AI LAW RADAR · Daily Last verified 26 Aug 2026

Jurisdiction dossier

Serbia: AI regulation & deadlines

Serbia has no AI-specific statute in force, and two binding automated-decision rules that have applied since 22 August 2019. The Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti («Sl. glasnik RS» br. 87/2018) carries the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive in a single act and divides them by article: art. 38 is GDPR art. 22 transposed with its three exits and its three minimum safeguards, and art. 38(5) hands special-purpose processing to art. 39, which is drafted as a prohibition with no consent or contract way out and a statutory-basis exception whose floor is human participation in the decision. Art. 39(3) goes further than either European instrument: a flat ban on profiling that leads to discrimination against natural persons on special-category grounds, tied to no decision, no effects threshold and no «solely automated» qualifier, and admitting no exception. Enforcement is a fixed-dinar misdemeanour regime, not a turnover regime: art. 95(1)(19) names breach of arts. 38 and 39 expressly at 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a legal person, 20,000 to 500,000 for an entrepreneur and 5,000 to 150,000 for a responsible individual, with no turnover alternative anywhere in the article, so the ceiling is identical for a multinational and a corner shop. Supervision sits with the Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti. Serbia has been running AI policy since the 2019 Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence and has published non-binding ethical guidelines, and the Government has announced a first, EU AI Act-aligned Law on Artificial Intelligence for adoption by December 2026; no draft text is published, so nothing is tracked as an obligation on that basis yet. 2 obligations tracked — 2 in force.

Binding — Binding sectoral Flagship law: Personal Data Law arts. 38 and 39

Serbia has no AI-specific statute in force, and two binding automated-decision rules that have applied since 22 August 2019. The Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti («Sl. glasnik RS» br. 87/2018) carries the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive in a single act and divides them by article: art. 38 is GDPR art. 22 transposed with its three exits and its three minimum safeguards, and art. 38(5) hands special-purpose processing to art. 39, which is drafted as a prohibition with no consent or contract way out and a statutory-basis exception whose floor is human participation in the decision. Art. 39(3) goes further than either European instrument: a flat ban on profiling that leads to discrimination against natural persons on special-category grounds, tied to no decision, no effects threshold and no «solely automated» qualifier, and admitting no exception. Enforcement is a fixed-dinar misdemeanour regime, not a turnover regime: art. 95(1)(19) names breach of arts. 38 and 39 expressly at 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a legal person, 20,000 to 500,000 for an entrepreneur and 5,000 to 150,000 for a responsible individual, with no turnover alternative anywhere in the article, so the ceiling is identical for a multinational and a corner shop. Supervision sits with the Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti. Serbia has been running AI policy since the 2019 Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence and has published non-binding ethical guidelines, and the Government has announced a first, EU AI Act-aligned Law on Artificial Intelligence for adoption by December 2026; no draft text is published, so nothing is tracked as an obligation on that basis yet.

checked 26 Aug 2026 primary source ↗

Themes TransparencyProhibitedHiring

The Register

2 obligations
Serbia Binding

Personal Data Law art. 38 — GDPR art. 22 transposed, applicable since 22 August 2019, penalty in fixed dinars

