The Greek Twinning Experience in the National Assembly of Serbia provided over 100 experts across 10 countries for approximately 100 missions between 2013-2018. The projects aimed to strengthen capacities of parliamentary assemblies in Serbia, Albania, and Turkey regarding EU integration and human rights. Key aspects of the successful projects included adapting to changing political contexts, developing customized recommendations, special reporting, donor coordination, and multi-stakeholder engagement. Lessons learned emphasized the need for dedicated implementation units, managing institutional fatigue, third-party evaluations, and follow-up activities to reinforce gains. The experience highlights the benefits and challenges of EU twinning programs for parliamentary strengthening.

1. 1
The Greek Twinning Experience in the
National Assembly of Serbia
Inter Pares inaugural conference
Brussels, 11-12 July 2019
Dr. Fotios Fitsilis, f. RTA
Head of Department - Scientific Service
Hellenic Parliament

2. 2
First blood…
SR 11 IB OT 01 (January 2013- November 2014)
Strengthening Capacities of the National Assembly of the Republic of
Serbia in the EU Integration process – successfully concluded
followed by more…
AL 14 IPA JH 01 16 (May 2017-May 2018)
Further Strengthening the Assembly of Albania in the context of EU
Accession – successfully concluded
TR 14 IB JH 03 (awarded in 2016)
Empowerment of the Role of Parliament in the Protection and
Promotion of Human Rights by Strengthening the Administrative
Capacity of Parliament – stalled implementation

3. 3
Quick facts
Number of experts >100
Countries of origin 10
Missions ~100
Recommendations > 200
Trainings 40
Participants in trainings > 800
Public events 4
Participants in public events > 400
Study visits 5
Benchmark reports 35
Administrative and special reports 25
Total number of pages > 4300

4. 4
Good practice
 Ability to adapt
 2014 elections: Change of focus  election observation
 2014 accession negotiations  role of parliament
 Custom recommendations
 Development, negotiation, presentation
 Special reporting
 Donor coordination
 Multi-stakeholder engagement
 Reinvested in institutional cooperation
 Hellenic – Serbian MoU
 Additional (bilateral) study visits
 Development of an electronic workspace
 Mapping of parliamentary processes
 Scientific publications: Fitsilis & Koryzis (2016), Fitsilis (2018)
and Fitsilis & Jovanovic (2019, forthcoming)

5. 5
Deficiency & bad practice
Lessons learned
 You are on your own
 EUD wants your good!
 No off-the-shelf solutions
 Be creative! – it will (eventually) pay out
 Necessity of a dedicated unit, i.e. European
Programs Implementation Service (EPIS)
 Institutional fatigue
 Huge expert basis
 Third-party evaluation during the project!
 No debriefing
 Missing EUP involvement Inter Pares?
 Lack of follow-up activities

6. 6
The end (or just a new beginning?) - Contacts
Dr. Fotios Fitsilis fitsilisf@parliament.gr
epis@parliament.gr
https://www.hellenicparliament.gr