The Roundtable of Coalition of journalists and media associations (UNS, NUNS, NDNV, Local Press and ANEM), entitled "Competition-based co-financing of public interest in the field of public information - where we came from and where are we going?", was held on June 2, 2016, in Novi Sad.

At the event "The White Book", concerning the above mentioned process, was presented. The Book is prepared by NDNV based on the results of monitoring of the project-based co-financing of the media, conducted by the Coalition in the period from 1 April 2015 to 1 April 2016. The Book contains collected data on conducted competitions, the qualitative and quantitative analysis of these data, the main findings, conclusions on what are the biggest problems and shortcomings of the process of co-financing of the projects of public interest in the area of public information, both in legislation and practice, and recommendations for problem solving and improvement of this process. The Book was presented by its authors and representatives of Coalition.

The event gathered representatives of the media, journalists and media associations, civil society, national councils, authorities and the diplomatic and donor community.

"The White Book" is published within the project "To be or not to be for media reform in Serbia - monitoring of the project-based co-financing of the media", which was supported by the British and Australian embassies in Belgrade.

Please see the report on this event here.

Invitation to the event

On 28 April 2016 Coalition of journalists and media associations (UNS, NUNS, NDNV, Local Press and ANEM) held in Belgrade its fourth public debate on the implementation of the rules on co-financing media content of public interest. The event was organized to publicly present "Report on the project-based co-financing of media content of public interest in Serbia", which refers to the period 1 April 2015 - 1 April 2016. The Report is the result of one-year lasting monitoring of this process, the Coalition in this period implemented with the support from the British and the Australian embassies in Belgrade, within the project "To be or not to be for media reform in Serbia - monitoring of the project co-financing of the media".

Coalition has monitored daily the law enforcement in this area, following the competition procedures at all levels, it reacted to observed irregularities with its suggestions for their elimination, while in cases of drastic violations of the law with public statements and official letters, but it is also directly participated in the process, nominating independent media professionals for members of evaluation commissions, where the competitions were in accordance with the legislation.

At the event  the concrete results of the process of co-financing of projects of public interest in the mentioned period was discussed, as well as the experiences of Coalition gained in the process, examples of good and bad practice, shortcomings in the practice and legislation governing this issue, and what needs to be done to eliminate them.

The report was presented by: Petar Jeremic, President of Managing Board of UNS, Svetozar Rakovic, General Secretary of NUNS, Nedim Sejdinović, President of Managing Board of NDNV Snežana Milošević, General Secretary of Local Press and Milorad Tadić, ANEM's president.

You can find the report on the event here.

On February 25, 2016, Coalition of media and journalists associations (UNS, NUNS, NDNV, Local Press and ANEM) held in Belgrade the third public debate on the results of its monitoring of the implementation of the rules of co-financing of media content of public interest. At the event the second periodic report (for the period September 15, 2015 - January 15, 2016) was presented. It is a result of the project "To be or not to be for media reform - monitoring of project co-financing of the media", supported by British and Australian embassies in Belgrade, whose aim is to contribute to improvement of legislation and the process of co-financing of media content.

The event speakers were: Svetozar Rakovic, General Secretary of NUNS Petar Jeremic, President of the Managing Board of UNS, Nedim Sejdinović, President of the Managing Board  of NDNV, Milorad Tadić, ANEM's president and Snežana Milošević, General Secretary of Local Press. Presenting the report, representatives of the Coalition talked about how many competitions for co-financing of media projects of public interest were launched in 2015; how much money was spent for these purposess; experiences gained in the implementation of competition procedures so far, examples of good and bad practice in this area and recommendations for the process improvement.

See the report on the event here.

ANEM submitted to the Ministry of Culture and Information its concrete remarks, comments and suggestions on the proposed Rulebook regulating the project-based co-financing of public interest in the public information.

They pertain to: Article 5 - specifying the mutual relations between the general competition and special competitions (related to the public information of persons with disabilities and public information of members of national minorities), which are envisaged to be launched during the year at all levels; Article 7 - improving the provisions regulating the mechanism for evaluation of long-term projects (up to three years) and the manner of funds disbursement for these projects; regulating the manner and the deadlines for disbursement of funds for competitions that last up to a year; Article 9 - specifying competition closing date in the call for applications; Article 11 - the obligation to publish on the website of the authority that called the competition official minutes regarding the fulfilment of the requirements for participation in the competition; Article 23 - ensuring the independence of the expert commission with regard to the opinion of the national councils of national minorities; Article 24 - prescribing a shorter period than proposed for reaching decision on the allocation of funds; Article 27 - obligation to publish Proposal of expert commission for funds allocation; Article 37 - ensuring transparency of allocation of funds for allowances; Article 39 - specifying deadlines for the submission of the contract; Article 42 - enabling additional time for the submission/correction of report on the project implementation before request for a refund; Final Provisions - adding a new article to regulate what happens with competition procedures that were started during the validity of the old Rulebook.

ANEM's Suggestions (available only in Serbian)

On January 29, 2016, the Association of Independent Electronic Media held in Belgrade the round table on the effects of the implementation of media laws since their adoption in August 2014.

The round table was aimed at gathering the representatives of media and journalists' associations, the academic community, civil society, competent authorities and other stakeholders, to map, in a mutual exchange of opinions, the effects of the application of media laws so far and propose guidelines and recommendations for changing the regulations, as well as the practice. The goal being to adequately fulfill the goals set in the Media Strategy from 2011.

The keynote speakers were Milorad Tadic, the President of ANEM; Attorney at Law Slobodan Kremenjak, an expert for media law and member of ANEM's legal team; Jovanka Matic, PhD, media expert; Professor Rade Veljanovski, PhD, media expert; and Milos Rajkovic, member of the Council of Regulatory body for electronic media (RBEM). The recommendations and guidelines were formulated and presented by Attorney at Law Milos Stojkovic, media law expert and member of ANEM's legal team.

The debate pointed to the following:

• that the media community and professionals went back in a "reactive mode" in 2015 and that the struggle for media reforms has been reduced to reacting to adverse phenomena by press releases, without debating and proposing relevant solutions;
• that the current problems in realizing the goals of the media policy haven't resulted only from the absence of adequate media regulations, but also from the economic environment the media operate in, opaque financing and the lack of genuine political will to implement the media reforms;
• that the provisions on project co-financing (although there are examples of good practice, such as the competition of the Ministry of Culture and Media) come down to misusing the legal form of project co-financing in order to continue the practice of opaque financing of "political suitable" media;
• that the provisions on media concentration focused on concentration of media ownership, while completely neglecting concentration of media content, which is key in the context of the realization of goals related to media pluralism and is standard in the European Union;
• that the implementation of the provisions on transparency of media ownership did not achieve its purpose, since (on the basis of the data available in the Media Register) the citizens were not enabled to learn if they should trust a specific media outlet or not;
• that the provisions of the Law, including those governing the position of holders of public office, failed to adequately regulate the position of the independent regulatory body (RBEM), starting from the manner of electing the members of the Council, independent source of financing, the application of regulations on civil servants on REM employees and the lack of adequate authority and measures available to this body;
• that the financing of public service broadcasters (PSBs) is the weakest link of the media reform, that the subscription fee should not have been scrapped (not even temporarily) because it is very well-known from practice that it is very difficult to restore it afterwards, as well as that the PSBs have failed to promote the introduction of an independent manner to finance their activities;
• that the implementation of the provisions on the transparency of the operations of PBSs comes down to holding public debates, the sole purpose of which is to formally fulfill statutory obligations, while there remains a gap in terms of the communication between the citizens and the PSB bodies, whereas the body that is supposed to be the link between the citizens and management bodies (Programming Council) is not independent and is not an element of external control, since it constitutes a part of the structure of PSB bodies;
• that privatization has been very poorly executed, that the allocation of excessive funds based on project co-financing to certain privatized outlets deepens the suspicions that the new owners of these outlets managed to get hold of them with public money, in order to buy political influence;
• that Tanjug (public company) continued its activities as a news agency, although its right to engage in media activities ceased on October 31, 2015, and now practically operates as a "pirate" media outlet.

At the end of the event, the recommendations for overcoming the identified concerns and gaps in media regulations and the practical implementation thereof were formulated.