Binds Controllers and processors, on the GDPR's own reach, with no size, sector or turnover threshold and no public/private split. Art. 3(1) applies the Law to processing wholly or partly by automated means and to non-automated processing of personal data forming part of, or intended for, a filing system. Art. 3(3) catches a controller or processor with its seat, domicile or residence in the Republic of Serbia, within activities carried out on Serbian territory, regardless of where the processing operation itself happens. Art. 3(4) reaches a controller or processor with no seat, domicile or residence in Serbia where the processing concerns a data subject domiciled or resident in Serbia and the operations relate to (1) the offering of goods or services to that person on Serbian territory, whether or not payment is required, or (2) monitoring the person's activities where those activities are carried out on Serbian territory — so a foreign scoring, screening or pricing service that reaches Serbian residents is inside art. 38. Art. 3(2) excludes processing by a natural person for personal or household purposes. Hiring, credit scoring and insurance pricing are the paradigm cases: an automated sift producing a hiring outcome significantly affects the candidate's position within the meaning of art. 38(1). A decision with a human materially in the loop falls outside art. 38(1), which reaches only decisions taken «isključivo» on the basis of automated processing, and the Law supplies no gloss on what degree of human involvement defeats that. Competent authorities processing for the special purposes are outside this article by art. 38(5) and inside art. 39.. Art. 38 of the Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti («Službeni glasnik RS» br. 87/2018) is Serbia's general automated-decision rule and it tracks GDPR art. 22 clause for clause. Art. 38(1): «Lice na koje se podaci odnose ima pravo da se na njega ne primenjuje odluka doneta isključivo na osnovu automatizovane obrade, uključujući i profilisanje, ako se tom odlukom proizvode pravne posledice po to lice ili ta odluka značajno utiče na njegov položaj.» The trigger is a decision resting solely on automated processing, profiling included, that either produces legal consequences for the person or significantly affects their position — the second limb is drafted as «značajno utiče na njegov položaj» rather than the GDPR's «similarly significantly affects», dropping the comparison to the legal-effects limb and leaving the threshold to be read on its own terms. Art. 38(2) supplies the same three exits as GDPR art. 22(2): the decision is necessary for concluding or performing a contract between the data subject and the controller; it is based on a law that itself prescribes appropriate measures protecting the person's rights, freedoms and legitimate interests; or it rests on the person's explicit consent. Art. 38(3) then requires, in the contract and consent cases, at minimum three safeguards: the right to secure the participation of a natural person under the controller's control in the taking of the decision, the right of the data subject to express their point of view on the decision, and the right to contest the decision before the controller's authorised person. Art. 38(4) bars such decisions from resting on the special categories of art. 17(1) unless art. 17(2)(1) or (5) applies — explicit consent, or data manifestly made public by the person — and the safeguards are in place. Art. 38(5) carves the whole article out for processing by competent authorities for the special purposes defined in art. 6(3); those bodies answer to art. 39 instead, and the two articles between them leave no gap. Art. 40(1) allows arts. 36 to 39 to be restricted by law for national security, defence, public security, the prevention, investigation and detection of criminal offences and the other listed grounds, provided the restriction does not touch the essence of the right and is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society.

In force and applicable, and the applicability date is derived rather than stated as a calendar date. Art. 102 reads «Ovaj zakon stupa na snagu osmog dana od dana objavljivanja u ‘Službenom glasniku Republike Srbije’, a primenjuje se po isteku devet meseci od dana stupanja zakona na snagu, osim odredbe člana 98. ovog zakona koja se primenjuje od dana njegovog stupanja na snagu.» Publication was on 13 November 2018, so the eighth day is 21 November 2018 and the nine months expire on 21 August 2019. Because art. 102 starts application «po isteku» — upon the expiry of — that period, the first day of application is 22 August 2019, and the official register masthead on the promulgated text agrees: «Osnovni tekst na snazi od 21/11/2018, u primeni od 22/08/2019». A large body of Serbian practitioner commentary instead names 21 August 2019; the one-day divergence is a reading of «po isteku» and not a conflict between two primary sources, and 22 August 2019 is the date the enacted text supports. Art. 101 repealed the 2008 Law («Sl. glasnik RS» br. 97/08, 104/09 – dr. zakon, 68/12 – US, 107/12) from the same day of first application, so the art. 22 rule of the old Law is superseded rather than supplemented; art. 100 required all other statutes touching personal data to be aligned by the end of 2020. Supersession check, 26 August 2026: the Law is still cited as «Sl. glasnik RS» br. 87/2018 alone, with no amending gazette number in its masthead, so art. 38 stands as enacted. Serbia has no AI-specific statute in force. A first Law on Artificial Intelligence aligned with the EU AI Act has been announced by the Government for adoption by December 2026; no draft text has been published, so it is not tracked as an obligation here. The text relied on is the promulgated Law as published in «Službeni glasnik RS» br. 87/2018 of 13 November 2018, read end to end from the copy the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government hosts at https://mduls.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/Zakon-o-zaštiti-podataka-o-ličnosti.pdf, which carries the Ukaz of promulgation signed by the President and the register masthead «Osnovni tekst na snazi od 21/11/2018, u primeni od 22/08/2019». The Pravno-informacioni sistem ELI cited as the source is the official gazette record but is served by a JavaScript-only portal, so it renders in a browser and not to a fetcher — that is the shell, not rot. Two government-hosted PDFs are traps and were ruled out: minrzs.gov.rs/sites/default/files/2018-11/Zakon o zastiti podataka o licnosti.pdf is the SUPERSEDED 2008 Law (97/08) despite its 2018 upload path, and it decodes only through a shifted-glyph font.

