From Problems in Practice to Public Policy

10.8.2026.

Every system has its blind spots.

These are the places where consequential decisions are made - about public money, the quality of evidence, the outcome of court proceedings, or a citizen's ability to protect a right - yet they can remain outside the mainstream of reform for years.

From December 2022 through June 2026, Judicial Base South (JBS) directed a substantial share of its research precisely toward those blind spots. At the outset of the project, we agreed to focus on issues where an important problem existed but was not yet being sufficiently researched by others. After our work on mass litigation and accountability within the legal profession, attention turned to local government attorney offices, court-appointed experts, and abuse of procedural powers in criminal proceedings.

We then opened two additional questions: judicial protection of consumer rights and abuse of the right of access to information of public importance.

By the end of the project, five studies had been completed. But the period did not end with the final publication. In its closing phase, we launched a new research question - "Future Lawyers and AI" - opening a new line of work on what the growing use of artificial intelligence means for legal education and the future professional responsibility of lawyers. All of this took place while the space for public policy dialogue itself was changing. In the earlier phases of the project, we held direct meetings with ministries, independent institutions, and local authorities.

By the final phase, in a far more polarized social environment, a significant part of civil society - ourselves included - had put cooperation with the state on hold. The need for independent expertise did not diminish; the space in which it could generate an immediate institutional response became more constrained.

Four Issues Reached the Places Where Rules Are Made

Mass litigation is a good example of how an apparently local legal issue can become a public policy problem. A single dispute over compensation allegedly left unpaid for a land expropriation years earlier is an individual case.

Hundreds or thousands of nearly identical cases - in which court costs and legal fees begin to strain municipal budgets - are no longer merely disputes between two parties. Local budget funds pay for preschools, roads, social services, and other public functions.

JBS took up mass litigation as the first in a series of research topics, but during the research the issue acquired a new institutional pathway. A communication group brought together municipal leaders, department heads, legal advisers, and local government attorneys from roughly twenty local governments in southern Serbia affected by expropriation lawsuits. JBS then joined a smaller expert group that participated in meetings at the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance, while the related advocacy focused on amendments to the Civil Procedure Act that would reduce opportunities for abuse through mass litigation.

A similar path emerged in criminal procedure. The research on abuse of procedural powers became the core around which an expert team for criminal procedure reform was formed. For roughly a year, the team also worked on proposals to amend the Criminal Procedure Code. The proposals were channeled through the National Convention on the European Union (NCEU) Working Group for Chapter 23 to the Ministry of Justice, presented during public consultations in Niš and Belgrade, and included in the NCEU's consolidated comments. Some were subsequently incorporated into draft amendments. Our specific proposals addressed judicial police and investigation centers, safeguards against abuse of the status of a witness exempt from the duty to testify, electronic service of court documents, a different framework for indigent defense, and the question of who should decide whether to conduct an investigation or dismiss a criminal complaint. At the public consultation in Niš, JBS was the only civil society organization to request an extension of the consultation period; in Belgrade, additional stakeholders joined the same request. The consultation period was subsequently extended.

In consumer protection, there are clearly actors working on consumer rights, complaints, and out-of-court mechanisms. But what happens when none of those mechanisms work, and a citizen has to go to court? That matters because the right to file a complaint means little to a consumer who, once the complaint is rejected, concludes that the value of the product, the costs, the time involved, and the uncertainty simply make litigation not worth pursuing. Our research showed that relatively few consumers seek judicial protection, even though those who did initiate proceedings prevailed in a large share of the cases analyzed. In the meantime, JBS became a member of the NCEU Working Group for Chapter 28 - Consumer and Health Protection, took part in a presentation of the draft law before more than 50 stakeholders, and submitted specific comments on the draft Consumer Protection Act to the Ministry. The announcement of the public consultation also cited JBS research.

The fourth example may best illustrate why public policy is often more complicated than a simple 'for' or 'against' answer. Abuse of the right of access to information of public importance has become a real problem. But restricting that right through a poorly designed anti-abuse mechanism can create another problem: public authorities may be given a tool to label legitimate requests from citizens, journalists, and organizations as excessive or abusive.

That made the research question more difficult - and more important: how can abuse of the right be curbed without giving the state a new mechanism for withholding information from citizens? The risk that an anti-abuse mechanism could itself be abused was precisely why JBS followed this issue through the legislative process as well. It participated in public consultations in Niš and Belgrade; in Niš, it was the only civil society organization to take part in the substantive discussion. In May 2025, the findings, patterns of abuse, and possible solutions were also discussed with the Office of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection. The research looked for regulatory solutions capable of identifying genuine abuse while preserving the fundamental purpose of this right - enabling the public to scrutinize the work of public authorities.

