Individual Corruption

According to the Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2010, Serbian citizens perceive the judicial system as highly corrupt.

Business Corruption

According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, companies identify the lack of judicial independence to constitute a strong competitive disadvantage. Companies should note that the system of law enforcement, comprised of elected and appointed officials in both commercial courts and courts of general jurisdiction, functions poorly. Enforcement officers face overwhelming caseloads with inadequate resources and poor institutional support, resulting in long delays, ineffective performance, and a tendency towards bribery to facilitate favourable proceedings and outcomes. Hence, most foreign companies prefer to resolve disputes through arbitration outside the court system.

Political Corruption

The constitution and law ensure for an independent judiciary, however, the courts remain susceptible to corruption and political influence, according to US State Department 2009. In October 2006, the Constitutional Court became non-functional when its President retired without a new one being appointed. This led to a situation where the constitutionality of government decisions went unevaluated. A new High Judicial Council was appointed in 2007, but critics complain that it is unable to sufficiently guarantee a judicial system free of political influence. The Venice Commission, an advisory body of legal experts attached to the Council of Europe, criticised the Serbian judicial system as the election of all judges, prosecutors and High Judicial Council members by parliament could lead to the politicisation of appointments and thus the judiciary.

The Ministry of Justice has initiated a reform of the judicial system through six laws that were approved by Parliament in December 2008. The laws comprise the High Judicial Council, the State Prosecutors Council, the Public Prosecution, judges and the organisation of courts and should create a new network of courts designed to improve efficiency in the judiciary.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- Enforcing a commercial contract requires 36 administrative procedures and takes 635 days at a cost of 28.9% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the independence of the judiciary from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 2.5 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give both the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 2.6 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 34% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 13% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.9 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Only 23.4% of companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

EBRD & World Bank: BEEPS Serbia 2008:
- 35% of SMEs report that the corruption and inefficiency of the judicial system is a problem faced by companies.