Police under the EU Scanner

In the latest progress report for Serbia, the Europeans sent a clear message that the police integrity must be strengthened.

By Saša Đorđević (BCSP)
@Bambayay

The continuation of police reform in Serbia mostly depends on the political decision to strengthen police integrity. Three steps are crucial for this issue. Police operations must be conducted without political interference. The internal control of police must be independent. The reforms of human resource management within police must be implemented in a transparent manner. If these three problems are disregarded, in two years we will be reading the same findings in the European Commission’s Report.

Three out of 25 findings of the European Commission where no progress was evident are related to police. Other state institutions plus police were mentioned in six negative assessments, which means that one-third of all criticism is police related. This state of play is concerning. Bad human resource management, weak police oversight and the lack of an appointed liaison officer at Europol, were the three points of strongest EU criticisms directed towards Serbian police. Other identified issues include police politicization, information leakage from the ongoing investigations, troubled implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy, insufficient cooperation between police and prosecution, as well as the lack of legislative alignment of the new Law on Police with the Criminal Procedure Code.

The EU wants to see positive track record and solutions from Serbian institutions. Politicization will most certainly be the biggest challenge since politicians are in love with the power that rests with this institution. The most recent case in a never-ending history of bad examples of politicians influencing the operational police work is the one where a weapon stash was found in the vicinity of the Prime Minister’s family residence. In addition, there are unclear dismissals of high-ranking police officers—from Police Director to the Head of Criminal Police Department and the appointments of officials in an acting capacity, contrary to the positive law.

An example of good practice, in the area of human resource management, would mean that there exist clear criteria and procedures for employment, promotions, and dismissals within the police. Moreover, Serbia does not satisfy the UN standard of having 300 police officers for every 100.000 citizens—this number currently stands at 445 and there are announcements that the number of police officers will be further increased. The status of recent graduates from the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies is also a matter of concern. Over the previous two years, almost six million Euros were spent for funding the Academy, although the largest share of graduates still cannot find employment within the police. This looks as a prime example of wasting taxpayers’ money. Some steps in solving this issue were taken, primarily through the adoption of internal regulations on publishing calls for open positions within the police, but their application is still problematic.

An example of good practice is also the existence of an internal control of the police, which is currently lacking in Serbia. The 2016 Law on Police determines that the internal control is conducted by the Internal Affairs Sector, whereas the establishment of the new Department of Security and Data Protection further complicates the internal control as now there are five different controllers within the police, all of which lack a clear delineation of their competences and coordination. In addition, the Sector is not independent in its work, although this is the key international principle when it comes to the effective control of police officers. The minister of interior issues guidelines and mandatory directives that can influence the Sector’s work.

Based on the presented findings, one might think that Serbia is under a special EU scanner. However, the EU presented 21 benchmarks to Croatia for closing the negotiations on Chapter 23, one of which was depoliticisation and professionalization of police. The main line of EU criticism was related to the issues very similar to Serbia, i.e. unclear and mass dismissals within the police, especially within the Criminal Police that was in charge of the most complex cases. Bulgaria and Romania are still subject of the EU scanner, despite the fact they have fully fledged the Member States, and the state of play of organized crime and fight against corruption is under the diligent scrutiny of the EU.

The fact that the police reform is under the EU scanner is a good thing. All previous and incumbent decision makers have been announcing their commitment to solving identified problems, but without the international community, they are not capable of putting the reforms into motion. The failure to act to citizens calls in the case of violent demolition of buildings in Hercegovačka Street in Belgrade showcases that there are individuals within the police that are not resistant to corruption or crime, as well as the extent of police politicization and weak internal control. This is why the decision of the European Commission not to mention the Savamala incident in its Report is very disconcerting. However, determining the truth regarding what happened in Savamala cannot be avoided if the public officials decide to implement the EU recommendations.