Four different issues, then, followed the same trajectory. Research was an entry point into decision-making. In none of these four cases did JBS 'change four laws.' What can be demonstrated with precision, however, is that problems and findings identified through research were translated into proposals and carried into institutions and formal processes where the rules can actually change. That is a far more demanding outcome than simply publishing a study.

RESEARCH WAS NOT THE END OF THE WORK. IT WAS AN ENTRY POINT INTO DECISION-MAKING.

Seven Recommendations for Issues That Had Remained Outside the Main Frame

Public policy influence does not begin only when a statutory provision is amended. Often the first shift is simpler - and harder: persuading the system that a problem deserves a place on the reform agenda at all.

Recommendations by CHRIN and JBS on open justice data and mass litigation were included in the National Convention on the European Union's Book of Recommendations. The next cycle added five more: three recommendations concerning local government attorney offices and two concerning court-appointed experts.

In total: 7 recommendations. 4 reform issues.

In researching local government attorney offices, JBS examined whether the issue appeared at all in the key reform documents it tracks. According to that analysis, these offices had not been addressed in the Action Plan for Chapter 23, the earlier NCEU Book of Recommendations, or the European Commission annual report reviewed for the study.

The same analysis found that court-appointed experts were also absent from these mechanisms. Following the research, three recommendations on local government attorney offices and two on court-appointed experts were included in the Book of Recommendations. Why does that matter? Because an issue that does not appear in reform documents is unlikely to become the subject of systematic monitoring.

The State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Serbia and the attorney offices of local self-government units are not topics that usually make front-page news. Yet they protect the property rights and interests of cities and municipalities and can potentially act before a harmful contract or legal transaction becomes a cost borne by the public. According to JBS's analysis, neither the State Attorney's Office nor the attorney offices of local self-government units had, at that point, been addressed in the Action Plan for Chapter 23, the NCEU Book of Recommendations then in force, or the European Commission annual report analyzed.

The same assessment applied to court-appointed experts. After the research, all five recommendations covering these two areas were included in the Book of Recommendations. This is an issue whose importance citizens often understand only when an expert opinion becomes a key piece of evidence in their own case. A judge appoints an expert precisely when the court lacks the specialized knowledge needed to establish a particular fact. An expert's findings and opinion can therefore have a significant - and sometimes decisive - effect on the outcome of a case.

The research showed how important information is about experts' qualifications, impartiality, disqualification, sanctions, and removal, and how poorly developed or underused the existing mechanisms for recordkeeping and accountability remain.

This is a different kind of influence: not only changing how the system responds, but expanding the range of questions the system recognizes as important in the first place. Having a recommendation included in a reform document is not the same as having it implemented. But the second step is difficult to reach without the first. A problem that is not on the reform map can hardly become a reform priority.

From Local Practice to National Processes

Much of the evidence behind these recommendations did not originate in central institutions in Belgrade. The study on court-appointed experts covered 13 courts in southern Serbia - five basic courts, five higher courts, one appellate court, and two commercial courts. The research on local government attorney offices mapped 28 local self-government units, with 13 offices participating directly in the study.

The mass litigation issue connected representatives of roughly twenty local governments, while the capacity-building program was open to participants from seven districts in southern and southeastern Serbia. But here, 'local' did not mean merely regional.

Data from courts in the south became part of national reform recommendations. The problem of local budget exposure reached the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance. The consumer research fed into work with the Ministry of Trade and the Chapter 28 process. Criminal procedure proposals reached the Ministry of Justice and the NCEU Working Group for Chapter 23. Findings on access to information reached the Commissioner's Office. Expertise does not always have to travel from the center to the local level. Local practice can generate evidence, questions, and proposals that matter to the entire country and can itself become a source of knowledge for national policy.

That was one of the premises behind the creation of JBS: justice-sector issues and expertise should not be concentrated only in Belgrade. National processes should be opened to the south, and problems identified in the south should be able to enter those processes as nationally relevant evidence and arguments. When the same problem appears in several local courts or municipalities, it stops being a local anecdote. It becomes a pattern worth testing, documenting, and bringing into the discussion about how the system should work. At one point, the reach extended beyond the national level as well. In September 2025, a detailed eight-page expert submission was provided to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights in preparation for its official visit to Serbia. Southern Serbia is not only a place where the effects of public policy are felt. It can also be a place where arguments for changing that policy are generated.

When an Impression Becomes Data

'Everyone knows there is a problem' is one of the most dangerous sentences in public policy.

