SERBIA BASELINE REPORT,
APRIL 2014
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
1
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
2
Synthesis of the baseline survey
COMPONENT 1: CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT
Objective 1: An enabling legal and policy environment, for the exercise of the rights of freedom, expression, assembly and association
Result 1.1.: All individuals and legal entities can express themselves freely, assemble peacefully and establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or
registered organisations
Indicator: 1.1.a: Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework
The Law on Associations (2009) and The Law on Endowments and Foundations (2010) implemented with no difficulties, considered to be modern laws that provide
a framework for CSOs work. Registration process is voluntary, with clear and simple and decentralized procedure and possibilities for a CSO to register in only few
days and on line. Networking is allowed by the Law and supported through a variety of policies and programs. Numerous informal groups are very active and
recognized by society. Local register agencies still struggle with some aspects of registering foundations, for example, how such entities should formulate their
establishing acts and define relations between co-founders. There is at least 100 functional networks at either the national or local levels; in survey from 2011 CSOs
specified more than 230 international networks of which they are members; however, domestic networks and domestic individual organizations appear among
them as well.
The Law on Associations and the Law on Endowments and Foundations stipulate that they are free in internal matters regulating by Statutes. Amendments to the
Law on the Budget System prescribes for mandatory registration of public funds beneficiaries and the registration in the Register of public funds in the Treasury, as
well as opening of a special purpose account for the special users of public funds or associations and other civil society organizations (CSOs). New Law on
Accounting defines CSOs as other legal entities applying the accounting regulations, while specific characteristics are reflected in the simplified evidencing rules
(they do not have to apply the International Accounting Standards), the special chart of accounts (obligatory three-digit accounts where categorization and
accounting of business changes are registered) and special forms of financial statements. Most CSOs are categorized as small legal entities and according to the new
criteria of categorization they will be categorized as micro legal entities and thus are not subject to the statutory audit of financial statements, as stipulated by the
new Law on Auditing adopted in July 2013. The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination are clearly prescribed by the law and Statute. Opening
obligatory account in Treasury imposes additional burden and costs to CSOs, buy making them to open new accounts. Furthermore, when open this account, CSO
has to pay higher bank fees than in the commercial bank; cash is not allowed; e-banking not possible.
Associations, foundations and endowments pursuing public interest objectives may engage directly in economic activities insofar as the prescribed condition are
met. CSO must register one economic activity - the so-called major economic activity it seeks to directly engage in - with the Registry of the Agency for Commercial
Registry, but may directly engage in other economic activities insofar as they are envisaged in its statute. There is inconsistency in implementation of the article on
economic activity, as the supervising state authority occasionally has taken a position that a CSO may only directly engage in the economic activity which is
registered with the Agency. Almost one quarter of CSOs registered business activities (24%). There are no restrictions on the CSOs to receive foreign funding. Bank
transaction fees which are not allowed as budget costs are identified by CSOs as financial burden to receive foreign funding. Receiving funds from anonymous
individuals through account is not possible as banks require legal base for the payment/income.
Although freedoms of assembly and expression are guaranteed to everybody, they are not always implemented by public authorities.
Freedom of assembly, i.e. peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the Constitution and regulated in detail by The Law on Public Assembly (2005). Spontaneous
gatherings are not allowed, since the application must be submitted, but the authorization is not needed. The law does not recognize/define the simultaneous and
counter-assemblies. The best known example of encroachment of the freedom of assembly is the Pride Parade prohibition. Official explanation given by Prime
minister was that the Pride Parade was restricted because assessments that may be compromising the safety of citizens and public order. The Constitutional Court
issued a decision granting Association’s "Belgrade Pride Parade" appeal on above mentioned decision and determined that the constitutional complaint’s right to
judicial protection and the right to freedom of assembly were violated.
Constitution of the Republic of Serbia guarantees freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom to speech, writing, painting, or otherwise seek, receive and
impart information and ideas, but prescribes the limitations also. The Anti-discrimination Law forbids expression of ideas, information and opinions that incite
discrimination, hatred or violence against a person or group of persons because of their personal characteristics, in the media and other publications, papers and
places accessible to the public, by printing and displaying messages or symbols, or otherwise. Libel was abolished as an offense by Amendments to the Criminal Law
from 2012 Data from AIEM (Association of Independent Electronic Media) reports show CSOs and human rights defenders were threatened freedom of expression
and critical work. The list of CSO entitled to "Black List of non-governmental organizations" and the similar list of media made by nationalistic associations
Legal framework guaranties to everyone the right to be truth, fully and timely informed about matters of public interest and public information are obliged to
respect this right. The Electronic Communications Law guarantees the confidentiality of electronic communications. CSO access to media depends on the level of
media interest in their activities, as well as political situation. Survey from 2011 showed that one third of CSOs has no access to Internet, which corresponds to the
finding that one third of CSOs do not have a computer/laptop in their organization. The Ombdusman initiated assessing the constitutionality of provisions of the
police interfere with the secrecy of communication channels and gave an opinion on the Draft regulation on detailed criteria for determining the degree of
confidentiality of classified information "confidential" and "internal" to the public authorities.
Indicator 1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
This indicator will be monitored as of this baseline in accordance to the adopted recommendations and targets.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Possible others’
Legal:
 Further assess or look for information if the legal framework allows both
N/A
individual and legal persons to exercise this right without discrimination
Practice:
(age, nationality, legal capacity, gender etc.)
 Key: Advocate public authorities for consistent implementation of the
 Improve procedures necessary for registration so it is truly accessible
constitutional rights related to the freedom of assembly and
within the legally prescribed deadlines; ensure impartiality of
expression.
authorities’ decisions during the registration procedure.
 Improve capacity of Serbian Business Registry Agency (SBRA) for registering
 Seek for more information in relation if the state provides protection
foundations and endowments
from interference by third parties
 Amend Law on Budget System in relation to treating CSOs and opening
 Look for more information in relation to sanctions for breaching legal
separate accounts in the Treasury
requirements, and if they are based on applicable legislation and follow
 Include CSOs in the process of adopting accounting by-laws
the principle of proportionality
 Raise awareness on the issue of conflict of interest
 Monitor cases of state interference in internal matters of associations,
 Make changes in relevant tax laws
foundations and other types of non-profit entities.
 Build capacity of relevant state administration on the topic, as well as CSOs
 Monitor practices of invasive oversights to which impose burdensome
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
3





who should be more aware of this opportunity
Change bank rules
Advocate for proper implementation of the Law
Closely monitor law implementation and advocate for timely
sanctioning of violators.
Increase media for CSOs and vice versa
Increase usage of social media










reporting requirements.
Monitor application of sanctions are applied in rare/extreme cases,
their proportionality and are they subject to a judicial review
Closer monitoring of the implementation of the Legislation on CSOs
engaging in economic activities
Look into possibilities to reduce bank fees for economic activities of the
CSOs
Provide and implement necessary changes to enable receipt of funding
from individuals, corporations and other sources is easy, effective and
without any unnecessary cost or administrative burden.
Possible monitoring of new Law on Public Procurement since it is
expected that it will create obstacles in performing economic activities
of CSOs
Need for enhancing legislation that will enable spontaneous,
simultaneous and counter-assemblies
More focused monitoring on existence of possible restriction in
applying the right based on law and prescribed by regulatory authority
Seek for closer monitoring of the Law on public assembly
Closer monition on existence of practices or cases of unjustified
monitoring by the authorities of communication channels, including the
Internet or ICT, or of collecting users’ information.
Closer monition on existence of cases of police harassment of members
of social network groups.
Result: 1.2. The policies and legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs
Indicator: 1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)
7.304 fully employed persons in associations in 2012


36% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 10% have one employee, 33% from 2-5 employees, and 22% over 6 employees
Out of total number of employees, 2.2% work full time, and 3.9% work part-time
Indicator: 1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector
Over 150.000 volunteers.






10% of CSOs in Serbia believe that up to 10% of CSOs engage volunteers, 9% of CS0s believe that 11-20% of CSOs engage volunteers, 38% of CSOs believe
that 21-50% of CSOs engage volunteers, and 31% of CSOs believe that over 50% of CSOs in Serbia engage volunteers
79% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 21% stated that have not engaged volunteers in 2013
24% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 47% of CSOs over 15 volunteers, and 29% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013
21% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 62% did not pay any pecuniary costs
47% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering contract with volunteers, while 6% stated that they have concluded with up to 3 volunteers,
10% concluded with 4-10 volunteers, and 6% with over 6 volunteers
50% of CSOs did not conclude any other contract with volunteers
Indicator: 1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework
75% of CSOs believe that legal solutions are not stimulating for volunteering in Serbia, while 15% believe the legal solutions are stimulating
CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers by law and policies. There are no additional requirements when employing people in CSO. The Labour Law
in the same way treats CSOs and other employers. Labour Law is rigid in terms of employees' contracting rules as it does not allow time-limited project related
contracting. This makes employment in CSO sector quite difficult. CSOs use state incentive programs for employment: start up programs, the first chance programs,
young people to 30 years old employment, professional development programs. There are no defined specific statistics for non-profit sectors.
The Law on Volunteering is too codifying and makes it difficult for CSOs in Serbia to engage volunteers in their work; for example the law prescribes obligatory
agreements between a volunteer and an organization that engages him/her. This Law regulates basic terms related to volunteering, principles of volunteering,
contract on volunteering, rights and obligations of volunteers and organizers of volunteering and oversight on the application of this Law. The Law is putting
additional administrative burden to CSOs so that CSOs are trying to avoid these demands by creative implementation. On certain other points, the Law remains
unclear; for example, it introduces the division into long-term, short-term and ad hoc volunteering, but without a clear distinction between them (or clear
obligations that would arise from the selection of a given form of voluntary engagement). There are indications that the Law is being misused by employers, who
are using its unclear regulations to engage young, educated people as volunteers instead of employing them. Volunteer work is not recognized.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Possible others’
Legal:
 Seek for the changes in Labour Law so it enables easier mobilisation of
 Amend Law on volunteering
the labour force in CSOs
Practice:
 Increase number of incentives and state supported programs for the
 Introduce more state incentive programs for CSOs
development and promotion of volunteering
 Introduce regular statistical analysis of the non-profit sector, to be
comparative with other sectors throughout the world
 Changes in practice will follow changes in the Law
Result 1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations* and/or civic initiatives.
Indicator: 1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives
Registration process is voluntary, with clear and simple and decentralized procedure and possibilities for a CSO to register in only few days and on line. Numerous
informal groups are very active and recognized by society. Local register agencies still struggle with some aspects of registering foundations, for example, how such
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
4
entities should formulate their establishing acts and define relations between co-founders. There are at least 100 functional networks at either the national or local
levels and more than 230 international networks of which they are members; however, domestic networks and domestic individual organizations appear among
them as well.
Spontaneous gatherings are not allowed, since the application must be submitted, but the authorization is not needed. The law does not recognize/define the
simultaneous and counter-assemblies. Legal framework guaranties to everyone the right to be truth, fully and timely informed about matters of public interest and
public information are obliged to respect this right.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
N/A
Possible others’
 Additional attention to registering foundations, i.e. how to formulate
establishing acts and define relationships between co-founders
 Need for enhancing legislation that will enable spontaneous,
simultaneous and counter-assemblies
 Seek specific monitoring if there are cases of police harassment of
members of social network groups.
Objective: 2. An enabling financial environment which supports sustainability of CSOs.
Result: 2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turnover and non-commercial activities


