Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

Nikola Kovačević

The previous version of this report was last published in July 2025.

International protection

Asylum procedure

• Key statistics on arrivals: MoI and CRM recorded 9,567 arrivals which is a significant decrease in comparison to 2024 when 19,603 arrivals was recorded. Still, this number reflects only the persons recorded in CRM reception facilities, and it is reasonable to assume that number of arrivals to Serbia is significantly higher. Also, this number does not encompass persons in need of international protection who can arrive to Serbia regularly (Ukraine or Russian Federation), or who arrived regularly with a visa and then applied for asylum (see Access to the territory and arbitrary and forcible removals).
• Access to the territory – pushbacks: Pushbacks from Serbia to North Macedonia and Bulgaria continue, despite lower number of CSO reports. Several cases were recorded in detail by CSOs, while the modus operandi of pushbacks was confirmed in the landmark judgment H. and Others v. Serbia rendered in February 2026. Only 76 foreign nationals were officially readmitted to neighbouring countries, while 4,620 was refused entry. On the other hand, MoI reported 10,802 preventions of illegal entry, which in most of the cases amounts to pushbacks, regardless of MoI’s interpretations which are based around the narrative of ‘discouragement’. Thus, pushbacks remain a systemic practice, especially at the borders with Bulgaria and North Macedonia (see Access to the territory and arbitrary and forcible removals).
• Pushbacks from other countries to Serbia: Only 210 persons were returned under the readmission agreement, while pushbacks from neighbouring countries continued, reaching 5,580 from Hungary. Decreased presence of CSOs in border areas has led to the lower number of individual testimonies recorded and published (see Access to the territory and arbitrary and forcible removals).
• Smuggling activities: Smuggling continued to be the only way to leave Serbia towards the EU, but after winter 2023 and armed clashes at the north between the smuggling groups, and smuggling groups and police, it became more clandestine. This topic had arisen publicly only after the incidents which imply either new clashes with police or tragedies in which people on the move are involved in fatal traffic accidents or drowning in rivers while trying to reach neighbouring countries, as it was the case with Syrian UaSCs in 2024 and Chinese migrants in 2025 (see Access to the territory and arbitrary and forcible removals).
• Access to the asylum procedure at the airport: Access to the asylum procedure at the airport remains a serious problem, and many cases of automatic refusal of entry, deprived of any risk assessment of refoulement, were recorded in 2025. Also, foreign nationals refused entry continue to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty, which was confirmed by the ECtHR in the judgment G.D. v. Serbia from October 2025 (see Access to the territory at the Nikola Tesla Airport in Belgrade).
• Registration and lodging of asylum applications: In 2025, only 626 persons were registered in terms of the Article 35 of the Asylum Act, while only 130 lodged their asylum application. Persons who were served an expulsion order, or persons returned back from neighbouring countries can still be denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to the risk of chain-refoulement, penalizations in misdemeanour or denial of access to reception facilities. Thus, any return to Serbia deprived of guarantees of access to asylum or other residential procedure in which individual circumstances of foreign nationals can be examined, including the risks of refoulement, should be considered as falling short of the procedural limb of Article 3 of ECHR (see Registration of the asylum application).
• First-instance asylum decisions: In 2025, the Asylum Office rendered 172 decisions regarding 228 asylum seekers. Out of that number, 79 decisions regarding 118 asylum seekers were rejected on the merits, while 7 decisions granting asylum to 7 persons were delivered in the same period. The asylum procedure was discontinued in 83 cases regarding 100 applicants, due to their absconding, while in 1 instance subsequent asylum application was declined in relation to 1 applicant. There was 1 inadmissibility decision (first country of asylum). First instance asylum procedure still lasts excessively long (13,6 months) and is followed by a poor credibility assessment, poor CoI research and low recognition rate. Citizens of the Russian Federation, Türkiye and Burundi do not have prospect of obtaining international protection. The practice with regards to SGBV survivors, as well as LGBTQI+ applicants continued to deteriorate and the practice in general remains contradictory and unpredictable. Recognition rate in 2025 was 8%, which is a further decrease. The first Syrian applicant was rejected on the merits in December 2025. Positive practice was determined in relation to survivors of trafficking in human beings. And finally, arbitrary application of national security grounds in asylum and other residential procedures remains, reaching to 11 asylum procedures being negatively resolved for the applicants on these grounds (see Regular procedure).
• Asylum Commission – the second instance authority: The second instance body continues to lack corrective influence on Asylum Office. Also, contradicting practice in the same or identical cases was recorded again. In 2025, Asylum Commission rendered 68 decisions in relation to 94 persons from: Cuba (21), Russian Federation (18), Burundi (15), Türkiye (8), Belarus (6), Afghanistan (3), Syria (3), China (3), Kyrgizstan (2), Croatia (2), Iran (2), Pakistan (2) and 1 from Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Iraq, Sweden, Moldova, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Armenia, Ukraine and India. Still, the number of decisions in comparison to 2024 increased. As it was the case in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 the Asylum Commission did not render any positive decisions in 2025, i.e. it did not grant international protection. Only two appeals were upheld, and the cases were referred back to the Asylum Office. The Asylum Commission basically confirmed the contentious practice of the Asylum Office with regards to the applicants from Russian Federation, Burundi and Türkiye, as well as the practice of arbitrary application of national security grounds, poor credibility assessment of SGBV survivors claims and LGBTQI+ applicants (see Appeal).
• Administrative Court – the third instance authority: In 2025, the Administrative Court delivered 22 decisions regarding 28 persons out of which most of them were of unknown nationality due to once again excessive anonymization: Unknown (13), Burundi (3) Iran (4), and 1 from Syria, Iraq, Cuba and Croatia. For that reason, the only thing which can be safely determined is the fact that cases before the Administrative Court last on average 36,6 months and that the practice of arbitrary application of national security grounds  was confirmed in another case. No positive or corrective influence of this body was recorded, and all complaints were either rejected or dismissed. Thus, unless the Administrative Court’s internal organization undergoes thematical restructuring, complaint to this body will continue to be theoretical and illusory (see Appeal).
• Legal aid: Legal aid continues to be limited due to funding cuts which impacted CSOs as traditional providers. The Law on Free Legal Aid needs to be amended so private lawyers can be provided in earlier stages of asylum procedure. Without competent legal aid providers, persons in need of international protection, as well as other vulnerable categories of persons of the move would be deprived of any chance of obtaining protection in Serbia (see Legal assistance).