As long as something remains an impression, we do not know how large the problem is, where it is most pronounced, how it arises, who is most affected, or whether the intervention we are proposing would actually address the cause.

That is why the five completed studies were built on more than a reading of the law. For the research on local government attorney offices, 28 local governments were mapped and two different questionnaires were collected from each of 13 offices - 26 questionnaires in total - together with focus-group and individual interviews.

The study on court-appointed experts examined the practice of 13 courts and obtained data from the Ministry of Justice. The research on judicial protection of consumer rights was conducted nationwide and included, among other things, a sample of 14 major retailers in the footwear and consumer electronics sectors.

The study on abuse of the right of access to information of public importance provides an especially striking example. It combined legal analysis, questionnaires, a focus group, an interview with a representative of the Commissioner's Office, data from the Commissioner, and an analysis of practice.

The result was not merely a finding that abuses exist, but a much more concrete picture of the patterns and incentives behind them. The number of appeals filed with the Commissioner rose from 5,174 in 2021 to 16,711 in 2023. Over the same period, the share of appeals filed through attorneys increased from 29.53% to 82.82%. By April 30, 2025, the Commissioner had ordered first-instance public authorities to reimburse a total of RSD 70,504,600 in costs arising from appeal proceedings.

The scale becomes even clearer when the data structure is examined. In the 2023 records, one individual appears as the appellant in 3,133 appeals, 3,130 of which were filed through the same legal representative. In the same year, one attorney appears as counsel in 4,892 appeals. Numbers like these can easily push the debate in the wrong direction: 'Eliminate the possibility of abuse and the problem is solved.'

The research showed why it is not that simple. The same right that can be abused remains one of the key legal tools through which journalists, citizens, and organizations seek information about the work of public authorities. Earlier practice also revealed the opposite risk - that the very concept of 'abuse of rights' could be invoked to reject legitimate requests. Good data does not necessarily make a problem simpler. Sometimes its greatest value is precisely that it prevents an overly simple solution.

And while those five research cycles were being completed, the next question was already emerging:

Future Lawyers and AI

Artificial intelligence is no longer merely a tool a law student might use to shorten notes or clarify a concept. It is becoming part of the environment in which future lawyers will write, research, advise citizens, work with documents, and exercise professional judgment. That is why 'Future Lawyers and AI' was not designed as a study of how many students use one popular tool. Its central question is more serious: Is legal education preparing future lawyers to use AI responsibly in a profession where a wrong source, a missed deadline, mishandling confidential information, or inaccurate legal advice can have real consequences for someone's rights?

The research therefore examines what students do with AI, how much they trust it, how they verify legal information, whether they understand confidentiality, and where they draw the line between receiving assistance and handing professional judgment over to technology. The planned methodology connects a student survey, assessment of a specific AI-generated legal answer, and conversations with members of the legal profession to identify the gap between actual student practice and the minimum level of responsible practice expected by the profession.

The methodology is therefore broader than a conventional survey on ChatGPT use. It combines student practice, evaluation of a legally risky AI response, discussions with legal professionals, and analysis of the normative framework. It examines the functional, epistemological, normative, ethical, professional, and critical-communication dimensions of AI legal literacy.

From the Classroom to the Author Team

A good think tank cannot depend indefinitely on the same small circle of people. That is why part of this period focused on the question of who will work on justice-sector issues next.

The call for the program 'Strengthening Capacity for Judicial Reform - Southern Serbia' received 45 applications. Twenty-six candidates were interviewed, 16 participants and three alternates were selected, and the program concluded after 14 expert lectures. The call was aimed at aspiring judges, prosecutors, and attorneys, while also remaining open to young legal professionals, law and journalism students, journalists, and civil society actors from seven districts.

But the program's most important result came after the lectures ended. Three participants joined the mentoring component as junior researchers and coauthors of studies. They moved from attending lectures on judicial reform to conducting research that was later presented to the Ministry of Trade and used as a basis for further advocacy. That is far more meaningful than simply reporting that a training took place. And it did not stop with those three.

The final project review identified the emergence of a broader group of approximately twenty people from different professional backgrounds - authors, researchers, lecturers, and journalists - who connected through work on specific issues and built shared expertise. A community like that does not show up neatly in a single results table. But without it, sustained work over several years on questions that cannot be resolved within one project cycle is much harder to imagine.

THE TRAINING DID NOT END WITH A CERTIFICATE.

For some participants, it continued through research, authorship, and professional engagement.