Indicator: 2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO)
21% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear and
understandable, while for 77% were clear and understandable
For 35% of CSOs it is not simple to implement prescribed financial rule, obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not
clear and understandable, while for 62% is simple to implement
Indicator: 2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms that financial rules and obligations change as the turn-over
and non-commercial activities change).
The new Law on Accounting was adopted (2013) and it recognized specificities of the non-profit sector, effects of this will come into force starting from drafting and
submitting financial statements for 2014. Amendments to the Law on the Budget System prescribe for mandatory registration of public funds beneficiaries and the
registration in the Register of public funds in the Treasury, and the opening of a special purpose account for the special users of public funds or associations and
other civil society organizations (CSOs). New Law on Accounting defines CSOs as other legal entities applying the accounting regulations, while specific
characteristics are reflected in the simplified evidencing rules (they do not have to apply the International Accounting Standards), the special chart of accounts
(obligatory three-digit accounts where categorization and accounting of business changes are registered) and special forms of financial statements. Most CSOs are
categorized as small legal entities and according to the new criteria of categorization they will be categorized as micro legal entities and thus are not subject to the
statutory audit of financial statements, as stipulated by the new Law on Auditing. The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination are clearly
prescribed by the law and Statute. Opening obligatory account in Treasury imposes additional burden and costs to CSOs that is mostly related to the necessity to
open new accounts. Furthermore, when open this account, CSO has to pay higher bank fees than in the commercial bank; cash handling is not allowed; e-banking
not possible.
Associations, foundations and endowments pursuing public interest objectives may engage directly in economic activities insofar as the prescribed condition are
met. CSO must register one economic activity - the so-called major economic activity it seeks to directly engage in - with the Registry of the Agency for Commercial
Registry, but may directly engage in other economic activities insofar as they are envisaged in its statute. There is inconsistency in implementation of the article on
economic activity, as the supervising state authority occasionally has taken a position that a CSO may only directly engage in the economic activity which is
registered with the Agency. Almost one quarter of CSOs registered business activities (24%). Among them, the most were CSOs involved in environmental issues
(29%), while the fewest were those involved in healthcare (14%). There is no restrictions on the CSOs to receive foreign funding. Bank transaction fees which are
not allowed as budget costs are identified by CSOs as financial burden to receive foreign funding. Receiving funds from anonymous individuals through account is
not possible as banks require legal base for the payment/income.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Possible others’
Legal:
 Seek for more information in relation if the state provides protection
 Amend Law on Budget System in relation to treating CSOs and opening
from interference by third parties.
separate accounts in the Treasury
 Look for more information in relation to sanctions for breaching legal
 Include CSOs in the process of adopting accounting by-laws
requirements, and if they are based on applicable legislation and follow
 Change relevant tax laws
the principle of proportionality.
Practice:
 Monitor:
 Build capacity of relevant state administration on the topic, as well as CSOs
o If there are practices of invasive oversights to which impose
who should be more aware of this opportunity
burdensome reporting requirements.
 Change bank rules
o application of sanctions are applied in rare/extreme cases, their
proportionality and are they subject to a judicial review
o If CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding, and funding from
individuals, corporations and other sources
 Closer monitoring of the implementation of the Legislation on CSOs
engaging in economic activities is implemented and is not burdensome
for CSOs.
 Look into possibilities to reduce bank fees for economic activities of the
CSOs
 Provide and implement necessary changes to enable receipt of funding
from individuals, corporations and other sources is easy, effective and
without any unnecessary cost or administrative burden.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
5
Result: 2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations
Indicator: 2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
Individual charitable giving is not recognized by the Law as the ground for tax deduction. Requirements for receiving deductible donations are prescribed by the Tax
Property law and set of publicly beneficial activities is not in compliance with Law on Associations and Law on F&E. Corporations have recognized expenditures for
health care, cultural, educational, scientific, humanitarian, religious, environmental protection and sport-related purposes, including contributions to the social
security institutions established in compliance with the social security law, up to 5% (Law from May 2013). National Strategy on CSR is adopted in 2010 for 5 year
period. Individual donations are not tax deducted. Corporate tax deductions are characterised by complicated procedure. Quite often, when giving donations,
corporations are subject to inspections. There are few CSOs leading in this topic and they are partners to the state in promoting CSR. The associations which have
the license and accreditation for offering social security services are at a disadvantage as far as taxation is concerned in comparison to the social security institutions
because tax statements of the business companies as providers of material assistance will recognize only the expenditures to social security institutions. No specific
deductions for these types of organizations.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Amend tax related laws
 Harmonize tax laws with LoA and LoF&E
Practice:
 N/A
Possible others’
 Seek for clear requirements/conditions for receiving deductible
donations and these include a wide range of publicly beneficial activities
 Promote individual and corporate donations to be treated as tax
deduction and corporate tax deductions
 Seek for monitoring of the procedures related to this topic
 Expand the list of expenditures that should be recognised in tax
statement with humanitarian purposes including: contributions for
protection of human rights, building a legal state, anti-corruption
campaign, animal protection or sustainable development
 Ensure inclusion of associations as other subjects of social security
 Promote CSR
Result: 2.3. Financial (e.g. tax or in-kind) benefits are available
Indicator 2.3.a.: Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities
Public benefit status is not clearly defined; tax system not favorable for CSOs; tax administration inconsistently implement laws and regulations.
Serbia does not stipulate any exemption from property tax on the real estate for associations, foundations and similar CSOs performing activities of public interest,
like many other Eastern EU countries. The Property Tax Law from 2010 has abolished the 2.5% tax on gifts for foundations, endowments and associations for
gifts/inheritance received and intended exclusively for achieving the public benefit objectives; the non-taxable amount up to which received funds are not subject
to gift tax was raised to 100.000 dinars (877EUR). The Corporate Profit Tax Law generally exempts CSOs from taxation on grants, donations, membership dues, and
non-economic sources of income. Profit generated by an NGO is exempt from income tax, provided that: a) income from economic activities did not exceed a given
threshold of 400,000 dinars (EUR 3,500); b) earnings were not distributed to the founders, employees, members of the management board, or any affiliated person
thereof; c) salaries for the members of the management board and employees do not exceed double the average salary paid by organizations engaged in the same
activities in the commercial sector; d) all earned profit was used to further the objectives for which the organization was created; and e) the CSO's economic
activities do not give rise to unfair competition with the private business sector, as defined by the antitrust law.
Establishment of endowments allowed, however no specific tax benefit. In 2012, different para-fiscal taxes have been abolished, which were primarily regulated by
the local governments; such are “ecological tax”, “communal tax” or "branding" tax in many other municipalities. However, there are still examples of tax
administration requesting different para-fiscal taxes to be paid. They were overburdening CSOs who are, with diminished funds, less and less able to fulfil their
obligations, especially smaller, out-of-the-capital ones.. Passive investments are used only if funders allow. In practice, there are some difficulties in registering
endowments due to lack of knowledge of the SBRA.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Key: Define Public benefit status and harmonize different laws;
improve tax system to be more favourable for CSOs; increase capacity
of tax administration to understand specificities of CSOs.



Possible others’
 N/A
Amend set of tax related laws
Practice should follow changes in the tax related laws
Capacity building of tax administration needed in order for them to understand
the specifics of CSOs
Result 2.4.: Government support to CSOs is available and provided in a transparent, accountable, fair and non-discriminatory manner
Indicator 2.4.a.: Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs. (this proves availability of funds)
Public funds for CSOs are not clearly planned within the state budget. Funds from line 481 (grants for CSOs) and line 472 (financing of social protection services)
from state budget1 are intended to CSOs’ financing. However, sport clubs, churches, public institutions, Red Cross that already has its own line defined within the
budget; even individuals were financed from the same line.
 Total funds distributed through line 481 were70 million EUR:
 40% allocated for churches, religious communities and political parties
 60% for CSOs (around 39 million EUR)
 The Ministry of Youth and Sports with 47.04%,
 the Ministry of Finance and Economy approved 40%
 the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy 5.62%
Having in mind that line 481 is still not diversified it means that out of 39 million EUR, larger proportion is allocated to sports clubs and associations.
1
Report “Annual consolidated report on budget expenditures provided to the associations and other civil society organizations from the budget of the Republic of Serbia in 2011 ", Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
6
Indicator 2.4.b.: Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)
State support is not transparent enough, CSOs are not involved in the prioritizing and programming, especially on the local level.
State support to CSOs is regulated by the Law on Aassociations, the Law on Endowments and Foundations; By-law/regulation on criteria of financing and cofinancing CSOs activities from the national budget. Funds are provided only for projects/programs, but not for institutional development for CSOs. There is no
unique national body/institution with mandate for distribution of public funds to CSOs. There are no clear procedures as well. Available public funding often are
insufficient even for covering administrative costs. Co-funding is introduced by the Office, but on very small scale as compared to sector needs. Funding is neither
predictable, nor easy to identify although Office prepares consolidated report - Funds intended for CSOs financing are used for sport clubs, Red Cross organizations,
public institutions, even individuals financing.
The By-law on criteria of financing and co-financing CSOs activities from the national budget prescribes that allocation of s based on public call announced by the
competent authority and announced on the official website, as well as criteria, conditions, scope, method, process allocation, and the manner and process of
returning funds. Procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest in decision-making are prescribed by Law on prevention of conflict of interest in discharge of
public office. Information are publicly announced on the official website of the competent authorities and/or daily newspaper. According to Annual consolidated
report on spending of funds planned and disbursed to associations and other CSOs procedures are followed and applied in a harmonized way. In October 2013, the
Government has adopted changes of the By-law. Based on the request by more than 100 organizations, and in cooperation with the Office for cooperation with
civil society, amount of paper work is reduced; required documents will be provided by relevant institutions and public bodies. CSOs stated that the CSOs
supporting political parties in power are favored on calls/tenders The Ministry’s of Youth and Sports requirement for partnerships with local youth offices as a
condition for application was stated as negative example. CSOs rarely participate in tenders. One of the articles of the Law on Association allows for "any legal
entity to found a non-governmental organization", this creates a situation of potential non-disclosed conflict of interest in cases when CSO is founded by the
political party, since all CSOs can apply for funding from national or local budgets and decisions on those funds are made by people from the same parties.
The procedure and sanctions are prescribed by the By-law on criteria of financing and co-financing CSOs activities from the national budget. Monitoring is carried
during the project implementation, but without consolidated standards for all public institutions. The regular evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is not
carried; only outputs are monitored but not outcomes.
Constitution of Serbia, the Law on public property, the Law on local self-government, the Law on local self-government financing, towns' / municipalities'
decisions on the use of state-owned property , the national youth strategy are the legal base for non-financial support to CSOs but they are treated in same manner
as other legal entities. The Regulation on conditions for obtaining and alienation of immovable property by direct negotiation, public property lease, public bidding
procedures and collection of written bids defines procedures for providing property - space for CSOs functioning in mostly cases. The National Youth Strategy as
well as the Regulation on the Office for cooperation with civil society establishment prescribe organization of trainings and seminars for CSOs’ and informal groups’
capacity building. State institutions are publishing different publication/guidelines for cooperation between state/local institutions and CSOs improvement. State
institutions support CSOS initiatives and activities by letters of support or authorizations. There are cases when state authorities influence or suggest selection of
activities implemented by CSOs so it would contribute to increase political support
Service provision allowed for CSOs, however not stimulated for CSOs .
The Law on Social Protection (March 2011) introduced CSOs as potential service providers, which is a novelty as compared to the previous Law and might
significantly influence both the work and sustainability of CSOs involved in the area of social protection. CSOs are allowed to provide innovative services. Through
adoption of number of by-laws dealing with the standardization and licensing, burdensome requirements on CSOs will be imposed. The Law on Public Procurement
(2012), which requires for transparent tender procedure in case of bidding for funding services from public sources, with criteria that not many CSOs can meet.
CSOs are not included in all phases of the development and provision of services, having in mind that only state institutions – Centers for Social Work- are
authorized to estimate if there is need for social services and which for. The process of obtaining a license for the social services providing is too complicated for
CSOs so that very few CSOs have the opportunity to gain Public License. The favoring state institution in licensing process is noticed, also. The lack of license has the
effect that the CSOs cannot get funding from public funds for the services providing that will affect a large number of users of social services which will not be
sustainable.
There are several budget lines from the State Budget dealing with the social services. However there is no multiyear funding available. The main problem is that
CSOs are not able to get license for providing services which entails the impossibility of being beneficiaries of public funds. Funds allocated to CSO are not sufficient;
the delays and non-compliance with the deadlines by state institutions are present.
The Public Procurement law prescribes clear procedures and types of procedures for the funds for services distribution. According to law on Social Protection: The
purchaser is obliged to provide the highest quality and most cost-effective provision of social services to be procured through the procurement. The Public
Procurement law ensures transparency and regulates the conflict of interests issues. Some of the calls are designed in a way to know in advance who will meet the
criteria, it is often the case with calls for social services, which are favoured by the Centres for social welfare/work or other state institutions with regard to CSOs.Possibility for monitoring of both, spending and the quality of service providers, is prescribed by the Law on Social Protection, as well as by Regulation on licensing
CSOs social service providers and Rules on the conditions and standards for the provision of social services. Monitoring is performed during the project
implementation, but evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services provided is missed
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Possible others’
Legal:
 Include that public funding foresees institutional development of CSOs
 Key: Improve transparency of the State support, introduce better
 Ensure greater participation of CSOs in entire public funding cycle
regulations and increase CSO participation in programming, especially
 Introduce a mechanism that will guarantee full transparency in the
on the local level.
distribution of funding from the state in relation to the stated article of
 Develop clear procedures for CSO participation in all phases of the public
the law on Associations
funding
 Develop consolidated standards for all public institutions when carrying
 Amend request guarantees for funds distribution
out monitoring
 Develop a regulation with clear system of accountability, monitoring and
 Introduce evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is not carried
evaluation
 Harmonise the law on Social protection with the Law on Public
 Develop a clear procedure/guidelines for non-financial support
Procurement so the threshold for accessing such contracts is also
 Key: Advocate for introduction of social contracting for CSOs.
accessible to the CSOs.
 Amend Law on Social protection
 Seek for closer monitoring of licensing and inclusion of CSOs for social
 Introduce social contracting
services
 Amend Laws so that multiyear funding is possible
 Introduce social contracting
 Improve the fairness of competition, with conflict of interests being
avoided
 Action plan for Law implementation should be adopted
Practice:
 Increase co-funding
 Diversify line 481
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
7





Implement bylaw on all levels, providing that guarantees requirements are
abolished
Increase capacities of CSOs to perform as service providers
Provide sufficient funding to cover CSO basic costs, including overheads
Introduce more flexibility in funding
Introduce service provision by by the Law on Social Protection
Changing relations CSOs and government
Objective 3: Civil society and public institutions work in partnership through dialogue and cooperation, based on willingness, trust and mutual
acknowledgment around common interests
Result: 3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSOs' inclusion in decision making processes
Indicator: 3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively* consulted with CSOs
* in terms of: adequate access to information, sufficient time to comment, selection and representativeness / diversity of working groups, acknowledgement of input,
degree to which input is taken into account, feedback / publication of consultation results
Indicator: 3.1.b Quality* of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions
* in terms of: CSO representation in general, representation of smaller/weaker CSOs, its visibility and availability, government perception of quality of structures and
mechanisms, CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms








