SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE IN DECEMBER 2015

Freedom of expression - This Report analyzed: the sexist scandal of the Defense Minister, the assessment of international organizations about the situation of media freedoms in Serbia and the report of the Anti-Corruption Council about the potential influence of public sector institutions on the media through payments of advertising and marketing services.

Implementation of the Law - Law on Public Information and Media: the Report analyzes the procedure of allocation of funds on the open competition for the co-financing of media projects production in the City of Belgrade and the related ways to address the problems in the area of project co-financing; the Report also delves into the issue of minority language media, the regulative shortcomings and the ways how to successfully tackle this matter. Law on Electronic Media: the Report deals with the problem that has compromised and delayed the election of two candidates for a position in the RBEM Council, which candidates were supposed to be elected by associations engaged in the protection of children and freedom of expression; a topic of the Report were also the Draft Proposal of the Strategy for the Development of Media Services and the Draft Instructions concerning the time of broadcast of forced environment reality programs.

In the part of the Report concerning the adoption of new laws, the authors analyzed, from a legal standpoint, the proposed Amendments to the Law on Public Service Broadcasters and the Draft of the Law on the Temporary Regulation of the Collection of the Fee for the Public Service Broadcaster, pointing out to the problems that might arise with the adoption thereof.

Work of competent bodies, authorities and organizations - the Ombudsman: the subject of analysis were the irregular actions of the Communal Police of the city of Belgrade towards the reporters of the web portal Istinomer, which the Ombudsman identified in a controlling procedure, as well as the recommendations issued by the same to the Communal Police. The Commissioner for Information of Public Interest and Personal Data Protection: the Report analyzed the result of the controlling procedure conducted by the Commissioner in the psychiatric clinic "Laza Lazarevic" in relation to the unauthorized disclosure of data from that clinic on the air, on TV Pink.

The digitalization process - Regarding the decision of RBEM to cease broadcasting the provincial PSB from the Avala allotment, the Report points out to the problems such a decision may cause in practice.

The privatization process - the process of liquidation of the state-owned Tanjug news agency and the status of the licenses of the media outlets that haven't been privatized by October 31, 2015.

The conclusion of the Report contains the most important findings about the media situation in Serbia in December 2015, as well as a conclusion as to the identified key problems in media sector.

The Sixty-seventh Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full Report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.   

NOVEMBER 2015 - SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE

Freedom of expression - On the occasion of the celebration of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists (November 2), the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (NUNS) released disturbing information about the number of attacks against journalists in Serbia in 2014 and 2015. With regard to the attacks and pressure that took place in November, the Report analyzed: the threats against the security of "Blic" journalist Milica Ivanovic, a new "intervention" of the Communal Police against reporters, as well as the bizarre case of detainment of the reporters of "Politika" by a private individual. The same period saw an attack against the economic forensic expert and member of the Anti-Corruption Council Miroslava Milenovic, as well as the cancellation of the promotion of the book "Vucic and Censorship" in Nis, which stands as evidence of the "chilling effect" in the media, but also in institutions financed from the budget, such as public libraries. The Report also commented the European Commission Progress Report for Serbia for 2015 that concludes that there has been no progress in the area of media freedoms, explaining the reasons for such an assertion. In terms of legal proceedings, the Report analyzed the judgment of the Higher Court in Belgrade in the case of Marijan Risticevic, the SNS Member of Parliament, against RD B92, for damages due to injury to honor and reputation.

Implementation of the Law - Law on Electronic Media: the authors dealt with the issue of political advertising outside of the election campaign and the continued controversy over the decision of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (RBEM) not to initiate proceedings against stations that broadcasted live a public event of the SNS; they also analyzed the procedure for the election of candidates for membership in the RBEM Council. The Law on Public Service Broadcasters: new controversies were dissected related to the financing of PSBs, as well as the procedure for the election of candidates for membership in the Programming Council of the Public Media Institution RTS.

In the part of the Report concerning the adoption of new laws, the authors delve into the Law on Copyright and Related Rights and point to possible problems due to the announced lack of a public debate on the amended Draft Law.

Work of competent bodies, authorities and organizations - The Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (RBEM) - the Report brings a legal analysis of the Recommendation about the Duration of "Forced environment" reality shows; Commissioner for Information of Public Interest and Personal Data Protection - the case of the unauthorized release of data on the health of private persons in the media regarding which the Commissioner initiated the oversight of the implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection in the Psychiatric Clinic "Laza Lazarevic".

The privatization process - the authors of the Report analyzed the case of the "Tanjug" new agency.