To that end, the following needs were emphasized:

• the reactivation of the media and academic community, civil society and the citizens and reopening of the communication channels with the competent authorities and the government, in order to find constructive solutions for fixing the backlog of problems in the media sector;
• overcoming the problem of opaque financing of all public entities by prescribing rules that will regulate public advertising;
• amending the rules on project co-financing so as to fulfill the goals of the latter - the realization of public interest in the area of public information;
• amending the rules on media concentration so as to also include and regulate the concentration of media content;
• enabling the genuine transparency of financial flows data in the Media Register, especially with respect to payment to the media by public entities, in order to allow the citizens to get a more reliable picture about the credibility of specific media outlets;
• examining the position of independent regulatory bodies in the Serbian system so as to have them truly be independent regulators, as opposed to public administration bodies: they should enjoy genuine organizational, functional and financial independence, since independent regulators are the guarantee of media freedoms in the area of electronic media;
• make sure the PSBs are true representatives of the interests of the citizens and not of those of political, economic and other elites;
• review the privatization of media companies where there is a possibility to "buy" political influence", find out why the new owners failed to fulfil their financial obligations in terms of paying installments and submitting banking guarantees;
• activate supervision mechanisms in order to establish how is it possible to have the public company Tanjug continue its activities as a media agency, although its right to engage in media activities ceased on October 31, 2015.

ANEM will release in public the conclusions and recommendations of this public debate and submit them to the competent ministries, offices, regulatory bodies and media and journalist associations, hoping that each of them will contribute to overcoming the aforementioned problems and continuing the reforms of the media sector, especially since it is necessary to formulate a new media policy after the expiration of the Media Strategy.

ANEM took part in public debate on the Draft Instruction concerning the time of broadcasting of "forced environment reality programs". In late December 2015 ANEM submitted to the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) its written comments and suggestions, proposing changes to the mentioned Draft Instruction.

In Suggestions ANEM pointed to the following fact - Instruction, as a bylaw, specifies the manner in which the Regulator applies the provisions of the law or other regulations pertaining to the obligations regarding the program content, but does not determine that any program content is unsuitable for persons under the age of 18, nor prescribe obligations of providers of media services. Therefore, ANEM proposed that the Draft should be rephrased so as to confirm the previous rules - that the categorization of programs is an obligation of media service providers, while REM, at the request of the media service provider, gives an opinion on the compliance of a program content with the rules on the protection of minors - but to closely regulate that in case of inadequate program categorization REM would find, but not in each case, "forced environment reality programs" unsuitable for persons under 18 years of age. At the same time, it is necessary to define which programs are considered by REM to be "forced environment reality programs"; however, it does not mean just specifying a list of such programs broadcast so far. Also, ANEM suggested that the Instruction should be related to Article 68, paragraphs 2 and 6 of Law on electronic media, instead to the Rulebook on the protection of the rights of minors in the field of providing of media services, and gave concrete suggestions on how the Instruction should be formulated in that case. ANEM also indicated another option - to change the Rulebook in such a way as to determine that the categorization of the mentioned programs is conducted by the Regulatory body, but in accordance with criteria suggested by ANEM.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVIDING OF MEDIA SERVICES; CONTENTS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE - PSBs OBLIGATIONS

Regulatory body for electronic media (REM), in the period from 27 October to 10 November 2015, conducted a public debate on three draft bylaws that relate to: minimum requirements for providing of media services and licensing on the basis of open competition; minimum requirements for providing media services at the request of the media service provider; public service broadcasters' obligations regarding the assignment of unused rights to broadcast media content of great importance.

ANEM participated in the public debate and submitted to REM its comments and suggestions on drafts of these laws.

1. Draft Rulebook on minimum requirements for  providing of media services, and criteria for decision-making in the process of issuing licenses for providing of media services on the basis of a public competition

In opinion of ANEM, this draft rulebook contributes to legal uncertainty, it is potentially unconstitutional, in certain areas goes beyond its scope of regulation. Since the problems it could create in practice are very serious and could not be removed by simple legal and technical interventions in the existing text, ANEM has proposed that the draft rulebook be withdrawn from the procedure and amended in consultation with the media service providers, so as to respond to real market conditions and be in compliance with the Constitution and law.

For this attitude ANEM provided a number of arguments, pointing to the specific disputable provisions, including the retroactive application of rulebook. ANEM emphasized that believes that regulators should deal with the purpose of prescribing minimum requirements - and that is a quality program, namely, establishing minimum standards for the quality - not the means of achieving the purpose - what technical equipment media service provider must have, or how many employees should be involved in the development of program, or in what workspace it should be done and so on.

2. Draft Rulebook on minimum technical and organizational conditions for issuing licenses for providing of media services at the request of the media service provider

According to opinion of ANEM, all remarks on the previous draft rulebook, which relate to the potential unconstitutionality, legal uncertainty, inadequate prescribing minimum conditions, going beyond its scope of regulation, are relevant for this draft, too. ANEM especially pointed to the complete inadequacy of the criteria for differentiation among media services providers based on the number of users of electronic communications operators.

ANEM proposed for this draft too, to be withdrawn from the procedure because the problems that could create in practice and the potential unconstitutionality are very serious and cannot be removed by interventions in the existing text.

3. Draft Rulebook on the assignment of unused rights of public service broadcasters to broadcast radio, television and other media content of great importance

Although it considers it is good to introduce the rules in this area, ANEM pointed to possibility of compromising autonomy of public service broadcasters with overregulating this issue, as too much detailed rules are evident in this draft. ANEM also pointed to importance of the inclusion of PSBs representatives in drafting the final version of this rulebook.    

At the invitation of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM), ANEM has participated in the consultations on the Working Version of Proposal of the Strategy of the development of media services of radio and audio-visual media services in the Republic of Serbia.

Principal ANEM's remark is related to the lack of Action Plan of the Strategy that should put the obligations undertook by REM in a certain time frame.

On 30 September 2015 the Coalition of media and journalists' associations, consisted of the Journalists' Association Serbia (UNS), the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (NUNS), the Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina (NDNV), Local Press (LP) and the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), organized in Belgrade public debate titled "Project co-financing of media content of public interest." It is the first in a series of debates where the results of work of the Coalition within the project "To be or not to be for media reform in Serbia" will be publicly presented. The project is supported by the British Embassy in Belgrade, and aimed at contributing to the improvement of legislation and the process of co-financing of media content, based on monitoring of the realization of this process in practice.

At the event, the First report of the Coalition, for the period April 1 - September 15, 2015, on the results of the monitoring of the implementation of process of the project co-financing of the media, was presented. The discussion was about hitherto results of this process, the identified shortcomings in practice, examples of good and bad practices and recommendations for improvement of this process.

The event panelists were: Milorad Tadic, ANEM President; Svetozar Rakovic, Secretary General of NUNS; Petar Jeremic, CEO of UNS; Snezana Milosevic, Secretary General of Police Local Press.

On August 24, 2015, SOKOJ asked from ANEM the opinion on what the income of the users of musical works from the repertoire of SOKOJ should include, on the occasion of increasingly expressed views of users, who are financed from the budget or the local authorities, that these funds should be excluded from the basis for calculating the author's remuneration.

In its response, submitted to SOKOJ, ANEM emphasized that believes that the income from activities, as a basis for calculating the author's remuneration, must be narrowly understand, solely as revenues from providing commercial media services, and that the budget funds for co-financing media projects should not be included in the basis, stating the reasons for that. Specifically, these funds are strictly intended for the realization of the public interest in accordance with the Law on Public Information and Media, namely providing of media services in the public interest, and have no commercial character. ANEM also pointed that this view was accepted by the OFPS and PI, collective organizations for protection of related rights, and entered into the Agreement on the tariff that ANEM concluded with these two organizations in 2014.    

The Coalition of journalists and media associations, informal partnership of Journalists' Association of Serbia (UNS), Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (NUNS), Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina (NDNV), Association of independent local media Local Press (LP) and Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), believes that the proper application of the rules in the area of project co-financing of the media is of exceptional importance for the development of the media sector - it should ensure spending of the budget funds on support to the production of media content of public interest instead of direct financing of the media, in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner that does not lead to distortions of the competition on the market (competition procedure). Therefore, ever since the announcement of the first competition under the new Law on Public Information and Media, Coalition has been carrying out monitoring of the implementation of the process of the project co-financing of the media, pointing to and reacting to irregularities, and actively participating in it, by proposing their candidates and participating in the work of the commissions, if the competitions are in accordance with the legislation.

To monitor the entire process more comprehensively and more effectively, the Coalition has planned a number of joint activities and the system of work within the project "To be or not to be for media reform in Serbia - monitoring of the project co-financing of the media", which would be implemented from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016, with the support from the British Embassy in Serbia (British embassy Belgrade). The goal is to contribute, based on monitoring and evaluation of project co-financing of the media, as key to the success of media reforms in Serbia, to improvement of regulations in this area and creation of sustainable system in which the taxpayers' money intended for the media will be spent in the public interest. The project is led by UNS in cooperation with partners: NUNS, NDNV, Local Press and ANEM.

