The Digital Services Act (DSA) represents a transformative regulatory framework within the European Union (EU), designed to ensure greater accountability for digital platforms while safeguarding the fundamental rights of users. By establishing clear obligations for handling illegal content, including hate speech, the DSA aims to address the challenges of regulating online platforms in a way that balances freedom of expression with the need for a safer digital environment. The Western Balkans (WB6) — Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia — face specific challenges in aligning their legal frameworks with the DSA. These countries are at different stages of EU integration, and while some have initiated reforms to harmonize their laws with EU standards, significant gaps remain, particularly in the area of defining and regulating illegal content. Inconsistencies in national definitions of hate speech and other forms of illegal content present obstacles not only to regional digital governance but also to DSA compliance. This study provides an overview of the feasibility of implementing the DSA across the Western Balkans, focusing particularly on the issue of defining illegal content, with an emphasis on hate speech. The DSA’s broad definition of illegal content, as outlined in Recital 12 and Article 3(h), leaves room for interpretation. In regions like the WB6, where historical, political, and ethnic conflicts influence legal frameworks, these ambiguities pose significant challenges. Furthermore, issues such as capacity limitations, political interference, and judicial independence complicate the region’s ability to implement the DSA effectively.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) will significantly impact the digital environment. Civil society organizations (CSOs) have raised concerns about the impacts of the legislation in EU candidate states, such as Serbia, due to the importance of the operational independence of state-level institutions. By analyzing the DSA and conducting interviews with Serbian-based CSOs and investigative journalists, this report argues that platforms are likely to heavily lean on notifications from state-influenced Digital Services Coordinators and trusted flaggers in Serbia. Due to the relationship between CSOs, investigative journalists, and the Serbian government, the implementation of this legislation is likely to result in a disproportionate suppression of content critical of the government

This study represents a joint effort of researchers from six civil society organizations from the Western Balkans - Danche Danilovska – Bajdevska (Metamorphosis Foundation, North Macedonia), Emily Wright (Partners Serbia, Serbia), Maida Culahovic (“Zasto ne?”, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Milica Tosic (Partners Serbia, Serbia), Megi Reci (The Institute for Democracy and Mediation, Albania), Snezana Nikcevic (NGO 35mm, Montenegro), Teuta Sahatqija (Women in Tech, Kosovo). The study structure, methodological guidelines and coordination, as well as final editing and synthesis of findings (see: Introduction) were provided by Bojana Kostic, a digital rights expert, and final copy editing by Emily Wright. We thank them all for their contributions and readiness to share their extensive knowledge. We’d also like to give special thanks to Michelle Melliouix and Bogdan Manolea, who generously shared French and Romanian experience respectively, in implementation of DSA, as well as to Montserrat Legorreta, Operations and Program Associate at Global Network Initiative, who shared insights into GNI’s unique multi-stakeholder approach. We would also like to express our deep gratitude to representatives of public institutions, international and local organizations, media, and academics from EU and the WB region who participated in the research. Their insights were crucial for understanding the specifics of each of the regulatory ecosystems when it comes to overall digital rights issues, as well as for setting the path for future reforms in the field.

The protection of freedom of expression and the right to information in the context of disinformation, false information, hate speech and conspiracy theories requires the engagement of multiple stakeholders. This is the reason why UNESCO, the leading agency of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression and information, publishes the Guidelines for the Management of Digital Platforms. The Guidelines outline a set of duties, responsibilities and roles for states, digital platforms, international organizations, civil society, media, academia and the technical community as well as other interested parties, in order to enable an environment in which freedom of expression and the right to access information are at the core of the process of managing digital platforms. The guidelines resulted from multi-stakeholder consultations, during which over 10,000 comments were collected from 134 countries. These global consultations encouraged inclusive participation, ensuring that diverse voices are heard, including those from vulnerable and marginalized groups. Developing a trustworthy Internet is a shared responsibility of all stakeholders. All of us are urged to maintain a stimulating environment that enables freedom of expression and the right to information.