In the Conclusion of the Report, the authors sum up their findings, resulting in the conclusion about the media situation in Serbia in November 2015.

The Sixty-sixth Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full Report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.  

SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE IN OCTOBER 2015

Freedom of expression - October has seen many cases of direct and indirect pressure against journalists and the media, some of which originated from state authorities. We analyzed the following cases in the Report: two cases where members of the Communal police prevented journalists from doing their job - the reporter of Istinomer was prevented from filming a story at a location he had chosen and the crew of the Network for Investigating Crime and Corruption - KRIK had its equipment taken away and footage deleted; the case "Teleprompter", which raised the issue of the right of journalists to protect their sources; the case of the obscure dismissal of the editor of the culture column in the "Magyar Szo" daily, which raised the issue of ensuring editorial independence of minority media funded from the budget; the pressure of the ruling party against the public service broadcaster RTS after the interview with guest speaker Zoran Panovic in RTS program. Regarding legal proceedings, the following ones were analyzed in the Report: the procedure arising from the criminal charges pressed by RDP B92 pursuant to Article 387 of the Penal Code against the "Naši" Movement, over the release of the list of alleged "Serb haters"; the judgment of the Higher Court in Belgrade in the case of Dragoljub Milanovic, former Director of RTS against journalist Nikola Radisic and RDP B92, which upheld the position that "value judgments" may not be proven and that journalists are not required to adhere to strict legal categories while reporting.

Implementation of laws - Law on Public Information and Media: the authors of the Report analyzed the problems identified in the implementation of project co-financing rules, pointing to their causes. Law on Electronic Media: the issue of political promotion outside of the election campaign was dealt with, in the context of the live broadcast of the anniversary of the establishment of the ruling SNS, as well as the ensuing actions by the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (RBEM) in that case; the authors of the Report also commented on the election of candidates for membership in the RBEM Council, as well as the networking of media services (namely the networking of specific TV and radio stations). The Law on Public Service Broadcasters: in relation to the public debates held by both PSBs about their programming content, the Report pointed to the role of PSBs' Programming Councils, as well as to other aspects of the transparency of the work of PSBs that must be realized.

In the part of the Report concerning the adoption of new laws, the authors concluded that there were no major activities in that respect but for the announcement that the Proposal of Advertising Law will soon be subject to parliamentary procedure.

Work of competent bodies, authorities and organizations - The Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (RBEM) - the Report analyzed the case of the campaign by TV Happy against the President of the Commercial Court in Pancevo and the ensuing actions by RBEM; The Press Council and Commissioner for Equality Protection - in relation to the controversial text about migrants in "Informer", the Council and the Commissioner had different opinions about the journalist's reporting from the aspect of breach of professional and statutory rules concerning the ban on discrimination, which was the topic of the authors' analysis in the Report.

The privatization process - The authors of the Report acknowledged the completion of the media privatization process by the sale of capital and commented on the situation in that field.

In the Conclusion of the Report, summing up their findings about the Serbian media scene in October 2015, the authors pointed to the most notable developments in that month.

The Sixty-fifth Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full Report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.    

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 presented its Monitoring publication XII at the 12th monitoring round table, held on 23 December 2015 in Belgrade. The round table was organized within ANEM project "Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene", successfully implemented for six and a half years now. In 2015 the project is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund. The event gathered some 40 representatives of media and media/journalists' associations, NGOs, responsible authorities, international organizations and donors, and other interested parties.

Milorad Tadic, the President of ANEM, was the moderator of the round table. He has briefly presented the said project of ANEM and its results so far, as well as the content of the Monitoring Publication XII.

The Publication was presented by the authors of its texts - docent Jovo Bakić, PhD (the text: The Role of the Media in the Development of Freedom of Expression and Creation of a Responsible  Public);  prof. Snježana Milivojević, PhD (the text: The Public Interest in the Area of Public Information); Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law (the text: Project Co-Financing Rulebook: One Year After); Miloš Stojković, attorney at law (the text: Integrative Processes in the Serbian Media Sector: Is Media Concentration the new Value of the Media Scene?).  After the presentation of the Publication, the event participants discussed the issues relevant for the topics covered in the Publication.

