP in 2004. Foreign direct investment in
Serbia fell to 4.4% of GDP in 2004, after having reached 7.1% in 2003, partly a result of a
period of political uncertainty in the first half of 2004. Between January and July 2005, FDI
have more than doubled compared to the same period a year earlier, partly a result of the
international sale of majority state-owned banks.
In 2004, 0.4% of GDP was earmarked for research. Though this looks rather low, it is still
four times the amount earmarked for his purpose in 2001. In late 2003, the Serbian
government passed a decision to gradually increase spending for research and development
and reach 3% of the budget by 2010.
Agriculture remains an important part of the economy. Serbia has still a relatively large share
of agriculture. In terms of value added it amounted to around 16.6% of GDP in 2002, and is
estimated to have fallen to somewhat below 16% in 2004. Industry accounts for about 30% of
GDP.
Private sector activity is concentrated in small and medium size enterprises. SME’s account
for about 97% of the total number of active enterprises in Serbia. They employ about 50% of
the total number of employees and their share in GDP is about 40% (small 23.3%, medium
16.5%).
In 2004, foreign trade grew strongly, primarily due to the large increase in imports of goods
and services. Exports of goods and services increased to 24 of GDP from 20% in 2003 while
imports surged to 54% of GDP from 43%, respectively. The degree of openness, defined as
the sum of export and import volumes in percentage of GDP, has been rising to 78 in 2004
compared to 63% a year earlier. Trade integration with EU has been rising since 2000 and the
EU share of total imports reached 49% between January and August 2005. For the same
period, the EU share of total exports reached 55%.
As part of the preparations for the forthcoming SAA and WTO negotiations, in June 2005
Serbia has submitted for Parliamentary adoption a new foreign trade law including some
amendments to make it fully compatible with WTO and EU standards. This will enable it to
abolish certain protective measures which are not in line with the general principles of free
movement of goods, such as the import licensing system for certain iron and steel products.
Price competitiveness in exports has remained broadly stable. The real effective exchange
rate, based on consumer prices, has been hovering around the same levels for around two
years.
Montenegro
The regulatory framework and business environment have been improved. The legislative and
institutional frameworks needed on the fundamentals of economic policies have progressed
significantly but are not yet complete.
Economic growth accelerated. Real GDP in Montenegro rose by 3% in 2004, largely based
on increased industrial production. Electricity and gas production rose by 21%, and the
production of main export-oriented metal products steel and aluminium, which represented
45% of total production, grew by 13.4%. In the first quarter of 2005, GDP grew by 1.9%
compared to the same period a year earlier.
31
Republic of Montenegro - Main Economic Trends
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Real GDP growth Percent 3.1 1.0 0.8 2.5 3.0 1.9 1st qu.
Inflation rate Percent (average) NA 22.8 17.8 7.9 3.4 3.7 Jan-Aug
Percent (end-of-period) 24.8 28.0 9.4 6.7 4.3 3.5 Aug
Unemployment rate Percent of labour force 32.7 31.5 30.5 25.8 22.6 NA
General govt balance (1) Percent of GDP
Trade balance Percent of GDP -45.1 -49.4 -35.5 -26.1 -29.2 -19.9 1st qu.
Current account balance (1) Percent of GDP
Current account balance (2) Percent of GDP -14.9 -18.6 -13.0 -7.3 -9.7 -10.1 1st qu.
External debt Percent of GDP 65.7 64.3 73.2 34.4 34.1 NA
Billion EUR 0.671 0.674 0.894 0.472 0.502 NA
Debt–export ratio Percent NA 260.6 191.3 102.2 80.7 NA
Foreign direct investment Percent of GDP NA 1.0 7.1 3.2 3.5 10.2 1st qu.
Million EUR NA 10.6 86.9 43.8 51.8 161.0 1st qu.
(1) Before grants. (2) After grants. (3) Net.
Sources: national authorities
External imbalances widened further. The recorded current account deficit widened in 2004
to 9.7% of GDP (after grants). This high deficit is mainly due to an increased merchandise
trade deficit, as a result of the increased import of consumer goods and intermediate goods.
Revenues from tourism represented 12.2% of GDP in 2004, a 19% increase over 2003. The
external debt of Montenegro amounted to EUR 502.4 million at the end of 2004, representing
74.5% of Montenegro’s public debt and 34.1% of the total GDP. This is an increase of 14%
compared to 2003. Montenegro does not have outstanding debts with commercial creditors
(London Club). The main lenders are the World Bank institutions, with a total share of 55%.
Inflation continued to decline further. Retail-price inflation (RPI) declined to 4.3% in 2004
and to 3.5% in August 2005. In the first eight months of 2005 retail prices rose by 3.7% year-
on-year.
Unemployment remained high and employment declined further. The participation rate was
of 51.7% in 2004. Unemployment in 2004 was 14% lower than in December of the previous
year but still high at a 22% rate. At the same time, employment also decreased by 1.3%. Such
trends are partly driven by an update of the Employment Bureau records removing those not
fulfilling the prescribed conditions. There are important skills mismatches. Underinvestment
in education and training, inefficiencies in spending and poor performances of the education
and training system appear as major challenges to develop a workforce with needed skills.
The scope of monetary policy remained limited due to unilateral euroization. Cash reserves
(defined as deposits by the Central Bank with foreign banks) amounted to EUR 53.5 million
or 39% more than at the end of 2003. Most of the deposits were term deposits in EUR (94%).
Fiscal consolidation continued. The government deficit declined to 2.2% of GDP in 2004
from 3.3% in 2003. In this period, revenues increased by 6.4%. Revenues were smaller than
expected due to the cut of taxes on wages by 10% and the introduction of a tax relief in
property taxation. Expenditures rose by only 3.3% over 2003.
The overall macroeconomic policy mix is not completely appropriate. In 2004, salaries grew
much faster (by 11.7%) than inflation (4.3%), reducing Montenegro’s competitiveness and
subsequently contributing to the further deterioration of the current account deficit.
32
Price liberalization is almost complete. Only a small number of products or services relating
to natural monopolies or public and communal utility services are subject to administrative
price control (i.e. drugs, oil and derivative products or postal services).
Privatisation is continuing but not yet completed. 70% of the state-owned capital has been
privatised until June 2005. The state still had a majority ownership in 17 large companies at
the end of 2004. In 2005, Telecom Montenegro was privatised. Another major privatisation
process, concerning the aluminium company KAP, is undergoing. In the banking sector all
but one last bank with majority state-ownership, Podgoricka Banka, has been privatised
already. This last sale is estimated to be concluded by end-2005. The government launched an
ambitious project for the restructuring of 97 companies to be either privatised or liquidated,
and their assets sold. In the particular case of the companies privatized through the Mass Voucher
Privatization (MVP), the shares are slowly being consolidated through trades in the two stock
exchanges of Montenegro. This process should facilitate in the medium term the completion
of the restructuring plans.
Business registration has been simplified. The new Company Law simplified the process of
business registration and reduced the minimum capital requirement for limited liability
companies. As a result, there has been a notably increase in the number of business
registrations, most drawn from previously unregistered businesses engaged in the informal
sector. In January 2005 the Commercial Court of Podgorica had 25,775 companies and
entrepreneurs registered. The bankruptcy procedure lasts less for small private companies,
than for medium and large enterprises. At the end of 2004, there were 145 bankruptcy
procedures recorded for small enterprises, and 85 of them finalised, while in the same period,
out of 194 bankruptcy cases started for medium and large enterprises, 134 were still
unresolved.
Businesses in Montenegro tend to avoid the courts when resolving commercial disputes. In
practice firms recur to informal practices or other institutions to enforce contracts and reduce
uncertainty in transactions. In particular, they rely heavily on pre-payments and establishing
long-lasting relationships with suppliers and customers. To address the issue on the restitution
of property confiscated or nationalised under the communist regime in the former Yugoslavia,
or indemnification, when restitution is not possible, a new Restitution Law, was adopted in
2004 though its implementation remains unclear. Although land titles registration is
computerized the Cadastral Office does not have yet reliable land information.
Banking intermediation has risen. The banking sector’s total assets amounted to 29.1% of
GDP at the end of 2004, representing an increase by 27% over year-end 2003. The three
largest banks accounted for 59%, and the combined assets of the five largest 77% of total
assets in 2004, indicating a moderate degree of concentration. The rising confidence in the
domestic banking sector was reflected in the rise of deposits by 29.5% in 2004. The lending-
deposit spread was about 7.6% in 2004. Interest rates on loans ranged from 1.5% to 36%,
while interest rate on deposits with an agreed maturity in EUR ranged from 2% to 12%.
Non-banking financial institutions play a very limited role as a source of financing for the
private sector. The two stock exchanges in Montenegro, Next Montenegro SE and
Montenegroberza SE registered a turnover of EUR 42.9 million and total capitalisation of
EUR 1,284 million in 2004. The total assets of two micro-credit financial institutions (MFIs)
in the Republic of Montenegro rose in 2004 by 24%.
Banking supervision complies broadly with international standards. Risk control is largely in
compliance with the basic “Basel principles”, but banks face high risks in Montenegro as the
institutional arrangements for collateral and creditors’ rights are underdeveloped. In
particular, a central credit register, although formally established in the Central Bank, it is not
33
yet operational. This register is intended for the exclusive use by the Central Bank and not to
be open to commercial banks or others. Thus, reliable data on the creditworthiness of
potential borrowers or customers are not available, and until 2004, when the government
adopted the Law on Mortgage, real estate could not be effectively used as instruments for
creditor protection. The right of establishment of foreign banks, including subsidiaries, is still
not fully granted.
Expenditure on education, including spending by social funds, was about 5.4% of GDP in
2004. 94.6% of this amount was spent on the wage bill, and only 5.4% was spent on non-staff
items. The student/teacher ratio is very low in many cases. To address this problem, the
Ministry of Education and Science has recently produced new norms and standards, linked to
the number of students rather than the number of classes. There continues to be a mismatch
between the vocational skills produced by schools.
Montenegro spent significant resources on active labour market programmes (ALMPs).
Around 0.6% of GDP is spent mainly on in-house services such as counselling and job search
assistance as well as on youth and direct job creation measures through a micro credit scheme.
Part of the reduction in the number of unemployed people was due to the Program for the
Continuous Encouragement of Employment and Entrepreneurship, providing loans in order to
employ previously unemployed persons. Flexible forms of employment, like part-time and
temporary work, are almost entirely absent in the Montenegrin economy. Progress with regard
to employment and social policy is part of the work towards European standards. Further
efforts to establish economic and social rights as well as to promote employment and
encourage social dialogue will contribute to improving governance and economic
performance.
Public capital investment represented 2% of GDP in 2004, up from 1.6% in 2003. Capital
investment in infrastructure accounted for only about 20% of total capital investment, or
about 0.4% of GDP. Foreign direct investment (FDI) amounted to 3.2% of GDP in 2004. This
represents an increase of 29% over 2003. FDI inflows were mostly driven by the privatisation
process and additional investment by the new owners and concentrated in services (73%) and
the acquisition of property (21%). Preliminary data point at a sharp increase of FDI during the
first half of 2005.
Enterprise restructuring is continuing. The first phase of the enterprise restructuring
programme offered post-privatisation support to 11 medium-sized enterprises, and pre-
privatisation restructuring to four large enterprises. Most of the enterprises have already
started implementing the agreed restructuring programmes. One of the most serious problems
affecting restructuring is the lack of funds to cover severance payments to redundant workers.
The sectoral composition of the economy is slowly changing. The share of employees in
private sector services grew over the past five years modestly from 29% to 31%, while in
industry it fell from 33% to 28%, and in agriculture it was stable with 3%. Services (including
public sector), manufacturing, and agriculture economic sectors represents about 60%, 25%
and 13% of GDP, respectively. Almost 60% of employment is in the public sector.
Government subsidies and net lending still account for about 1.6% of GDP, as state-owned
enterprises still lack hard budget constraints and budgetary discipline. There is still hardly any
competition policy established.
Trade openness increased, but is still modest. Export of goods and services rose in 2004 by
2% totalling 42% of GDP, and the degree of openness attained 81%. The level and change of
trade integration with the EU 25 increased from 14% in 2003 to 47.7% of total value of
exports in 2004, while imports (which represents 113% of exports) from the EU 25 also
34
increased from 39.8% in 2003 to 42.6% in 2004. The trade integration within the State Union
remains high. Serbia is, after the EU, the main trade partner of Montenegro, with a share of
31.5% of Montenegrin total exports and 30.3% of its imports.
Exports are strongly concentrated on aluminium. Driven by a rise of the average price of
aluminium by 20%, the export of aluminium grew by 44% in EUR terms.
Price competitiveness has further fallen. The continued appreciation of the EUR caused for
some Montenegrin companies, such as the Aluminium Plant Podgorica (KAP), Port Bar,
Shipyard Bijela, a tangible loss of competitiveness. Also wages grew faster than labour
productivity in 2004, causing further pressure on price competitiveness.

