The European Commission and EU member states are heading for a collision over Serbia's stalled accession negotiations, as Brussels pushes to open Cluster 3 while capitals remain deeply divided over the pace and sincerity of Belgrade's reforms.
On Monday, the Commission circulated an information note to member states arguing that Serbia's recent repeal of controversial judiciary laws justifies moving forward with Cluster 3, which covers competitiveness and inclusive growth. The note, dated 3 July and seen by European Pulse, acknowledges that further work is needed in the judicial and prosecutorial system but insists that Belgrade has remedied the backsliding identified earlier this year.
However, interviews with over a dozen diplomats, EU officials, and experts reveal that the repeal has done little to bridge the gap between those who see strategic value in engagement and those who insist on stricter adherence to democratic standards. Unanimous backing from member states is required before the process can advance.
A Strategic Balancing Act
The debate was triggered after Serbia scrapped a package of laws enacted in February, known collectively as the Mrdić laws, following sharp criticism from the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on constitutional matters. European Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos welcomed the reversal as an important step in the right direction, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has indicated that further progress is possible if reforms continue.
Behind these public statements lies a more nuanced debate. Several EU officials argue that maintaining dialogue with Belgrade is strategically vital, despite Serbia's refusal to align with EU sanctions against Russia and persistent concerns over judicial independence and corruption. From the Commission's perspective, disengagement risks weakening the EU's influence in the Western Balkans and alienating a country central to regional stability.
Yet this approach is far from universally shared. Some diplomats argue that rewarding incremental progress before fundamental changes are delivered risks undermining the credibility of the enlargement process. One diplomat told European Pulse that the repeal merely brought Serbia back to square one, while another insisted that reforms under Cluster 1—covering the rule of law—remain the real test.
The debate has taken on added significance following President Aleksandar Vučić's announcement that he intends to resign after eight years in office and call elections within three to four months. Supporters portray this as a new political chapter, but critics see it as a tactical manoeuvre to retain power by seeking the premiership.
For some diplomats, recognising Serbia's latest reforms would reinforce the principle that candidate countries are rewarded when they implement recommendations from Brussels and the Venice Commission. One EU diplomat warned that failing to acknowledge tangible progress risks turning Serbia into the next North Macedonia—a country that secured candidate status in 2005 but has repeatedly seen its accession ambitions frustrated despite undertaking reforms.
The matter is expected to be raised at a meeting among EU ambassadors in Brussels on Wednesday. The Commission has stressed that any decision ultimately rests with the Council. As the EU grapples with how to balance strategic engagement with democratic standards, the outcome will send a powerful signal about the credibility of the enlargement process.
For more on the broader context of EU enlargement strategy, see our analysis of EU Commission Drafts Enlargement Reforms to Reclaim Initiative from Member States. On Serbia's balancing act between the EU and Russia, read Serbia's Ex-PM Brnabić: 'We Are Not Little Russians'.
