What it is
The Mrdic laws are the public shorthand for amendments to five judicial laws adopted by Serbia's parliament on January 28, 2026, on a proposal by SNS MP Ugljesa Mrdic. The package covers laws on public prosecution, the High Prosecutorial Council, judges, court and prosecutor territories, and bodies for fighting high-tech crime.
Why it became disputed
The government presented the January amendments as a way to improve judicial efficiency and strengthen prosecutorial staffing. Parts of the professional community, the opposition, and the EU criticized the package as a risk to prosecutorial autonomy and judicial independence, especially because of temporary prosecutor assignments, the position of TOK, and the status of the cybercrime unit.
What the Venice Commission said
The Venice Commission first gave Serbia a list of fixes, then said on June 16, 2026 that most recommendations had been taken into account. Two topics still mattered. One was TOK prosecutors: not everyone whose temporary assignment had been ended early had returned to the organized-crime prosecutor's office. The other was the cybercrime unit: a working group looked like progress, but the Commission still expected analysis and possible legal changes.
What changed in June
After the Commission's opinion, parliament put new amendments on the agenda of an extraordinary session. On June 18, the High Prosecutorial Council decided to assign Irena Bjelos, Aleksandar Barac, and Boris Majlat to TOK for three years; for Bjelos and Barac, that meant returning from June 19. That reduced part of the tension around TOK, but did not answer every question about how temporary prosecutor assignments will work in the future.
What the government promises
Ana Brnabic said on June 12 that the package had received a positive Venice Commission opinion, should reach parliament the following week, and, in the government's expectation, could soon help open Cluster 3 - the EU negotiation cluster on competitiveness and inclusive growth. She also said the government preserved at least three previously criticized solutions, including assigning prosecutor transfers to VST, reducing the required majority from eight to six votes after 30 days, and moving the split of the third and fourth court/prosecutor offices to March 1.
Why the text dispute matters
On June 21, SSP, SRCE, PSG, and Solidarnost, gathered around Platforma za evropsku Srbiju, wrote to EU institutions that, in their account, the Venice Commission and parliament received different versions of the amendments. They are worried about transitional provisions: those provisions could affect prosecutors' complaints and the mandates of people temporarily assigned from lower to higher prosecutor's offices. The Justice Ministry and Minister Nenad Vujic deny this and say the parliamentary text differs only by language.
The three questions behind the dispute
For readers, the dispute comes down to three things. First, who works in TOK and whether prosecutors can again be moved quickly out of sensitive cases. Second, whether the cybercrime unit remains independent enough. Third, whether transitional provisions change the meaning of the reform so that objections are closed on paper while older arrangements continue in practice.
Why it matters
The practical meaning of the dispute goes beyond legal drafting. Rules on appointing and assigning prosecutors affect who handles sensitive cases, including organized crime, corruption, and matters of major public interest. For Serbia, it is also part of EU talks: if Brussels sees rule-of-law objections as closed, Cluster 3 could move after a pause since December 2021; if the text dispute is confirmed, it becomes a new reason to distrust the process.
Why the final text matters for the EU
For EU talks, what matters is not only that parliament votes, but what the law actually says: how it treats temporary prosecutor assignments, what it does with the cybercrime unit, and how transitional rules are written. Those are the places Brussels will use to judge whether objections about prosecutors and rule of law have been answered or whether the dispute continues.