33% of CSOs in Serbia were consulted in the process of preparation of drafts of local strategies, 27% of local action plans, 28% of specific laws, 30% of
national strategies, 21% of national action plans, 11% of IPA programming of EU financial support, 8% of policy documents, 37% were not present in such
consultations
83% of CSOs believe that they have adequate access to information
71% of CSOs believe that they have enough time for comments
66% of CSOs believe that their attitudes/positions were not taken into consideration during the consultations, while 30% believe that their inputs were take
into consideration
20% of CSOs assessed that there neither feedback nor consultancy results were published, 69% believe there was no feedback, and that some consultancy
results were published by the public administration bodies, 10% of CSOs assessed that public administration provided detailed enough feedback, and
consultancy results were easily available to all parties
15% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms between CSOs and governments, 57% state that are familiar, but do not
believe that they have actual use, 27% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful
17% of CSOs stated that are not familiar with the structures and mechanisms for cooperation with local governments, 51% stated that are familiar, but
believe that they have no actual use, and 32% stated that are familiar with the structures and mechanisms and consider them useful
26% CSOs believe that attending the consultations, 22% that promotion of importance of the EU Integration, and 21% that providing suggestions is the most
important role CSOs have for monitoring the process of reporting on country’s progress towards EU
There is a strategic approach to furthering state-CSO cooperation and CSO development; CSOs are included in decision making sporadically, in final phases with
no feedback provided on their inputs.
There is still no national document on rules and practices for Government-CSO cooperation, but CSOs actively participated in preparation of national legal and
strategic documents (numerous laws, Poverty Reduction Strategy, Youth Strategy Local development strategies of different Serbian Municipalities). There is lack of
clear mechanism for consultation with CSOs that would ensure that civil society (or for the matter, citizens) are properly consulted in the process of drafting and
adopting legislation or policies; however, examples of CSOs participation in certain phases exists. Generally, CSOs are involved in all phases of commenting and
public debate, but not when policies are created and shaped.
The National Assembly’s Rules of procedures defines which documents have to be published on the National Assembly website. The Government’s Rules of
procedures prescribes its work is public. Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance defines clear procedures for access to public information,
conditions, exception and deadlines have to be met, as well as sanctions for civil servants for breaching the legal requirements on access to public information.
There are several website/portals publishing legal, strategic documents and public calls (e-uprava/e-government, paragraf.rs, etc. Annual report on the
implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance and the Law on Protection of Personal Data contains relevant data on requests for
access to public information an number/reasons of violation.
There is no formal requirements / obligations for CSOs participation in different decision-making and/or advisory bodies created, nether clear guidelines on how to
ensure it. The Government Rules of Procedure prescribes the mandatory public hearing; proponent is required to conduct a public hearing in preparation a law that
significantly modify certain issues or issues of special interest to public. A certain level of cooperation has also been established with the Serbian parliament and
there are examples of CSOs’ Access to Plenary and Committee Sessions and Parliamentary Hearings. CSOs stated that the practice of consultation with CSOs has not
been developed. Calls are absent; enough time isn’t given to comment, calls are sent in later stages of development when they only minimal changes could be
done. Also, CSOs pointed out that feedback on the outcome of the consultation, as well as respond to comments are largely absent.
The Office for Cooperation with Civil Society was established in 2010 as national level institution with a mandate to facilitate cooperation with civil society
organizations. There is lack of clear mechanisms for consultations with CSOs that would ensure that civil society (or for that matter, citizens) are properly consulted
in the process of drafting and adopting legislation or policies; however, examples of CSOs participation in certain phases exists. SECO mechanism is used to involve
CSOs in the IPA programming process. Office has become fully operational, supporting the governmental institutions to understand and recognize the role of CSOs
in decision making processes. At the same time, the Office successfully facilitates communication between two sectors in the process of defining and implementing
legislative procedures and public policies.
Recognizing that the relations between the Government and CSOs are still fragmented without structured forms of cooperation between the two sectors, the Office
has drafted Guidelines for participation of interested public in the decision making processes, which is to be adopted by the Government. General professional
training programs for civil servants in the public administration and government services for 2012 and 2013 defined training on cooperation between the public
administration and civil society in the design and implementation of public policy: the legislative, institutional and financial framework. The state increasingly invites
civil society representatives to take part in the discussions what is often superficial and donor-driven, which is taken to demonstrate to donors that civil society is
being included. Most CSOs are consulted in the final phase of a draft law/policy shaping without sufficient information well in advance and when any changes are
almost impossible. CSOs stated that the practice of consultation with CSOs has not been developed. Calls are absent; enough time isn’t given to comment, calls are
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
8
sent in later stages of development when they only minimal changes could be done. Also, CSOs pointed out that feedback on the outcome of the consultation, as
well as respond to comments are largely absent. Insufficient number of civil servants participates in trainings (25-30 per training). The bigger problem presents the
profile of persons who participate in training - persons who are not directly involved in relevant operations and / or are less burdened with work tasks participate in
professional development training.
Generally, CSOs are involved in phase of commenting and public debate, but not when policies are created and shaped.
Recommendations:
BCSDN’s
Legal:
 Key: Adopt National strategy for CSO enabling environment, and
establish Council for CSOs; Adopt guidelines/regulations for CSO
participation in decision making processes, with clear criteria.
 Adopt a strategic document/National strategy
 Improve statistical surveys related to CSOs
 Adopt guidelines for CSO participation in decision making
 Establish guidelines and clear criteria to ensure appropriate
representation of CSOs
 Adopt guidelines for CSO participation in decision making
 Adopt standards
Practice:
 Involve CSOs in all phases of policy shaping
 Introduce more than one mechanism (Office), to directly communicate
with ministries and other bodies
 Involve CSOs in all phases of the process
 Organize process of consultations in timely manner; feedback should be
provided after CSOs submit proposals and comments
 Involve CSOs in decision making process at early stage
 Build capacity of public administration to understand importance and
role of CSOs
Possible others’
 N/A
CSOs Capacities
Objective 4.: Capable, transparent and accountable CSOs
Result 4.1.: CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries




Indicator 4.1.a.: Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)
32% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in their country is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 47% believe that
decisions are made by some individual or top management, 19% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees
and volunteers
54% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 18% stated that decisions
are made by some individual or top management, 27% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including consultations with the employees and
volunteers
81% of CSOs stated that they have prescribed obligations to inform the members, or Managerial or Supervisory Board, customers or general public about
the results of your work
95% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of their work, 80% inform founders of their organisation, 89% inform management
board, 83% inform beneficiaries of their organisation, 85% inform general public, 90% general assembly, and 77% inform supervisory board
Result 4.2.: CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public







Indicator 4.2.a.: External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.
29.9% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population trust the most to the President of the state Presidency 61.9% of surveyed, and the
least to political parties 22.7% of surveyed
61.5% of general population do not trust to NGOs, 73.5% of surveyed do not trust to political parties, and 67.6% of surveyed do not trust to judiciary
34.5% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing with problems in their country, President of the state presidency supports the most in
dealing with problems 66.3%, and political parties support the least 31.3%
66% of CSOs believe that the reason for lack of public presence of CSOs is insufficient interest of the media in reporting on CSOs activities, while 33% of
CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities
Almost all topics and issues listed in the survey were assessed as relevant, by over 90% of surveyed citizens, only 82% of surveyed expressed interest in
protection of animals was assessed , 89% in culture and art, 87% in rural development2
77% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting problems in human rights area, 72% believe in the area of rights of women, and
70% in social care and humanitarian activities
73% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active in fighting problems in rural development, 68% believe in the area of employment, and
56% in safety
Result 4.3.: CSOs are transparent about their programme activities and financial management
2
Topics and issues assessed included: education, social care and humanitarian activities, human rights, employment, the young and their problems, culture and art, ecology,
violence, rights of women, fight against corruption, fight agaiinst drug abuse and aloholism, safety, overseen government and local governemnets performances, rural development,
protection of animals.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
9









Indicator 4.3.a.: Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available
41% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web page, 23% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 34% stated that the statute is not
accessible to the public
51% of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public from their office
23% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on their web page, 10% stated that they have a rulebook, 34% stated that have a rulebook,
but it is not accessible to the public, and 33% stated that they do not have a rulebook
31% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in FYR Macedonia publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 24% believe that only 11-30% of
CSOs do so, 23% believe that 31%-70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 15% believe that more than 70% do so
33% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their web page, and 44% stated that they do not have APS of Work accessible to public
38% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational financial reports, 20% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish financial report, 15% believe
that from 31-70% and 18% of CSOs believe that more than 70% of CSO publish financial reports
26% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to public and published on the web page, while 49% stated they do not have financial reports
available to the public
49% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited reports, and 12% believe that more than 70% publish audited reports
19% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 59% of CSOs stated that they do not
have audited financial reports available to the public
Result 4.4.: CSOs monitor and evaluate the results and impact of their work





Indicator 4.4.a: Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators
29% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 68% evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and drawing a lesson for further
projects
23% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their projects
12% use external evaluator for assessment of implementation of their organisational strategy
86% of CSOs have established system for assessment of efficiency for realisation of conducted projects
69% of CSOs have established system for assessment for implementation of organisation’s strategic plan
Objective 5.: Effective CSOs
Result 5.1.: CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning





Indicator 5.1.a: Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent
71% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 15% do not have a strategic plan
79% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their organisation
40% of CSOs neither have established system for assessment of efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 30% of CSOs have internal strategic plan
dealing with these issues
44% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented associates, while 27% stated that they are
developing such plan
80% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented associates, and 81% believe that they manage to attract quality new people
Result 5.2.: CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities




Indicator 5.2.a.: Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals
64% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses research for their advocacy actions, while 35% of them mainly/very rarely use research
77% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their disposal
47% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices, ministries, 30% of CSOs collect necessary data from many sources of information, 15% conduct
their own studies
82% of CSOs access necessary data via official data of national statistic offices, ministries
Result 5.3.: CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy








Indicator 5.3.a: Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks
44% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any international network, 23% stated that belong to one international network, 13% stated that they
belong to 2 international networks, 11% belong to more than 3 international networks
2% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 46% are active in one international network, 19% are active in 2 international networks, and 17%
are active in more than 3 international networks
18% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national network, 36% stated that belong to one national network, 14% stated that they belong to 2
national networks, 26% belong to more than 3 national networks
3% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 46% are active in one national network, 14% are active in 2 national networks, and 29% are active in
more than 3 national networks
57% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local network, 21% stated that belong to one local network, 5% stated that they belong to 2 local
networks, 8% belong to more than 3 local networks
4% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 44% are active in one local network, 12% are active in 2 local networks, and 17% are active in more than
3 local networks
30% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 67% find them efficient
26% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a network, 27% gained in terms of
access to information/exchange of information, 15% gained in greater visibility/influence/strength/affirmation of CSOs
Objective 6.:Financially sustainable CSOs
Result 6.1.: Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
10


Indicator 6.1.a.: Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans
66% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Macedonia mainly adopt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with their organisational
strategic plan, while 34% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Macedonia mainly stich with their strategic plan and collect funds for activities in line with their
strategic plan
70% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick to their strategic plans and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan, while 28% stated that they
adapt to donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans
Result 6.2.: CSO have a diversified funding base, including membership fees, corporate/individual giving and social entrepreneurship


Indicator 6.2.a.: Diversity in CSO sources of income
4% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past year, 11% had one donor, 30% had between 2-3 donors, 20% had 4-5 donors, and 29% over
6 donors
43% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 33% had from citizens, 55% form local self-government and/or regional administration, 29% from other
foreign private or state resources, 23% form the EU funds, 35% form governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 29% from private companies
operating in the country, 21% from public companies
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
11
Objectives
Results
Indicator
Baseline findings
Scoring
Recommendations
Conducive environment
1. An enabling legal and
policy environment,
for the exercise of the
rights of freedom,
expression, assembly
and association,
1.1. All individuals and legal entities can express themselves freely, assemble peacefully and establish, join and participate in non-formal and/or registered organisations
1.1.a. Quality assessment of existing legislation and policy framework
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal
22/100
Freedom of establishment and participation in informal/ formal
organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations
organisations online/offline of individuals/ organisations
organisations online/ offline of individuals/ organisations
Legislation: (10)
Legislation:
Legislation (BCSDN):
1) There is a legal framework according to which any person can
No recommendations
 The Law on Associations (2009) and The Law on Endowments and
establish associations, foundations and other types of non-profit,
Legislation (possible other):
Foundations (2010) implemented with no difficulties, considered to
non-governmental entities (e.g., non-profit company) for any
be modern laws that provide a framework for CSOs work
 Further assess or look for information if the legal
purpose. (1.1.1.L1)
framework allows both individual and legal persons to
 Registration process is voluntary, with clear and simple and
2) The legal framework allows both individual and legal persons to
exercise this right without discrimination (age, nationality,
decentralized procedure and possibilities for a CSO to register in
exercise this right without discrimination (age, nationality, legal
legal capacity, gender etc.)
only few days and on line
capacity, gender etc). (1.1.1.L2)
 Networking is allowed by the Law and supported through a variety
3) Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations
of policies and programs
decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and
Practice (BCSDN):
Practice
allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal
Improve capacity of Serbian Business Registry Agency (SBRA) for
 Number of 21.491 registered association, 49 foreign associations,
process (1.1.1.L3)
registering foundations and endowments
496 endowments and foundations, 15 foreign endowments and
4) The law allows for networking among organizations in the countries
Practice
(possible other):
foundations branches is evidence of a widespread practice of
and abroad without prior notification. (1.1.1.L4)
 Improve procedures necessary for registration so it is truly
association
Practice (10):
accessible within the legally prescribed deadlines; ensure
 Numerous informal groups are very active and recognized by
1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations,
impartiality of authorities’ decisions during the
society
foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations
registration procedure.
 Local register agencies still struggle with some aspects of registering
offline or online. (1.1.1.P1)
foundations, for example, how such entities should formulate their
2) Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering
establishing acts and define relations between co-founders
their organizations. (1.1.1.P2)
 There is at least 100 functional networks at either the national or
3) Registration is truly accessible within the legally prescribed
local levels; in survey from 2011 CSOs specified more than 230
deadlines; authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and
international networks of which they are members; however,
apolitical manner. (1.1.1.P3)
domestic networks and domestic individual organizations appear
4) Individuals and CSOs can form and participate in networks and
among them as well.
coalitions, within and outside their home countries. (1.1.1.P4)
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state
interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
Legislation
Legislation (BCSDN):
 The Law on Associations and the Law on Endowments and
 Amend Law on Budget System in relation to treating CSOs
Foundations stipulate that they are free in internal matters
and opening separate accounts in the Treasury
regulating by Statutes

