Joomla 3.2 Template by Justhost Complaints
Integrity watch Serbia
LTI
Local transparency index - LTI
Local Participation INDEX – LIPA 2025
State of play and anticorruption priorities in Serbia
ALAC
Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres - ALAC

ODIHR Confirms: Stronger Oversight and Credible Sanctions Needed for Election Campaign Financing

The draft amendments to the Law on Financing Political Activities, on which ODIHR issued an opinion, failed to address some of the key recommendations. These include measures that would ensure stronger oversight and appropriate sanctions. Many of the shortcomings identified by ODIHR could be remedied if the law were amended in line with proposals that Transparency Serbia has been advocating for years.

During previous amendments to the law, the authorities consistently ignored proposals put forward by Transparency Serbia, as well as recommendations from ODIHR and the Venice Commission concerning oversight and sanctions. In this regard, we recall that Transparency Serbia submitted concrete proposals to expand and clarify criminal offenses[1] related to campaign financing, as well as proposals to define the obligations of the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption in oversight procedures[2].

For the first time, the authorities proposed introducing spending limits for election campaigns in this draft, although ODIHR has been calling for such limits for the past ten years. However, instead of introducing restrictions that would contribute to greater equality among electoral contestants, the proposed ceilings amount to as much as eight million euros for parliamentary elections and nine million euros for presidential elections. This exceeds the total reported campaign expenditures of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) in 2023, which spent more than all other participants combined. Considering spending limits in countries comparable to Serbia (the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Slovakia), Transparency Serbia proposed a ceiling of 300 million dinars (approximately 2.5 million euros)[3]. ODIHR recommended lowering the proposed spending limits and linking them to a certain number of average salaries in the Republic of Serbia, as well as introducing sanctions for violations of these rules, which are absent from the draft.

A significant novelty in the draft is the attempt to regulate “third-party campaigning” to prevent indirect circumvention of campaign financing rules. Regarding the proposed provision, which was copied from Montenegrin legislation without adapting it to the rest of the Serbian legal system, ODIHR raised numerous justified objections. At the same time, Transparency Serbia recalls that many other solutions from Montenegro’s legislation should be considered in Serbia, particularly those related to preventing the misuse of public resources and regulating campaign conduct.

In addition, while commenting on the provisions of the submitted draft, ODIHR recommended stricter rules on campaign loans, clarification of norms concerning the use of services provided by public institutions, prevention of indirect circumvention of rules on maximum corporate donations, measures to ensure greater transparency of financing during the campaign period, clarification of criteria for oversight by the tax administration, and the introduction of effective appeals against Agency decisions regarding complaints.

Regarding the most common “sanction” currently faced by parties found by the Agency to have violated campaign rules, ODIHR recommended clarifying the conditions for its application. If implemented, this recommendation would prevent repeated violations from remaining unpunished indefinitely.

ODIHR’s opinion was published on 11 May 2026[4]. The document states that the draft was submitted by the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia and drafted by the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption.

 

[1] https://preugovor.org/upload/document/preugovor_amandmani_na_kz_final_sr.pdf  

[2] https://www.parlament.gov.rs/upload/documents/dokumenta/16%20PREDLOG%20TS%20PREPORUKA%20ODIHR%2016%202023%2017%202022%204%202017.docx  

[3] https://www.transparentnost.org.rs/images/dokumenti_uz_vesti/TS_komentari_i_predlozi_ZFPA_Maj_2024.pdf  

[4] https://odihr.osce.org/sites/default/files/documents/official_documents/2026/05/ODIHR%20Legal%20Opinion_SERB_CF%20legislation_11.05.2026.pdf  

News