In both Republics, the economies operate to some degree within the framework of
functioning market principles. Further vigorous reform efforts are necessary to address the
shortcomings in competitiveness.
In Serbia, economic activity remained relatively robust in the first half of 2005. Fiscal
tightening continued, reflecting mainly strong domestic demand and improved tax
enforcement. The trade deficit narrowed in the first half of 2005 and international reserves
have improved. The completion of negotiations with the London Club of commercial
creditors in 2004 has contributed to the reduction of the level of external debt. Momentum has
been regained in respect to structural reforms and in particular further progress has been made
in restructuring and privatisation of the banking system.
However, the government’s commitment to macroeconomic stabilisation and structural
reform has been mixed. Inflation and wage pressure have mounted and external imbalances
remain high. Also labour markets continue to show very significant imbalances. The business
environment is still hampered by bureaucratic obstacles and the slow and inefficient
functioning of the judiciary system is seriously affecting economic development. The share of
the private sector in GDP remains relatively modest and the level of competition low. Despite
progress in privatisation, a competitive and dynamic private sector has not yet been
established. The government sector still absorbs a large share of resources, undermining the
free interplay of market forces and hindering an efficient resource allocation. Losses by
publicly- and socially-owned companies remain a burden on public finances.
In Montenegro economic growth strengthened. Inflation continued declining further with
price liberalisation almost complete. Privatisation has further advanced. Unemployment
declined somewhat. The budget deficit narrowed in 2004. Bank lending has risen from low
levels as confidence in the banking sector has begun to return.
However, external imbalances widened and external debt increased further. The share of the
private sector is still relatively moderate. Private sector development is still impeded by
weaknesses in the judiciary. High wage growth negatively affected export competitiveness
and employment levels.
35
3. European standards
This chapter gives an evaluation of the implementation of the Stabilisation and Association
Process. Alongside an evaluation of relevant developments in key areas since the April 2005
Feasibility Report and the first European Partnership, the section gives an overall assessment
of Serbia and Montenegro’s progress towards approximating European standards and of what
remains to be done. This section also incorporates an assessment of Serbia and Montenegro’s
administrative capacity in its various aspects. Serbia and Montenegro must upgrade its
institutions, management capacity and administrative and judicial systems, at the level of the
State Union, the two Republic and at a lower level, with a view to making further progress
towards meeting European standards. This requires a well-functioning and stable public
administration built on an efficient and impartial civil service, and an independent and
efficient judicial system.
In the Feasibility Report, the Commission found that:
“The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro and its two Republics have progressed in the
implementation of the European Partnership’s priorities and should be in a position to
liberalise the movement of goods, workers, services and capital with the European Union,
possibly with different liberalisation schedules. Both Serbia and Montenegro have
embarked on trade liberalisation with their neighbours.
Negotiation and implementation of the demanding Stabilisation and Association
Agreement (SAA) obligations will constitute a challenge. Given the substantial amount of
bilateral trade, the SAA will require significant commitments on the side of both Serbia
and Montenegro – since neither is a WTO member - in political, administrative and
financial terms. The process of bilateral trade liberalisation with the EC would require
further efforts in structural reforms, to reinforce both Republics’ capacity to resist the
competitive pressure arising from an SAA, improve export performance and reduce
current account deficits. One of the key elements to consider in this respect is for both
Republics to possess the necessary standards and certification capacities to trade with the
EU. The Republics will also need to ensure that the objective of trade liberalisation is
understood and shared by the domestic economic stakeholders.
Both Serbia and Montenegro must prove that they are able to continue to sustain their
commitments to reform and to regional trade liberalisation in order to be able to function
as reliable long-term partners in the implementation of an SAA. In particular, they should
respect the obligations and procedures agreed under the FTAs, and an ability to comply
with the “standstill” condition under the Community’s autonomous trade measures.
Serbia and, in particular, Montenegro will have to improve the capacity to conduct three
separate negotiation processes at the same time, i.e. the SAA, the WTO accession process
and the regional process for further development of the FTAs. Both Republics will also
need to establish solid consultation mechanisms to involve domestic stakeholders in the
process.
Sustained efforts will be necessary to improve legislative and administrative capacities in
all areas in the future Agreement.
Both Republics should continue to develop - and avoid creating new barriers to -
movement of goods, services, persons and capital on the Serbian and Montenegrin
market. In this context, the two republican Central Banks will have to complete the
agreement on a fully operational system of corresponding accounts to ensure free flow of
payments within the State Union.
36
Following the adoption of the new legislation on Intellectual Property Rights, Serbia and
Montenegro must adopt and implement comprehensive strategies to adequately enforce
the legislation and protect IPR. Serbia, and in particular Montenegro, should pursue
their efforts to create transparent and open public procurement procedures ensuring fair
and non discriminatory conditions of competition for EU suppliers. In the area of
competition, both Republics should adopt legislative and administrative frameworks
including anti-trust, mergers, state aid, and liberalisation and state monopolies. The two
Republics should continue to strengthen the administrative capacity to fully implement the
agreement in the area of customs (including rules of origin) and taxation in order to
raise revenue collection and compensate for the impact of the agreement on the level of
their customs duties. The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro as well as both
Republics should strengthen considerably their institutional capacities in the area of
statistics. The electronic communications sector policy needs to be further developed
towards liberalisation. Furthermore, as regards transport and energy, Serbia and
Montenegro should ensure the interconnection and interoperability of appropriate
infrastructure, and implement their commitments under the South East Europe Energy
community treaty.
In the area of justice and home affairs, the establishment of the State Union Court and
the restriction of military jurisdiction are positive developments that need to be followed
by effective implementation. As regards visa asylum, migration and integrated border
management, the concrete articulation of competences between the State Union and the
Republics remains problematic despite some recent progress. While the reform of the
judiciary has started in both Republics, the independence as well as the efficiency of the
judiciary remains weak. The police and security services are also areas were legislative
and administrative reforms are long awaited. The fight against organised crime, money
laundering and corruption, which are serious challenges to the rule of law, is at a rather
early stage.”
3.1 Internal market
3.1.1. Free movement of goods

No particular developments can be reported in the field of standardisation and certification.
The State Union needs to continue its preparations for new legislation on standardisation,
accreditation, metrology and technical requirements for products. These laws aim at ensuring
compatibility with the relevant EU acquis, in particular as regards free movement of goods.
For further progress at sectoral level it is crucial to establish a sound horizontal legislative
framework. Key functions such as standardisation, accreditation, conformity assessment,
certification and market surveillance should be segregated. New legislation is also being
developed at the level of the Republics, for instance on product quality systems and
environmental requirements.
The Serbia and Montenegro standards body) is a Partner Standardization Body in the
European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and has in February 2005 applied to become
an affiliate member of the electrotechnical standardization office CENELEC. The progress of
Serbia and Montenegro standards body is hampered particularly by the lack of CEN affiliate
status, the lack of transposed and implemented European Standards, the lack of valid legal
framework for standardisation and the continued existence of mandatory standards from the
former Yugoslavia.
37
No progress can be reported in the area of metrology. As regards accreditation, the national
accreditation body is an associate member of European Co-operation for Accreditation EA.
As regards market surveillance, the existing system in Serbia is based on pre-market control
of products. There is a need to establish an appropriate market surveillance structure based on
adequate product legislation required under the new approach directives and phase out
contradictory pre-market controls. In Montenegro, progress has been made in adopting
horizontal legislation. Product surveillance is performed in fields where legislation is
established. Surveillance activities are regulated by the 2003 Law of State Surveillance.
The two Republics are making progress in aligning their legislation with the EU legislation.
However, EU directives in New or Old Approach sectors have not yet been transposed in the
legislation of Serbia and Montenegro. Both Montenegro and Serbia need to avoid creating
further barriers to trade and to strengthen administrative capacity. Internal consultation
mechanisms, screening and notification of draft technical regulations prior to their adoption
need to be introduced to avoid non-tariff barriers. A variety of areas (e.g. quality legislation,
rules on chemicals and packaging) are still regulated by the Republics in a rather
uncoordinated way.
In the area of consumer protection, Serbia has recently adopted a new framework law and a
new law on advertising, while the Montenegrin Parliament still needs to adopt a similar
Consumer law. Overall, despite positive legislative steps, consumer protection both in Serbia
and in Montenegro still remains weak. Administrative capacity needs to be strengthened in
both Republics to correctly implement and enforce their respective new laws.
3.1.2. Movement of persons, services and right of establishment

No substantial developments can be reported in the areas of movement of persons and the
right of establishment.
As for the freedom to provide services, good progress can be reported in Serbia, which
adopted a package of new laws in July 2005 in the area of financial services. A Law on
Deposit Insurance law introduces compulsory bank insurance of private persons’ deposits in
the case of bankruptcy. All banks are obliged to pay a premium which amounts to 0.3% of the
minimum capital required by the law to establish a bank. A separate law established a new
Agency for Deposit Insurance to manage the Fund for Deposit Insurance. Serbia has also
amended its Law on Banks and other financial organisations, imposing an obligation on banks
to insure their deposits with the Agency for Deposit Insurance and establishing procedures for
withdrawing a bank’s operating licence. A new Law on Bankruptcy and Liquidation of Banks
and Insurance Companies was also adopted to regulate the procedures for bankruptcy and the
closure of banks and insurance companies.
Serbia also amended its Law on Insurance, introducing stricter control of the work of
insurance companies and tightening up conditions for establishing new insurance companies.
The amendments regulate the privatisation procedure of insurance companies and further
develop financial supervision by defining the National Bank of Serbia’s (NBS) role in
supervising insurance companies. Since 2004, when responsibility for insurance supervision
was transferred to the NBS, it has revoked the licences of 15 insurance companies and
ordered their liquidation, while three others have voluntarily agreed to cease operating.
In conclusion, although both Republics are making progress in these areas, sustained efforts
will be necessary to improve legislative and administrative capacities to enable both Serbia
and Montenegro to assume future SAA obligations. In this context it is also important that the
Republics take steps to eliminate any discrimination against workers legally residing in the
38
country. Both Republics should continue to develop - and avoid creating new barriers to – the
free movement of services and the right of establishment on the common Serbian and
Montenegrin market.
3.1.3. Free movement of capital