Participation of CSOs needed in the process of adopting
 Law on Amendments to the Law on the Budget System prescribes
accounting by-laws
for mandatory registration of public funds beneficiaries and the
Legislation
(possible other):
registration in the Register of public funds in the Treasury, and the

Apart
from suggested by BCSDN
opening of a special purpose account for the special users of public
Freedom of CSOs operations in relation to unwarranted state

Seek
for
more information in relation if the state provides
funds or associations and other civil society organizations (CSOs)
interference in CSOs’ internal governance and activities
protection
from interference by third parties.
 New Law on Accounting defines CSOs as other legal entities
Legislation (15):

Look
for
more
information in relation to sanctions for
applying the accounting regulations, while specific characteristics
1) The legal framework provides guarantees against state interference
breaching
legal
requirements, and if they are based on
are reflected in the simplified evidencing rules (they do not have to
in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of
applicable legislation and follow the principle of
apply the International Accounting Standards), the special chart of
non-profit entities. (1.1.2.L1)
proportionality.
accounts (obligatory three-digit accounts where categorization and
2) The state provides protection from interference by third parties.
accounting of business changes are registered) and special forms of
(1.1.2.L2)
financial statements.
3) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and
 Most CSOs are categorized as small legal entities and according to
accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs
the new criteria of categorization they will be categorized as micro
and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its
legal entities and thus are not subject to the statutory audit of
type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3)
financial statements, as stipulated by the new Law on Auditing
4) Sanctions for breaching legal requirements should be based on
adopted in July 2013
applicable legislation and follow the principle of proportionality.
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
12
(1.1.2.L4)
5) The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination meet
the standards of international law and are based on objective
criteria which restrict arbitrary decision making. (1.1.2.L5)
Practice (5):
There are no cases of state interference in internal matters of
associations, foundations and other types of non-profit entities.
(1.1.2.P1)
1) There are no practices of invasive oversight to which impose
burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2)
2) Sanctions are applied in rare/extreme cases, they are proportional
and are subject to a judicial review (1.1.2.P3)
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from
various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation:
1) Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities (1.1.3.L1)
2) CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding (1.1.3.L2)
3) CSO are allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations
and other sources (1.1.3.L3)
Practice:
1) Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is implemented
and is not burdensome for CSOs. (1.1.3.P1)
2) There are no restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial burden,
preapprovals, or channelling such funds via specific bodies) on CSOs
to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.P2)
3) Receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and other sources
is easy, effective and without any unnecessary cost or
administrative burden. (1.1.3.P3)
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or
CSOs
Legislation:
1) The legal framework is based on international standards and
provides the right for freedom of assembly for all without any
discrimination (1.2.1.L1).
2) The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous
and counter-assemblies (1.2.1.L2)
3) The exercise of the right is not subject to prior authorization by the
authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure,
which is not burdensome. (1.2.1.L3)
4) Any restriction of the right based on law and prescribed by
regulatory authority can be appealed by organizers (1.2.1.L4)
Practice:
1) There are no cases of encroachment of the freedom of assembly,
and any group of people can assemble at desired place and time, in
line with the legal provisions. (1.2.1.P1)
2) Restrictions are justified with explanation of the reason for each
restriction, which is promptly communicated in writing to the
3
4
 The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination are
clearly prescribed by the law and Statute
Practice:
 A case was reported that a representative of the municipality
council requested to be elected as board member of the local CSO
that is receiving funds from the municipality budget
 Opening obligatory account in Treasury imposes additional burden
& costs to CSOs, which have to open new accounts. Furthermore,
when open this account, CSO has to pay higher bank fees than in
the commercial bank; cash not allowed; e-banking not possible.
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from
various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation:
 Associations, foundations and endowments pursuing public interest
objectives may engage directly in economic activities insofar as the
prescribed condition are met
 CSO must register one economic activity - the so-called major
economic activity it seeks to directly engage in - with the Registry of
the Agency for Commercial Registry, but may directly engage in
other economic activities insofar as they are envisaged in its statute.
Practice:
 Inconsistency in implementation of the article on economic activity,
as the supervising state authority occasionally has taken a position
that a CSO may only directly engage in the economic activity which
is registered with the Agency. Almost one quarter of CSOs
registered business activities (24%). Among them, the most were
CSOs involved in environmental issues (29%), while the fewest were
those involved in healthcare (14%).
 Fines are levied on CSOs that do not meet the foregoing criteria for
economic activities (Article 72, Law on Associations, Article 62, and
Law on Foundations)3
 No restrictions on the CSOs to receive foreign funding
 Bank transaction fees which are not allowed as budget costs are
identified by CSOs as financial burden to receive foreign funding.
 Receiving funds from anonymous individuals through account is not
possible as banks require legal base for the payment/income.
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives, individuals or
CSOs
Legislation:
 Freedom of assembly, i.e. peaceful assembly is guaranteed by the
Constitution and regulated in detail by The Law on Public Assembly
(2005)
 Spontaneous gatherings are not allowed, since the application must
Serbia Needs Assessment Report, Tacso, December 2013, pg 7.
Ibid 1, pg 7
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
13
Practice:
 Change of practice will follow change of the Law
 Raise awareness on the issue of conflict of interest
Practice (possible other):
Greater/establish monitoring in:
 Cases of state interference in internal matters of
associations, foundations and other types of non-profit
entities.
 Practices of invasive oversights to which impose
burdensome reporting requirements.
 Application of sanctions are applied in rare/extreme
cases, their proportionality and are they subject to a
judicial review
Freedom of CSOs in seeking and securing financial resources from
various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs’ activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
Change needed in relevant tax laws
Legislation (possible other):
Seek for more information if CSOs are:
 Allowed to receive foreign funding
 Allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations
and other sources
Practice (BCSDN):
 Build capacity of relevant state administration on the
topic, as well as CSOs who should be more aware of this
opportunity
 Change bank rules
Practice (possible other):
 Apart form the BCSDN’s recommendations
 Closer monitoring of the implementation of the
Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is
implemented and is not burdensome for CSOs.
 Look into possibilities to reduce bank fees for economic
activities of the CSOs
 Provide and implement necessary changes to enable
receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and
other sources is easy, effective and without any
unnecessary cost or administrative burden.
 Possible monitoring of new Law on Public Procurement
since it is expected that it will create obstacles in
performing economic activities of CSOs4
Freedom of peaceful assembly of CSOs’ representatives,
individuals or CSOs
Legislation:
 No need for changes
Legislation (possible other):
3)
4)
5)
6)
organizer to guarantee the possibility of appeal.
(1.2.1.P2) Simultaneous, spontaneous and counter-assemblies can
take place, and the state facilitates and protects groups to exercise
their right against people who aim to prevent or disrupt the
assembly. (1.2.1.P3)
There are cases of freedom of assembly practiced by CSOs
(individually or through their organizations) without prior
authorization; when notification is required it is submitted in a
short period of time and does not limit the possibility to organize
the assembly. (1.2.1.P4)
No excessive use of force is exercised by law enforcement bodies,
including pre-emptive detentions of organizers and participants.
(1.2.1.P5)
Media should have as much access to the assembly as possible
(1.2.1.P6)
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations
Legislation
1) The legal framework provides freedom of expression for all
(1.2.2.L1)
2) Restrictions, such as limitation of hate speech, imposed by
legislation are clearly prescribed and in line with international law
and standards (1.2.2.L2)
3) Libel is a misdemeanor rather than part of the penal code
(1.2.2.L3)
Practice:
1) CSO representatives, especially those from human rights and watch
dog organizations enjoy the right to freedom of expression on
matters they support and they are critical of. (1.2.2.P1)
2) There are no cases of encroachment of the right to freedom of
expression for all. (1.2.2.P2)
3) There are no cases where individuals, including CSO representatives
would be persecuted for critical speech, in public or private.
(1.2.2.P3)
4) There is no sanction for critical speech, in public or private, under
the penal code. (1.2.2.P4)
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their
organisations to safely receive and impart information through any
media
Legislation:
1) The legal framework provides the possibility to communicate via
and access any source of information, including the Internet and
ICT; if there are legal restrictions, these are exceptional, limited
and based on international human rights law (1.2.3.L1)
2) The legal framework prohibits unjustified monitoring of
communication channels, including Internet and ICT, or collecting
users’ information by the authorities (1.2.3.L2)
Practice
1) There are no cases in practice where restrictions are imposed on
accessing any source of information, including the Internet or ICT.
(1.2.3.P1)
2) The Internet is widely accessible and affordable(1.2.3.P2)
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
be submitted, but the authorization isn’t needed
 The law does not recognize/define the simultaneous and counterassemblies.
Practice:
 The best known example of encroachment of the freedom of
assembly is the Pride Parade prohibition.
 Official explanation given by Prime minister was that the Pride
Parade was restricted because assessments that may be
compromising the safety of citizens and public order.
 The Constitutional Court issued a decision granting Association’s
"Belgrade Pride Parade" appeal on above mentioned decision and
determined that the constitutional complaint’s right to judicial
protection and the right to freedom of assembly were violated.
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their organisations
Legislation:
 Constitution of the Republic of Serbia guarantees freedom of
opinion and expression, and freedom to speech, writing, painting,
or otherwise seek, receive and impart information and ideas, but
prescribes the limitations also
 The Anti-discrimination Law forbids expression of ideas, information
and opinions that incite discrimination, hatred or violence against a
person or group of persons because of their personal
characteristics, in the media and other publications, papers and
places accessible to the public, by printing and displaying messages
or symbols, or otherwise.
 Libel was abolished as an offense by Amendments to the Criminal
Law from 2012
Practice:
 Data from AIEM (Association of Independent Electronic Media)
reports show CSOs and human rights defenders were threatened
freedom of expression and critical work.
 The list of CSO entitled to "Black List of non-governmental
organizations" and the similar list of media made by nationalistic
associations
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their
organisations to safely receive and impart information through any
media
Legislation:
 Legal framework guaranties to everyone the right to be truth, fully
and timely informed about matters of public interest and public
information are obliged to respect this right
 The Electronic Communications Law guarantees the confidentiality
of electronic communications
Practice:
 CSO access to media depends on the level of media interest in their
activities, as well as political situation
 Survey from 2011 showed that one third of CSOs has no access to
Internet, which corresponds to the finding that one third of CSOs do
not have a computer/laptop in their organization
 The Ombdusman initiated assessing the constitutionality of
provisions of the police interfere with the secrecy of communication
channels and gave an opinion on the Draft regulation on detailed
criteria for determining the degree of confidentiality of classified
information "confidential" and "internal" to the public authorities
14


