Introduction
The UN Working Group’s report presents Expo 2027 as a major governance concern, not because the event itself is inherently problematic, but because it is being advanced through exceptional legal and administrative arrangements that weaken ordinary safeguards. In particular, the report shows how a flagship project can proceed with limited transparency, reduced public participation, and weak oversight, raising broader rule-of-law concerns [paras. 16–17].
Read the full report here
Expo 2027 concerns
The first problem is the special legal framework adopted for Expo 2027. The report explains that this framework introduced exemptions from the Law on Public Procurement and from parts of other rules on expropriation, urban planning, construction safety, and environmental protection, allowing contracts worth up to 1 billion euros to be awarded without competitive bidding [para. 17]. This effectively removed Expo-related procurement from normal tender rules and created a context in which major public spending could occur with much weaker scrutiny [para. 17].
A second concern is the lack of transparency in procurement. The Working Group reports that projects worth about 330 million euros had already been awarded, with 86 per cent of tenders receiving only one bid [para. 17]. That raises concerns about competition, value for money, and the risk of favoritism or corruption, especially since there was no independent oversight mechanism for Expo 2027, including for the allocation and use of public funds [para. 17].
The report also presents Expo 2027 as part of a broader pattern in which public-interest projects are advanced without the level of legal process expected in a rule-of-law system. It notes that the special framework was adopted in November 2024 and extended beyond procurement to planning, construction, and environmental protection [para. 17]. In the report’s view, this creates a precedent in which special treatment for one flagship project can erode public trust and weaken accountability across institutions [paras. 16–17].
There is also a labour dimension. The report states that preparations for Expo 2027 increased demand for migrant workers, especially in construction, hospitality, services, and transport [para. 77]. The concern is not the presence of migrant labour itself, but the context of a fast-moving, large-scale project with complex subcontracting chains, weak inspection capacity, and limited evidence of consistent enforcement of worker protections [para. 77].
Why it matters
The report does not treat Expo 2027 as problematic simply because it is an expo. It treats it as problematic because the legal regime around it appears to bypass the normal checks that protect public funds, communities, workers, and the environment [paras. 16–17, 77]. In that sense, the Expo becomes a case study in how “strategic” projects can be insulated from scrutiny while still relying heavily on public money and State authority [paras. 16–17].
This is why the Working Group recommends that Serbia withdraw or amend the special legal framework for Expo 2027 and restore the usual safeguards for procurement, planning, and construction [para. 119(i)]. The core concern is that the project should not operate outside the ordinary standards of transparency, competition, and oversight that are meant to protect the public interest [para. 119(i)].