There have been limited developments in this area in Serbia and Montenegro. No progress
was made in ensuring the free movement of capital within the State Union.
In Serbia, foreign exchange transactions are currently governed by the 2002 Foreign
Exchange Law. Current payments have been liberalised, as have foreign direct investment and
the repatriation of profits, but short-term capital movements are still restricted. Restrictions
on foreign ownership and capital investment still persist. In the insurance sector, for instance,
foreign natural persons or legal entities may found an insurance company only as a joint
venture with a Serbian partner, and such a company is not allowed to carry out reinsurance
activities outside Serbia. In June 2005, the rules on transfers by diplomatic and consular
missions were relaxed.
In Montenegro, current payments have been liberalised, as have foreign direct investment and
the repatriation of profits. A new Foreign Exchange Law and a law on foreign current and
capital transactions further liberalising capital movements were adopted in July 2005. In the
field of payment systems, the previous government-controlled clearing and settlement
agency and the payment and clearing system in Montenegro were abolished and a new inter-
banking payment system established.
In both Republics, the acquisition of real estate by non-residents is still subject to a reciprocity
requirement based on treatment in the respective country of origin.
In their efforts to approximate EU legislation in this area, Serbia and Montenegro need to
develop plans for full liberalisation of capital movements. The two republican Central Banks
will have to complete the agreement on a fully operational system of corresponding accounts
to ensure the free flow of payments within the State Union.
3.1.4. Customs and taxation

Some progress has been made in the area of custom rules and taxation.
Serbia adopted amendments to the Customs Law and the Customs Tariffs Law in July 2005.
The tariff structures have been harmonised with the EU structures, called combined
nomenclature. Serbia started electronic lodging of declarations in June 2005.
Montenegro adopted amendments to the Customs Law and the Customs Service Law in April
2005. The law on free zones has been adopted.
Following the introduction of VAT in January 2005, Serbia is currently reforming its tax
administration introducing a new legal framework and improving the staff skills. Serbia has
amended its legislation on tax procedures and tax administration introducing new rules to
prevent fiscal evasion and increase the tax discipline. The law on excise has also been
amended in June 2005, expanding the quantity of excise goods and changing rates.
Furthermore the Parliament adopted amendments to the VAT law, including the introduction
of VAT refund for donor assistance. Serbia is also continuing to implement its strategic plan
for the improvement of the administrative capacity of the tax authorities.
39
Montenegro has introduced changes in tax legislation which allowed the reduction of the
rates of personal income tax and company profit tax. Tax administration has been
strengthened.
The administrative and operational capacity of the customs authorities of the two
Republics is improving. Both customs adminstrations have established units dealing with
origin of goods, enforcement and internal affairs. Reforms of the customs adminsitrations
include staff management systems, control policies and approximation of procedures to EU
standards. The legislative alignment to the EU acquis is progressing although important areas
such as transit procedures and warehouses are not yet properly aligned. Serbia and
Montenegro have started to carry out post-clearance controls. Memoranda of Understanding
have been signed with neighbouring customs administrations.
However, the adminstrative capacity needs to be further stengthened, especially in the area of
control of origin and sustained efforts are needed to continue approximation of the two
Republics’ customs legislation to the EU acquis. Further alignment to EC customs standards
is needed, in particular as regard simplified procedures and risk analysis. The lack of skilled
customs officers, IT systems and risk analysis are areas which should be dealt with as a matter
of priority.
In the area of taxation both Republics must continue to tackle the problems of the grey
economy and to broaden the tax base through comprehensive tax reforms. This implies a
further improvement of the collection and control capacity and further progress of the
implementation of tax laws. More efforts should be done in order to tackle the important
problem of fraud in the area of excise duties. The fight against corruption also needs to be
pursued and reinforced in order to achieve a non-discriminatory application of tax laws.
Further alignment of the legislation with the EU acquis will need to be carried out. There is
also a need to carry out a legislative gap analysis with the EU acquis. Both Republics should
also commit to the principles of the Code of Conduct on business taxation. As a first step they
need to carry out a gap analysis aimed at identifying the existing measures which could
contradict those principles
3.1.5. Competition
Serbia and Montenegro has made some progress in this area.
In the area of anti-trust, Serbia has adopted in September 2005 a competition law. Under the
law a new competition authority is envisaged, which would be able to draw on the experience
and staff from the former Antimonopoly Commission of Yugoslavia. Montenegro still has to
adopt such legislation.
Both Republics need to ensure fully independent competition authorities which are equipped
to ensure efficient enforcement practice, giving priority to cases with a serious effect on the
market and ensuring deterrent sanctioning of infringements. Both Republics also need to
develop their competition advocacy, by adopting a coherent horizontal approach to promote
competition policy in the fields of market liberalisation, privatisation, restructuring, the
screening of draft legislation regarding competition aspects, improved public procurement
practices and an overall strengthening of the rule of law, as well as by raising the awareness
of competition rules and their economic benefits.
In the area of state aid control, both Republics have set up structures within their respective
Ministries of Finance in order to monitor state aid and prepare for a control regime. In Serbia
40
a first state aid report, covering 2003 and part of 2004, has been adopted. Montenegro
recently adopted a similar report for the same period.
Montenegro and Serbia need to strengthen their new state aid structures and ensure full
transparency, by establishing a comprehensive aid inventory and reporting system for all aid
measures in force, based on an EU-harmonised state aid definition. Gradually, each Republic
will also need to set up a system of ex-ante control of all new aid measures and alignment of
existing aid measures, through an operationally independent state aid authority, with the
power to authorise or prohibit all aid measures and to order recovery of unlawfully granted
aid.
In conclusion, Serbia and Montenegro have taken the first preparatory steps towards setting
up republican regimes for anti-trust and state aid control, but efforts should be intensified in
order to make these regimes operational.
3.1.6. Public procurement

In the field of public procurement, there have been no legislative or administrative
developments in Serbia Montenegro has made some limited progress, by including the State
Union institutions in the procurement rules. The State Union Ministry of Defence and Serbia
and Montenegro Army are included since in the list of contracting authorities published by the
Commission for Public Procurement. Moreover, preparations have started in Montenegro for
enacting a new public procurement law.
Serbia, and in particular Montenegro, need to continue aligning their legislation with the
acquis. Key aspects should be addressed such as scope of application, definitions, respect of
the main procurement principles, thresholds, procedures, eligibility, qualification and award
criteria, publication requirements and independent review mechanisms. Administrative
capacity to implement and enforce procurement legislation needs to be considerably
strengthened. Both Republics should ensure that operators from one Republic can benefit
from national treatment in the other and that State Union institutions are covered by statutory
procurement rules.
3.1.7. Intellectual property law

Some legislative progress has been registered in Serbia and Montenegro. In July 2005
Montenegro adopted a framework law for the implementation of intellectual property rights
(IPRs). The Montenegrin Government also adopted a decree on customs procedures which
strengthens the protection of IPRs.
Serbia adopted a new law in the fight against high-tech crime which also improves the
protection of IPRs. It establishes a new organisational structure and sets up a special
prosecutor’s office with responsibility for the issue. After an intensive period of adoption of
legislation in the field of intellectual and industrial property rights at State Union level, the
Republics should now set up proper structures for implementation and enforcement of the
laws. Enforcement is gradually improving but is still very limited due to administrative
capacity and financial constraints (e.g. seized goods stocked in too few warehouses, recycling
and lack of destruction of counterfeited products seized). In March 2005, the Serbian
Government announced that action would be taken to “root out” piracy and counterfeiting
under the slogan “zero tolerance for piracy”. However, the implementation of enforcement
actions needs to be vigorously pursued. The Republics also need to ensure that the State
Union Intellectual Property Office has the necessary administrative capacity, in terms of both
staff and budget, to perform its tasks. Moreover, the administrative capacity of all collecting
41
societies should be consistently enhanced and additional societies will need to be established
to ensure appropriate remuneration of rightholders.
The expertise and capacity of trade and market inspectorates, as well as law enforcement
agencies (tax and economic police, customs) to deal with IPR infringements should also be
reinforced, and coordination between all agencies needs to be improved.
3.1.8. Statistics
Some progress has been made in both Montenegro and Serbia.
For demographic and social statistics, both Republics are making progress in developing a
Household Budget Survey. Montenegro also developed a harmonised Labour Force Survey,
of which the results were published June 2005. For macro-economic statistics, Serbia has
disseminated a first set of quarterly national accounts while Montenegro has made good
progress in the development of a Consumer Price Index as well as conducted a pilot survey on
import and export price indices.
In the area of agriculture and fishery statistics, Montenegro has made some progress in
livestock statistics. Due to scarce human resources, plans for development of other
agricultural statistics were postponed. Both Serbia and Montenegro have initiated the
development of a Farm Account Data Network by conducting study visits.
The statistical infrastructure, the legal basis and the management capacity have improved.
However, given the complexity of the national statistical system with two republican offices
and one for the State Union level as well as the limited resources especially for the State
Union and in Montenegro, progress is slow. There is an insufficient level of coordination
among the statistical offices at the State Union level and the level of the Republics. The
republican statistical offices have not come equally far in the progress of harmonisation, and
they are therefore using different standards and classifications when producing sector
statistics. All three statistical offices, and especially MONSTAT, need to develop statistics in
all sectors. When more statistics exist in both Republics, it will also be possible to better
aggregate statistics on the State Union level.
3.2 Sectoral policies
3.2.1. Industry and SME

Both Montenegro and Serbia have made some progress.
SME policy and the business environment are improving in Montenegro. A new mortgage
law has been adopted, which should, for example, facilitate access to finance for companies.
The Republic has also continued to make progress with the implementation of the European
Charter for Small Enterprises.
In general, there are numerous training and counselling activities for SMEs, and the local
consultancy market is steadily developing and gaining recognition. Limited progress has been
made on business advocacy/ representation, which is developing in Montenegro, but still on
an ad-hoc, case-by-case basis. Although a specific agency for SME development (SMEDA)
exists, a permanent, formal and transparent system or institution for dialogue with the SME
sector still needs to be developed.
As regards financial instruments, limited micro-credit and guarantee funds are available, and
two state-owned funds provide loans to businesses at favourable rates (the Development Fund
42
of Montenegro and the Employment Office when new jobs are created). A new Investment
Promotion Agency has also been set up and its director has been appointed.
Montenegro has started to look at rationalising and speeding up licensing procedures at
municipal level through a pilot project, which, once mainstreamed in all municipalities, could
further modernise the whole company start-up process.
Serbia, too, has made good progress in the area of SME policy and the business environment.
The implementation of the European Charter for Small Enterprises continues through the
consolidation and expansion of entrepreneurship learning in education and training. There are
numerous skill development programmes for current and would-be entrepreneurs. The
implementation of the new Law on the Registration of Business Entities is helping to
modernise and rationalise company registration procedures. Since early 2005, about 68,000
companies have re-registered. In July 2005 Serbia also amended its Law on Registration of
Economic Entities, introducing new provisions on the contents of the register.
An information technology society strategy was adopted at the beginning of 2005, which
includes plans to develop online access for companies and e-business. There is also some
progress to be noted in the development of social dialogue in Serbia, with the setting up of the
National Social and Economic Council in March 2005.
Serbia adopted new legislation on tourism in May 2005.
As far as administrative capacity is concerned, the Agency for the Development of Small and
Medium Sized Enterprises (ASMEE) is the main government agency working under the
Ministry of Economy to support the development of the SME sector. ASMEE has 100
employees, 85 of whom are working in regional agencies. In both Republics, the use of
research and innovation policy as a means to support economic reform and capacity building
is still low.
In the area of corporate accounting and auditing, Serbia will need to adopt a new law on
accounting and auditing to address a number of weaknesses in the current legislation in
relation to the quality of financial information and other shortcomings in the legal and
regulatory framework. Enforcement of financial reporting standards is generally weak. The
procedures for the approval and oversight of the auditing profession need to be significantly
improved and the number of qualified auditors should be increased.
Serbia and Montenegro will also have to develop an official standard-setting body and needs
to update translations of the international accounting standards. Effective structures need to be
established to ensure the development of the accounting and auditing professions.
3.2.2. Agriculture and fisheries