Stated maximum penalty — 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a controller or processor that is a legal person. Art. 95(1)(19) names the breach expressly: a misdemeanour is committed where «se donese odluka koja proizvodi pravne posledice po lice na koje se podaci odnose isključivo na osnovu automatizovane obrade, suprotno čl. 38. i 39. ovog zakona», and it sits in the Law's top band at art. 95(1). Art. 95(4) fines an entrepreneur 20,000 to 500,000 dinara for the same misdemeanour, and art. 95(5) fines a natural person, the responsible person in a legal person, in a state body, in an authority of territorial autonomy or of a local self-government unit, and the responsible person in a representative office or business unit of a foreign legal person, 5,000 to 150,000 dinara. These are fixed-dinar misdemeanour fines set in the Law itself, not GDPR-style turnover percentages, and there is no turnover alternative anywhere in art. 95 — the ceiling for the largest multinational is the same 2,000,000 dinara as for the smallest Serbian company. Supervision and enforcement sit with the Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti; misdemeanour proceedings run before the misdemeanour courts. Impact tier: all entities.

In force · 22 Aug 2019 checked 26 Aug 2026 Personal Data Law art. 38 ↗ high confidence
Serbia Binding

Personal Data Law art. 39 — solely automated decisions banned for police, prosecutors and prisons, plus an exceptionless ban on discriminatory profiling

Binds Competent authorities only, and the Law defines the trigger by purpose rather than by institution. Art. 6(3) defines the «posebne svrhe» as processing by competent authorities for the prevention, investigation and detection of criminal offences, the prosecution of their perpetrators or the execution of criminal sanctions, including the prevention of and protection against threats to public and national security. Art. 1(2) brings that sphere inside this same statute, so Serbia — unlike Moldova, which split the GDPR and LED regimes into two acts — carries both regimes in one Law and divides them by article. The division is clean at the edges: art. 38(5) removes special-purpose processing from art. 38, and art. 7(1) forbids repurposing data collected for the special purposes unless a law provides for it. The same body processing for an ordinary purpose, its own staff records for instance, answers to art. 38 and not to art. 39. Private controllers are outside art. 39 entirely, with one edge: a private body exercising delegated public powers for a special purpose is a «nadležni organ» for these purposes. Art. 40(1) permits arts. 36 to 39 to be restricted by law on national-security, defence, public-security and criminal-justice grounds subject to the essence, necessity and proportionality test.. Art. 39 is the law-enforcement counterpart of art. 38 and, following LED art. 11, it is drafted as a prohibition on the authority rather than as a right the individual must invoke. Art. 39(1): «Zabranjeno je donošenje odluke isključivo na osnovu automatizovane obrade koju vrše nadležni organi u posebne svrhe, uključujući i profilisanje, ako takva odluka može da proizvede štetne pravne posledice po lice na koje se podaci odnose ili značajno utiče na položaj tog lica, osim ako je donošenje te odluke zasnovano na zakonu i ako su tim zakonom propisane odgovarajuće mere zaštite prava i sloboda lica na koje se podaci odnose, a najmanje pravo da se obezbedi učešće fizičkog lica pod kontrolom rukovaoca u donošenju odluke.» Three drafting choices matter. The effects limb is widened by «štetne» — the legal consequences must be harmful — but it also reaches a decision that merely «može» produce them, so the prohibition bites on capacity to harm rather than on realised harm. There is no consent exit and no contract exit: the single way out is a statutory basis that itself prescribes safeguards, and the floor for those safeguards is named in the article — the right to secure the participation of a natural person under the controller's control in the taking of the decision. And unlike art. 38(3), the person is given no right here to express a view or to contest the decision; the enabling statute must supply whatever more it supplies. Art. 39(2) bars such a decision from resting on the special categories of art. 18(1) unless appropriate protective measures are applied. Art. 39(3) is the provision with no analogue in art. 38 and the one most likely to be overlooked: «Zabranjeno je profilisanje koje dovodi do diskriminacije fizičkih lica na osnovu posebnih vrsta podataka o ličnosti iz člana 18. stav 1. ovog zakona.» That is a flat, exceptionless ban on discriminatory profiling on special-category grounds — it is not tied to any decision, to any effects threshold, or to the «isključivo automatizovana» qualifier, so it reaches profiling that merely feeds a human decision, and it admits no statutory override.

