despite positive assessments by all preceding bodies, including the Expert Council for the Humanities, which had determined that she met all formal criteria. Professor Jelena Kleut; Photo: FoNet The stated reason was a subsequent objection that her monograph had not been verified by the relevant academic board. According to colleagues, however, such verification is required for researchers employed at institutes, not at faculties. Professor Kleut’s appeal against the decision was rejected by an enlarged composition of the University Senate on 15 January, following a secret vote and without a detailed explanation. Proceedings have since been initiated before the Administrative Court seeking annulment of the Senate’s decision and her reinstatement, alongside parallel legal actions alleging violations of her labour rights. Students of the Faculty of Philosophy in Novi Sad organised protests and called for an indefinite boycott of classes. Speakers at the rally argued that the case reflects an attempt to establish mechanisms for sanctioning public engagement and warned that it raises broader concerns about academic freedom. In the days that followed, students and professors at several faculties in Belgrade joined solidarity protests. Kleut has cautioned that her case may signal the beginning of a dangerous practice whereby academics who speak out publicly and criticise the authorities could be removed from their positions. She maintains that university regulations were violated and has announced that she will pursue all available legal remedies. According to her, some colleagues who have also taken public positions are already expressing concern that their own promotion reports may soon be reviewed by what she described as“politicised bodies.” Continued pressure on the judiciary – adoption of the so-called“Mrdić laws” On 28 January, the National Assembly adopted a package of amendments to five judicial laws at the initiative of Serbian Progressive Party(SNS) MP Uglješa Mrdić. The laws were passed under an urgent procedure, without public consultation and without obtaining opinions from the competent bodies, as the proposer was an individual MP rather than the Government. President Aleksandar Vučić promulgated the legislation on 30 January, despite criticism from the professional community, civil society organisations, Serbia’s highest judicial bodies and warnings from Brussels that the changes represent a“significant step backwards” on Serbia’s European path. The amendments affect Law on the Seats and Territorial Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutor’s Offices, Law on the High Prosecutorial Council, Law on the Organisation of State Authorities in the Suppression of High-Tech Crime, Law on the Public Prosecutor’s Office and Law on Judges. One of the most contentious provisions concerns a new procedure for the temporary secondment of prosecutors to other offices. While such secondments previously existed, the decision had been taken by the Supreme Public Prosecutor. Ruling party MP Uglješa Mrdić(standing), initiator of the controversial judicial laws; Photo: FoNet Under the new framework, that competence is transferred to the High Prosecutorial Council, acting upon proposals from chief prosecutors. In addition, all prosecutors currently seconded to other offices must return to their original posts within 30 days. The Prosecutor’s Office for Organised Crime has warned that this provision could seriously undermine work on organised crime and corruption cases, as more than half of its prosecutors are seconded from other offices. According Pressure from the EU mounts as the Serbian government attempts to further curtail judicial independence 2