Some progress has been made in the field of agriculture.
In terms of administrative capacity, the Ministry of Agriculture has recently strengthened its
capacities by establishing a policy unit, which drafted the recently adopted strategy for the
agricultural sector in Serbia.
In the veterinary sector, Serbia passed new framework veterinary laws in September 2005.It
should now adopt implementing legislation and strengthen the established veterinary office.
The upgrading of Serbian laboratories should continue. The implementation of a system for
identification and registration of animals and their movements continues to make progress. In
the phytosanitary sector, new laws on seeds and planting material have also been adopted.
43
Montenegro is also working on an overall strategy for the agriculture sector. Montenegro’s
Veterinary Law, adopted in 2004, enabled the establishment of the Veterinary Directorate and
veterinary laboratory (for food quality control) to deal with consumer health and protection.
The veterinary laboratory is now operational, but needs further strengthening. It is in the
process of accreditation. The sanitary inspection service is also responsible for quality control.
In the area of fisheries, no particular developments have taken place apart from questions
related to tariffs. Montenegro was added last year to the list of countries from which fish can
be imported into the EU. A more determined effort is needed to move closer to European
standards under the Common Fisheries Policy, in particular in the areas of resource
management, inspection and control and in market and structural policies.
In the phytosanitary and veterinary sectors, both legislation and administrative capacities will
have to be further aligned with European standards. Serbia should also urgently adopt the new
food safety framework law and reorganise food-chain laboratories and sanitary inspections.
Further improved coordination is needed within the government to find a coherent approach
to the rules and regulations in the phytosanitary and veterinary sectors. Montenegro will need
to establish administrative structures in the phytosanitary area. In the area of fisheries,
Montenegro needs to strengthen its laboratories further in order to explore its full export
potential. Both Republics should also pursue work on adopting new legislation on plant
protection.
3.2.3 Environment
There has been some limited progress in Serbia and Montenegro’s efforts to approximate
European standards in the environmental area.
Both Republics have succeeded in integrating the environment into other policies in the
energy field. By adhering to the Energy Community Treaty signed in October 2005, Serbia
and Montenegro both agreed to respect EU environmental legislation and requirements
relevant to the energy field.
As regards horizontal legislation, Serbia has taken steps to implement the Convention on
Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and access to Justice in
Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention). Public participation in decision making is
foreseen in certain provisions of legislation on environmental impact assessment, strategic
environmental assessment and integrated pollution prevention and control. The Law on access
to information of public interest was adopted. In Montenegro, public hearings on draft laws
are obligatory. The Environmental Protection Fund in Serbia became operational in 2005,
with initial funding from the Ministry of Finance. Own resources such as environmental
charges (as the existing ones on biodiversity products) are expected to be the financial sources
for the Environmental Protection Fund in the future.
In the field of waste management, Serbia is pressing ahead with its legal reform programme
on issues such as packaging waste and hazardous waste export. Serbia continued to
implement its Waste Management Strategy adopted in 2003. Montenegro has adopted a
National Policy on Waste Management and Strategy on Waste Management, which are now
in the implementation phase.
Limited progress can be reported in the field of water quality. Montenegro adopted a Master
Plan and Feasibility Study on Waste Water Treatment for the central and northern region and
a strategy for the coastal region. Poor water and sanitation remain key challenges for both
Republics.
44
No new legislative developments are to be reported on approximation to European standards
in air quality, nature protection, chemicals and genetically modified organisms, and
noise. In Montenegro the Environmental Monitoring Programme for 2005, adopted in early
2005, but not yet in implementation, is devoted to air, soil, water, ionising radiation,
biodiversity and noise. Serbia has pursued approximation to EU environmental legislation,
with important steps forward as regards horizontal legislation (environmental impact
assessment) and integrated pollution prevention and control. In Serbia as well as in
Montenegro, approximation to European standards in those areas where draft legislation
already exists should be actively pursued, so that the process can be completed in the near
future. This also applies to the strategies currently in preparation, and which are foreseen for
adoption by end 2006.
However, implementation and enforcement need to be considerably strengthened, notably
through the adoption of implementing strategies and plans and institutional capacity building.
Both Republics need to pay attention to strengthening administrative capacity. Following
adoption in late 2004 of the Serbian Law on the System of Environmental Protection, Serbia
now needs to further strengthen the Agency for Environmental Protection and the
Environmental Protection Fund. Enforcement of the newly adopted legislation will require
significant efforts in both Serbia and Montenegro. Financing plans have to be developed as
regards investments required to meet European standards, particularly in the field of water
and solid waste, and to tackle pollution at existing hot-spots.
3.2.4. Transport policy

Both Serbia and Montenegro have made some progress in the transport field.
At regional level and to ensure their proper connection to the trans-European transport
network, Serbia and Montenegro are participating actively in the implementation of the June
2004 Memorandum of Understanding on the South East Europe Core Regional Transport
Network, including the Transport Observatory (SEETO). They also participated in the High
Level Group on the extension of the major trans-European transport axes to the neighbouring
countries and regions, established in 2004.
Regarding road transport, Montenegro has established a Directorate for Roads, following
the adoption last year of the Law on Roads. This body is responsible for management,
maintenance and construction. The fact that the Directorate for Highways will remain in
existence until the end of year 2005 may cause an overlapping of competences between the
two bodies. A road infrastructure maintenance plan was adopted in May 2005.
In the area of rail transport, Serbia adopted a new law on railways in early 2005. Some
progress has been made in the restructuring and privatisation of the state rail company. The
new law constitutes a major step towards alignment of national law with the EU railway
acquis, despite some uncertainties as to separation of infrastructure management and rail
service provision. The law requires compensation for public service obligations and setting up
an independent office, which is to function as both regulatory body and safety authority.
In the area of Inland Waterways, Serbia is working on a Masterplan for inland navigation,
with the help of the European Agency for Reconstruction. The opening of the bridge over the
Danube in Novi Sad, which was reconstructed with EU assistance, has eliminated one of the
main bottlenecks for navigation on the Danube. The temporary pontoon bridge, which only
allowed for a limited number of passages, was removed.
With regard to air transport, Serbia and Montenegro has established a joint Civil Aviation
Directorate and an Agency for Air Traffic Control. Serbia and Montenegro has initialled a
45
“Horizontal Agreement” with the European Community on certain aspects of air services and
is pursuing negotiations on a European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) Agreement with the
EU. The present regulatory situation is fairly traditional and out of step with a liberal market
approach foreseen by the ECAA Agreement. Accident investigation is not set up in an
independent way. A programme for incorporating EU legislation is underway. The
recommendations of the ECAA Assessment Visit carried out in June 2005 should be
implemented.
With regard to maritime transport, Serbia and Montenegro are contracting parties to several
International Maritime Organisation conventions. It remains to be confirmed whether the
most relevant of these conventions, from the acquis point of view, are properly implemented.
Serbia and Montenegro have fulfilled their international obligations under the SOLAS
Convention which are relevant for maritime security.
Although progress has been recorded, both Republics need to further review their legislation
to assure progressive alignment with EC legislation and EU transport policy, in particular in
relation to overall liberalisation and the equal treatment of foreign operators, as well as to
technical and safety standards.
3.2.5. Energy
Both Serbia and Montenegro have made progress.
Following the adoption last year of a new Serbian Energy Law, the Serbian Energy Agency
became operational as the regulatory authority with its board approved by Parliament. The
Parliament has also approved the Serbian energy development strategy for the period up to
2015. The strategy provides a new framework for the sector and includes institutional,
restructuring and planning elements.
The unbundling process of the state electricity utility Electric Power System of Serbia (EPS)
continues. EPS is in charge of generation, distribution and sales. A newly established entity is
responsible for the energy network and grid management. A transmission system and market
operator still need to be established.
The Serbian Energy Efficiency Agency was established under a decree from 2002. A strategy
for investments in the district heating sector, bringing greater effectiveness, efficiency and
reliability, should also be adopted.
In Montenegro, the Energy Regulatory Agency became operational in 2004, and some
progress has been achieved in restructuring the electricity sector. The Electric Power Industry
of Montenegro remains the only energy company, with 67% of its shares owned by the state.
Generation, transmission, distribution and supply functions have been unbundled, but
separation of its management and accounting functions is behind schedule. A new energy
development strategy should be finalised soon. While a new pricing methodology is still in
preparation, tariffs have already been increasing towards cost recovery levels. The sector
continues to suffer from a permanent deficit in cash flows and working capital. Collection
rates need to be improved. Further restructuring, including a social programme to cope with
redundancies, is needed.
Both Republics have played an active role in the establishment of the Energy Community
Treaty. The treaty is aimed at creating a regionally integrated energy market for electricity
and natural gas as part of the wider EU market. It was signed in October 2005. The
implementation of commitments made in the framework of the Athens Memorandum, which
preceded the Treaty, is progressing slowly in Serbia and Montenegro.
46
Based on an energy efficiency strategy completed in 2004, a department for energy efficiency
was created within the Ministry of Economy. A strategy for the development of Montenegro’s
considerable hydroelectric potential should also be elaborated. Legislation on radiation
protection and nuclear safety needs to be developed in both Republics.
Both Republics are continuing to make progress in the energy sector, and core legislation is in
place. However, Serbia and Montenegro still faces major challenges, and the operational and
financial situation of the sector remains poor. Administrative capacities need to be
strengthened. Many key issues remain unsolved, namely maintenance, modernisation and
enhancement of the infrastructure, and the creation of additional capacity.
3.2.6. Information society and media

Some progress has been registered in Serbia and Montenegro as regards electronic
communications and information technologies, although there is still some overlap between
State Union and republican laws, which creates a degree of regulatory confusion in the sector.
In Serbia the exclusive monopoly of fixed lines ended in June 2005. The Telecommunications
Law was adopted in 2003, but its application has been delayed until August 2005 as the
appointment of the Management Board of the Telecommunications Agency took place only in
May 2005. The Telecommunications Agency is not yet operational due to a lack of financing.
Without an operational Agency it is impossible to implement aspects of liberalisation and to
introduce competition into the market. Serbia has not yet adopted its strategy for the
development of the electronic communications sector and needs to amend its legislation to
align it with European standards.
In Montenegro, the privatisation process has been finalised with a Hungarian
telecommunication company buying 51% of the state’s shares in Telekom Montenegro. A
telecommunication development plan was adopted by the Government in June 2005.
Montenegrin policy-making and development of the sector have improved, although some
issues such as cost accounting and accounting separation still need to be addressed by the
regulatory authority. The telecommunications infrastructure is broadly adequate. However, to
improve the situation in the market and to offer better conditions to consumers, important
elements of competition, such as carrier election, number portability and unbundled access to
the local loop, need to be introduced. Tariff rebalancing has not taken place and the
interconnection charges in place are very high, which is a barrier to market entry.
In the area of information society services, Serbia and Montenegro has signed but not
ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime. It will need to align its legislation
with the European standards on electronic commerce and conditional access services.
As regards audiovisual policy n Montenegro the Broadcasting Council developed a strategy
on the use of the spectrum that was implemented through a tender for licences completed in
June 2005. The Montenegrin Broadcasting Council approved the Rule Book on advertising in
electronic media.
In Serbia, the lack of implementation of the Telecommunications Law and, as a consequence,
the absence of a plan for frequencies that could permit the Broadcasting Council to issue
licences or to have some control over the broadcasters, together with the lack of a proper
budget hamper the normal functioning of the Broadcasting Council. Serbia amended its
Broadcasting Law in August 2005. The amendments, which were widely contested by
professional ;organisations, provide for the extension of the deadline for the transformation of
the Serbian Radio Television RTS from its present government-controlled role into a public
47
broadcasting service to March 2006, as well as the postponement of the privatisation of
broadcasters operated by local government to July 2007. The amendments also envisage the
introduction of an obligatory subscription fee to be levied for Radio Television Serbia. (see
also the paragraph on freedom of expression and media in section 1.2 Human rights and
protection of minorities – Civil and political rights)
3.2.7. Financial control