When Justice Leaves the Expert Circle

There is another boundary that expert research must cross if it is to have broader social meaning: the boundary of language. 'The Position of Attorney Offices of Local Self-Government Units' sounds like a topic for a narrow professional audience.

The question of who should act in time to prevent a legal transaction that could damage public property sounds very different. A finding can remain invisible even when the research behind it is methodologically excellent. All it takes is for the finding to remain written in a language spoken only by the small circle of people who already work on the issue. Yet almost every topic researched during the project has a very straightforward translation into everyday life. That is why communication was part of the work itself, not merely promotion after the fact.

Working with JBS members Jugpress and InfoVranjske, both media outlets, we produced eight interviews with experts who lectured in the training program, with the aim of increasing the visibility and public understanding of the issues.

The media footprint extended beyond those interviews. The 'In the Media' archive records 24 items published during the project's formal implementation period, from February 2023 through June 30, 2026, across at least six regional and national media outlets, including RTS, N1, Danas, Jugpress, InfoVranjske, and Nova Naša reč. One additional article was published on July 1, immediately after the project's formal close. At the same time, the old JBS Google site - long outgrown by the volume of content - was replaced with a completely new bilingual platform in Serbian and English, which has been continuously updated.

Near the very end of the project, the research was brought back to where many of the underlying questions originate: the people who work inside the system. On June 25, 2026, the Faculty of Law at the University of Niš hosted a final expert forum in which the findings of four studies were discussed across three panels. The event brought together representatives of academia, the judiciary, the prosecution service, the bar, local government attorney offices, the media, civil society, and law students. The goal was not to recap the publications, but to discuss with practitioners what the findings mean for how the system functions and what public policy changes might follow from them.

Across four seemingly unrelated research topics, the same issues surfaced again: a lack of reliable data, a gap between legal rules and practice, and a system that too often reacts only after a problem has already occurred instead of preventing it. In that sense, the communication loop closes: an expert finding enters the public sphere and then returns to the professional community - not as a finished answer, but as material for the next discussion.

From Problems in Practice to Public Policy - and Back Again

There is another layer behind all of this, less visible than a research study, a recommendation, or a public consultation. For five studies, working groups, public consultations, training, and media work to function as a coherent whole, the infrastructure needed to sustain that work had to be built in parallel. JBS adopted its 2024-2026 Strategy and a Media Strategy, both accompanied by action plans.

As part of a resilience support plan, 12 templates for internal regulations, policies, and other documents - totaling more than 100 pages - were developed. These documents were shared with all JBS members. Those results are not as photogenic as a large number on an infographic. But without them, it is difficult to sustain an organization's work over the long term.

More importantly, when all of the publicly visible results are placed side by side, it becomes clear that they were not produced as isolated activities. Seen from that distance, the entire period reveals something that is easy to miss when each result is viewed on its own. Mass litigation connected the problem of local budget exposure to two ministries and pointed to the need to amend the Civil Procedure Act.

The research on abuse of procedural powers in criminal proceedings took place in parallel with the development of proposals to amend the Criminal Procedure Code. Open data, mass litigation, local government attorney offices, and court-appointed experts were reflected in seven formal NCEU recommendations.

Data from courts and local institutions in southern Serbia became evidence used in national processes. Judicial protection of consumer rights moved from an under-researched issue to discussions with the Ministry, the NCEU Working Group for Chapter 28, and a public consultation on a new law. Abuse of the right of access to information of public importance was documented empirically with enough clarity to show both the seriousness of the problem and the danger of the wrong solution.

Three program participants became coauthors, while a broader professional community formed around the different research projects. Findings moved from publications into the media, public consultations, and discussions among practitioners.

And before the project formally ended, a new question had already emerged: What must the legal profession know and be able to do when AI is entering law faster than legal education can establish clear rules for its use? Only when these points are connected does the progression that carried the entire body of work come into view:

PROBLEM IN PRACTICE -> RESEARCH AND DATA -> RECOMMENDATION -> REFORM AGENDA -> INSTITUTIONS AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS -> THE PUBLIC AND THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY -> CHANGE IN PRACTICE -> NEW QUESTION ->

And then back to the beginning.

That is why this period should not be reduced to five studies, seven recommendations, fourteen lectures, or several public consultations, important as those numbers are. Its result lies above all in the connection between those points - finding a problem where it arises, testing it against data, turning the finding into a proposal, carrying the argument to the places where rules are decided, opening the issue to the public - and then returning to practice to ask what actually changed and what question comes next.

A PROJECT HAS AN END DATE. SYSTEMIC ISSUES DO NOT.

This project was made possible with the support of the Open Society Foundation.