The Role of the Media in the Development of Freedom of Expression and Creation of a Responsible  Public

Docent Jovo Bakic, PhD, spoke about the importance of the role of the media in a democratic society. According to him, the role of the media is to act in public interest, to be agents of the citizens, to reveal all the secret, special and private interests that are realized against the interest of citizens and public. The media are intermediaries between the public and various social actors. In an ideal democratic society interactions between different social actors, media and the public would flow freely, so that citizens, thanks to responsible action of the media, could get an insight into everything that is happening in society, everything would be public, every citizen would have all the elements for conclusion on what is in his/her interest and how to realize it. However, democracy today is closer to the oligarchies, in the ancient sense of the word, even in the USA - interests of corporations are most important and the politicians and the media are largely in their service. In the semi-periphery of the capitalism, where we belong, the situation is even worse - there is strong connection between authoritarian government and oligarchic structures, which means that you have a simulation of democracy, where multiparty system actually serves as ikebana, Bakic said. Citizens "enjoy" in "happy" and "pink" televisions, they are being brain washed by reality programs and becoming intellectually and morally numb. Tabloids are reporting on occurrences in reality shows, journalists are dealing with the private lives of public figures, not the issues that the public needs to know. However, in every society there are Journalists who work in public interest (thus with large J), and in Serbia such Journalists are: Brankica Stankovic, Olja Beckovic and Danica Vučenić. Unfortunately, the public did not recognize and did not protect them when they were threatened due to the responsible exercise of their profession in public interest. This means that the public is not responsible to itself and that is not mature, as it does not defend those who defend the public interest, Bakic said.

If there are no professional journalists and courageous media, there will be intellectually and morally numb public, and without mature and responsible public, as well as without professional journalists and courageous media, you cannot have a democratic society, concluded Bakic.

The Public Interest in the Area of Public Information

Prof. Milivojevic, PhD, spoke about two important issues that are related to the public interest in the field of public information.

The first question concerns the paradox - that laws are better than ever, while the media are never lower-rated, which is indicated by numerous international reports. These estimations on a drastic drop in media freedom and media quality came from the same circles that praised media laws, which made everything much more dramatic. Milivojevic said that the latest European Commission progress report indicates that all the compliments to the media are related to Chapter 10 - to the media as commercial institutions (copyright, digitization etc.), while all the critics concern the Chapter 23, which, among other things, deals with media freedom and media quality. From this it can be concluded that the media keep getting better as an industry, in favor to its owners, and getting worse when it comes to us, the citizens, in the area where they operate as a social institutions, which is not good, warned Milivojevic. Set of media laws has announced the "second wave" of media transition that is focused on building media market, where politically liberated media should function as independent and self-sustaining institutions. To this the media privatization, relaxation of rules on media concentration, namely the rules on media consolidation should serve. However, the privatization of the media was scandalously conducted and devastated the media landscape, assessed Milivojevic. The goal of this process was the ownership transformation, the process of change in the ownership and transformation - a different way of functioning of the media; here, it came down to who's buying what and who owns what, how to divide interest-territory along party lines and save clientalistic structure, so that these new owners could have easy access to state aid and other public resources that are then channeled politically. Everything indicates that the outcome of the ownership transformation will not benefit the citizens and that Serbia joined the group of Central European countries in which the belief that "free market" equals "free media" has proven to be an illusion. Therefore the central issue in discussion about public interest is how it is possible that these good laws have produced this bad situation. It is obvious that something is wrong with these laws. We got the media system that resembles to the "Mediterranean system" that is characterized by non-autonomous media, politicized broadcast media, a low level of readership of print media, the high degree of clientelism and very strong state role in the functioning of the media, this time through the funding that is not controlled, said Milivojevic. She pointed out that the first wave of distribution of state aid showed that there is so much wrong here.

Another issue is the definition and protection of the public interest in the field of public information. It is true that the Law on Public Information and the media defined for the first time the public interest, but it has only been focused on the public interest in media content and not in the sphere of public policy, which is not good. The Law did not provide for instruments that protect and promote the public interest; but, that was important to be done because after the ownership transformation we have a situation that the media, as the institutions in private ownership, produce information that is a public good, and that the media are of fundamental importance for democracy and decision-making process and civic participation. Due to lack of these instruments, we are witnessing the formation of the system in which the critical role of the media is paralyzed, the media lose their control function as institutions of public, while a public space, in which they are supposed to serve the public interest and to protect it, is privatized and blocked, and we should be worried about that, Milivojevic said. This time all these happen with the help of the laws, which are expected to bring the order, but they cannot do it because they did not envisage institutes for the prevention of such occurrences, Milivojevic concluded.