Some of the key activities of the Coalition are: the formation of a five-member Media pool, where each organization has one representative, which follows the announcement of the competition and the regularity of the process, in case of detected irregularities reacts publicly, provides authorities and other participants in the process with consultations and advice as well as proposes candidates for the members of Competition Commissions to authorities; monitoring of the process of project co-financing of the media - competition procedure at the national, provincial and local level, where each organization is in charge of the monitoring of the process in a number of cities and municipalities (Coalition will inform the public on the results of monitoring, using websites and social networks of the Coalition's organizations); creation of the base of the collected data, for systematic monitoring of the process and comparisons in the next period; drafting reports on the results of the monitoring process of the project co-financing of the media for a certain period, which will be publicly presented at the planned joint events. The preparation and public presentation of the report that contains a legal analysis of the monitoring results with recommendations for improving the related regulations, as well as reports containing comprehensive media analysis of the process - White Book, are also planned.

Members of the Media pool are: 

Members of the Coalition and, for each organization, the cities and municipalities where it carries out the monitoring of the process of co-financing of media content of public interest:

Journalists' Association of Serbia (UNS):

Obrenovac
Subotica
Vršac
Apatin
Sremska Mitrovica
Vladimirci
Šabac
Valjevo
Lajkovac
Ljig
Mionica
Osečina
Ub
Smederevska Palanka
Aranđelovac
Negotin
Zaječar
Sokobanja
Kosjerić
Nova Varoš
Požega
Užice
Čajetina
Gornji Milanovac
Vrnjačka Banja
Kraljevo
Novi Pazar
Aleksandrovac
Brus
Babušnica
Bela Palanka
Dimitrovgrad
Pirot
Secretariat for Culture and Information of the AP of Vojvodina
Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Srbije

Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (NUNS):

Independent Journalists' Association of Vojvodina (NDNV):

Bačka Topola
Mali Iđoš
Žitište
Nova Crnja
Novi Bečej
Sečanj
Ada
Kanjiža
Senta
Čoka
Bela Crkva
Kovačica
Opovo
Plandište
Kula
Sombor
Bač
Bačka Palanka
Bački Petrovac
Beočin
Vrbas
Žabalj
Sremski Karlovci
Temerin
Titel
Novi Sad
Inđija
Pećinci
Ruma
Stara Pazova 
Šid
Sjenica
Tutin

Association of independent local media Local Press (LP):

Mladenovac
Novi Kneževac
Odžaci
Koceljeva
Krupanj
Loznica
Ljubovija
Mali Zvornik
Velika Plana
Golubac
Batočina
Knić
Lapovo
Rača
Topola
Kragujevac
Despotovac
Rekovac
Svilajnac
Bor
Knjaževac
Lučani
Čačak
Raška
Varvarin
Kruševac
Trstenik
Ćićevac
Ražanj
Blace
Žitorađa
Kuršumlija
Prokuplje

Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM):

Zrenjanin
Kikinda
Alibunar
Kovin
Pančevo
Bečej
Srbobran
Irig
Bogatić
Smederevo
Veliko Gradište
Žabari
Žagubica
Kučevo
Malo Crniće
Petrovac
Požarevac
Jagodina
Paraćin
Ćuprija
Kladovo
Bajina Bašta
Priboj
Aleksinac
Gadžin Han
Doljevac
Merošina
Svrljig
Niš and city municipalities 

Draft Rulebook on the procedure of issuing approval for the act of transferring licenses for providing of media services and acting upon the reported changes in the ownership structure

REGULATOR'S DRAFT BY-LAWS ON OWN PRODUCTION AND SHARE OF EUROPEAN AUDIO-VISUAL WORKS

In the period from 4 to 18 June 2015 Regulatory body for electronic media conducted a public debate on the Draft Rulebook on criteria and manner of increasing the share of European audiovisual works and the Draft Instruction on the application of the provisions of the Law on Electronic Media governing own production. ANEM participated in public debate with its written comments and suggestions.

Draft Rulebook on criteria and manner of increasing the share of European audiovisual works - ANEM pointed to the inconsistency of some provisions with  the Law on Electronic Media: those that give the definition of related party in the context of determining who may be an European independent producer; those that define what media service providers are not obliged to respect the rules on the share of European audiovisual works and the work of European independent producers; introduction of the concrete period for fulfilling the obligations of specified share of European audiovisual works and European audiovisual works of independent producers in the total annual published program. ANEM also recommended the Rulebook should specify that this obligation applies only to the television media services providers to be clear that the radio media services providers do not have such obligation.

Draft Instruction on the application of the provisions of the Law on Electronic Media governing own production - Although it considered the Instruction was correctly done, ANEM stressed the need for providing the professional community and the media with the explanation on criteria the Regulatory body for electronic media used for the choice of whether the concrete issue it would regulate by the rulebook or the instruction, considering their different legal nature.  

ANEM's written comments and suggestions are available only in Serbian, here.  

GUIDE
THROUGH
NEW
MEDIA
LAWS

FOR MEDIA AND JOURNALISTS 

ANEM produced in cooperation with its legal team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić" an expert e-publication "Guide through new media laws" intended for media and journalists. The Guide can contribute to a better understanding of their rights and obligations stipulated by the Law on public information and media and the Law on electronic media, and thus help them to adequately implement these laws.

Having in mind that the said two laws contain many important and new solutions, the authors of Guide clarify these solutions to media and journalists so as to reduce their dilemmas and problems in implementation of laws and help them to best fulfil their legal rights and obligations. 

Considering that the Law on Public Information and Media is the umbrella law for all media and journalists, as it governs the manner in which the freedom of public information is to be exercised, the authors firstly deal with its provisions and then with the provisions of the Law on Electronic Media that regulates all issues relevant to the field of electronic media. This Guide especially treats the issues/areas where major changes have been made comparing to the previous laws as well as the rules that are completely new. Explanations of the legal provisions are complemented by the basic information from/on the bylaws that regulate in more detail certain provisions of these laws.  

The Guide is available only in Serbian here. 

Production of this publication was financially supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 

http://serbia.nlembassy.org/

The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 

The last in the series of six ANEM seminars on the implementation of new media laws (the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media) was held in Novi Pazar on 20 May 2015.

After the introductory address by the ANEM president, Milorad Tadic, and the Head of the Media Department of the OSCE Mission to Serbia, Gordana Jankovic, the following representatives of responsible institutions, as well as media and legal experts, presented the key solutions of the new laws and the results of their implementation so far: Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law and media law expert, Saša Mirković, state secretary at the Ministry of Culture and Information, Miloš Stojković, attorney at law and member of the ANEM legal team, Rajka Galin Ćertić, assistant director for legal issues, the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media, and Rade Veljanovski, media expert and professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences, Belgrade.

Slobodan Kremenjak presented key solutions of the Law on Public Information and Media. He said that freedom of expression, as an aspect of media in closest relation to human rights, is already well regulated by the Constitution and ratified international treaties. Media laws should be interpreted and implemented in the same way that the European Court of Human rights does so. In the area of human rights, the new laws are aimed at improving the existing system without compromising the existing good solutions.

The important novelty in the Law is defining media as means of conveying editorially shaped information. This is the first time that the law goes beyond defining media merely as means of conveying information. This is important for distinguishing between what is and what is not a media (e.g. social networks, internet forums etc).  Second novelty leads to a clear difference between who may and who may not be media publisher. In relation to this, the Law sets a clear deadline and rules for media privatization. "Publisher" is a new term and it replaced the former term "founder". Third, this law resolved the dilemma whether media may be subject to legal transaction by prescribing that publishing rights over media may be transferred. Fourth, this law brings new rules regarding the control of state aid. By signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement, Serbia took upon itself the obligation to harmonize all of its laws with the EU legislation. An important part of this is the implementation of rules on competition and state aid. While Serbia used to have non-transparent media financing, the Law now attempts to regulate this issue by prescribing that the state aid is possible only if it serves the fulfillment of public interest in the public information sector. The state should ensure conditions for the functioning of media at all its levels, but it should do so in a transparent way and under clear conditions and criteria in order for the aid to lead to the fulfillment of public interest and not particular interest of those in power. Project-based co-financing is at its inception, and is yet to lead to desired results. The conclusion is that there is no alternative solution that could adequately solve this issue and that project-based co-financing is at the time being the best way for the fulfillment of public interest. Yet another novelty is different rules on the Media Register. First, it is prescribed that the Register should contain more information to enable a critical view on the content that media present to the citizens. Additionally, the Register should offer information on the amount of state aid allocated to individual media. The Register is also important for the issue of media concentration. The new Law resolves some issues stemming from the practice, such as impunity for journalists who carry information from documents of responsible state authorities; the rules on reporting on court proceedings were made clearer; the rules on the amount of compensatory damages were made more precise (the rule was established that a person who immediately files a lawsuit, without requesting his/her answer to be published first, will be sanctioned by a lower amount of compensatory damages).

