The timeline of the amendments raises concerns. The legislation had to be adapted to the Constitution, adopted in 2006, by the end of 2008. The Serbian authorities failed to reform the law on referendums by that deadline. Its new version was drafted at a time of preparation of constitutional reform, which would require a constitutional referendum. As regards such situations, the Guidelines provide that “the fundamental aspects of referendum law should not be open to amendments to be applied during the year following their enactment, or should be written in the constitution or at a level superior to ordinary law”. The Serbian authorities plan to hold a referendum in the months following the adoption of the law. Even if the revision is aimed, inter alia, at ensuring conformity of the legislation with the Constitution and international standards, the Serbian authorities should have addressed the issue much earlier and much more thoroughly. This was clearly possible in the fifteen years which have elapsed since the adoption of the Constitution and the eleven years since the last Venice Commission’s opinion. The adoption of the legislation on referendums, formally ordinary law, needs the majority of all members of Parliament.8 It is doubtful that it should be considered as superior to ordinary law; at any rate the exception to the principle of stability of referendum law (the one-year rule) has to be understood as implying a broad political agreement and therefore related to the requirement of a broad consensus. The Venice Commission regrets that the authorities waited until a constitutional referendum was imminent to revise the law on referendums. According to the interpretative on the stability of electoral law, fundamental provisions of electoral law should be applied less than one year after their adoption only if they ensure conformity with the standards of the European electoral heritage, or implement recommendations by international organisations, which is only partially the case.