As regards financial control, an area that was not covered in the Feasibility Report, Serbia and
Montenegro is invited to upgrade its Public Internal Financial Control (PIFC) system in line
with international internal control standards for the public sector, international internal audit
standards and EU best practice. More specifically, Serbia and Montenegro should develop
decentralised managerial accountability supported by an adequate financial management and
control system and by functionally independent internal audit.
In order to benefit from a harmonisation of financial management and control as well as
internal audit system throughout the public sector, Serbia and Montenegro should establish a
central harmonisation unit (CHU). The CHU should be a central directorate within the
Ministry of Finance reporting directly to the Minister of Finance on development and progress
in the field of PIFC. The CHU needs to be responsible for discussing the principles of PIFC
across the Public sector, draft a strategy paper to be discussed and approved at the
government level, draft and implement the necessary legislation and the organisational
infrastructure as well as for co-ordination of methodology and training of managers and staff
involved in financial management and control and functionally independent internal audit.
The tasks of the CHU should be further developed in line with the implementation of the
changes to the PIFC system.
These activities will affect the legal and institutional frameworks as well as human resources
over a longer period. A strong and continuous commitment and support from the highest
political and managerial level is therefore necessary.
Serbia and Montenegro is invited ensure an operational external audit system in accordance
with the declarations of the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions.
3.2.8 Other policies

Progress with regard to employment and social policy is part of the work towards European
standards. Further efforts to establish economic and social rights as well as to promote
employment and encourage social dialogue will contribute to improving governance and
economic performance.
3.3 Justice, freedom and security
3.3.1. Visa, border control, asylum and migration

The two Republics continue to operate different visa regimes based on different travel
document requirements, while the State Union has to implement these two different regimes
in the State Union Consular Offices. Montenegrin visa rules concerning nationals of the
Russian Federation, Ukraine and Albania are not in line with the acquis. The enforcement
situation for these two different regimes as regards travel between the two Republics remains
unclear (previous police controls on persons at the airport seem to now to have been replaced
by check of passengers lists).While at State Union level efforts are being made to harmonise
48
the visa regimes, there is a need to pass the requisite coherent legislation on visa policy at the
level of the Republics and subsequently establish a uniform system throughout the country.
As regards border management, in Serbia the transfer of border control from the State Union
army to the police has been delayed, reportedly owing to problems with logistics and
equipment. Needs assessment and planning of the transfer process have to be improved in
order to ensure proper planning of the implementation of the integrated border management
system. Serbia is drawing up its national strategy on integrated border control. Montenegro’s
strategy is being finalised. These strategies need to be approved and implemented without
delay. Local integrated border management coordinators have been appointed, but the
question of appointing a coordinator at State Union level, to ensure uniform implementation,
remains unresolved. In Montenegro, the law on state border is pending and the Government
has enacted a Decree on Border Crossings Management.
In the field of asylum, the two Republics have not yet adopted the laws that are necessary for
the implementation of the State Union framework law. While the number of asylum seekers is
limited - in the period January-August 2005 only 35 asylum seekers were registered at the
UNHCR Office - both Republics need to have a system in place in order at least to meet
Geneva Convention requirements. In both Republics, the implementing asylum legislation is
being prepared in co-operation with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR). The UNHCR continues to handle most asylum cases, as there are still no
systematic mechanisms to identify asylum seekers at land, sea or air borders. The
establishment of these mechanisms is mainly contingent upon the adoption of the legislation
at the level of the Republics. In Serbia, there is only one reception centre for asylum seekers
and refugees, with very limited capacity and inadequate infrastructure. In Montenegro at
present there are no reception capacities, though these are planned for 2005.
As regards migration, illegal immigration continues to be a problem. There were 1053 illegal
entries in Serbia in 2004, compared to 862 in 2003. The latest figure for 2005 is 486. In
Montenegro the number of illegal entries recorded in the first five months of 2005 was 238,
compared to 94 in 2004. After the adoption of amended Criminal Code in Serbia in
September 2005, in both Republics the legislation classify human trafficking and separately
trafficking in children, slavery, transport of enslaved persons, production of forged documents
and facilitating illegal border crossing as criminal offences. The existing cooperation at the
working level between the National Teams responsible for fighting human trafficking in the
Republics needs to be strengthened. The twelve readmission agreements that have been
initialled so far (e.g. with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Romania, the
Czech Republic, Poland, France and Great Britain) need to be signed, ratified and fully
enforced, along with the 15 readmission agreements which are in force since 2003. Further
efforts are needed, notably to resolve the problem of the readmission and integration of Roma
people.
3.3.2. Money laundering

Fight against money laundering is dealt with in wider strategies developed by the Republics to
fight against corruption and organised crime. The relevant legislation on fight against money
laundering is in force in Montenegro since March 2005. Under this legislation, attorneys at
law and currency exchange offices are obliged to report suspicious transactions. Banks cannot
invoke financial secrecy to prevent the reporting of suspicious transactions. In Serbia the new
law on Money laundering, covering a broader range of laundering activities, including a more
exhaustive list of obligors and regulations on data processing under the official secrecy rules
with the view to alignment with EU standards has not yet been adopted.
49
Some positive developments are taking place in the meantime: the Financial Intelligence
Units are fully operative in both Republics, and they signed the Memorandum of
Understanding on cooperation. In Serbia, the Financial Intelligence Unit, which operates on
the basis of the 2002 Money Laundering Law, has concluded a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Central Bank, which supervises currency exchange offices. A similar
Memorandum of Understanding with the Customs Office is being finalised. In Montenegro,
the Financial Intelligence Unit is cooperating with the Ministry of Interior, Prosecution
Offices and Tax administration. A Memorandum of Understanding with customs authorities is
under way. Montenegro’s Financial Intelligence Unit was admitted to the EGMONT group in
July 2005, following positive evaluations by MoneyVal.
According to the available statistics on cases initiated and processed, the enforcement of the
anti-money laundering legislation needs serious improvement, in particular in the context of
the perceived scale of the problem of corruption, organised crime, the large informal economy
and the high level of cash transactions.
3.3.3. Drugs
Serbia and Montenegro is considered to be a major transit point for crime networks, but a
relatively small market for drug dealers. There are indications that there is production of
marihuana. The consumption of synthetic drugs is increasing. Both Republics have made
efforts in this field and should examine their approach in the light of the recently adopted EU
Drugs Strategy for 2005-2012 and the EU Drugs Action Plan for 2005-2008. The
implementation of international conventions and national legislation needs to be speeded up.
Serbia has not yet adopted a national anti-drugs strategy. Once repressive means are in place,
the focus will also need to turn to prevention measures. Appropriate legislation on precursors
and the necessary technical means to identify the respective substances is in the adoption
procedure. Operational inter-agency cooperation (Police, Judiciary, Ministry of Health),
though informal, is good. In Montenegro, legislation on precursors is in force, but
international cooperation on fighting the production and trade in precursors needs to be
enhanced.
3.3.4. Police
In Serbia, the draft Law on Police, which aims at enforcing the professionalism,
accountability and transparency in the organisation and future work of the police, is in
parliamentary procedure. The legislation on the security services is still pending; its adoption
and full implementation are urgently needed as a basis for further reforms in the sector, to
ensure accountability, professionalism and efficiency. The existing internal control
department - police inspectorate has been strengthened from 50 to 200 staff. Demilitarisation
(abolition of military ranks) of the police is ongoing in line with the foreseen legislation. The
Law on Higher Education in the Police has not yet been adopted. In Montenegro, laws on the
Police and the National Security Agency were adopted in April 2005 and their
implementation is at an early stage. Decentralisation and civilian control of the police are
foreseen in the new legislation. A set of implementing by-laws, including the code of conduct
for the police is in preparation. Internal inspection within the police needs to be reinforced.
In both Republics, there is a need for effective law enforcement, better police cooperation, the
development of intelligence and risk analysis tools, improved training and motivation systems
and the introduction of a code of ethics for the police. Lack of adequate financing remains a
problem.
50
3.3.5. Fighting organised crime and terrorism
Organised crime remains a source of serious concern in both Republics. The ratification and
implementation of international conventions and the finalisation of national strategies and
action plans need to be speeded up. Threat analysis needs to be introduced, as well as tools
such as intelligence gathering, secret surveillance techniques and the development of a
common database. The seizure and freezing of assets, bank accounts and the proceeds of
crime appear to be problematic in practice. Legislative developments and institutional
capacity to ensure seizure of assets obtained illegally are urgently required.
In Serbia, the action plan to implement the National Strategy for Organised Crime has not yet
been finalised. The law on witness protection has been adopted but the financing of the
witness protection system remains inadequate. While a number of witnesses are currently
protected by the existing structures within the Organised Crime Directorate of the Serbia
Police, there is a need to reinforce these units. In Montenegro the Strategy for the Fight
against Organised Crime and Corruption was adopted in July 2005 by the Government. The
implementation of this strategy remains of utmost importance, in particular with the view to
present serious security issues highlighted by the recent murder of a senior police official who
was investigating high-profile organised crime activities. In Montenegro the Special
Prosecutor for the fight against organised crime has access to police units and to experts from
any other public institution, but the institutional capacity and expertise of the Special
Prosecutor’s office need to be further strengthened.
Concerning trafficking in human beings, in Serbia some measures are in place to protect
victims of trafficking (shelters and a call centre) and the recently adopted Criminal Code
differentiates between human trafficking and smuggling of migrants. Also in Montenegro the
legislation differentiates between the two.
As regards terrorism, the ratification and implementation of the International Convention on
the Fight against Terrorism needs to be speeded up. The International Convention for the
Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was signed in September 2005. In Serbia, the new
Criminal Code has introduced terrorism and financing of terrorism as specific offences.