Saša Mirković presented the latest activities of the Ministry of Culture and Information on the implementation of media laws. The Ministry completed the work on the competitions implemented according to the new rules on project-based co-financing. The commissions that assessed the projects had been established in accordance with the law and they were thus comprised mainly by representatives of media and journalists' associations, as well as by members nominated by the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection and the Commissioner for Protection of Equality. The limit for project funding has been significantly increased, but none of the projects received the planned maximum amount. The next competition will be issued in the fall so that the media that will be privatized by then could apply for project-based co-financing. Entering information into the Media Register has started, many media got thus registered, but the increase of registrations is expected with the deadline approaching. According to the latest available data, there are 1440 media registered in Serbia, among them, 580 print media, 325 radio stations and 110 TV stations. Serbia does not possess economic power for such a large number of media, so a certain market consolidation is to be expected next.  Only 5,3% of the total number of media should be privatized. After the completion of the said process, precise data will be available on how many media there are in Serbia and what their ownership structure is. Additionally, new director of the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) was elected within legal deadline and there were no objections to the election process. Public service broadcasters will be financed from tax starting 1 January 2016. The Ministry is cooperating with the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media (REM) regarding the adoption of bylaws as the Ministry performs, prior to their, publishing the control of the harmonization of bylaws with the legislation.  As for the privatization process, the Privatization Agency should provide an overview of the current state of affairs, as well as information on when the first media auctions will be called (a minimum of 30 days must pass between calling and scheduling an auction).

As representatives of the Privatization Agency were reasonably prevented from participating in the seminar, Miloš Stojković presented the legal framework for privatization of remaining publicly owned media. The Law on Public Information and Media envisages obligatory privatization by 1 July 2015 (Article 142). The Law on Privatization is applied to any issue that is not regulated by the Law on Public Information and Media. After the adoption of the Law, the Agency sent out letters of interest, which is the first, informal step in the privatization procedure, the aim of which was to show the potential number of entities/persons interested in buying media so that the Agency would know which model of privatization to choose. The Law envisaged sales by means of public competition as the first model, but in case that this one fails, the privatization will be conducted by means of the free-of-charge distribution of shares to employees. The third model from the Law on Privatization - strategic partnership - will not be applied to media privatization as it is a method applied to the largest enterprises subject to privatization (such as steel plants).

The specifics of media privatization in relation to privatization of other companies are the following:

-          Media buyer must continue with the media activity within 5 years, while buyers of other types of companies must continue with the activity of the company they bought during 2 years.
 
-          Employees may get 100% of shares in the procedure of free-of-charge distribution of shares, while the general regime prescribes a quantitative limit of 30%.

Public competition is conducted if there are at least 2 potential buyers. If there is only one potential buyer, this entity/person becomes the owner if they meet the conditions set out in privatization documents. It is envisaged that the price of the media in the first round of public competition will be 100%, while the Law on Privatization envisages that this price will be at least 50% of estimated value for other subjects of privatization. If the first round of media privatization fails, the minimal starting price in the second round is 50% (the Law on Privatization envisages at least 30% of estimated value for other subjects of privatization). If public competition fails, free-of-charge distribution of shares follows. The latter is possible if employees fulfill the conditions set out in the Government regulation governing this issue. Potential shareholders may be former and current employees, but not those who registered shares of public companies on other grounds. If free-of-charge distribution of shares fails as well, the founder of the publisher must pass a decision on the change of activity, and the media ceases to exist and is deleted from the Media Register.

The role of the Privatization Agency is the most important in this process as the Agency conducts it. However, local self-governments and the media had certain obligations to fulfill as well by 1 April 2015 - local self-governments had to decide on the privatization model, while the media had to submit their estimated capital value. The official deadline for completing the media privatization process is 1st July 2015. The state, the autonomous province and local self-governments may no longer be media publishers, with the only exception of public service broadcasters - RTS and RTV. The only manner in which public entities may finance media is co-financing projects of public interest.

Rajka Galin Ćertić spoke about key novelties that the Law on Electronic Media brings. The adoption of this law is the result of the fact that technology made the former law obsolete. It was also necessary to harmonize the Law with the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Additionally, it was necessary that a part of audio-visual communications be featured in this Law. The first part of the Law defines the status of the regulatory body. The title of the body was changed (it is now Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media - REM) because the previous one contained the word "agency", which was not adequate as this body is not a government agency, but a regulatory body with a somewhat special status. The regulatory body is authorized to adopt a set of bylaws (Rulebooks and Instructions). It is to adopt some 20 rulebooks within a 6-month deadline, and the major part of these had already been adopted. The role of REM is also important in the process of privatization of remaining publicly owned electronic media. REM is the only entity with the capacity to monitor whether buyers fulfill the obligation of continuing the media activity, so it will conduct the monitoring of electronic media as of 1st July 2015. REM will inform the Privatization Agency if circumstances occur that could lead to termination of privatization contract, i.e. if a media publisher does not behave according to the obligations pertaining to the continuation of activity.  Another important process that takes place this year is the completion of digital switchover of terrestrial television. Digitalization has been conducted well so far and there are no major complaints by media service providers or viewers. Broadcasters will have a significantly larger coverage zone, so they will have to harmonize their program within a certain period. Licenses of the majority of broadcasters expire in 2016. Among issues important for broadcasters, Galin stressed the fact that the Rulebook on the Amount of Fee will be soon subject to public debate. She also said that the licenses for terrestrial broadcasting for radio will be issued in a public competition, after frequencies are vacated, as has been the case so far. Similar procedure applies to TV broadcasters, except the radio station license (formerly issued by RATEL) is no longer needed. Licenses for media service provision on other platforms (KDS, DTH, IPTV) will be issued upon request of media service providers, and the latter will be obliged to submit a contract with the operator (within 30 days) through which they will provide the service. The Law differentiates between license for terrestrial broadcasting and license upon request regarding the possibility to transfer them to another person. Terrestrial license may not be transferred, while the license obtained upon request is transferrable under the condition that the new license holder takes all the obligations of the former one. As for the media service provision on the Internet, registering with the REM's Register of Media Service Providers is obligatory, but the service is provided without a license. As for measures that REM may pronounce, there has been a change in the catalogue of measures. The former law prescribed a reprimand, a warning, temporary revokation of license and permanent revokation of license. The new law does not prescribe temporary revokation of license - instead, a new measure was introduced, that of a temporary ban on publication of certain program content up to 30 days. As for program-related obligations of broadcasters, rulebooks regulate them in detail.

Rade Veljanovski talked about public interest in the public information sector. He stated that the changes in media legislation are in accordance with the European regulatory framework, that it is necessary to advance the Serbian media system and that the goal is that all the participants in public communication have an active role in the changes that are taking place. The key goal of the European media policy is distancing media from the influence of power centers. The state has always been benevolent to the media it has owned as opposed to privately owned media. Therefore, the state must pull out from media ownership and thus deprive itself of the possibility to influence editorial policy. Journalists and editors may become owners of these media, which is the ideal form of ownership. These new media laws are the highest level of media regulation that Serbia has achieved. The fulfillment of public interest now becomes a legal obligation. The state still has the obligation to enable the atmosphere in the public information sector where citizens can obtain the information they need through the media, they can be engaged in debates and decision-making, with the difference being that the state is pulling out of the media ownership. All the media may realize public interest, not only public service media, but also commercial. Project- based co-financing by the state is a way for small media to survive, especially those broadcasting in the languages of national minorities. Minority communities are enabled to indirectly participate in establishing minority media (by means of foundations, endowments, companies). However, governing structures of the media must feature two thirds of members who are independent experts.

In the discussion after the panelists' presentations, the participants asked questions, mainly related to media privatization. The panelists made it clear that, from the current perspective, there will be no extension of deadline for privatization; this means that the procedure of sale of capital shall be terminated after 1st July even if there was only one auction that failed. Besides, the panelists clarified that any natural person or legal entity may be media owner regardless of whether this person/entity is from Serbia or abroad, that there is no limitation regarding the percentage of foreign ownership, and that the rules on media concentration have been "softened", which may have a stimulative effect on potential foreign investors. As for the role of REM in the privatization process, it is to protect public interest fulfilled by the media undergoing privatization, particularly national minority media, by monitoring program content that new owners produce and broadcast, and REM cannot deal with the issue of abuses and change of activity of media companies after the expiration of 5-year long deadline. The panelists also explained that it is not privatizations that fail, but private companies that bought certain media because the environment in which they do business is not favorable, and the aim of the changes in regulation is also to provide an environment that would enable the survival of the media (on equal footing). Asked what is happening with the digitalization of radio, the panelists said that digitalization of radio is not planned, at least not in the following three years, that there is not an international obligation regarding it, and that it would not lead to a significant increase in quality.

The organization of the seminar on the implementation of new media laws is supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. 

http://serbia.nlembassy.org/

The views and opinions presented at the seminar do not necessarily reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.  