In force and applicable since 22 August 2019 on the same art. 102 timetable as art. 38 — entry into force on 21 November 2018, the eighth day after publication in «Sl. glasnik RS» br. 87/2018 of 13 November 2018, and application upon the expiry of nine months from that day. Art. 39 is new law rather than a re-enactment: the repealed 2008 Law had a single automated-decision provision covering both spheres and no prohibition addressed to law-enforcement bodies, and it had nothing resembling the art. 39(3) discriminatory-profiling ban. Supersession check, 26 August 2026: no amending gazette number appears in the Law's masthead, so art. 39 stands as enacted. Note for readers comparing regimes: art. 39(1) is narrower than art. 11 of Directive (EU) 2016/680 in requiring the legal consequences to be harmful, and wider in reaching decisions that merely may produce them; art. 39(3) has no counterpart in art. 38 and no exception clause at all. The text relied on is the promulgated Law as published in «Službeni glasnik RS» br. 87/2018 of 13 November 2018, read end to end from the copy the Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government hosts at https://mduls.gov.rs/wp-content/uploads/Zakon-o-zaštiti-podataka-o-ličnosti.pdf, which carries the Ukaz of promulgation signed by the President and the register masthead «Osnovni tekst na snazi od 21/11/2018, u primeni od 22/08/2019». The Pravno-informacioni sistem ELI cited as the source is the official gazette record but is served by a JavaScript-only portal, so it renders in a browser and not to a fetcher — that is the shell, not rot. Two government-hosted PDFs are traps and were ruled out: minrzs.gov.rs/sites/default/files/2018-11/Zakon o zastiti podataka o licnosti.pdf is the SUPERSEDED 2008 Law (97/08) despite its 2018 upload path, and it decodes only through a shifted-glyph font.

Stated maximum penalty — 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a controller or processor that is a legal person, under the same art. 95(1)(19) that covers art. 38 — the item is drafted against «čl. 38. i 39.» together — with 20,000 to 500,000 dinara for an entrepreneur under art. 95(4) and 5,000 to 150,000 dinara for a natural person or the responsible person in a legal person, a state body, an authority of territorial autonomy or a local self-government unit under art. 95(5). Two limits are worth stating plainly. First, art. 95(1)(19) is written around a decision that «proizvodi pravne posledice» taken solely on automated processing, so it maps onto art. 39(1) but does not obviously reach a standalone breach of the art. 39(3) discriminatory-profiling ban, which involves no decision at all — that prohibition carries no misdemeanour of its own. Second, because art. 95(5) addresses the responsible person, the practical sanction against a state body falls on an individual official. Supervision is the Poverenik's, whose special-purpose powers run under Chapter VII of the Law. Impact tier: public sector.

In force · 22 Aug 2019 checked 26 Aug 2026 Personal Data Law art. 39 ↗ high confidence

Questions & answers

From the data

When does Personal Data Law arts. 38 and 39 take effect in Serbia?

Personal Data Law arts. 38 and 39 is already in force, with obligations live since August 22, 2019. Serbia has no AI-specific statute in force, and two binding automated-decision rules that have applied since 22 August 2019. The Zakon o zaštiti podataka o ličnosti («Sl. glasnik RS» br. 87/2018) carries the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive in a single act and divides them by article: art. 38 is GDPR art. 22 transposed with its three exits and its three minimum safeguards, and art. 38(5) hands special-purpose processing to art. 39, which is drafted as a prohibition with no consent or contract way out and a statutory-basis exception whose floor is human participation in the decision. Art. 39(3) goes further than either European instrument: a flat ban on profiling that leads to discrimination against natural persons on special-category grounds, tied to no decision, no effects threshold and no «solely automated» qualifier, and admitting no exception. Enforcement is a fixed-dinar misdemeanour regime, not a turnover regime: art. 95(1)(19) names breach of arts. 38 and 39 expressly at 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a legal person, 20,000 to 500,000 for an entrepreneur and 5,000 to 150,000 for a responsible individual, with no turnover alternative anywhere in the article, so the ceiling is identical for a multinational and a corner shop. Supervision sits with the Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti. Serbia has been running AI policy since the 2019 Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence and has published non-binding ethical guidelines, and the Government has announced a first, EU AI Act-aligned Law on Artificial Intelligence for adoption by December 2026; no draft text is published, so nothing is tracked as an obligation on that basis yet.

Who must comply with AI rules in Serbia?