Need for enhancing legislation that will enable
spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies
More focused monitoring on existence of possible
restriction in applying the right based on law and
prescribed by regulatory authority
Practice:
 Advocate for proper implementation of the Law
Practice (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s,
 Seek for closer monitoring of the Law on public assembly
Freedom of expression of individuals or through their
organisations
Legislation (BCDN):
 No need for changes
Legislation (possible other):
N/A
Practice (BCSDN):
 Closely monitor law implementation and advocate for
timely sanctioning of violators.
Practice (possible other):
Same as BCSDN’s
Rights of CSOs representatives, individuals and through their
organisations to safely receive and impart information through
any media
Legislation (BCSDN):
No need for changes
Legislation (possible other):
N/A
Practice (BCSDN):
 Media literacy needed for CSOs
 CSO literacy needed for media
 Increase usage of social media
Practice (possible other):
Closer monition on existence of:
 Practices or cases of unjustified monitoring by the
authorities of communication channels, including the
Internet or ICT, or of collecting users’ information.
3) There is no practice or cases of unjustified monitoring by the
authorities of communication channels, including the Internet or
ICT, or of collecting users’ information. (1.2.3.P3)
4) There are no cases of police harassment of members of social
network groups. (1.2.3.P4)
Cases of police harassment of members of social network groups.
1.1.b. Progress with the adoption and implementation of relevant legislation
Progress
Will be monitored as of this baseline in accordance to the adopted
recommendations
1.2. The policies and legal environment stimulate and facilitate volunteering and employment in CSOs
1.2.a. Number of employees in CSO (permanent and part-time)
 7.304 fully employed persons in associations in 2012
 36% of CSOs stated that they do not have employees, 10% have one
employee, 33% from 2-5 employees, and 22% over 6 employees
 Out of total number of employees, 2.2% work full time, and 3.9%
work part-time5
1.2.b. Number of volunteers in CSOs per type of CSO / sector
Over 150.000 volunteers6
 10% of CSOs in Serbia believe that up to 10% of CSOs engage
volunteers, 9% of CS0s believe that 11-20% of CSOs engage
volunteers, 38% of CSOs believe that 21-50% of CSOs engage
volunteers, and 31% of CSOs believe that over 50% of CSOs in Serbia
engage volunteers
 79% CSOs stated that they have engaged, 21% stated that have not
engaged volunteers in 2013
 24% of the organisation had 1-5 volunteers, 47% of CSOs over 15
volunteers, and 29% between 6-15 volunteers in 2013
 21% of CSOs paid pecuniary compensations to the engaged
volunteers in the amount of their costs, and 62% did not pay any
pecuniary costs
 47% of CSOs stated that they did not conclude any volunteering
contract with volunteers, while 6% stated that they have concluded
with up to 3 volunteers, 10% concluded with 4-10 volunteers, and
6% with over 6 volunteers
 50% of CSOs did not conclude any other contract with volunteers 7
1.2.c. Quality of legislative framework
5
Baseline Survey, Ipsos, April 2014
TACSO Needs Assessment Report, December 2013, pg. 22
7 Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
6
2014-2020
19 12 2013
15
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other
employees
Legislation:
1) CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers by
law and policies. (2.3.1.L1)
Practice:
2) If there are state incentive programs for employment, CSOs are
treated like all other sectors.
3) There are regular statistics on the number of employees in the
non-profit sector.
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with other
employees
Legislation:
 CSOs are treated in an equal manner to other employers by law and
policies. There are no additional requirements when employing
people in OCD. The Labour Law in the same way treats CSOs and
other employers
Practice:
 Labour Law is rigid in terms of employees' contracting rules as it does
not allow time-limited project related contracting. This makes
employment in CSO sector quite difficult 8
 CSOs use state incentive programs for employment: start up
programs, the first chance programs, young people to 30 years old
employment, professional development programs
 No specific statistics for non-profit sectors defined
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation:
4) Legislation stimulates volunteering and incorporates best
regulatory practices, while at the same time allowing for
spontaneous volunteering practices. (2.3.2.L1)
5) There are incentives and state supported programs for the
development and promotion of volunteering. (2.3.2.L2)
6) There are clearly defined contractual relationships and
protections covering organized volunteering. (2.3.2.L3)
Practice (15)
1)
Incentives and programs are transparent and easily available to
CSOs and the policy/strategic document/ law is fully implemented,
monitored and evaluated periodically in a participatory manner.
2) Administrative procedures for organizers of volunteer activities or
volunteers are not complicated and are without any unnecessary
costs.
3) Volunteering can take place in any form; there are no cases of
complaints of restrictions on volunteering.
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation:
 The Law on Volunteering is too codifying and makes it difficult for
CSOs in Serbia to engage volunteers in their work; for example the
law prescribes obligatory agreements between a volunteer and an
organization that engages him/her
 This Law regulates basic terms related to volunteering, principles of
volunteering, contract on volunteering, rights and obligations of
volunteers and organizers of volunteering and oversight on the
application of this Law.
Practice:
 The Law is putting additional administrative burden to CSOs so that
CSOs are trying to avoid these demands by creative implementation
 On certain other points, the Law remains unclear; for example, it
introduces the division into long-term, short-term and ad hoc
volunteering, but without a clear distinction between them (or clear
obligations that would arise from the selection of a given form of
voluntary engagement)
 There are indications that the Law is being misused by employers,
who are using its unclear regulations to engage young, educated
people as volunteers instead of employing them
 Volunteer work is not recognized
1.3. National and/or local authorities have enabling policies and rules for grass-roots organisations* and/or civic initiatives.
Equality of treatment of CSOs’ employees in comparison with
other employees
Legislation (BCSDN):
 No changes needed
Legislation (possible other):
N/A
Practice (BCSDN):

Introduce more state incentive programs for CSOs

Introduce regular statistical analysis of the non-profit
sector, to be comparative with other sectors throughout
the world
Practice (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s,
 Seek for the changes in Labour Law so it enables easier
mobilisation of the labour force in CSOs
Enabling volunteering policies and laws
Legislation (BCSDN)
Amend Law on volunteering
Legislation (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s
 Increase number of incentives and state supported
programs for the development and promotion of
volunteering.
Practice (BCSDN):
Changes in practice will follow changes in the Law
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN’s
*A grass-roots organisation is a self-organised group of individuals pursuing common interests through a volunteer-based, non-profit organisation. Grassroots organisations usually have a low degree of formality but a broader
purpose than issue-based self-help groups, community-based organisations or neighbourhood-associations.
1.3.a. Quality of the enabling environment for grass-roots organisations and/or civic initiatives
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation:
1)
Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations
decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and
allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal
process. (1.1.1.L3)
Practice:
1) Every individual or legal entity in practice can form associations,
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation:
 Registration process is voluntary, with clear and simple and
decentralized procedure and possibilities for a CSO to register in only
few days and on line.
Practice:
 Number of 21.491 registered association, 49 foreign associations,
496 endowments and foundations, 15 foreign endowments and
8
Ibid 1 pg10
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
16
Registration, informal vs. formal
Legislation (BCSDN):
No recommendations
Legislation (possible other):
 Additional attention to registering foundations, i.e. how to
formulate establishing acts and define relationships
between co-founders
2)
3)
foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations
offline or online. (1.1.1.P1)
Individuals and legal entities are not sanctioned for not-registering
their organizations. (1.1.1.P2)
Registration is truly accessible within legally prescribed deadlines;
authorities decide on cases in non-subjective and apolitical
manner. (1.1.1.P3)
Spontaneity
Legislation
1) The laws recognize and do not restrict spontaneous, simultaneous
and counter-assemblies. (1.2.1.L2)
2) The exercise of the right is not subject to prior authorization by the
authorities, but at the most to a prior notification procedure,
which is not burdensome. (1.2.1.L3)
3) The legal framework provides the possibility to communicate via
and access any source of information, including the Internet and
ICT; if there are legal restrictions, these are exceptional, limited
and based on international human rights law. (1.2.3.L1)
Practice:
1) There are no cases of police harassment of members of social
network groups. (1.2.3.P4)
2. An enabling financial
environment which
supports sustainability
of CSOs.
foundations branches is evidence of a widespread practice of
association
 Numerous informal groups are very active and recognized by society
 Local register agencies still struggle with some aspects of registering
foundations, for example, how such entities should formulate their
establishing acts and define relations between co-founders
 There are at least 100 functional networks at either the national or
local levels; in survey from 2011 CSOs specified more than 230
international networks of which they are members; however,
domestic networks and domestic individual organizations appear
among them as well.
Spontaneity
Legislation:
 Spontaneous gatherings are not allowed, since the application must
be submitted, but the authorization isn’t needed
 The law does not recognize/define the simultaneous and counterassemblies.
 Legal framework guaranties to everyone the right to be truth, fully
and timely informed about matters of public interest and public
information are obliged to respect this right.
Practice
N/A

2.1. Easy-to-meet financial rules for CSO, which are proportionate to their turn-over and non-commercial activities
Spontaneity
Legislation:
 No need for changes
Legislation (possible other):
 Need for enhancing legislation that will enable
spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies
Practice (BCSDN):
no recommendations
Practice (possible other):
Seek specific monitoring if there are cases of police harassment of
members of social network groups.
2.1.a. CSOs' perception of the ease and effectiveness of financial rules and reporting requirements (disaggregated by type / size of CSO)
 21% of CSOs assessed that prescribed financial rule, obligations of
Legislation:
bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations are not clear
1) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and
and understandable, while for 77% were clear and understandable
accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs
 For 35% of CSOs it is not simple to implement prescribed financial rule,
and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its
obligations of bookkeeping and accounting, referring to their organisations
type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3)
are not clear and understandable, while for 62% is simple to implement9
Practice:
1) There are no practices of invasive oversight which impose
burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2)
2.1.b. Quality assessment of financial rules (with the focus on built-in mechanisms that financial rules and obligations change as the turn-over and non-commercial activities change).
Financial reporting
Financial reporting
Financial reporting
Legislation:
Legislation:
Legislation (BCSDN):
1) Financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and
 The new Law on Accounting was adopted (2013) and it
 Amend Law on Budget System in relation to treating CSOs and
accounting rules take into account the specific nature of the CSOs
recognized specificities of the non-profit sector, effects of this
opening separate accounts in the Treasury
and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its
will come into force starting from drafting and submitting
 Participation of CSOs needed in the process of adopting
type/scope of activities. (1.1.2.L3)
financial statements for 2014
accounting by-laws
Practice:
 Law on Amendments to the Law on the Budget System
Legislation (possible other):
1) There are no practices of invasive oversight which impose
prescribes for mandatory registration of public funds
Apart from suggested by BCSDN
burdensome reporting requirements. (1.1.2.P2)
beneficiaries and the registration in the Register of public
 Seek for more information in relation if the state provides
funds in the Treasury, and the opening of a special purpose
protection from interference by third parties.
account for the special users of public funds or associations
 Look for more information in relation to sanctions for
and other civil society organizations (CSOs)
breaching legal requirements, and if they are based on
 New Law on Accounting defines CSOs as other legal entities
applicable legislation and follow the principle of
applying the accounting regulations, while specific
proportionality.
characteristics are reflected in the simplified evidencing rules
Economic activities
(they do not have to apply the International Accounting
Legislation:
Standards), the special chart of accounts (obligatory three-
9
Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
17
1)
2)
3)
Legislation allows CSOs to engage in economic activities. (1.1.3.L1)
CSOs are allowed to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.L2)
CSO are allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations
and other sources(1.1.3.L3)
Practice:
1) Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is implemented
and is not burdensome for CSOs. (1.1.3.P1)
2) There are no restrictions (e.g. administrative or financial burden,
preapprovals, or channeling such funds via specific bodies) on CSOs
to receive foreign funding. (1.1.3.P2)
3) Receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and other
sources is easy, effective and without any unnecessary cost or
administrative burden. (1.1.3.P3)
4) Endowments are established without major procedural difficulties
and operate freely, without administrative burden or high financial
cost (2.1.1.P4)


digit accounts where categorization and accounting of
business changes are registered) and special forms of financial
statements.
Most CSOs are categorized as small legal entities and
according to the new criteria of categorization they will be
categorized as micro legal entities and thus are not subject to
the statutory audit of financial statements, as stipulated by the
new Law on Auditing
The restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination
are clearly prescribed by the law and Statute
Practice:
 Opening obligatory account in Treasury imposes additional
burden & costs to CSOs, which have to open new accounts.
Furthermore, when open this account, CSO has to pay higher
bank fees than in the commercial bank; cash not allowed; ebanking not possible.
Economic activities
Legislation:
 Associations, foundations and endowments pursuing public
interest objectives may engage directly in economic activities
insofar as the prescribed condition are met
 CSO must register one economic activity - the so-called major
economic activity it seeks to directly engage in - with the
Registry of the Agency for Commercial Registry, but may
directly engage in other economic activities insofar as they are
envisaged in its statute.
Practice:
 Inconsistently implementation of the article on economic
activity, as the supervising state authority occasionally has
taken a position that a CSO may only directly engage in the
economic activity which is registered with the Agency. Almost
one quarter of CSOs registered business activities (24%).
Among them, the most were CSOs involved in environmental
issues (29%), while the fewest were those involved in
healthcare (14%).
 No restrictions on the CSOs to receive foreign funding
 Bank transaction fees which are not allowed as budget costs
are identified by CSOs as financial burden to receive foreign
funding. Receiving funds from anonymous individuals through
account is not possible as banks require legal base for the
payment/income.
Practice (BCSDN):
Change of practice will follow change of the Law
Practice (possible other):
Greater/establish monitoring in:
 Practices of invasive oversights to which impose
burdensome reporting requirements.
 Application of sanctions are applied in rare/extreme
cases, their proportionality and are they subject to a
judicial review
Economic activities
Legislation (BCSDN):
Change needed in relevant tax laws
Legislation (possible other):
Seek for more information if CSOs are:
 Allowed to receive foreign funding
 Allowed to receive funding from individuals, corporations
and other sources
Practice (BCSDN):
 Build capacity of relevant state administration on the topic, as
well as CSOs who should be more aware of this opportunity
 Change bank rules
Practice (possible other):
 Apart from the BCSDN’s recommendations
 Closer monitoring of the implementation of the
Legislation on CSOs engaging in economic activities is
implemented and is not burdensome for CSOs.
 Look into possibilities to reduce bank fees for economic
activities of the CSOs
 Provide and implement necessary changes to enable
receipt of funding from individuals, corporations and
other sources is easy, effective and without any
unnecessary cost or administrative burden.
2.2. Donations are stimulated with adequate legislation and regulations
2.2.a. Quality and applicability/practice of the legal framework for individual and corporate giving
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation:
1) The law provides tax deductions for individual and corporate
donations to CSOs (2.1.2.L1)
2) There are clear requirements/conditions for receiving deductible
donations and these include a wide range of publicly beneficial
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation:
 Individual charitable giving is not recognized by the Law as the
ground for tax deduction.
 Requirements for receiving deductible donations are prescribed by
the Tax Property law and set of publicly beneficial activities is not in
18
Incentives for individual and corporate giving
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Amend tax related laws
 Harmonize tax laws with LoA and LoF&E
Legislation (possible other):
Apart from the aforementioned, also
activities. (2.1.2.L2)
Practice:
1) There is a functional procedure in place to claim tax deductions for
individual and corporate donations. (2.1.2.P1)
2) CSOs working in the main areas of public interest, including human
rights and watchdog organizations, effectively enjoy tax deductible
donations. (2.1.2.P3)
compliance with Law on Associations and Law on F&E
 Corporations have recognized expenditures for health care, cultural,
educational, scientific, humanitarian, religious, environmental
protection and sport-related purposes, including contributions to the
social security institutions established in compliance with the social
security law, up to 5% (Law from May 2013)10
 National Strategy on CSR adopted in 2010 for 5 year period
Practice:
 Individual donations not tax deducted; corporate tax deductions –
complicated procedure; quite often, when giving donations,
corporations are subject to inspections
 There are few CSOs leading in this topic and they are partners to the
state in promoting CSR
 The associations which have the license and accreditation for offering
social security services are at a disadvantage as far as taxation is
concerned in comparison to the social security institutions because
tax statements of the business companies as providers of material
assistance will recognize only the expenditures to social security
institutions11
 No specific deductions for these types of organizations