Following the adoption of new media legislation, the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, as well as amendments to the regulations in the field of accounting and auditing, ANEM, OFPS and PI have agreed to conclude an Annex to the Agreement on a single tariff of fees for broadcasting phonograms and interpretations recorded on them. The aim of this Annex was to harmonize terminology with media laws because of obsolescence of terms used in the Agreement, as well as to ensure compliance with the regulations governing the ​​accounting and auditing. The Annex to the Agreement on a single tariff of fees, which  does not affect the substance of the Agreement, was concluded on 18 May 2015.

At the same time, although the Agreement on a single tariff of fees provides that the value of the point is to be harmonized with the annual rate of increase in consumer price index each 1st January, at the proposal of ANEM, with which agreed OFPS and PI, the Protocol was concluded in which all three sides agreed that the value of point would not be changed in 2015, for reasons of economic crisis and the difficult financial situation of electronic media, as well as a slight increase in consumer price index in 2014.

Annex to the Agreement on a single tariff of fees and Protocol are available only in Serbian here.

ANEM seminar on the implementation of new media laws (the Law on Public Information and Media, and the Law on Electronic Media) was held in Subotica on 7 May 2015. Panelists presented and explained key solutions of the laws.

After the introductory word by representatives of ANEM and OSCE, the seminar was opened by attorney at law Miloš Stojković, member of the ANEM legal team, who was also the moderator of the event. Along with Miloš Stojković, the panelists were: Saša Mirković, state secretary at the Ministry of Culture and Information, Zoran Pavić, director of the communications sector of the Privatization Agency, Rajka Galin Ćertić, assistant director for legal affairs, the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media, and Rade Veljanovski, media expert and professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences, Belgrade.

At the beginning of the seminar Miloš Stojković outlined key solutions of the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media.

The Law on Public Information and Media is an umbrella law that comprises general rules for all media, regardless of the platform used for information distribution, i.e. for providing media service. The Law introduces novelties regarding definition of media and the answer to the question as to who may be media founder. For the first time it establishes rules pertaining to the public interest in the public information sector, as well as to regulating the manner of state participation in media financing by means of project-based co-financing. The Law also envisages mandatory privatization of all the remaining publicly owned media by 1 July 2015. Important characteristics of media as means of imarting information, according to legal definition, are that the media convey content using words, images and/or sound, that the content conveyed in this manner is editorially shaped and that it is is intendend for public distribution to an indefinite number of recipients. Also, the Law states that the media are traditional print and electronic media, news agencies and web presentations of traditional media, as they meet all the three above stated criteria. On the other hand, internet-based communication channels are not media as they lack editorially shaped content. Therefore, the legal definition differentiates between editorially shaped content and content shaped by users. The media are not separate legal entities according to this Law, and they must have a publisher (in the terminology of the former law: founder). The important difference to the old law is that the publisher may be a natural person, under the condition that the person is registered as entrepreneur. Unlike the former law, where the founder was not allowed to dispose with the rights on the media, the new law excplicitly states that the publisher may transfer its right to media publishing to another person.

The bulk of the novelties that the Law brings pertain to introducing rules on co-financing of projects of public interest. Public interest in the public information sector is legally defined and realized in several ways: institutionally (through public service broadcasters at the national level and the level of the autonomous province), through the media in the languages of national minorities (by providing national councils of national minorities with an opportunity to found legal persons that may be media publishers, while preserving the independence of editorial policy), by founding a legal person for informing the public on the territory of Kosovo, and the most important (and the only) financial form of state participation in the media is co-financing of projects of public interest. Along with defining rules on state aid to the media, changes are visible regarding the Media Register that, unlike the former one, contains information on media ownership, the amount of state aid and other information of importance to users who can thus assess the relevance of information they receive from the media. Entering information into the Register is not obligatory, but if it is not done - the publisher is prevented from participating in public calls for co-financing of projects in the public interest; the additional restriction is that such media will not be able to feature advertisement by bodies of public authorities and public enterprises. The Law also specifies rules regarding media concentration, which rules are significantly more liberal. Horizontal integration is permitted, and the criterion for merging multiple electronic media publishers are ratings within the relevant zone of coverage, which ratings, when combined, do not exceed 35% in the calendar year preceeding the merger; the criterion for print media is realized circulation. Vertical integration is not legally forbidden, although the first version of the draft Law on Electronic Media contained such restriction for electronic media. However, there is a certain restriction stating that the media distributer, if it also deals in the activity of media publishing, shall be obligated to carry out media publishing activities through an affiliated legal person. Cross-media integration, i.e. merger of multiple publishers of electronic and print media, is also permitted under certain conditions. As for the freedom of expression, it must be noted that there have been no major changes considering that Serbia has been a member of the Council of Europe since 2003 and a signatory of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the article 10 of which is important for this subject matter. The key principles of the Convention were transposed into the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, and the new Law does not diverge from that framework. However, it attempts to specify some already existing rules in order to overcome problems identified in practice. This pertains, in particular, to court proceedings related to compensatory damages for publishing information harming someone's rights and reputation. The essence of the compensatory damages should be an adequate satisfaction for violated honor and reputation, which should not automatically mean material satisfaction only. In that sense, the Law specifies that the courts on the territory where the publisher's seat is, i.e. on the entire territory of Serbia, are competent for media-related proceedings, while the law regulating the competence of courts envisages exclusive competence of the High Court in Belgrade. It is up to the practice to resolve which of the two solutions is to be implemented when deciding on the competence.

The Law on Electronic Media is an entirely new law that is harmonized with the rules valid in the unified European market, i.e. with the the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive. This law brings significant novelties compared to the earlier Law on Broadcasting considering that it was necessary to adjust the media sector to technological changes and redefine the obligations of media service providers, as well as regulate the position of the independent regulator. Inter alia, the Law contains numerous provisions on the independent regulatory body (Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media - REM). It envisages general independence of the regulatory body, but also diminishes this independence, primarily by prescribing that key documents of the regulatory body require the control of legality and constitutionality by competent ministry, and the agreement of legislative and executive bodies. Additionally, REM employees have the status of civil servants, which additionally complicates the issue of independence. The Law also introduces new measures that the regulatory body may pronounce. As for the media service providers, the bulk of novelties pertain to audio-visual commercial communication (TV advertising, TV sales, product placement etc.), where the rules are specified on the means of advertising and permitted advertising in electronic media. 

Saša Mirković talked about the activities of the Ministry of Culture and Information regarding the implementation of new media laws. As for the project-based co-financing, he stressed that the procedure pertaining to the calls for proposals issued by the Ministry has been completed - the call was issued, the projects were collected, the expert selection panels were selected and they held sessions; what remains to be done is reaching decisions, signing contracts and finally transferring funds. Among other activities related to the implementation of media laws, Mirković singled out the election of the director general of Radio Television of Serbia (RTS), done within legal deadline, thus respecting the legal procedure envisaged by the Law on Public Service Broadcasters. Mirković underscored that entering information on the media in the Media Register began in February, to be ended in mid-August. Entering information in the Media Register is not obligatory, but it is desirable since those who do not enter information will not be able to apply to public competitions nor will it be possible for them to obtain legal forms of state aid. According to the latest data on the number of registered media (before the Media Register became operational), there are 1441 media in Serbia. Current data will be known after the deadline for entering information in the Media Register. Only then can an adequate analysis be done showing the direction in which the media sector is going. Media are currently interested in the privatization of the remaining publicly owned outlets, so it is not realistic to expect the process of entering information in the Media Register to be completed before the very last privatization is done. Adopting the Law on Electronic Media was a precondition for digitalization of terrestrial television. The process is conducted by the responsible ministry (Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications) and it is expected that the deadline (17 June 2015) will be met. Very important processes for the media sector take place in 2015, such as digitalization and privatization. Since the new media laws were adopted after no less than 11 years, numerous problems accumulated during this time, and many problems that remained unresolved for years are solved now, such as privatization (that had to be completed by the end of 2007).

Zoran Pavić pointed out that the privatization process faces numerous limitations. Despite the efforts of the Privatization Agency to create conditions for unhindered course of the process and to complete it within legal deadline, there are numerous problems in the privatization of remaining publicly owned media, primarily due to tardiness of media and local self-governments as founders of these media. The media had to submit privatization documentation, including the assessment of the capital value, while local self-governments were obliged to pass decisions on the methods of media privatization. However, adopted decisions were often not correct - formally and essentially - and the Agency was forced to return them to local self-governments for repeated adoption and amendments. The Agency has been working intensively on the completion of documentation for issuing public calls for all the media that this is possible to do for at this moment, which is some 30 media, according to Pavić, although the situation changes from day to day. By mid-May first public calls will be issued for as many media as possible. The Agency will do everything in its power and use the shortest possible deadlines in order to complete the process by 1 July 2015. If the privatization is unsuccessful, what follows is distribution of free shares of the media to their employees, and if the employees do not accept the shares, local self-governments will have to pass a decision on the change of publisher's activity or they will go into bunkruptcy, which leads to deleting the media from the Media Register. Pavić appealed on the media and local self-governments to fulfill their obligations as soon as possible (submitting of documentation) so that the privatization process could be unhindered, i.e. so that it could be continued by issuing public calls.  