Reception conditions

• Reception capacity and conditions: In 2025, a total of 3 asylum centres and 3 reception centres were operational out of 12 in total. Total reception capacities were, respectively 4,216 and 2,006 in asylum centres and 2,210 in reception centres. There was no overcrowding and genuine asylum seekers were referred to AC Sjenica and AC Obrenovac. AC Krnjača was permanently closed, as well as RCs in Šid, Adaševci, Dimitrovgrad and Kikinda. RCs in Sombor, Subotica, Bosilegrad, Pirot were not operational, as well as ACs in Banja Koviljača and Tutin (see Reception Conditions).
• Vulnerability: There is no vulnerability assessment upon arrival to reception facilities, not there is a state-organized and coordinated vulnerability assessment during the course of asylum procedure. CSOs and their legal representatives were once again those who primarily identified most vulnerable applicants and coordinated collection of evidence which proves vulnerability. Such evidence (expert opinions of SGBV survivors for instance) were flagrantly ignored by asylum authorities in all instances. Thus, vulnerable categories of foreign nationals and their special needs are systematically neglected in Serbian asylum and migration system. The perfect example of such practice is the fact that most of the survivors of human trafficking were identified by IDEAS and ATINA (see Special reception needs for vulnerable groups).

Detention of asylum seekers

• Freedom of movement/deprivation of liberty: No asylum seeker was detained in 2025, while 499 foreign nationals was detained under the Foreigners Act. The return rate was around 60%, while around 20% of foreign nationals was released due to the low prospect of return. Mass detention on national security grounds is no longer an issue, and the number of such cases has significantly dropped according to the data delivered by the MoI (see Detention of Asylum Seekers).
• Detention conditions: NPM criticized living conditions and regime of life in DC Padinska Skela and DC Plandište. It also outlined the complete lack of adequate health care and vulnerability screening upon arrival, as well as lack of meaningful activities (see Detention conditions).

Content of international protection

• Integration – right to work: There were no issues reported with regards to access to labour market, but it remains clear that integration support in this sense is predominately provided by UNHCR office in Serbia. Still, only around 70 out of 250 persons granted asylum remained in Serbia, which corroborates that prospect of integration of refugees in Serbia remains limited and that more assistance should be provided to asylum seekers from earlier stages of the first instance asylum procedure (see Access to the labour market).
• Integration – right to permanent residency: On 31 December 2025, a total 45 persons granted asylum in Serbia obtained permanent residency which corroborates the standing that many beneficiaries of international protection in Serbia have moved on to the EU (see Long-term residence).
• Access to education: No major problems were recorded with regards to access to education, except for the everlasting problem of children being deprived of support to adapt to elementary and high school class while under the status of asylum seekers (see Access to education).
• Family reunification: There were no cases of family reunification in 2025 (see Family reunification).
• General observation of the author: According to the opinion of the author of this report, the past 18 years have undoubtably proven that Serbia has never been genuinely interested to develop its asylum system and throughout the years, the behaviour of relevant authorities clearly has been embodied through practices which had a sole aim to crush aspirations of refugees to consider Serbia as a country where they can access protection: automatic application of the safe third country concept in the period 2008-2018, excessive length of asylum procedure 2008-present, no possibility to obtain refugee travel documents in the period 2008-2023, systemic pushbacks which intensified in the period from 2015 to the present day, organized crime present in reception facilities which had its roots in different State hierarchies including the police, impunity for such acts, recognition rate which can only be considered as a statistical mistake, complete disregard of vulnerable persons on the move, automatic returns from airport to countries where there was a clear risk of refoulement, etc. If we add to that that hundreds of millions of euros was invested into the Serbian asylum system by the EU and other donors, and that Serbia has failed to budged the minimum for independent functioning, it is hard to escape the impression that the only reason certain and rare positive steps have been recorded in the past 18 years was motivated by financial support which was utilized in a non-sustainable manner.

Temporary protection

The information given hereafter constitute a short summary of the Annex on Temporary Protection on

2025. For further information, see the Annex on Temporary Protection.

Temporary protection procedure

• Scope of temporary protection: The following persons are eligible to be beneficiaries of temporary protection: 1) citizens of Ukraine and their family members who resided in Ukraine; 2) asylum seekers, stateless persons and foreign nationals who have been granted asylum or equivalent national protection in Ukraine and their family members who have been granted residence in Ukraine; 3) foreign nationals who have been granted valid permanent residence or temporary residence in Ukraine and who cannot return to their country of origin under permanent and long-term circumstances.
• Registration for temporary protection: In 2025, a total of 387 persons were registered under the TP. In the same period, 394 persons were granted temporary protection for the first time. Finally, temporary protection was extended for a total of 859 persons.

Content of temporary protection

Access to rights: There were no major issues reported in access to rights and in relation to Ukrainian refugees and other beneficiaries of TP. Most of the problems were identical to those described in relation to asylum seekers and persons granted asylum in the general report.