Seek for There are clear requirements/conditions for
receiving deductible donations and these include a wide
range of publicly beneficial activities.
Practice (BCSDN):
 Practice will follow changes in the tax related laws
Practice (possible other):
 Promote individual and corporate donations to be treated
as tax deduction and corporate tax deductions
 Seek for monitoring of the procedures related to this topic
 CSO sector and relevant legal and tax experts recommend
that the list of expenditures with humanitarian purposes
should be expanded, contributions for protection of
human rights, building a legal state, anti-corruption
campaign, animal protection or sustainable development
will not be recognized as expenditures in tax statements of
legal entities giving them, which may have a discouraging
effect
 Inclusion of associations as other subjects of social security
is necessary
 Promote CSR
2.3. Financial (e.g. tax or in-kind) benefits are available
2.3.a. Quality of the system of tax benefits for the CSOs’ operational and economic activities
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation:
1) The law provides tax free treatment for all grants and donations
supporting non-for-profit activity of CSOs. (2.1.1.L1)
2) The law provides tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs.
(2.1.1.L2)
3) The law provides tax benefits for passive investments of CSOs.
(2.1.1.L3)
4) The law allows the establishment of and provides tax benefits for
endowments. (2.1.1.L4)
Practice:
1) There is no direct or indirect (hidden) tax on grants reported
(2.1.1.P1)
2) Tax benefits for economic activities of CSOs are effective and
support the operation of CSOs (2.1.1.P2)
3) Passive investments are utilized by CSOs and no sanctions are
applied in doing so. (2.1.1.P3)
4) Endowments are established without major procedural difficulties
and operate freely, without administrative burden nor high
financial cost (2.1.1.P4)
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation:
 Serbia does not stipulate any exemption from property tax on the
real estate for associations, foundations and similar CSOs performing
activities of public interest, like many other Eastern EU countries
 The Property Tax Law from 2010 has abolished the 2.5% tax on gifts
for foundations, endowments and associations for gifts/inheritance
received and intended exclusively for achieving the public benefit
objectives; the non-taxable amount up to which received funds are
not subject to gift tax was raised to 100.000 dinars (877EUR)
 The Corporate Profit Tax Law generally exempts CSOs from taxation
on grants, donations, membership dues, and non-economic sources
of income
 Profit generated by an NGO is exempt from income tax, provided
that: a) income from economic activities did not exceed a given
threshold of 400,000 dinars (EUR 3,500); b) earnings were not
distributed to the founders, employees, members of the
management board, or any affiliated person thereof; c) salaries for
the members of the management board and employees do not
exceed double the average salary paid by organizations engaged in
the same activities in the commercial sector; d) all earned profit was
used to further the objectives for which the organization was
created; and e) the CSO's economic activities do not give rise to
unfair competition with the private business sector, as defined by the
antitrust law. (Article 45, Legal Entity Profit Tax Law)12
10
Ibid 1, pg 9
Ibid 1 pg 9
12
Ibid 1, pg 8
11
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
19
Tax benefits for CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):
Amend set of tax related laws
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
 Establishment of endowments allowed, however no specific tax
benefit
 In 2012, different parafiscal taxes have been abolished, which were
primarily regulated by the local governments; such are “ecological
tax”, “communal tax” or "branding" tax in many other municipalities.
They were overburdening CSOs who are, with diminished funds, less
and less able to fulfil their obligations, especially smaller, out-of-thecapital ones.13
Practice:
 Cases reported that tax authorities require CSOs to apply for tax
exemptions on any given gift they receive exceeding the 100,000 RSD
thresholds, in order to be exempt from income taxes.
 No tax benefits for CSO economic activities
 Passive investments used only if funders allow
 In practice, some difficulties in registering endowments due to lack of
knowledge of the SBRA
 There are still examples of tax administration requesting different
parafiscal taxes to be paid14
2.4. Government support to CSOs is available and provided in a transparent, accountable, fair and non-discriminatory manner
Practice (BCSDN):
 Practice should follow changes in the tax related laws
 Capacity building of tax administration needed in order for them
to understand the specifics of CSOs
Practice (possible other):
Same as BCSDN
2.4.a. Ratio of amount sought vs. amount approved/disbursed annually through state funding to CSOs. (this proves availability of funds)

Public funds for CSOs are not clearly planned within the state
budget.
 Funds from line 481 (grants for CSOs) and line 472 (financing
of social protection services) from state budget 15 are intended
to CSOs’ financing. However, sport clubs, churches, public
institutions, Red Cross that already has its own line defined
within the budget; even individuals were financed from the
same line
 Total funds distributed through line 481 were70 million EUR
o 40% allocated for churches, religious communities and
political parties
o 60% for CSOs (around 39 million EUR)
o The Ministry of Youth and Sports with 47.04%,
o the Ministry of Finance and Economy approved 40%
o the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Social Policy
5.62%
 Having in mind that line 481 is still not diversified it means that
out of 39 million EUR, larger proportion is allocated to sports
clubs and associations.
2.4.b. Quality of state funding frameworks for civil society organisations (focusing on procedural document)
Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs,
project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation
1) There is a law or national policy (document) that regulates state
support for institutional development for CSOs, project support
and co-financing of EU funded projects. (2.2.1.L1)
2) There is a national level mechanism for distribution of public funds
to CSOs. (2.2.1.L2)
3) Public funds for CSOs are clearly planned within the state budget.
(2.2.1.L3)
13
14
15
Availability of public funding for institutional development of CSOs,
project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation:
 State support to CSOs is regulated by the Law on Aassociations, the
Law on Endowments and Foundations; By-law/regulation on criteria
of financing and co-financing CSOs activities from the national
budget,
 Funds are provided only for projects/programs, but not for
institutional development for CSOs.
 There is no unique national body/institution with mandate for
Ibid 1, pg 8
Ibid 1 pg8
Report “Annual consolidated report on budget expenditures provided to the associations and other civil society organizations from the budget of the Republic of Serbia in 2011 ", Office for Cooperation with Civil Society
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
20
Availability of public funding for institutional development of
CSOs, project support and co-financing of EU and other grants
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Develop clear procedures for CSO participation in all phases of
the public funding
Legislation (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s, also
 Include that public funding foresees institutional
development of CSOs
4)
There are clear procedures for CSO participation in all phases of
the public funding cycle(2.2.1.L4)
Practice:
1) Available public funding responds to the needs of the CSO sector.
(2.2.1.P1)
2) There are government bodies with a clear mandate for
distribution and/or monitoring of the distribution of state funding.
(2.2.1.P2)
3) Funding is predictable, not cut drastically from one year to
another; and the amount in the budget for CSOs is easy to
identify. (2.2.1.P3)
4) CSO participation in the public funding cycle is transparent and
meaningful. (2.2.1.P4)
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation:
1) The procedure for distribution of public funds is transparent and
legally binding. (2.2.2.L1)
2) The criteria for selection are clear and published in advance.
(2.2.2.L2)
3) There are clear procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest
in decision-making. (2.2.2.L3)
Practice:
1) Information relating to the procedures for funding and
information on funded projects is publicly available. (2.2.2.P1)
2) State bodies follow the procedure and apply it in a harmonized
way. (2.2.2.P2)
3) The application requirements are not too burdensome for CSOs.
(2.2.3.P3)
4) Decisions on tenders are considered fair and conflict of interest
situations are declared in advance (2.2.3.P4)
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public funding
Legislation:
1) The procedure for distribution of public funds prescribes clear
measures for accountability, monitoring and evaluation. (2.2.3.L1)
2) There are prescribed sanctions for CSOs that misuse funds which
are proportional to the violation of procedure. (2.2.3.L2)
Practice:
1) Monitoring is carried out continuously and in accordance with
predetermined and objective indicators. (2.2.3.P1)
2) Regular evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is carried out
by state bodies and is publicly available. (2.2.3.P2)
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation:
1) Legislation allows state authorities to allocate non-financial
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
distribution of public funds to CSOs.
 No clear procedures
Practice:
 Available public funding often are insufficient even for covering
administrative costs
 Co-funding introduced by the Office, but on very small scale as
compared to sector needs
 Funding not predictable, nor easy to identify although Office
prepares consolidated report - Funds intended for CSOs financing are
used for sport clubs, Red Cross organizations, public institutions,
even individuals financing
 As per the Law amending and modifying the Republic of Serbia 2011
Budget Law, planned sources on the economic classification 481
amount approximately to 55mil €, whereas according to the Draft
Law on Annual Financial Statement of the Budget of the Republic of
Serbia for 2011 execution of budget from this economic classification
is approximately to 46mil €; According to Annual consolidated report
on spending of funds planned and disbursed to associations and
other CSOs from the budget of the Republic of Serbia as support to
project and programmatic activities in in 2012 76mil € was disbursed
at all levels of the government in the Republic of Serbia
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation:
 The By-law on criteria of financing and co-financing CSOs activities
from the national budget prescribes that allocation of s based on
public call announced by the competent authority and announced on
the official website, as well as criteria, conditions, scope, method,
process allocation, and the manner and process of returning funds
 Procedures addressing issues of conflict of interest in decisionmaking are prescribed by Law on prevention of conflict of interest in
discharge of public office
Practice:
 Information are publicly announced on the official website of the
competent authorities and/or daily newspaper
 According to Annual consolidated report on spending of funds
planned and disbursed to associations and other CSOs procedures
are followed and applied in a harmonized way.
 In October 2013, the Government has adopted changes of the Bylaw. Based on the request by more than 100 organizations, and in
cooperation with the Office for cooperation with civil society,
amount of paper work is reduced; required documents will be
provided by relevant institutions and public bodies
 CSOs stated that the CSOs supporting political parties in power are
favored on calls/tenders The Ministry’s of Youth and Sports
requirement for partnerships with local youth offices as a condition
for application was stated as negative example.
 CSOs rarely participate in tenders, and we don’t have relevant
information
 One of the articles of the Law on Association allows for "any legal
entity to found a non-governmental organization", this creates a
situation of potential non-disclosed conflict of interest in cases when
CSO is founded by the political party, since all CSOs can apply for
21
Practice (BCSDN):
 Increase co-funding
 Diversify line 481
Practice (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s, also seek
 Greater participation of CSOs in entire public funding cycle
Procedures and transparency of distribution of public funding
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Amend request guarantees for funds distribution
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
 Bylaw should be implemented on all levels, providing that
guarantees requirements are abolished
Practice (possible other):
In addition to the BCSDN’s:
 Introduce a mechanism that will guarantee full
transparency in the distribution of funding from the state
in relation to the stated article of the law on Associations
support, such as state property, renting space without financial
compensation (time-bound), free training, consultations and other
resources, to CSOs. (2.2.4.L1)
2) The non-financial support is provided under clearly prescribed
processes, based on objective criteria and does not privilege any
group. (2.2.4.L2)
Practice:
1) CSOs use non-financial state support(2.2.4.P1)
2) CSOs are treated in an equal or more supportive manner as
compared to other actors when providing state non-financial
resources. (2.2.4.P2)
3) There are no cases of state authorities granting non-financial
support only to CSOs which do not criticize its work; or of cases of
depriving critical CSOs of support; or otherwise discriminating
based on loyalty, political affiliation or other unlawful terms.
(2.2.4.P3)
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of
competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation:
1) Existing legislation allows CSOs to provide services in various
areas, such as education, healthcare, social services .(3.3.1.L1)
2) CSOs have no barriers to providing services that are not defined by
law (“additional” services). (3.3.1.L2)
3) Existing legislation does not add additional burdensome
requirements on CSOs that do not exist for other service
providers. .(3.3.1.L2)
Practice:
1) CSOs are able to obtain contracts in competition with other
providers and are engaged in various services (e.g., education,
health, research, and training). (3.3.1.P1)
2) CSOs are included in all stages of developing and providing
services (needs assessment, determining the services that best
address the needs, monitoring and evaluation). (3.3.1.P2)
3) When prior registration/licensing is required, the procedure for
obtaining that is not overly burdensome. (3.3.1.P3)
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and longterm availability of the funding
Legislation:
1) The budget provides funding for various types of services which
could be provided by CSOs, including multi-year funding. (3.3.2.L1)
2) There are no legal barriers to CSOs receiving public funding for the
provision of different services (either through procurement or
through another contracting or grants mechanism). (3.3.2.L2)
3) CSOs can sign long-term contracts for provision of services
(3.3.2.L3)
Practice:
1) CSOs are recipients of funding for services. (3.3.2.P1)
2) CSOs receive sufficient funding to cover the basic costs of the
services they are contracted to provide, including proportionate
16
funding from national or local budgets and decisions on those funds
are made by people from the same parties.16
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public
funding
Legislation:
 The procedure and sanctions are prescribed by the By-law on criteria
of financing and co-financing CSOs activities from the national budget
Practice:
 Monitoring is carried during the project implementation, but without
consolidated standards for all public institutions.
 The regular evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is not
carried; only outputs are monitored but not outcomes
System for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of public
funding
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Develop a regulation with clear system of accountability,
monitoring and evaluation
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation:
 Constitution of Serbia, the Law on public property, the Law on local
self-government, the Law on local self-government financing,
towns' / municipalities' decisions on the use of state-owned property
, the national youth strategy are the legal base for non-financial
support to CSOs but they are treated in same manner as other legal
entities
 The Regulation on conditions for obtaining and alienation of
immovable property by direct negotiation, public property lease,
public bidding procedures and collection of written bids defines
procedures for providing property - space for CSOs functioning in
mostly cases
 The National Youth Strategy as well as the Regulation on the Office
for cooperation with civil society establishment prescribe
organization of trainings and seminars for CSOs’ and informal groups’
capacity building.
 State institutions are publishing different publication/guidelines for
cooperation between state/local institutions and CSOs improvement
 State institutions support CSOS initiatives and activities by letters of
support or authorizations
Practice:
 There are cases when state authorities influence or suggest selection
of activities implemented by CSOs so it would contribute to increase
political support
Availability of the state non-financial support
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Develop a clear procedure/guidelines for non-financial support
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of
competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation:
 The Law on Social Protection (March 2011) introduced CSOs as
potential service providers, which is a novelty as compared to the
previous Law and might significantly influence both the work and
sustainability of CSOs involved in the area of social protection
CSOs’ engagement in different state services and equality of
competition among all providers for state contracts
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Amend Law on Social protection
 Introduce social contracting
Legislation (possible other):
Apart from the CBSDN’s, also
Ibid 1, pg 6
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
22
Practice (BCSDN):
N/A
Practice (possible other):
 Develop consolidated standards for all public institutions
when carrying out monitoring
 Introduce evaluation of effects/impact of public funds is
not carried
Practice (BCSDN):
 Bylaw should be implemented on all levels, providing that
guarantees requirements are abolished
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
3)
institutional (overhead) costs. (3.3.2.P2)
There are no delays in payments and the funding is flexible with
the aim of providing the best quality of services. (3.3.2.P3)
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in
selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation:
1) There is a clear and transparent procedure through which the
funding for services is distributed among providers.(3.3.3.L1)
2) Price is not the lead criterion for selection of service providers and
best value is determined by both service quality and a financial
assessment of contenders. (3.3.3.L2)
3) There are clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency and
avoid conflict of interests. (3.3.3.L3)
4) There is a right to appeal against competition results. (3.3.3.L4)
Practice:
1) Many services are contracted to CSOs. (3.3.3.P1)
2) Competitions are considered fair and conflicts of interest are
avoided. (3.3.3.P2)
3) State officials have sufficient capacity to organize the procedures.
(3.3.3.P3)
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of
service provision
Legislation:
1) There is legal possibility for monitoring both spending and the
quality of service providers. (3.3.4.L1)
2) There are clear quality standards and monitoring procedures for
services. (3.3.4.L2)
Practice:
1) CSOs are not subject to excessive control. (3.3.4.P1)
2) Monitoring is performed on a regular basis according to preannounced procedures and criteria. (3.3.4.P2)
3) Regular evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services
provided is carried out and publicly available. (3.3.4.P3)
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
 CSOs are allowed to provide innovative services
 Through adoption of number of by-laws dealing with the
standardization and licensing, burdensome requirements on CSOs
will be imposed
 The Law on Public Procurement (2012), which requires for
transparent tender procedure in case of bidding for funding services
from public sources, with criteria that not many CSOs can meet
Practice:
 CSOs are not included in all phases of the development and provision
of services, having in mind that only state institutions – Centers for
Social Work- are authorized to estimate if there is need for social
services and which for
 The process of obtaining a license for the social services providing is
too complicated for CSOs so that very few CSOs have the opportunity
to gain Public License. The favoring state institution in licensing
process is noticed, also. The lack of license has the effect that the
CSOs cannot get funding from public funds for the services providing
that will affect a large number of users of social services which will
not be sustainable.