Rajka Galin Ćertić talked about the implementation of the Law on Electronic Media and the position of the regulatory body regarding the new media laws, as well as the obligations of media service providers. The Republic Broadcasting Agency changed its name into the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media (REM). The change of the name should reflect to an extent the changed nature of regulation and the domain of electronic media. Unfortunately, despite proclaimed independence, some provisions of the very law bring the independence into question. The regulatory body has to adopt a large number of bylaws that will further elaborate the Law on Electronic Media. Some of the bylaws have already been through public debate, but it has to be noted, unfortunately, that representatives of electronic media have not taken part in these to the extent that was neeeded, which is probably a consequence of the prevalence of the digitalization process and the extension of licenses. REM issued several decisions on the right to access multiplex. Local and regional televisions will get a significantly larger zone of coverage and the question is whether such televisions will be able to adapt their program to these zones and fulfill their financial obligations. REM is bound by established zones of coverage and the manner of filling in the multiplex (prescribed by the rulebook on the digital switchover), which specifically means that the first multiplex is filled by public service broadcasters and national broadcasters, while the second multiplex is filled by regional and local broadcasters of television program. Programs of the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS), Radio Television of Vojvodina (RTV) and the national commercial broadcasters are entitled to acccess to the first multiplex, while regional and local broadcasters are entitled to the second multiplex, but it should be noted that in the logical numeration (the layout of the channels on remote control devices) the criterion of the time of issuing the license for regional TVs is taken into account. According to the current regulation, the third multiplex would be filled in the same way as the first two, based on a public call. As there are free spaces in the second multiplex at the moment, the third has not been taken into account yet. What should be stressed are significantly larger expenditures for broadcasters after digital switchover. In order to allow broadcasters to adjust to the changes, the Public Enterprise „Broadcasting Technics and Links" (Javno preduzeće „Emisiona tehnika i veze" - ETV) established a grace period in the price list during which the fees for signal distribution will be lower, and REM will not increase its fees in the same period. Fees paid to collective organizations for the protection of copyright and related rights (SOKOJ, OFPS and PI) are also sizable expenditures for broadcasters. Regarding that, REM will try everything within its competence to make the fees acceptable. Also, at the moment of the expiration of existing licenses, broadcasters will have to adjust their studies of programming to the zone where they will be seen, and that will be one of the conditions for the extension of license. It should be made clear that the processes of digitalization of television and radio are separate since the process of digitalization of radio is at inception, not only in Serbia, but also in Europe, and it does not lead to significant changes in the quality if compared to the changes in television broadcasting. Television media service providers should be aware that licenses for regional and local coverage expire in 2016 and 2017. As the zone of coverage is increased for the existing broadcasters, they have to produce program that will cover the entire zone, which significantly increases expenses. However, the new law does not limit program networking, and so the broadcasters should take this possibility into account as it could ensure their survival in the new technical and market conditions.

As for programming obligations, they are numerous and a large number of rulebooks was passed - media service providers should pay particular attention to those that specify obligations in media service provision pertaining to the protection of minors and dignity of persons. Certain measures may be pronounced to media service providers for failure to comply with these obligations. A new measure of temporary ban on broadcasting of certain programming content during 30 days replaced the former measure of temporary revocation of license.

Rade Veljanovski pointed out that the work on the new media laws is a continuation of necessary harmonization with the European experience and standards. The European media policy, as the key standard, envisages the need to distance the media from power centers (politics, business etc.) that may influence media content in any way. Public interest is a general one, i.e. the interest of all citizens. It can be realized by all media, including commercial media and public service broadcasters. It is a misconception that commercial media are not capable of realizing public interest since the public interest is determined by the adequacy of content. Project-based co-financing is of great importance for the fulfillment of the cutting-edge media policy. Even then the important issue is how to exercise regulation without imposing influence. The issue is one of the essential tests of democracy. For the first time, the new laws provide a list of what is public interest in the public information sector. Public interest defined in this manner is also financed by expenditures from public funds. One of the questions that marked the public debate on draft media laws is the question of the amount of public funds for this purpose. The most logical answer is that the funds for project-based co-financing should be at least equal to the amount of former direct funding of the media in the status on public companies (before the adoption of the new media laws).  

After the panelists' presentations, a debate was opened where the participants were able to ask questions. As expected, the majority of questions pertained to privatization related issues. There were questions regarding the fate of companies in the case of failed privatization, the survival of public information in the languages of national minorities, and other questions, as follows:

1. If the privatization procedure fails, is it possible to change the activity of the company so that it becomes a service enterprise that would perform technical activities regarding publishing or broadcasting program, while the production would be taken over by other legal persons?

The response of the panelists can be summed up as follows: the state (any public entity) cannot be a founder at any level of authority. However, as the legal provision that prescribes this is currently undergoing constitutionality assessment before the Constitutional Court, the decision of the court should be taken into account prior to the final answer to this question.

2. Is there a way to continue with broadcasting media content on Radio Subotica if it would remain the city property regarding technical resources, while the production would be performed by institutions established by national councils?

As a municipality cannot own the media, such arrangement is not possible, but it is possible to make an arrangement with the new owner of Radio Subotica.

3. Do the panelists support the initiative for the Law on Local Public Media Services?

A panelist stated that such an idea used to exist, but it was rejected as it was assessed (and now it is entirely clear) that there are no conditions for establishing public service media, not even at the regional level, because, among other things, the state cannot support such costs and it is not realistic to expect that citizens would be prepared to participate with a new form of fee, especially in the current crisis (citizens of local communities where there would be such media would pay the fee in addition to the fee for the national public service broadcaster).

4. What would happen in the case that the privatization process is initiated, but not finalized by 30 June 2015?

The response was that the Privatization Agency passes a decision on the termination of privatization, followed by a procedure of distribution of free-of-charge shares to employees. If this fails, a decision is passed on the change of activity. The worst case scenario is bankruptcy of the publisher. In both cases the medium is deleted from the Media Register.

5. Are there some preferential conditions under which the institutions of national councils would get a frequency?

The response was that frequency is a limited resource and that a license for it cannot be obtained solely on the basis of public competition. The Council of the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media (REM) decides if someone will get a license. On the other hand, Article 72 of the Law on Electronic Media envisages benefits for such media regarding paying fees, but the license is obtained only when there is a free frequency. After the sales is conducted, REM will monitor the program and if it is established that a buyer does not adhere to programming study and that the media outlet does not feature program in the languages of national minorities, a breach of Contract on the sales of state capital will be established, which will be the basis for termination of contract.

The participants also pointed out a problem in the privatization process. Media representatives stated that it seems that the initial price was set too high (100% of the estimated value), and many employees, according to a new Regulation, will not obtain the right to register free-of-charge shares considering that they had already exercised their right to register shares of other, already sold public enterprises.

 The organization of the seminar on the implementation of new media laws is supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

http://serbia.nlembassy.org/

The views and opinions presented at the seminar do not necessarily reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.  

The 4th ANEM seminar on the implementation of new media laws was held in Niš on 31 March 2015. The seminar was opened by Milorad Tadić, ANEM president and Gordana Janković, Head of the Media Department of the OSCE Mission to Serbia.

The panelists were:Saša Mirković, state secretary at the Ministry of Culture and Information, Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law and member of the ANEM legal team, Zoran Pavić, Director of the Communications Sector of the Privatization Agency, Olivera Aranđelović, manager of the media privatization project at the Privatization Agency, Ljubiša Kuvekalović, senior legal advisor at the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media, and Rade Veljanovski, media expert and professor at the Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences. The moderator was attorney at law Miloš Stojković, member of the ANEM legal team, who also spoke about certain novelties in the Law on Electronic Media in the context of finalizing digital switchover. The seminar was attended by more than 60 participants, mainly from the media sector (38) and local self-governments (20). 

After this 4th seminar on the implementation of new media laws, two more are planned to be held - in Subotica and Novi Pazar. The purpose of the seminar was to help media professionals and other interested parties to better understand new media laws (the Law on Public Information and Media as the umbrella law for all media and the Law on Electronic Media as the umbrella law for electronic media) and the ways to implement them so they could adequately fulfill their rights and obligations.