To help the work of the judicial system become more open to understanding for citizens, Partners Serbia has been engaging in activities focused on the improvement of judicial transparency. This analysis on the state of transparency of judicial institutions stresses the importance of improving the situation in this field and bases our advocacy activities on documented facts. The analysis is intended for all judicial authorities to ensure that they improve their activities in the field of transparency, especially since some of the identified shortcomings can be relatively easily remedied due to their dependence on the will of individual courts and prosecutor offices. The analysis is also intended for all institutions and professionals participating in the judicial reform process as a way to strategically address identified shortcomings in this field.

The paper analyzes the state of democracy in Serbia to understand how state led artificial intelligence and biometric surveillance initiatives will impact Serbia’s path toward democratization. Section 1 describes the state of democracy in the country by reviewing the country’s party system, the functioning of the branches of government, the quality of media freedom, the capacity of independent authorities, and the role of civil society. Section 2 looks at the state led biometric and artificial intelligence initiatives, specifically the Draft Law on Internal Affairs. Section 3 uses Section 1 and analyzes it under the framework of David-Barrett’s state capture framework and draws conclusions on how the Draft Law and other similar initiatives will impact civil society and the future of democracy in Serbia. This analysis draws the conclusion that due to Serbia’s position in state capture, passing the Draft Law on Internal Affairs and legitimizing the use of AI and biometric surveillance technology will hinder the ability of civil society to function, and thus threaten Serbia’s transition to democracy.

This document is intended to inform decision-makers about main problems in communication between judicial authorities and media, both at the local and national levels. The lack of institutional openness and absence of trust between judicial authorities and media are among the most common characteristics of poor communication, on which both players must work strategically and make decisions. The appointment of persons in charge of media relations by judicial authorities, as well as better training of journalists for reporting on court proceedings represent the starting basis for good and unimpeded communication.

Partners Serbia has conducted research on the state of transparency of courts and prosecutors’ offices. The research, conducted between August 2021 and July 2022, was focused on three topics: • Proactive transparency and communication of judicial authorities through websites. • Reactive transparency (judicial authorities’ response to requests for access to information of public importance). • Cooperation between judicial authorities and media. The Analysis of the State of Transparency and Openness of Judicial Authorities was developed on the basis of the research and is available on the website of Partners Serbia.

According to different surveys, Serbian citizens have had a very low level of trust in judicial authorities for years.1 The only experience most citizens have had with the judicial system is their personal participation in court proceedings that are slow, and where justice and law frequently stand on the opposite sides. Moreover, media reports have the greatest influence on citizens’ opinion about the judiciary. The trend of institutional silence has not bypassed judicial authorities, which has paved the way to the tabloidization of investigations and court proceedings and enabled public officials to condemn or exonerate defendants in their speeches, which has, in turn, created an impression of incompetence and incapability of judicial authorities in the general public. Greater judicial transparency is a prerequisite for greater citizens' trust in the judiciary, as well as for greater independence of judicial authorities. In order for the judiciary to get closer to citizens, its rapprochement with the society calls for the opening of the judiciary towards citizens and learning how to communicate with them. Of course, rather than exposing court proceedings to additional tabloidization, judiciary should be helped to get closer to citizens. It is well known that full transparency is not possible, primarily because of the need to protect the effectiveness of investigations and interests of the involved; however, a better understanding of the way in which the judiciary functions would help to increase citizens' trust. The role of the media is to contribute to this by reporting truthfully and professionally, although this is not all. In their stories and investigations, media, and primarily investigative reporters, frequently reveal different corruption and fraud cases, which should ideally facilitate the work of prosecutors. Media also play an important role when it comes to the improvement of judicial independence and protection of individuals within the judicial system. The public represents the only barrier from pressure by other branches of power, while media provide a platform through which the voice of the judiciary can be heard.

This document is intended to inform decision-makers about main problems in communication between judicial authorities and media, both at the local and national levels. The lack of institutional openness and absence of trust between judicial authorities and media are among the most common characteristics of poor communication, on which both players must work strategically and make decisions. The appointment of persons in charge of media relations by judicial authorities, as well as better training of journalists for reporting on court proceedings represent the starting basis for good and unimpeded communication.