Harmonise the law on Social protection with the Law on
Public Procurement so the threshold for accessing such
contracts is also accessible to the CSOs.
Practice (BCSDN):
 Increase capacities of CSOs to perform as service providers
Practice (possible other):
Apart from the BCSDN’s, also
 Seek for closer monitoring of licensing for social services
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and longterm availability of the funding
Legislation:
 Budget lines 472 - Benefits of social protection ,424 - Specialized
Services , 423-Contract services from the State Budget
 Not multiyear funding available
Commitments of state to funding services and predictability and
long-term availability of the funding
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Amend Laws so that multiyear funding is possible
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice:
 The main problem is that CSOs are not able to get License for
providing services which entails the impossibility of being
beneficiaries of public funds.
 Funds allocated to CSO are not sufficient; the delays and noncompliance with the deadlines by state institutions are present
Practice (BCSDN):
 Provide sufficient funding to cover CSO basic costs, including
overheads
 Introduce more flexibility in funding
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in
selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation:
 The Public Procurement law prescribes clear procedures and types of
procedures for the funds for services distribution
 According to law on Social Protection: The purchaser is obliged to
provide the highest quality and most cost-effective provision of social
services to be procured through the procurement
 The Public Procurement law ensures transparency and regulates the
conflict of interests issue
Practice:
 Some of the call are designed in a way to know in advance who will
meet the criteria, it is often the case with calls for social services,
which are favoured by the Centres for social welfare/work or other
state institutions with regard to OCD
Clarity of procedures for contracting services and transparency in
selection of service providers including CSOs
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Introduce social contracting
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation of
service provision
Legislation:
 Possibility for monitoring of both, spending and the quality of service
providers, is prescribed by the Law on Social Protection, as well as by
Regulation on licensing CSOs social service providers and Rules on
Clarity of a system for accountability, monitoring and evaluation
of service provision
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Action plan for Law implementation should be adopted
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
23
Practice (BCSDN):
 Improve the fairness of competition, with conflict of interests
being avoided
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
the conditions and standards for the provision of social services
Practice:
 Monitoring is performed during the project implementation, but
evaluation of quality and effects/impact of services provided is
missed
Practice (BCSDN):
 Service provision by CSOs is introduced by the Law on Social
Protection, is still in its early stage
Practice (possible other):
 Closer monitoring of inclusion of CSOs in social service
provision
Changing relations CSOs and government
3
Civil society and
public institutions
work in partnership
through dialogue and
cooperation, based
on willingness, trust
and mutual
acknowledgment
around common
interests
3.1. Public institutions recognise the importance of CSOs in improving good governance through CSOs' inclusion in decision making processes
3.1.a. Percentage of laws/bylaws, strategies and policy reforms effectively* consulted with CSOs
* in terms of:
- adequate access to information
- sufficient time to comment
- selection and representativeness / diversity of working groups
- acknowledgement of input
- degree to which input is taken into account
- feedback / publication of consultation results
3.1.b Quality* of structures and mechanisms in place for dialogue and cooperation between CSOs and public institutions
* in terms of:
- CSO representation in general
- representation of smaller/weaker CSOs
- its visibility and availability
- government perception of quality of structures and mechanisms
- CSOs perception of structures and mechanisms
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation:
Legislation:
1) There are strategic documents dealing with the state-CSO
 There is still no national document on rules and practices for
relationship and civil society development. (3.1.1.L1)
Government-CSO cooperation, but CSOs actively participated
2) The strategic document includes goals and measures as well as
in preparation of national legal and strategic documents
funding available and clear allocation of responsibilities (action
(numerous laws, Poverty Reduction Strategy, Youth Strategy
plans incl. indicators). (3.1.1.L2)
Local development strategies of different Serbian
3) The strategic document embraces measures that have been
Municipalities).
developed in consultation with and/or recommended by CSOs.
 There is lack of clear mechanism for consultation with CSOs
(3.1.1.L3)
that would ensure that civil society (or for the matter, citizens)
Practice:
are properly consulted in the process of drafting and adopting
1) CSOs from different areas of interest regularly participate in all
legislation or policies; however, examples of CSOs
phases of the strategic document development, implementation
participation in certain phases exists.
and evaluation. (3.1.1.P1)
Practice:
2) There are examples demonstrating that cooperation between state
 Generally, CSOs are involved in all phases of commenting and
and CSOs and civil society development is improved and
public debate, but not when policies are created and shaped.
implemented according to or beyond the measures envisaged in the
strategic document. (3.1.1.P2)
3) The implementation of the strategic document is monitored,
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and
evaluated and revised periodically. (3.1.1.P3)
timelines)
Legislation:
 The National Assembly’s Rules of procedures defines which
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness and
documents have to be published on the National Assembly
timelines)
website. The Government’s Rules of procedures prescribes its
Legislation:
work is public
1) Existing legislation obliges public institutions to make all draft and
 Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance
adopted laws and policies public, and exceptions are clearly defined
defines clear procedures for access to public information,
and in line with international norms and best practices. (3.2.2.L1)
conditions, exception and deadlines have to be met, as well as
2) Clear mechanisms and procedures for access to public
sanctions for civil servants for breaching the legal
information/documents exist. (3.2.2.L2)
requirements on access to public information
3) There are clearly prescribed sanctions for civil servants/units for
Practice:
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
24
16/ 100
CSO-government cooperation strategic document
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Adopt a strategic document/National strategy
 Improve statistical surveys related to CSOs
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
Involve CSOs in all phases of policy shaping
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Accessibility of all draft policies and laws to the public (easiness
and timelines)
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Adopt guidelines for CSO participation in decision making
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
 Introduce more than one mechanism (Office), to directly
communicate with ministries and other bodies
 CSOs should be involved in all phases of the process
breaching the legal requirements on access to public information.
(3.2.2.L3)
Practice:
1) Public institutions actively publish draft and adopted laws and
policies, unless they are subject to legally prescribed exceptions.
(3.2.2.P1)
2) Public institutions answer the majority of requests for access to
public information within the deadline prescribed by law, in a clear
format, provide written explanations on the reasons for refusal, and
highlight the right to appeal and the procedure for appealing.
(3.2.2.P2)
3) Cases of violations of the law are sanctioned. (3.2.2.P3)
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and
clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation:
1) Existing legislation requires public institutions to invite CSO
representatives on to different decision-making and/or advisory
bodies created by public institutions. (3.2.3.L1)
2) There are clear guidelines on how to ensure appropriate
representation from civil society, based on transparent and
predetermined criteria. (3.2.3.L2)
Practice:
1) Decision-making and advisory bodies on issues and policies relevant
for civil society generally include CSO representatives. (3.2.3.P1)
2) CSO representatives in these bodies are enabled to freely present
and defend their positions, without being sanctioned. (3.2.3.P2)
3) CSO representatives are selected through selection processes which
are considered fair and transparent. (3.2.3.P3)
4) Participation in these bodies does not prevent CSOs from using
alternative ways of advocacy or promoting alternative stand-points
which are not in line with the position of the respective body.
(3.2.3.P4)
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of
the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:
1) There is a national level institution or mechanism with a mandate to
facilitate cooperation with civil society organizations (e.g.,
Unit/Office for cooperation; contact points in ministries; council).
(3.1.2.L1)
2) There are binding provisions on the involvement of CSOs in the
decisions taken by the competent institution or mechanism(s).
(3.1.2.L2)
Practice:
1) The national level institution or mechanism(s) has sufficient
resources and mandate for facilitating CSO-government dialogue,
discussing the challenges and proposing the main policies for the
development of Civil Society. (3.1.2.P1)
2) CSOs are regularly consulted and involved in processes and
decisions by the competent institution or mechanism(s). (3.1.2.P2)
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and
strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation
with the CS
Legislation:
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013