Slobodan Kremenjak stressed that the adoption of media laws did not start from scratch, but that it merely continued the process that began with the ratification of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the adoption of the Constitution and earlier laws that regulated media sector. By ratifying the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 2003, Serbia practically accepted the competence of the European Court of Human Rights. As media law generally pertains to the right of freedom of expression, by accepting the European Convention Serbia also accepted the European standard of the protection of this right. Additionally, the earlier Law on Public Information of 2002 and the Broadcasting Law of 2003 were drafted with the idea of accepting relevant international standards. Therefore, every new media law must respect achieved standards, and the main task of the new Law on Public Information and Media is to remove irregularities in the implementation of these standards. The new Law on Public Information and Media has clarified provisions on joint liability as it explicitly envisages joint liability of a journalist, responsible editor and media publisher for publishing information, i.e. that joint liability pertains to the liability within one media outlet, and not to other media carrying information produced by that media outlet. This should prevent cases (that used to happen) where a media outlet that carried the information originally published by a different media outlet is held responsible for it (the example of the daily "Danas"). The Law also defines more precisely the rules for the exclusion of liability for damage. It excludes the liability for accurately conveying information originating from a responsible state body considering that, according to the earlier Law, it used to happen that a journalist was held responsible for compensatory damages although he/she merely accurately conveyed content of a public body's document. A journalist's liability is also excluded when information was published in the live programme broadcast and the journalist acted with due diligence. The Law introduces new criteria for courts when deciding on the amount of compensatory damages; the court shall now take into account whether publishing a correction or a reply was used before filing the claim for compensatory damages. Kremenjak pointed out that the law is not self-sufficient as it is a part of a broader whole that court practice stems from. Additionally, new laws on organization of courts transfer the entire competence for authors' rights and media-related litigations to the Higher Court in Belgrade, which could lead to professionalization in the implementation of media standards and the consistency of court practice in the said litigations. However, all these provisions are merely a development of already known standards. What is new in the law are the rules aimed at creating an environment that will ensure equal competition in the media market. These rules define the means of financing media from public funds. Kremenjak stated that such aid has been forbidden by regulation on state aid since 2009 and financing from public funds has been allowed only exceptionally; however, an exception was set as a rule in the media sector and thus the new law wished to correct this unnatural situation. Therefore, project-based co-financing of media has the aim of more precisely specifying state participation in media financing and introducing it into legal framework.

Saša Mirković presented current activities of the Ministry of Culture and Information and focused on the recently issued competitions for project-based co-financing, and on entering information into the newly established Media Register. The Ministry issued public competitions in 6 categories on 2nd February, which were open till 3rd March. The majority of projects were submitted on the last day and thus the selection process will take a while. As it seems now, the number of submitted project proposals is significantly higher than last year, which is probably influenced by the increase in allocated funds. Media and journalists' associations submitted their proposals for selection panels' members and the process of establishing panels is close to being finalized. The composition of panels will be publicized and transparency will be ensured in the work of the panels. This is the first competition this year, and the Ministry will issue the second one in the second half of the year in order to give a chance to the media that are still publicly owned (and will be privatized by July 1st) to apply for funds intended for project-based co-financing. The percentage of public funds in project-based co-financing is 80% and the media outlets need to finance the remaining 20%. There has been a lot of talk in the public about the amount that local self-governments should allocate for public information purposes. During the public debate on media laws there was a discussion about a minimal treshold of 2% (of local budgets). However, it was not possible to introduce this into the Law on Public Information and Media at the time as this would infringe rights of local self-governments. The Journalists' Association of Serbia produced a research on the amount of funding allocated for public information purposes by units of local self-government. The research, which compares data from 162 units of local self-government, showed that the funds allocated by 21 local self-governments go beyond the said 2% of local budgets, but also that 21 local self-governments have not allocated funds at all. Nevertheless, the average percentage of allocated funds is 1.1%, which is satisfactory considering that we are in the first year of the implementation of the new laws. Mirković also spoke about the Media Register. According to the latest available data of the Serbian Business Registers Agency, there are 1379 media outlets in Serbia. The data is not entirely accurate as some media that ceased to exist were not deleted from the Register and some news agencies entered each of their services separately into the Register. It should be made clear, Mirković said, that registering in the Register is not obligatory; however, failure to register prevents those media from participating in project-based co-financing and forbids public entities (the Republic, Autonomous Province, local self-government unit, institution, company or another legal entity the majority shareholder of which is the state or which is entirely or predominantly funded from public revenue) to advertise in such media or use their services. Additionally, the Register will be drastically different from the previous one as it will contain numerous new pieces of information, such as those on ownership structure and state aid. It should be noted that the public body which issues a competition is the one obliged to submit information on state aid - not the media. The process of registering in the Register has only begun and an objective analysis can be conducted only after the process is over, Mirković said. 

The organization of the seminar on the implementation of new media laws is supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

http://serbia.nlembassy.org/ 

 The views and opinions presented at the seminar do not necessarily reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.   

Between 20 March and 6 April 2015 the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media (REM) conducted an integrated public debate on the drafts of the following rulebooks: on audio-visual commercial communication; on the procedure of license issuance for media service provision based on a public competition; on the procedure of license issuance for media service provision based on a request; on the protection of human rights in the media service provision sector; on conducting award contests in the media service provision sector; and on the obligations of media service providers during election campaigns.

Participating in the public debate, ANEM submitted its suggestions to REM pertaining to the drafts of the above listed rulebooks. General suggestions are related to the improvement of the practice of conducting public debates on drafts of bylaws within the competence of REM; regarding the draft rulebooks on audio-visual commercial communication and on the protection of human rights - due to the large volume and complexity of rules that require specific legal knowledge and knowledge of the European regulation, it is necessary that REM offers help to media service providers in the implementation of the prescribed rules and to have understanding for them during the period of adapting to the new rules; regarding the draft rulebook on conducting award contests in the media service provision sector and the one on the obligations of media service providers during election campaigns - in ANEM opinion, these draft rulebooks overstep legal competences and venture into original regulation of rights and obligations, which is potentially contrary to the Constitution, and thus these two domains, if there is a need for it, may be regulated by a recommendation as a more flexible instrument for harmonizing inconsistent practice; regarding draft rulebooks on the procedure of license issuance for media service provision based on a public competition and on a request - amendments are necessary to the drafts of these rulebooks by prescribing conditions and criteria for issuance of licenses considering that these issues, together with the procedure and the content of a license, make up a logical whole.

The third ANEM seminar on the implementation of new media laws (the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media) was held in Kragujevac on 25 February 2015.

The event was attended by more than 50 participants - lecturers, representatives of the media, local self-governments and other interested parties. Another 3 seminars of this kind will be held between March and May 2015 - in Niš, Subotica and Novi Pazar. The goal of the seminar was to enable all the media and journalists and other interested parties to obtain from competent lecturers expert clarifications and explanations of rights and obligations prescribed by the said laws, so that they can better understand the laws and adequately implement them.

The seminar was opened by Milorad Tadić, ANEM president, and Sanja Stanković, representative of the Media Department of the OSCE Mission to Serbia. The panelists were: Saša Mirković, state secretary at the Ministry of Culture and Information, Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law and member of the ANEM legal team, Zoran Pavić, director of the communications sector of the Privatization Agency, Rajka Galin Ćertić, assistant director for legal affairs with the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media and prof. Rade Veljanovski, PhD, media expert and professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences of the University of Belgrade.

Slobodan Kremenjak presented the key solutions that the new media laws bring (the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media). He stated that Serbia ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 2003 and thus introduced into its legal system provisions of the Article 10 of the Convention pertaining to the freedom of expression and accepted the competence of the European Court of Human Rights. Also, the amendments to the Constitution of 2006 envisage direct implementation of the provisions of international treaties and agreements, including the European Convention, in accordance with the practice of bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation thereof. This means that Serbia has had Article 10 of the European Convention as an element of its internal legal system since 2003 and the state bodies, including courts, have been obliged to implement these rules in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. However, the problem is erroneous implementation - very often the courts have not been adept at the implementation of international standards. That is why the task of the new Law on Public Information and Media is, among other things, to respond in a way to problems identified in practice.

Stating that other lecturers would talk about many new legal solutions, Kremenjak focused on the novelties that were not a subject of their presentations.

He explained a new definition of media, new rules on who may and may not be media publisher, and the new solution prescribing that the right to publish media is subject to legal transaction.

Kremenjak stressed that the new Law on Public Information and Media clarified provisions on joint liability - it explicitly envisages that a journalist, responsible editor and media publisher are jointly responsible for publishing information, i.e. that joint liability pertains to the liability within a media organization, and not to that of different media carrying the same information. It has been the case in practice that the media carry the material of other media; however, as for the contribution to the damage - those who created the material and those who only carried it cannot be treated equally. Responding to a participant's question regarding a case when bankruptcy proceedings are initiated for a media publisher and both the author of the material and the publisher are sued, Kremenjak said that the case is indeed very rare in practice and that most frequently the publisher, and not the journalist, is responsible for compensating damage. However, it is not illegal if only the journalist is held responsible since the law envisages joint liability for all the participants in the chain - the journalist, editor, and publisher, and the plaintiff may choose the party to sue. The new law resolved the issue of the transfer of liability among different media and not within one media organization.