Serbia and Montenegro has made progress towards meeting European standards. In the area
of internal market, both Republics have made overall some good progress. They must now
continue to make sustained efforts to improve legislative and administrative capacities with a
view to future SAA obligations. They must also avoid creating new barriers between them.
Both Republics are making some progress in the area of free movement of goods. No
particular developments can be reported in the field of standardisation and certification. In the
areas of movement of persons and the right of establishment, no substantial developments
have taken place. As for the freedom to provide services, good progress can be reported in
Serbia which adopted a package of new laws in the area of financial services. Limited
developments have been registered in both Republics as regards free movement of capital. In
Montenegro a new foreign exchange law and a law on foreign current and capital transactions
further liberalising capital movements were adopted. No progress was made in ensuring the
free movement of capital within the State Union as the two republican Central Banks have not
yet completed the agreement on a fully operational system of corresponding accounts.
Some progress has been reported in the area of customs. Serbia adopted amendments to the
customs law, and to the customs tariffs law harmonising the tariff nomenclature with the EU
51
combined nomenclature. Montenegro adopted amendments to the customs law and to the
customs service law. The administrative and operational capacity of the two republican
customs authorities is improving but still needs to be strengthened significantly. In the area of
competition, both Republics have adopted new anti-trust legislation and have set up basic
structures to monitor state aid. Further efforts are required to make the republican regimes for
anti-trust and state aid control operational. In the field of public procurement, no legislative or
administrative developments have been registered in Serbia. Montenegro has done some
limited progress by including State Union institutions within the scope of procurement rules.
Administrative capacity to implement and enforce procurement legislation needs to be
considerably strengthened, especially in Montenegro. Both Republics should ensure that
operators from one Republic can benefit from national treatment in the other and that State
Union institutions are covered by statutory procurement rules. Concerning intellectual
property rights, some legislative progress has been registered in both Republics. Montenegro
adopted a framework law for the implementation of intellectual property rights. Enforcement
is gradually improving but further actions need to be vigorously pursued. The role of the State
Union Intellectual Property Office must be fully recognised by the two Republics and this
Office needs to be provided with the necessary administrative capacity to perform its tasks.
As regards sectoral policies, there has been some progress, although uneven. In the area of
industry and small and medium enterprises, both Republics have done some progress with the
implementation of the European Charter for Small and Medium Enterprises. Some progress
has been made in the area of agriculture. In particular, Serbia has strengthened the
administrative capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture and has passed new framework
veterinary laws. Concerning environment, there has been some limited progress in both
Republics. In particular, Montenegro adopted a Law on Integrated Prevention and Control of
Pollution. Both Republics have made some progress in the transport field, in particular
through the participation in the South East Europe Core Regional Transport Network. In the
energy field, both Republics have made progress. In Serbia the Energy Agency has become
operational and energy development strategy for the period up to 2015 has been approved.
The unbundling process of the state electricity utility continues. In Montenegro, some
progress has been achieved in restructuring the electricity sector. Serbia and Montenegro have
signed the South East Europe Energy Community treaty.
Concerning information society and media, some progress has been registered. In Serbia, the
exclusive monopoly of fixed lines has come to an end but the Telecommunications Agency is
still not operational due to lack of financing. In Montenegro, the privatisation process of the
fixed-line telecom provider has been finalised. As regards audiovisual policy, no progress has
taken place in Serbia which amended its broadcasting law to extend of the deadline for the
transformation of the Serbian Radio Television from its present government-controlled role
into a public broadcasting service, as well as to postponement of the privatization of
broadcasters operated by local governments. In Montenegro the Broadcasting Council has
implemented a tender for licenses of the use of the spectrum.
As regards justice, freedom and security, no actual progress has taken place in the areas where
responsibilities are shared between the State union and the two Republics. The two Republics
continue to operate different visa regimes. In both Republics, national strategies on integrated
border control are still in preparation and - in Serbia - the transfer of border control from the
State Union army to the police has been delayed. In the field of asylum, the two Republics
have not yet adopted the laws that are necessary for the implementation of the State Union
framework law. As regards migration, the readmission agreements have to be fully enforced.
As regards the areas falling within the remit of the Republics, some legislative progress has
taken place concerning the fight against money laundering. As regards police reform, progress
52
has taken place in Montenegro with the adoption of the laws on the police and the national
security agency. In Serbia, the new legislation on police and security services is still pending.
Organised crime remains a source of serious concern in both Republics. A strategy on fight
against corruption and organised crime has been adopted by Montenegro.
53
C. EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP: OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Serbia and Montenegro’s progress and overall state of implementation of the Stabilisation and
Association process since the Report on the preparedness of Serbia and Montenegro to
negotiate a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union, issued on 12
April 2005, has been examined above. This section assesses briefly the overall extent to
which the priorities of the European Partnership, adopted by the Council in June 20046, have
been implemented. It therefore covers developments over a larger period than the preceding
parts of this report.
The purpose of the European Partnership is to assist the authorities by identifying short and
medium term priorities which need to be carried out by Serbia and Montenegro to make
further progress towards the EU. The priorities have been selected on the basis that it is
realistic to expect that the country can complete them or take them substantially forward over
the next few years.
A distinction is made between short-term priorities, which are expected to be accomplished
within one to two years, and medium-term priorities, which are expected to be accomplished
within three to four years. The European Partnership forms the basis for programming
assistance from EU funds.
Overall, Serbia and Montenegro – at the level of both State Union and the Republics - has
made some good progress in implementing the European Partnership’s short-term priorities,
and has also started to address some of the medium-term ones. The implementation of the
priorities has affected in some cases by lack of legislative developments and rather frequently
by the lack of administrative capacity. Moreover, serious difficulties have been experienced in
the areas where co-operation between the State Union and Republics was required.
Political situation
Some progress has been made on the constitutional issues related to the implementation of
the Constitutional Charter but the constitutional and legal certainty remains precarious. The
State Union Court has been established and the scope of its powers has been agreed, although
this remains largely untested. The State Union Parliament has adopted its Rules of Procedure
and set up its committees. However, no actual progress has taken place as regards the revision
of the Republics’ constitutions, and the issue of the financial viability of the State Union
institutions has not been adequately solved. Moreover, the legitimacy of the State Union
Parliament has been restored only through a revision of the Constitutional Charter. Army
reform, which is a State Union competence, remains a very serious challenge. Some progress
has been made with the adoption of the defence strategy, while the adoption of the military
doctrine is pending. The issue of military property has only been partially solved.
Restructuring of the armed forces (a medium-term priority) has continued, but has been facing
resistance. Significant efforts are still needed in this area. The electoral law reform in Serbia
has not yet been completed and the legislation on financing of political parties, which has had
some positive impact, has not yet been fully implemented.
In the field of public administration reform, the administrative capacity of the institutions
dealing with European integration at the level of the Republics has been strengthened. Despite
efforts, the formal status and capacity of the European integration office at State Union level
6
Council Decision 2004/520/EC of 14 June 2004 on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the
European Partnership with Serbia and Montenegro including Kosovo as defined by the United Nations Security
Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999 (OJ L 297, 26.6.2004, p. 21)
54
have remained rather weak. Coordination between the institutions dealing with European
integration has generally improved. The establishment of European integration units in the
line ministries (medium-term priority) has continued, though their capacity is often still quite
limited. In Serbia the public administration reform is ongoing, based on a comprehensive
strategy, and the legislation is being adopted, but budgetary provisions are inadequate. In
Montenegro the strategy and related legislation are being implemented, but the situation
remains difficult, in particular due to the lack of resources. The Authority for human
resources management has been set up. At State Union level no progress has been made in
this respect (medium-term priority). In Serbia, parliamentary reform (medium-term priority)
has seen progress with the adoption of new Rules of Procedure.
Concerning local government (medium-term priority), further reform in Serbia is contingent
upon the adoption of the new Constitution; there are concerns on the impact that the recently
adopted law on Government may have on local self-government. Fiscal decentralisation has
not been achieved. In Montenegro some positive developments have taken place but relevant
legislation has not yet been adopted. .
As for judicial reform, the transfer of military jurisdiction to civilian courts has been
implemented smoothly, with the exception of the considerable backlog of the administrative
cases. In Serbia judicial reform is ongoing and the functional independence of the war crime
prosecutor has been reinforced. However, the judiciary continues to exhibit serious
weaknesses and its independence remains undermined by undue political interference. The
establishment of administrative and appellate courts has been postponed until 2007. In
Montenegro the implementation of the criminal legislation and the legislation on the
prosecutor continues. Administrative courts and appellate courts have been set up. However,
the judiciary continues to exhibit serious weaknesses and despite some legislative reforms its
independence is undermined by undue political interference. In Serbia the domestic capacity
to try war crimes (medium-term priority) is being developed, but remains insufficient as
regards high-profile trials. In both Republics prison conditions remain an issue in particular
due to lack of budgetary resources. Training of prison staff is ongoing.
In the field of the fight against organised crime and corruption, UN convention provisions
have still to be adopted. Moves to allow the EU Member States to send liaison officers to
Serbia and Montenegro and the follow-up to the Palermo convention are still pending. In
Serbia the Government has submitted to the Parliament an anti-corruption strategy. The law
on conflicts of interest has been adopted but its implementation has brought so far limited
results. In Montenegro the strategy against corruption and organised crime has been adopted.
The law on conflicts of interest has been implemented with difficulty and needs to be
reviewed.
As regards respect for human rights and protection of minorities, there has been progress
in meeting the Council of Europe accession commitments, also with the regard to the
European Conventions on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and on the Prevention
of Torture. Their uniform implementation of these conventions throughout the State Union
remains so far largely untested. In Serbia the law setting up an Ombudsman office has been
adopted, and in Montenegro The Ombudsman Office is being strengthened though further
efforts are required. As regards the elimination of torture, there has been some improvement
in Serbia with the establishment of the Inspector-General’s Office in the Ministry of Interior,
but the UN reports that the authorities are not taking up the cases raised by the UN Committee
against Torture. In both Republics there is still lack of transparent complete information as to
the number of cases and the actions taken.
55
No comprehensive legislation has been adopted in the field of anti-discrimination. As
concerns freedom of expression, in Serbia has prison sentences for slander have been replaced
with fines. The Broadcasting Council has been set up but recent amendments to the
broadcasting legislation have given rise to concern. The law on free access to information was
adopted, but it is still not being fully implemented. The laws on associations and on legal
status of foreign NGOs are still pending. In Montenegro the legislation concerning free access
to information is still pending, and the Government has not yet adopted the strategy
concerning cooperation with NGOs. In Serbia, the transformation of state-owned television
into public service broadcasters (a medium-term priority) has been postponed. In Montenegro,
the transformation is ongoing, but political and budgetary problems persist. A regards
property rights, Montenegro has adopted a law which is not yet fully implemented. In Serbia
the registration law has been adopted but the restitution law is still pending.
Concerning refugees, internally displaced persons (IDP) and minorities, cooperation
between the Republics and the State Union remains problematic. Cooperation has increased
with Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia to facilitate returns. The dialogue with Pristina on the
returns issue has started. Discrimination against the Roma and - in Montenegro against IDP –
continues, though some legislative steps have been taken.
In the area of regional and international cooperation/obligations, there has been significant
progress as regards cooperation with the ICTY, but full cooperation has not yet been
achieved. As for Kosovo, under resolution 1244, the dialogue has resumed on some subjects
of common interest, but UN travel documents and car number plates are not yet recognised.
Serbia and Montenegro is contributing to regional stability and cooperation. Under the
Stability Pact, all Free Trade Agreements have been ratified and the Free Trade Agreement
with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been revised. The Memorandum of
Understanding on the South East Europe Core Regional Transport Network has been partly
implemented. Progress has taken place as regards the establishment of a regional energy
market with the signature of the Energy Community Treaty.
Economic situation
Progress has taken place as regards macro-economic stability. The outstanding debt towards
commercial creditors, the London Club, has been reduced after an agreement on a substantial
62% write-off was reached in 2004. In Serbia prudent monetary policy has contributed to
macro-economic stability, though inflation is threatening again. Subsidies are being reduced
and wage bills frozen in both Serbia and Montenegro. In Serbia the health system reform is
under preparation (a medium term priority), while further steps in pension system reform have
also been taken. Structural reforms should continue and speed up. The inflation should be put
under control. Price liberalisation is almost complete in Montenegro. In Serbia, prices are
broadly liberalised and; energy prices have been adjusted but not yet at cost recovery level.
The same applies for Montenegro though the gap is narrower in its case. Restructuring,
privatisation and/or liquidation of large socially-owned and state-owned enterprises are
ongoing at a rather slow pace in Serbia and with some progress in Montenegro. Restructuring
of public utilities is at a very early stage in Serbia and is ongoing in Montenegro. Reform of
the banking sector is ongoing and the privatisation of banks is accelerating in Serbia. In
Montenegro, with the exception of one bank, the privatisation of the banking sector is
practically completed. The development of a stable and functioning land and real estate
market remains at an initial stage; legislation on the cadastre in Serbia is under preparation
while in Montenegro is not yet fully implemented due to the lack of accompanying
legislation.
56
A 2005-2010 strategy for the employment has been adopted by the Serbian government; in
Montenegro the labour law and the law on employment have been adopted. As regards
statistics, the revision of the current master plan resumed under the new time-frame (2006-
2008), whereas the adoption of statistical law at the State Union level is pending the adoption
of adequate legislation at the Republics’ level. Concerning the management of public
finances, in Serbia the system has improved and some important tax reforms have been
implemented in particular with the introduction of the VAT. The tax administration is under
revision, operating procedures and organisation improved and controls have been intensified.
In Montenegro tax legislation has been amended to reinforce collection and control. The law
on supreme audit institution has been adopted in Montenegro while in Serbia it is underway.
European standards
As regards the European standards, most priorities in the field of the internal market have
become non applicable due to the twin-track approach, on which basis the internal market /
trade action plan has been revised by the two Republics. Import levies (and additional
charges) introduced in violation of the stand still clause of the autonomous trade measures
were reviewed in co-operation with the EC. The abolition of the import licensing system and
export duties is still pending. Comprehensive reform of the customs administration started
both in Serbia and Montenegro. Herein, the administrative capacity has been strengthened in
many areas while a continuous training of customs officers is underway. As regards public
procurement, there are still inter-republican obstacles due to existence of domestic
preferential schemes. Concerning business registration, in Serbia the law transferring this
function from the Commercial Court to an independent agency has been adopted and is being
implemented. In the anti-trust area Serbia adopted a competition law. Montenegro has not
yet adopted the relevant legislation. State aid co-ordination points have been appointed in
each Republic and have produced initial state aid inventory reports. In the field of intellectual
property rights, a set of legislation was adopted at the State Union level. Implementing
legislation is under preparation by the Republics. Penal provisions were somewhat
strengthened in both Republics; however, ex officio proceedings are not yet possible neither
in Serbia, nor in Montenegro. Enforcement remains weak and has to be improved. In the field
of capital movement, the system of corresponding accounts in commercial banks to ensure
free movement of capital between the two Republics has not yet been established.
Concerning agriculture, in Serbia the veterinary framework law has been adopted but the
legislation on food safety is still pending and thus no clear division of responsibilities in the
areas of veterinary, sanitary and phytosanitary control has been established yet, nor has the
Food-Chain Laboratories Agency been set up. The administrative capacity building of the
veterinary directorate is nevertheless underway as is the case with the Ministry of Agriculture
itself. Policy formulation was strengthened and the agricultural strategy adopted. In
Montenegro the legislation on veterinary matters is being implemented and the veterinary
laboratory is established. Similar is taking place in the phytosanitary field. Drafting of the
agricultural strategy in Montenegro is underway, while additional efforts are needed as
regards capacity building vis-à-vis the Ministry of Agriculture. Measures aiming at improving
agricultural waste management and reducing pollution are in preparation, but administrative
capacity is lacking here as well.
As regards transport, in Serbia the legislation on railways has been adapted and the
development of a national transport strategy has started. In Montenegro the laws on road
transport and on rail transport have been adopted, and the road directorate has been
established at the Ministry of Transport. Its financing is not clearly defined yet. In Serbia, the
strengthening of capacity building, including the preparation for large investments, and the
57
earmarking of sufficient resources for the maintenance of transport infrastructure and
institutions have progressed slowly due in particular to the lack of funds. In Montenegro there
has been some progress in this respect.
In the field of energy, in Serbia, the energy law and the strategy for the development of the
energy sector until 2015 have been adopted and the energy Agency has been established. The
environmental audits on energy plants are ongoing and the issue of the worst polluters starts
to be addressed. In Montenegro, the energy policy has been adopted and the energy
development plan and energy efficiency plan are under preparation. The unbundling and
restructuring of the electricity power utility is in progress. In Serbia the unbundling and
restructuring of the utility, a medium-term priority, is in progress as well as the establishment
of the institutional structures. In Montenegro the energy regulator has been reinforced. The
partnership between the public and private sector is being developed.
As regards industry and SME, both Republics are implementing the European Charter for
SME. In Serbia a new law on bankruptcy has been adopted. In Montenegro the development
fund is being restructured and an investment promotion agency has been established.
In the area of telecommunications and media, limited progress has taken place in Serbia
with a view to a liberalisation of the market and the establishment of an operational regulatory
agency. In Serbia, the establishment of the Broadcasting Council was completed. However,
the Broadcasting law was amended in August 2005. The amendments provide for the
extension of the deadline for the transformation of the Serbian Radio Television from its
present government-controlled role into a public broadcasting service to March 2006, as well
as the postponement of the privatization of broadcasters operated by local government to July
2007. In Montenegro, there is some progress in this respect: the landline monopoly was
successfully privatised and the regulatory agency is functioning well. The transposition of the
new EU framework is in preparation.
In the field of environment, in Serbia, the law on environmental protection has been adopted
and the environment protection agency has started operating. In Montenegro the strategy on
waste has been adopted, but limited progress has taken place in its implementation as well as
in the development of the legislative framework.
Concerning Justice and Home Affairs, the judicial and law enforcement co-operation
within each Republic and between the two Republics has improved but the memorandum
signed by the two Interior Ministries is not fully implemented. In Serbia the law on police has
not yet been adopted, seriously affecting the law enforcement reform and restructuring of the
police. The comprehensive reform of the legislation on the organisation of the judiciary is
still pending but there has been progress in the reform of the criminal legislation with the
adoption of the new Criminal Code. In Montenegro, the laws on police and on security
services have been adopted and the implementation initiated.
As regards border management, the development of a State Union level approach and
mechanisms to ensure consistent implementation at the level of the Republics has not taken
place, due to disagreements over competencies. The implementation of the relevant priorities
of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting of November 2003 has been delayed. In
Serbia, the demilitarisation of the border control has been delayed, while it has been
implemented in Montenegro. In terms of cross-border facilitation, some progress has taken
place in Montenegro through the opening of new border posts while in Serbia, new border
posts are contingent on budgetary availability.
In the field of the fight against organised crime, trafficking, drugs, money laundering and
terrorism, the co-operation between the Republics has not been formalised although good co-
58
operation at operational level continues. Inter-agency co-operation within each Republic
remains limited. The development of the capacity to seize assets is dependant on the adoption
of the relevant criminal legislation. In Serbia, criminal intelligence is being developed. In
Montenegro this remains hampered by insufficient personnel and financial support. In both
Republics, training is ongoing with international assistance. The implementation of the
specific oriented measures agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting of
November 2003 has started. There has been limited progress in the preparation of a co-
operation agreement with Europol pending the adoption of the necessary legislative
provisions. National strategies in the area of fight against drugs need to be finalised and
implemented. Progress has taken place as regards the fight against trafficking in human
beings including provisions on assistance to victims. In Montenegro there has been some
progress in field of anti-money laundering as regards the adoption of the legislation and
formalising the international cooperation. As regards the fight against terrorism, legal
provisions have been introduced in the new Serbian Criminal Code; ratification and
implementation of international conventions need to be speeded up. Concerning witness
protection, a law has been adopted in Serbia, but further efforts are necessary to implement an
effective system of witness protection. In the field of asylum, some progress has taken place
notably with the adoption of the State Union framework law on asylum but the implementing
laws at the Republics’ level are still pending. In the area of visa the different regimes applied
by the each Republic persist.
Serbia and Montenegro’s progress in addressing the issues identified as priorities by the June
2004 European Partnership is discussed in more detail in other parts of this report, notably in
part B.3. and in the Report on the preparedness of Serbia and Montenegro to negotiate a
Stabilisation and Association Agreement with the European Union.
On the basis of the findings of this report, the Commission proposes a revised European
Partnership for Serbia and Montenegro for adoption by the Council. The European
Partnership will continue to be a key tool for guiding Serbia and Montenegro’s efforts to
move closer to the EU. It should be given the necessary political attention and should help
Serbia and Montenegro to set its legislative and institution-building agenda.
59
STATISTICAL ANNEX
STATISTICAL DATA on Serbia and Montenegro as of 1 September 2005