There are several website/portals publishing legal, strategic
documents and public calls (e-uprava/e-government,
paragraf.rs, etc)
Annual report on the implementation of the Law on Free
Access to Information of Public Importance and the Law on
Protection of Personal Data contains relevant data on requests
for access to public information an number/reasons of
violation.
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies and
clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation:
 There is no formal requirements / obligations for CSOs
participation in different decision-making and/or advisory
bodies created, nether clear guidelines on how to ensure it.
 The Government Rules of Procedure prescribes the mandatory
public hearing; proponent is required to conduct a public
hearing in preparation a law that significantly modify certain
issues or issues of special interest to public.
 A certain level of cooperation has also been established with
the Serbian parliament and there are examples of CSOs’
Access to Plenary and Committee Sessions and Parliamentary
Hearings
Practice:
 CSOs stated that the practice of consultation with CSOs has
not been developed. Calls are absent; enough time isn’t given
to comment, calls are sent in later stages of development
when they only minimal changes could be done. Also, CSOs
pointed out that feedback on the outcome of the consultation,
as well as respond to comments are largely absent.
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions, of
the importance of the development of and cooperation with the CS
Legislation:
 The Office for Cooperation with Civil Society was established in
2010 as national level institution with a mandate to facilitate
cooperation with civil society organizations.
 There is lack of clear mechanisms for consultations with CSOs
that would ensure that civil society (or for that matter,
citizens) are properly consulted in the process of drafting and
adopting legislation or policies; however, examples of CSOs
participation in certain phases exists.
 SECO mechanism is used to involve CSOs in the IPA
programming process.
Practice:
 Office has become fully operational, supporting the
governmental institutions to understand and recognize the
role of CSOs in decision making processes. At the same time,
the Office successfully facilitates communication between two
sectors in the process of defining and implementing legislative
procedures and public policies.
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and
strategies, of the importance of the development of and cooperation
with the CS
Legislation:
25
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Representativeness of CSOs in discussions in cross-sector bodies
and clarity of criteria and selection process
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Establish guidelines and clear criteria to ensure appropriate
representation of CSOs
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
 Organize process of consultations in timely manner; feedback
should be provided after CSOs submit proposals and comments
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its institutions,
of the importance of the development of and cooperation with
the CS
Legislation (BCSDN):
 Adopt guidelines for CSO participation in decision making
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Practice (BCSDN):
 Introduce more than one mechanism (Office), to directly
communicate with ministries and other bodies
 CSOs should be involved in all phases of the process
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
Recognition of the state, through the operation of its policies and
strategies, of the importance of the development of and
cooperation with the CS
Legislation:
 Adopt standards
Legislation (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
1) There are clearly defined standards on the involvement of CSOs in
the policy and decision making processes in line with best regulatory
practices prescribing minimum requirements which every policymaking process needs to fulfil. (3.2.1.L1)
2) State policies provide for educational programs/trainings for civil
servants on CSO involvement in the work of public institutions.
(3.2.1.L2)
3) Internal regulations require specified units or officers in government,
line ministries or other government agencies to coordinate, monitor
and report CSO involvement in their work. (3.2.1.L3)
Practice:
1) Public institutions routinely invite all interested CSOs to comment on
policy/legal initiatives at an early stage. (3.2.1.P1)
2) CSOs are provided with adequate information on the content of the
draft documents and details of the consultation with sufficient time
to respond. (3.2.1.P2)
3) Written feedback on the results of consultations is made publicly
available by public institutions, including reasons why some
recommendations were not included. (3.2.1.P3)
4) The majority of civil servants in charge of drafting public policies
have successfully completed the necessary educational
programs/training.(3.2.1.P4)
5) Most of the units/officers coordinating and monitoring public
consultations are functional and have sufficient capacity. (3.2.1.P5)

Recognizing that the relations between the Government and
CSOs are still fragmented without structured forms of
cooperation between the two sectors, the Office has drafted
Guidelines for participation of interested public in the decision
making processes, which is to be adopted by the Government
General professional training programs for civil servants in the
public administration and government services for 2012 and
2013 defined training on cooperation between the public
administration and civil society in the design and
implementation of public policy: the legislative, institutional
and financial framework

Practice:
 The state increasingly invites civil society representatives to
take part in the discussions what is often superficial and
donor-driven, which is taken to demonstrate to donors that
civil society is being included.
 Most CSOs are consulted in the final phase of a draft
law/policy shaping without sufficient information well in
advance and when any changes are almost impossible.
 CSOs stated that the practice of consultation with CSOs has
not been developed. Calls are absent; enough time isn’t given
to comment, calls are sent in later stages of development
when they only minimal changes could be done. Also, CSOs
pointed out that feedback on the outcome of the consultation,
as well as respond to comments are largely absent.
 Insufficient number of civil servants participates in trainings
(25-30 per training). The bigger problem presents the profile of
persons who participate in training - persons who are not
directly involved in relevant operations and / or are less
burdened with work tasks participate in professional
development training.
 Generally, CSOs are involved in phase of commenting and
public debate, but not when policies are created and shaped.
CSOs Capacities
4. Capable, transparent
and accountable CSOs
4.1. CSOs' internal governance structures are transparent and accountable to members/constituents/beneficiaries
4.1.a. Percentage of CSOs publishing their governance structure and internal documents (statutes, codes of conduct etc.)
4.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013

32% of CSOs believe that decision making in CSOs in their country is in
compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 47%
believe that decisions are made by some individual or top management,
19% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including
consultations with the employees and volunteers

54% of CSOs stated that decision making in their organisation is in
compliance with prescribed rules and laws of the organisation, 18%
stated that decisions are made by some individual or top management,
27% that decisions are made with prescribed rules including
consultations with the employees and volunteers

81% of CSOs stated that they have prescribed obligations to inform the
members, or Managerial or Supervisory Board, customers or general
public about the results of your work

95% CSOs inform members of their organisation about the results of
their work, 80% inform founders of their organisation, 89% inform
26
Practice:
 Involve CSOs in decision making process at early stage
 Build capacity of public administration to understand
importance and role of CSOs
Practice (possible other):
 Same as BCSDN
management board, 83% inform beneficiaries of their organisation,
85% inform general public, 90% general assembly, and 77% inform
supervisory board17
4.2. CSOs are able to communicate the results of their activities to the public
4.2.a. External perception of importance and impact of CSOs activities.
4.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO

29.9% of surveyed trust to NGOs in their country, general population
trust the most to the President of the state Presidency 61.9% of
surveyed, and the least to political parties 22.7% of surveyed

61.5% of general population do not trust to NGOs, 73.5% of surveyed
do not trust to political parties, and 67.6% of surveyed do not trust to
judiciary

34.5% of the general population believes that NGOs support dealing
with problems in their country, President of the state presidency
supports the most in dealing with problems 66.3%, and political parties
support the least 31.3%

66% of CSOs believe that the reason for lack of public presence of CSOs
is insufficient interest of the media in reporting on CSOs activities, while
33% of CSOs believe it is due insufficient (or inadequate) CSO activities

Almost all topics and issues listed in the survey were assessed as
relevant, by over 90% of surveyed citizens, only 82% of surveyed
expressed interest in protection of animals was assessed , 89% in
culture and art, 87% in rural development18

77% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are active in fighting
problems in human rights area, 72% believe in the area of rights of
women, and 70% in social care and humanitarian activities
 73% of surveyed believe that CSOs in their country are not active in
fighting problems in rural development, 68% believe in the area of
employment, and 56% in safety19
4.3. CSOs are transparent about their programme activities and financial management
4.3.a. Percentage of CSOs making their (audited) financial accounts and annual reports publicly available
4.3.a independent survey run by TACSO
 41% CSOs stated that they publish their statute on their web
page, 23% stated that the statute is accessible to the public, 34%
stated that the statute is not accessible to the public
 51% of CSOs stated that their statute is accessible to public from
their office
 23% of CSOs stated that they have a rulebook and it available on
17
Ibid 5
Topics and issues assessed included: education, social care and humanitarian activities, human rights, employment, the young and their problems, culture and art, ecology, violence, rights of women, fight against corruption, fight agaiinst drug abuse and aloholism, safety, overseen
government and local governemnets performances, rural development, protection of animals.
19 Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries 2014-2020
19 12 2013
27
18
their web page, 10% stated that they have a rulebook, 34%
stated that have a rulebook, but it is not accessible to the public,
and 33% stated that they do not have a rulebook
 31% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs in FYR Macedonia
publish organisational Annual Program Statement of Work, 24%
believe that only 11-30% of CSOs do so, 23% believe that 31%70% organisation publish APS of Work, and 15% believe that
more than 70% do so
 33% of CSOs stated that they publish their APS of Work on their
web page, and 44% stated that they do not have APS of Work
accessible to public
 38% of CSOs belie that up to 10% of CSOs publish organisational
financial reports, 20% of CSOs believe that 11%-30% publish
financial report, 15% believe that from 31-70% and 18% of CSOs
believe that more than 70% of CSO publish financial reports
 26% of CSOs stated that they have financial reports accessible to
public and published on the web page, while 49% stated they do
not have financial reports available to the public
 49% of CSOs believe that up to 10% of CSOs publish audited
reports, and 12% believe that more than 70% publish audited
reports
 19% of CSOs stated that they have audited financial reports
accessible to the public by publishing it on their web page, 59%
of CSOs stated that they do not have audited financial reports
available to the public20
4.4. CSOs monitor and evaluate the results and impact of their work
4.4.a. Share of CSOs that monitor and evaluate their projects and programmes using baselines and quality indicators
 29% of CSOs evaluate their projects pro forma, while 68%
evaluate projects with the purpose of establishing efficiency and
drawing a lesson for further projects
4.4.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 23% of CSOs use external evaluation for realisation of their
projects
 12% use external evaluator for assessment of implementation of
their organisational strategy
 86% of CSOs have established system for assessment of
20
Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
28
efficiency for realisation of conducted projects
 69% of CSOs have established system for assessment for
implementation of organisation’s strategic plan 21
5. Effective CSOs
5.1. CSO activities are guided by strategic long-term organisational planning
5.1.a. Share of CSOs which have developed strategic plans including human resources development activities in order to attract and retain talent
 71% of CSOs have developed strategic plan, 15% do not have a
strategic plan
5.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 79% use internal evaluation when employing staff in their
organisation
 40% of CSOs neither have established system for assessment of
efficiency of employees in their organisation, nor 30% of CSOs
have internal strategic plan dealing with these issues
 44% of CSOs stated that they have a human resources
development plan aimed at attacking and keeping talented
associates, while 27% stated that they are developing such plan
 80% of CSO stated that they manage to keep talented
associates, and 81% believe that they manage to attract quality
new people22
5.2. CSOs use research and other forms of evidence to underpin their activities
5.2.a. Number of CSOs' who use adequate argumentation and analysis for achieving advocacy goals
 64% of CSOs active in public advocacy, mainly/frequently uses
research for their advocacy actions, while 35% of them
mainly/very rarely use research
5.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 77% of CSOs believe that they have enough information at their
disposal
 47% of CSOs use official data of national statistical offices,
ministries, 30% of CSOs collect necessary data from many
sources of information, 15% conduct their own studies
 82% of CSOs access necessary data via official data of national
statistic offices, ministries23
5.3. CSOs regularly network within and outside country borders and make use of coalition-building for increased impact in campaigning and advocacy
21
22
23
Ibid 5
Ibid 5
Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
29
5.3.a. Share of CSOs taking part in local, national, regional and international networks
 44% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any
international network, 23% stated that belong to one
international network, 13% stated that they belong to 2
international networks, 11% belong to more than 3 international
networks
 2% of CSOs are not active in any of international networks, 46%
are active in one international network, 19% are active in 2
international networks, and 17% are active in more than 3
international networks
 18% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any national
network, 36% stated that belong to one national network, 14%
stated that they belong to 2 national networks, 26% belong to
more than 3 national networks
 3% of CSOs are not active in any of national networks, 46% are
active in one national network, 14% are active in 2 national
networks, and 29% are active in more than 3 national networks
 57% of CSOs indicated that they do not belong to any local
network, 21% stated that belong to one local network, 5% stated
that they belong to 2 local networks, 8% belong to more than 3
local networks
 4% of CSOs are not active in any of local networks, 44% are
active in one local network, 12% are active in 2 local networks,
and 17% are active in more than 3 local networks
 30% of CSOs do not find CSO networks efficient, while 67% find
them efficient
 26% of CSO stated that their contributed in terms of the
exchange of experience/knowledge from being member of a
network, 27% gained in terms of access to
information/exchange of information, 15% gained in greater
visibility/influence/strength/affirmation of CSOs24
5.3.a. independent survey run by TACSO
6. Financially sustainable
CSOs
6.1. Fund-raising activities are rooted in CSOs' long-term strategic plans and the core mission of the organisation
6.1.a. Percentage of CSOs that confirm that they are able to raise funds according to their strategic plans
 66% of CSOs believe that CSOs in Macedonia mainly adopt to
donors’ priorities and collect funds also for other activities not in
line with their organisational strategic plan, while 34% of CSOs
believe that CSOs in Macedonia mainly stich with their strategic
plan and collect funds for activities in line with their strategic
plan
6.1.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 70% of CSOs stated that they mainly stick to their strategic plans
and collects fund for activities in line with its strategic plan,
while 28% stated that they adapt to donors’ priorities and collect
funds also for other activities not in line with its strategic plans25
24
Ibid 5
25
Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
30
6.2. CSO have a diversified funding base, including membership fees, corporate/individual giving and social entrepreneurship
6.2.a. Diversity in CSO sources of income
 4% of CSOs stated that they did not have any donors in the past
year, 11% had one donor, 30% had between 2-3 donors, 20%
had 4-5 donors, and 29% over 6 donors
6.2.a. independent survey run by TACSO
 43% of CSOs had income from membership fees, 33% had from
citizens, 55% form local self-government and/or regional
administration, 29% from other foreign private or state
resources, 23% form the EU funds, 35% form
governments/ministries/state administration bodies, 29% from
private companies operating in the country, 21% from public
companies26
26
Ibid 5
Guidelines for EU support to civil society in enlargement countries
2014-2020
19 12 2013
31