Jutarnji list: Total confusion in the European Commission because of Serbia, divisions in the EU because of Vučić are also mentioned – World

This was said on Monday by Markus Lammer, spokesman for the European Commission, in response to journalists’ questions about whether the Commission made a decision to freeze EU funds for Serbia and which funds it froze. writes Jutarnji list.

Earlier, Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos stated that all payments to Serbia have been suspended because Serbia has fallen behind in meeting the requirements related to the rule of law. The media, obviously wrongly, announced that funds in the amount of 1.5 billion euros were frozen for Serbia.

The explanation given by a Commission spokesman on Monday appeared to be a denial of what Commissioner Kos had previously said. But it is about the use of different expressions, which creates a wrong perception of what happened.

– The European Commission continuously assesses whether the relevant conditions for support from EU financial instruments have been met. It is part of the normal application of these instruments and is applied throughout the process, including when it comes to the Growth Plan at the stage of each payment request – said the spokesperson. He emphasized the EU’s concern about the adoption of judicial laws and that the EU now expects Serbia to fully implement the opinion of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe on this disputed issue. This will be a condition for further payments from the Growth Plan.

For the EU, the recently adopted law on the judiciary by Serbia was a violation of the principle of judicial independence and is not in line with EU standards. On the basis of that law, Serbia dismissed the judges. Now, when the Venice Commission also issued an opinion similar to the position of the European Commission and asked Serbia to withdraw those laws, Belgrade announced that it would do so. However, the question is whether Serbia will cancel all the consequences of that controversial law or whether it will just return the law to its old form, but not the judges who were dismissed on the basis of that law.

Diplomats in Brussels also mention the possibility that the confusion created by the European Commission over whether to freeze funds for Serbia or not is the result of divisions within the EU regarding Serbia. It is not disputed that Vučić still has influential protectors in the EU despite the growing dissatisfaction in Brussels with Serbia’s actions. Among them, the European People’s Party (EPP), of which Vučić’s SNS is an associate member, is especially mentioned. This party announced more than a year ago that it would “reexamine” the status of SNS within it, but even EPP sources say that it is just a farce and that Vučić has great protection there, and they do not believe that there will be any concrete consequences.

Serbia and Vučić have, or at least had, the protection of circles in the offices of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the President of the European Council, Antonio Košta, as well as the General Director of the Directorate for Enlargement, Gert Jan Kopmann, who is considered “particularly pro-Serbian” among EU diplomats. Earlier calls for measures against Serbia, mainly from the European Parliament, due to numerous actions – from strengthening relations with Russia, resistance to prosecution of those responsible for attacks in the north of Kosovo to repression of the media and demonstrators in Serbia – did not find support in the European Commission.

So, nothing concrete has changed, except that the Commission now says that it is “assessing whether the existing conditions for payments have been met”, but that for now no decision has been made to suspend the funds. Last week, a spokesperson for the European Commission said that the EU “regrets that Serbia has not yet taken the necessary steps to bring those responsible for the attacks in northern Kosovo to justice.”

However, apart from the “expression of regret”, the European Commission has not yet implemented any measures against Serbia. Now in Brussels, patience for Serbia is running out, but there are still no concrete measures, except for announcements. The fact that the Commission does not pay out the funds is part of the practice applied to other beneficiary countries, and not a special measure against Serbia. For example, BiH was not paid a single cent from the Growth Plan because, quite simply, it did not meet the conditions. And there should have been no decision or penalty for non-payment.