Note: the inclusion or exclusion of the province of Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) is explicitly noted for many indicators, for other indicators this remains to be clarified.
Foot-
Basic data Scale Unit note 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Population: total Thousand Number 1) 8.432 8.425 8.412 8.394 8.373 8.343 8.326 8.114 8.153 8 147p
Total area of the country Unit (x1) km² 2) 102.200 102.200 102.200 102.200 102.200 102.200 102.200 102.200 102.200 :
National accounts Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
1 189
Gross domestic product Million National currency 3) 44.172 79.039 109.352 149.803 191.585 396.494 782.434 998.206 000e :
Gross domestic product Million EUR 4) 8.224 10.973 14.561 14.003 9.477 9.821 13.159 16.450 18 253e :
Gross domestic product per capita Unit (x1) EUR 4) 780 1.037 1.374 1.319 1.162 1.206 1.619 2.027 2 239e :
SI: Growth rate of Gross domestic product at constant prices (national currency),
relative to the previous year Unit (x1) % 5) 6,1 5,9 7,4 2,5 -17,7 5,2 5,3 3,8 2.1e 8.3e
SI: Employment growth (national accounts), relative to the previous year Unit (x1) % 6) : : : : : -0,2 1,3 -2,2 -4,7 :
Labour productivity growth: growth in GDP (constant prices) per person employed,
relative to the previous year Unit (x1) % 6) : : : : : 5,4 4,0 6,1 7.2e :
SI: Unit labour cost growth (national accounts), relative to the previous year Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
GDP per capita at current prices Unit (x1) PPS : : : : : : : : : :
SI: GDP per capita at current prices, PPS, EU-25=100 Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Labour productivity, PPS (GDP per person employed), EU-25=100 Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
Agriculture (NACE Sections A+B): share of total gross value added Unit (x1) % 3) : : 19,3 18,4 20,6 21,1 20,9 16,3 : :
Industry (excluding construction) (NACE Sections C to E): share of total gross value
added Unit (x1) % 3) : : 32,7 31,5 30,3 28,2 28,4 28,0 : :
Construction (NACE Section F): share of total gross value added Unit (x1) % 3) : : 5,1 5,3 4,2 3,9 3,7 3,8 : :
Services (NACE Sections G to P): share of total gross value added Unit (x1) % 3) : : 42,9 44,8 44,9 46,8 47,0 51,9 : :
Final consumption expenditure, as a share of GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 90,5 98,9 96,9 98,8 : : : :
Final consumption expenditure: household and NPISH, as a share of GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 65,5 70,7 68,0 70,5 : : : :
Final consumption expenditure: General government, as a share of GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 25,0 28,2 28,9 28,3 : : : :
—Gross fixed capital formation, as a share of GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 11,7 11,6 12,6 15,4 : : : :
—Stock variation, as a share of GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 6,4 -1,1 -0,5 -6,6 : : : :
Exports of goods and services, relative to GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 17,8 23,4 11,2 9,2 : : : :
Imports of goods and services, relative to GDP Unit (x1) % 3) : : 26,3 32,8 20,3 16,8 : : : :
Inflation rate Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SI: Consumer price index: total (CPI), growth relative to the previous year Unit (x1) % 79,0 92,4 21,6 29,9 44,9 85,6 89,2 16,5 9,4 10,8
Balance of payments Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Balance of payments: current account total Million EUR : : -1 093p -522p -526p -350p -395p -1 516p -1 551p -2 352p
Balance of payments current account: trade balance Million EUR : : -1 689p -1 434p -1 300p -1 919p -2 836p -3 741p -4 077p -5 673p
Balance of payments current account: exports of goods Million EUR : : 2 315p 2 586p 1 458p 1 687p 1 921p 2 193p 2 521p 3 137p
Balance of payments current account: imports of goods Million EUR : : 4 004p 4 020p 2 758p 3 605p 4 757p 5 934p 6 598p 8 809p
Balance of payments current account: net services Million EUR : : 311p 321p 143p 174p 466p 282p 255p 326p
Balance of payments current account: net income Million EUR : : 21p 9p 8p -1p -29p -101p -184p -174p
Balance of payments current account: net current transfers Million EUR : : 264p 582p 624p 1 395p 2 004p 2 044p 2 454p 3 168p
Balance of payments current account: net current transfers - of which government
transfers Million EUR : : : : : 293p 660p 524p 420p 423p
Direct investment (FDI) in the reporting economy Million EUR : : 655 101 105 55 184 505 1.203 777
Public finance Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
General government deficit/surplus, relative to GDP Unit (x1) % 7) : : : : : -1.2e -0.8e -2.9e -4.3e -1.7e
60
SI: General government debt, relative to GDP Unit (x1) % 7) : : : : : 169,3 132,1 89,6 71,9 52,5
Financial indicators Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Gross foreign debt of the whole economy, relative to GDP Unit (x1) % : : : : 105,5 124,0 106,4 70,9 64,2 58,3
Gross foreign debt of the whole economy, relative to total exports Unit (x1) % : : : : 500 538 452 385 351 252
Money supply: M1 Million EUR 444 790 1.317 852 1.259 461 975 1.525 1.457 1.410
Money supply: M2 Million EUR 655 1.120 1.766 1.177 1.591 561 1.141 1.803 1.828 1.858
Money supply: M3 Million EUR 932 1.462 2.286 1.696 2.126 1.111 2.101 3.113 3.584 4.096
Total credit: credit by monetary financial institutions (MFIs) to total residents
(consolidated) Million EUR 3.154 4.005 5.180 4.287 5.260 3.918 4.498 2.971 2.934 3.811
Interest rates: day-to-day money rate, per annum Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
Lending interest rate (one year), per annum Unit (x1) % 8) : : 78,0 60,9 46,1 78,7 34,5 19,7 15,5 15,5
Deposit interest rate (one year), per annum Unit (x1) % 9) : : 62,7 122,5 43,1 64,4 44,2 19,4 14,5 16,6
EUR exchange rates: average of period - 1 euro= … national currency Unit (x1) Number 2,266 6,301 6,479 10,490 11,735 15,156 59,781 60,704 65,165 72,569
EUR exchange rates: end of period - 1 euro= … national currency Unit (x1) Number 6,206 6,431 6,528 11,703 11,735 58,675 59,706 61,515 68,313 78,885
Effective exchange rate index (1999=100) Unit (x1) Number : : : : : : : : : :
Value of reserve assets (including gold) Million EUR 10) : : : : 296 564 1.325 2.186 2.839 3.117
Value of reserve assets (excluding gold) Million EUR 10) : : : : 158 430 1.139 2.077 2.728 3.008
External trade Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Trade balance: (all goods, all partners) Million EUR : : : : -1.687 -2.165 -3.276 -4.278 : :
Value of exports: (all goods, all partners) Million EUR : : : : 1.405 1.853 2.125 2.406 : :
Value of imports : (all goods, all partners) Million EUR : : : : 3.092 4.017 5.401 6.684 : :
Terms of trade (export price index / import price index), relative to the previous year Unit (x1) Number : : 96,8 100,0 92,6 100,2 103,1 98,0 101,6 :
Share of exports to EU-25 countries in value of total exports Unit (x1) % : : : : 44,5 48,1 51,3 51,8 : :
Share of imports from EU-25 countries in value of total imports Unit (x1) % : : : : 50,8 49,4 51,9 55,2 : :
Demography Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Natural growth rate : crude rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) Unit (x1) per 1000 -0,4 -1,4 -1,8 -2,3 -3,1 -3,2 -2,1 -2,7 -2,7 -2,7
Net migration rate: number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants Unit (x1) per 1000 : : : : : : : : : :
Infant mortality rate: number of deaths of children under one year of age relative to
1000 live births Unit (x1) Number 13,7 14,6 12,4 11,8 11,2 10,7 10,6 10,2 9,2 7.5p
Life expectancy at birth: male Unit (x1) Years 69,9 69,9 69,8 69,8 69,9 69,9 70,1 69,9 70,0 :
Life expectancy at birth: female Unit (x1) Years 74,7 74,7 74,7 74,8 74,9 74,9 75,2 75,2 75,2 :
Labour market Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Economic activity rate (15 - 64): proportion of the population aged 15-64 that is
economically active Unit (x1) % : : : : 68,0 68,2 68,3 68,1 68,6 :
SI: Employment rate (15-64): proportion of the population aged 15-64 that is in
employment Unit (x1) % : : : : 57,9 58,8 58,8 57,9 57,2 :
SI: Employment rate (15-64), male: proportion of the male population aged 15-64 that
is in employment Unit (x1) % : : : : 66,7 67,8 67,7 66,8 66,4 :
SI: Employment rate (15-64), female: proportion of the female population aged 15-64
that is in employment Unit (x1) % : : : : 49,5 50,1 49,7 49,0 48,1 :
SI: Employment rate of older workers (55-64): proportion of the population aged 55-64
that is in employment Unit (x1) % : : : : 20,5 20,7 19,9 18,4 18,0 :
Agriculture, forestry and fishing (NACE Sections A+B) as a share of total employment Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
Industry (NACE Sections C to E) as a share of total employment Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
Construction (NACE Sections F) as a share of total employment Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
Services (NACE Sections G to P) as a share of total employment Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Unemployment rate: proportion of the labour force that is unemployed Unit (x1) % : : : : 13,7 12,6 12,9 13,8 15,2 :
SI: Unemployment rate, male: proportion of the male labour force that is unemployed Unit (x1) % : : : : 11,7 10,6 11,2 12,4 14,4 :
SI: Unemployment rate, female: proportion of the female labour force that is
unemployed Unit (x1) % : : : : 16,2 15,2 15,1 15,8 16,4 :
Unemployment rate of persons < 25 years: proportion of the labour force aged <25 that
is unemployed Unit (x1) % : : : : 53,1 49,6 46,8 45,6 45,6 :
SI: Long-term unemployment rate: proportion of the labour force that is long-term
unemployed Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
61
Social cohesion Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SI: Inequality of income distribution: ratio of top quintile to lowest quintile Unit (x1) Number : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Early school-leavers: proportion of the population aged 18-24 having not completed
upper secondary education and who are currently not in any education or training Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Children aged 0-17 living in jobless households: share of children aged 0-17 Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Persons aged 18-59 living in jobless households: share of persons aged 18-59 Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
Standard of living Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Number of passenger cars / population Unit (x1) per 1000 11) 161,3 165,8 188,3 208,4 201,9 166,9 177,9 165,6 170,3 :
Number of main telephone lines (fixed) / population Unit (x1) per 1000 252,9 262,8 278,0 277,0 258,8 283,7 336,5 306,3 318,6 :
Number of subscriptions to cellular mobile telephone services / population Unit (x1) per 1000 : 1,8 10,3 28,6 : : 239,9 357,2 418,1 :
Infrastructure Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Density of railway network (lines in operation) Unit (x1) per 1000 km² 39,7 39,7 39,7 39,7 39,7 39,7 39,7 39,7 39,7 :
Length of motorways Unit (x1) km 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374 374
Industry and agriculture Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Industrial production volume index (2000=100) Unit (x1) Number 95,0 103,0 113,0 117,0 90,0 100,0 100,0 102,0 99,0 106,0
Agricultural production volume indices of goods and services (at producer prices)
(previous year = 100) Unit (x1) Number 104,0 101,0 107,0 97,0 99,0 87,0 117,0 98,0 93,0 :
Innovation and research Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SI: Spending on human resources (public expenditure on education) as a share of GDP Unit (x1) % : : : : 3,9 3,9 3,6 : : :
SI: Gross domestic expenditure on research & development, relative to GDP Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Percentage of households who have Internet access at home. All forms of Internet
use are included. The population considered is aged 16 to 74. Unit (x1) %
Environment Scale Unit 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SI: Total greenhouse gases emissions, CO2 equivalent (1990=100) Unit (x1) Number : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Energy intensity of the economy Unit (x1) kg of oil equivalent
per EUR 1000 GDP
SI: Share of renewable energy in electricity consumption Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
SI: Road freight transport as a share of total inland freight transport (Modal split of Unit (x1) % : : : : : : : : : :
freight transport)
e = estimate
f = forecast
p = provisional
1) As of 30 June.
2) Including Kosovo (UNSCR 1244).
3) 1999 onwards: excluding Kosovo (UNSCR 1244).
4) 1995 to 2000: using market exchange rates; 1996 to 2000: recalculated by the World Bank method; 1999 onwards: excluding Kosovo (UNSCR 1244).
5) 1995 to 1999: at 1994 constant prices, method based on Material Product System; 2000 to 2004: at 2001 constant prices; 1999 onwards: excluding Kosovo (UNSCR 1244).
6) Employees, farmers, helpers and other economically active persons are included in total employment; 1999 onwards: excluding Kosovo (UNSCR 1244); source: Labour Force Survey.
7) Data not yet validated.
8) Commercial bank weighted lending rates, short term credits.
9) Commercial bank weighted deposit rates of households up to one year.
10) Including portfolio investments.
11) 2002 and 2003: excluding Montenegro.
Note:
The full set of Key indicators is available in http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/coop_eur/coop_eur_base.htm .
The definitions of the indicators that countries have been requested to follow can be found (in English) in http://europa.eu.int/estatref/info/sdds/en/coop_eur_definitions.pdf, which also includes the definitions of the few indicators extracted from Eurostat’s
database, and from Comext. When countries have indicated divergences from the definitions requested these are indicated in a list of the footnotes.
62