Current obligations bind, among others, Controllers and processors, on the GDPR's own reach, with no size, sector or turnover threshold and no public/private split. Art. 3(1) applies the Law to processing wholly or partly by automated means and to non-automated processing of personal data forming part of, or intended for, a filing system. Art. 3(3) catches a controller or processor with its seat, domicile or residence in the Republic of Serbia, within activities carried out on Serbian territory, regardless of where the processing operation itself happens. Art. 3(4) reaches a controller or processor with no seat, domicile or residence in Serbia where the processing concerns a data subject domiciled or resident in Serbia and the operations relate to (1) the offering of goods or services to that person on Serbian territory, whether or not payment is required, or (2) monitoring the person's activities where those activities are carried out on Serbian territory — so a foreign scoring, screening or pricing service that reaches Serbian residents is inside art. 38. Art. 3(2) excludes processing by a natural person for personal or household purposes. Hiring, credit scoring and insurance pricing are the paradigm cases: an automated sift producing a hiring outcome significantly affects the candidate's position within the meaning of art. 38(1). A decision with a human materially in the loop falls outside art. 38(1), which reaches only decisions taken «isključivo» on the basis of automated processing, and the Law supplies no gloss on what degree of human involvement defeats that. Competent authorities processing for the special purposes are outside this article by art. 38(5) and inside art. 39.; Competent authorities only, and the Law defines the trigger by purpose rather than by institution. Art. 6(3) defines the «posebne svrhe» as processing by competent authorities for the prevention, investigation and detection of criminal offences, the prosecution of their perpetrators or the execution of criminal sanctions, including the prevention of and protection against threats to public and national security. Art. 1(2) brings that sphere inside this same statute, so Serbia — unlike Moldova, which split the GDPR and LED regimes into two acts — carries both regimes in one Law and divides them by article. The division is clean at the edges: art. 38(5) removes special-purpose processing from art. 38, and art. 7(1) forbids repurposing data collected for the special purposes unless a law provides for it. The same body processing for an ordinary purpose, its own staff records for instance, answers to art. 38 and not to art. 39. Private controllers are outside art. 39 entirely, with one edge: a private body exercising delegated public powers for a special purpose is a «nadležni organ» for these purposes. Art. 40(1) permits arts. 36 to 39 to be restricted by law on national-security, defence, public-security and criminal-justice grounds subject to the essence, necessity and proportionality test.. Scope and thresholds vary per instrument — see each row's source for the legal text.

What are the penalties for AI non-compliance in Serbia?

Stated statutory maxima include: Personal Data Law art. 38 — 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a controller or processor that is a legal person. Art. 95(1)(19) names the breach expressly: a misdemeanour is committed where «se donese odluka koja proizvodi pravne posledice po lice na koje se podaci odnose isključivo na osnovu automatizovane obrade, suprotno čl. 38. i 39. ovog zakona», and it sits in the Law's top band at art. 95(1). Art. 95(4) fines an entrepreneur 20,000 to 500,000 dinara for the same misdemeanour, and art. 95(5) fines a natural person, the responsible person in a legal person, in a state body, in an authority of territorial autonomy or of a local self-government unit, and the responsible person in a representative office or business unit of a foreign legal person, 5,000 to 150,000 dinara. These are fixed-dinar misdemeanour fines set in the Law itself, not GDPR-style turnover percentages, and there is no turnover alternative anywhere in art. 95 — the ceiling for the largest multinational is the same 2,000,000 dinara as for the smallest Serbian company. Supervision and enforcement sit with the Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka o ličnosti; misdemeanour proceedings run before the misdemeanour courts. Impact tier: all entities.; Personal Data Law art. 39 — 50,000 to 2,000,000 dinara for a controller or processor that is a legal person, under the same art. 95(1)(19) that covers art. 38 — the item is drafted against «čl. 38. i 39.» together — with 20,000 to 500,000 dinara for an entrepreneur under art. 95(4) and 5,000 to 150,000 dinara for a natural person or the responsible person in a legal person, a state body, an authority of territorial autonomy or a local self-government unit under art. 95(5). Two limits are worth stating plainly. First, art. 95(1)(19) is written around a decision that «proizvodi pravne posledice» taken solely on automated processing, so it maps onto art. 39(1) but does not obviously reach a standalone breach of the art. 39(3) discriminatory-profiling ban, which involves no decision at all — that prohibition carries no misdemeanour of its own. Second, because art. 95(5) addresses the responsible person, the practical sanction against a state body falls on an individual official. Supervision is the Poverenik's, whose special-purpose powers run under Chapter VII of the Law. Impact tier: public sector.. These are the maximum amounts in the instruments; actual enforcement is at the regulator's discretion.

Not legal advice. Each obligation links to its primary source and carries the date it was last checked; verify the legal text before relying on it.

← All jurisdictions  ·  Back to the Radar