Another important novelty that the new media laws bring pertains to the choice of legal means in the protection of rights, i.e. whether a correction or a reply were used before the claim for compensatory damages was filed. These provisions of the Law are, in fact, an instruction to the court what to assess when estimating the amount of compensatory damages.

The law also clarified the rules pertaining to the means of conveying information from court proceedings by expressly prescribing that the information from the main hearing may be imparted almost without a limitation, while the information that was not presented in the main hearing may be imparted if it is accessible on the basis of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance. This is a very good solution as it is much more favorable for the media, Kremenjak said. The grounds for exclusion of liability for damage are also better prescribed, which is particularly important regarding imparting information originating from a state body. The rule should be that there is no liability for damages if information of a state body is faithfully carried. Kremenjak cited the example from Belgrade pertaining to the procurement of vaccines for bird flu in which case the police submitted to the prosecution complete criminal charges initially containing the names of 14 people and subsequently corrected the charges at the request of prosecutor by omitting the names of the persons; however, the official memo composed by the policemen as a report to their superiors that the prosecution pressured them to omit certain names reached the media, and one person whose name was in the initial charges sued a media outlet because their name was absent from „the official criminal charges". Previous law had not defined what an „official document" is that absolves a media outlet from responsibility, and thus the media outlet could be held responsible even if it faithfully carried the official memo from the above cited example, provided the court estimated that the official memo is not an official document. The dilemma from the practice is resolved to some extent as it is now defined that every document that could be obtained from a public body based on the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance may be published without liability of the media outlet that published it. However, it is important not to create an erroneous image of the nature of a specific case. For example, if the material published by a media outlet is an indictment, the article must not state that the defendant is convicted.

The participants were curious to know whether media may carry the contents of local parliamentary debates - Kremenjak responded that parliamentary sessions are public and that a journalist ought to be exempt from liability if he/she faithfully carries the contents of a debate. He also said that everyone has the right to sue a journalist and that this cannot be forbidden by law because it is a human right (to a fair trial).

Rajka Galin Ćertić presented important novelties that the Law on Electronic Media brings and the new scope of work of the Regulatory Authority of Electronic Media (REM).

The Law brings numerous novelties as it is significantly harmonized with the European Audiovisual Media Services Directive. However, one should focus on the current issues as the year 2015 is the key one for the development of electronic media, the REM representative said. The licences of the bulk of broadcasters with local and regional coverage are to expire in 2016 and 2017, which is evident from the register of licences maintained by REM. The technical part of the licence for television broadcast is valid until the end of the digital switchover, i.e. by 17 June 2015. As of that date analog broadcasting of TV program will not be possible and it is necessary to conclude an agreement with JP ETV (the operator). These technical issues should be clarified in the meeting of ETV with local and regional broadcasters, to be held in Kragujevac at the end of February.

Broadcasters with valid licences have a right to access multiplex, but each broadcaster decides whether it will use this right. If a broadcaster does not conclude an agreement with JP ETV, it will not be able to broadcast program at all (neither analog or digital) after the end of the digital switchover. If a broadcaster uses the right to access multiplex, it is important to note that the coverage zones will be significantly larger than the existing ones, which has not only technical implications, but programming ones as well. The Regulatory Authority will provide the broadcasters with adequate time to adjust their programme content to the larger coverage zone.

This is related to the issue of the extension of existing licences. The Law clearly defines what should be submitted with the request for the extension of a licence. Therefore, there is no automatic extension of licences and the broadcasters should be prepared for that. The Regulatory Authority will inform the broadcasters on all the important aspects of licence extension in due course. One of the criteria for licence extension will be the broadcasters' conduct, particularly whether a measure has been pronounced against it by the Regulatory Authority.

The measures are conceptualized differently considering that a new measure was introduced - that of a temporary ban on publication of the programme content, which measure practically replaced the measure of temporary revoking of licence (that existed in the Law on Broadcasting) although with significantly fewer consequences as the new measure does not lead to de facto ban on the entire programme (which was the case with the temporary revoking of licence) but to the temporary ban on broadcasting specific content. This is a very good solution, Rajka Galin Ćertić said, particularly taking into consideration frequent errors in certain programme content, especially in reality shows.

Additionally, the Law prescribes certain criteria for the Regulator to assess which measure to pronounce against a media service provider - it is significant what public reaction a violation of rules created, whether there was an intention, whether a measure has been previously pronounced etc. The Regulator will prescribe more precise conditions regarding the means and the procedure of pronouncing measures by a rulebook that is currently undergoing the process of constitutionality and legality assessment.

The new law also prescribes an explicit obligation of the Regulator to maintain the Register of Media Services.

The REM representative underscored that the Law changed the title of the regulator - instead of being an "agency", it is now a "regulatory authority" that has significant obligations and competencies as the regulator, particularly regarding defining certain issues more precisely by a set of bylaws, which is an important novelty.

The Regulatory Authority initiated a public debate in December 2014 on the drafts of three rulebooks: on the protection of minors, on the measures pronounced by the regulator and on the criteria for establishing a list of events of general interest. The rulebooks were adopted after the public debate. Other bylaws are to be adopted, such as the one on advertising rules in electronic media, that will also be subject to the public debate.

Saša Mirković confirmed that 2015 is exceptionally important and intensive for the media sector. He focused on the calls for project-based co-financing that the Ministry issued at the beginning of February, and on the issue of entering information into the newly established Media Register.

The calls were issued on 2 February in 6 categories and are valid until 3 March. One of the calls is a novelty - it pertains to raising ethical and professional standards in journalism by means of organizing seminars, education and public debates. Funds allocated to the calls have been significantly increased compared to the last year and they now amount to some 250 million dinars (compared to 100 million last year); the limits of funding for co-financing of projects have also been significantly increased (e.g. 7.5 million dinars per project for the production of media content in the public information sector compared to earlier 1 million); therefore, the Ministry will be able to support serious and professional projects.

Taking into account the media that currently cannot apply to calls for project proposals due to their ownership status (public ownership), the Ministry planned to issue another call in the second half of 2015, after the end of the ownership transformation, and the same was suggested to the bodies of the autonomous province and to local self-governments.

What is important for the implementation of rules on project-based co-financing is that the representatives of media and journalists' associations suggest candidates for selection panels as soon as possible. The Ministry expects that the selection panels will complete their work in March and that the media whose projects were approved and who signed the contract could receive funding in April.

Mirković also talked about the versatile practice regarding public competitions at the local level and he stressed that there are negative examples that media and journalists' associations point to, but also positive ones, such as the example of the competition implemented in the city of Zaječar.

Regarding entering information in the Media Register, Mirković said that the procedure was initiated on 13 February and that the old media register was discontinued by incorporating it into the new one. According to the latest data of the Serbian Business Registers Agency, there is a total of 1379 media outlets. However, some media ceased to exist without having been removed from the Register, and some news agencies entered each of their services into the Register - consequently, the information is not fully accurate. Also, the Register will be drastically different than the old one considering that numerous new pieces of information will be available in it, such as information on the ownership structure and state aid, which is a positive step forward, important for the EU accession process, i.e. for a number of negotiation chapters (including the ones pertaining to fundamental rights, media and information society and state aid).

Zoran Pavić spoke about the media privatization process. Media privatization is carried out on the basis of two laws - the Law on Privatization and the Law on Public Information and Media (Article 142). In August 2015, the Privatization Agency issued a public invitation for collecting letters of interest for all subjects of privatization, including some 70 media. Close to 130 letters of interest were collected for companies that the public invitation pertains to. In October, the invitation was issued for collecting letters of interest for another 11 media that had initiated the privatization process in the meantime, and 9 letters of interest were collected. Pavić pointed out that in the case of the media two different things were being mixed up - letters of interest and offers. A letter of interest is a pointer to the Agency for choosing the privatization model. The Law on Privatization envisages three such models: strategic partnership, sale of capital and sale of assets. Strategic partnership is not adequate for the media, nor is the sale of assets as the media mainly do not posses immovable assets, and the Agency thus decided that the sale of capital is the most convenient model for the media.

The Agency is currently intensively engaged on the preparation of documentation for issuing public calls for the sale of capital of all the companies envisaged for privatization, including the media. If there are no buyers for the sale of capital, what follows is the distribution of shares to the employees (if they wish to take them), and if this does not succeed either, then the media will be removed from the Register in accordance with the Law on Public Information and Media. The process of issuing public calls will be intensified in the coming weeks. 

The organization of the seminar on the implementation of new media laws is supported by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the the Netherlands.  

http://serbia.nlembassy.org/

The views and opinions presented at the seminar do not necessarily reflect the views of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.