Serbia and Montenegro 2005 Progress Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serbia and Montenegro 2005 Progress Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Serbia and Montenegro 2005 Progress Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 9 November 2005

Serbia and Montenegro

{COM (2005) 561 final}

2. Relations between the EU and Serbia and Montenegro

Recent developments in bilateral relations

1.1 Democracy and the rule of law

1.2 Human rights and the protection of minorities

Observance of international human rights law

Civil and political rights

Economic and social rights

Minority rights, cultural rights and the protection of minorities

1.3 Regional issues and international obligations

1.4 General evaluation

2.1 Progress towards economic stability and competitiveness

The negative savings-investment balance led to widening of external deficits. Domestic

2.2 General evaluation

3.1 Internal market

3.1.1. Free movement of goods

3.1.2. Movement of persons, services and right of establishment

3.1.3. Free movement of capital

3.1.4. Customs and taxation

3.1.6. Public procurement

3.1.7. Intellectual property law

3.2 Sectoral policies

3.2.1. Industry and SME

3.2.2. Agriculture and fisheries

3.2.4. Transport policy

3.2.6. Information society and media

3.2.7. Financial control

3.2.8 Other policies

3.3 Justice, freedom and security

3.3.1. Visa, border control, asylum and migration

3.3.2. Money laundering

3.4 General evaluation

STATISTICAL DATA on Serbia and Montenegro as of 1 September 2005

You might also like