Implementation of the rules on project co-financing of the media

Attorney at law Slobodan Kremenjak said that now, at the end of the first year of implementation of the model of project co-financing of the media, we have an opportunity to reconsider the process, to see if it is what we are expected or it turned into something else. The same information on many shortcomings in implementation of these rules comes from different sources. The basic question is where is this new content, what is innovative and different that citizens got. The money is given for the same, not qualitatively different, said Kremenjak. He added that there is no magic rulebook that would solve all the problems of the media sector. So we should talk about the ways and mechanisms for overcoming all that we have perceived to be wrong in the practice, whether we have the instruments to remedy shortcomings and also for solutions, said Kremenjak. He pointed out that others order studies, monitor the effects of the implementations of regulations, while identified shortcomings are used for defining new public policies. We lack the mechanisms to identify shortcomings, which should be the basis for overcoming the problems and improvement of regulations. Did our ministry order a study on whether the adopted regulations are applied, and what are the mechanisms for the elimination of flaws, Kremenjak asked. He reminded that creation of new media strategy should be started in 2015, but that there were no sign of it.  

The integration of the media on Serbian media scene

Attorney at law Milos Stojkovic said that the free market is a prerequisite for positive consequences of media concentration, but that it does not yet exist in Serbia, because we do not have large resources on this market (about 155 million euros). For these small funds a large number of media (about 1400) is fighting, which raises the question of how these media survive; the answer is - because of other funding sources (advertising by public authorities - about 800 million euros). The aim of media concentration is to set the optimal rules that will ensure pluralism of sources and pluralism of information, ie. media content. It is difficult to know whether some progress in this area has been achieved in 2015. He pointed out that certain integration processes on the media scene in Serbia were noticed, that the liberalization of the rules of concentration, free media networking and digitization would inevitably lead to reduction in the number of media, but it was not known whether it would be a new quality.

In the discussion that followed the presentation of Publication participants discussed the following issues: media concentration, and if these rules are in public interest, as well as how they actually favor large media that lead to tabloidization; the results and irregularities of the privatization process that led to the strengthening of clientelism; the neglected role of citizens / public in the media sector; the lack of public reactions to anything that happens in the media sector, and the reasons for that; the problems in the project co-financing of the media and the need to remedy shortcomings in the relevant legislation; the importance of monitoring and evaluation of public funds spending; the lack of standards that oblige commercial media when it comes to quality; responsibilities and the limited powers of the Regulator for control and enhancement of the quality of content; the debate that is now being waged in Europe about the fate of the public media, what state aid is and how it is regulated; the necessity of systemic solutions to the problems identified in the media sector, which involves amendments to the existing regulations.

This round table is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund.

The views presented at the round table are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.  

12th issue of the ANEM's specialized publication "Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene"

The Monitoring Publication XII contains articles that offer expert explanations of important media issues and could contribute to their better understanding. 

Table of Contents of the Monitoring Publication XII

• Introduction (with a summary of findings of the legal monitoring of the Serbian media scene in 2015 and a short overview of the Publication);

four articles by expert authors:

• Project Co-Financing Rulebook: One Year After - by Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law (why is the financing of media from public resources an important question in Serbia; how is it regulated; what are the results of the enforcement of the rules on project co-financing; what and who will determine whether the project co-financing mechanism will be utilized in the interest of the public);
• Integrative Processes in the Serbian Media Sector: -s Media Concentration the new Value of the Media Scene? - by Miloš Stojković, attorney at law (the regulatory basis for media integration; SBB and Telekom, as distributors and providers of media services; changes to the ownership structure of RDP B92 - the first time REM had to determine if it was a case of unlawful concentration of ownership between two electronic outlets; Adria Media - the first case of cross-concentration; privatization of public media; networking of local media; potential positive and negative effects of integration on the media landscape);
• The Public Interest in the Area of Public Information - by prof. Snježana Milivojević, PhD (gap between the media regulations and practice in Serbia; characteristics of the media system in Serbia with attributes of the "Mediterranean Model"; the public interest and the media - three different concepts of public interest; the public interest as the basis of media policy);
• The Role of the Media in the Development of Freedom of Expression and Creation of a Responsible Public - by docent Jovo Bakić, PhD (why are freedom of opinion and the creation of a responsible public important; why is the existence of the journalistic profession indispensable; the mutual relations of the public and journalists; the difference between professional journalists and journalists; the importance of professional journalism for a responsible government).

and the 5th article:

• The European Court of Human Rights - Information Notes on the Court's Case-Law (excerpts from the Information Notes available on the Court's website) - short overview of two judgments of this court, pertaining to the implementation of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the first was reached in the case Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland - 21830/09 (Information Note no. 182,  February 2015) - the application of four journalists regarding conviction for secretly filming and subsequently broadcasting for public interest purposes interview with insurance broker; the Court established violation of the applicants' right to freedom to impart information; the second was reached in the case Pentikäinen v.Finland - 11882/10 (Information Note no. 189,  October 2015) - the application of a journalist/photographer regarding arrest and conviction of journalist for not obeying police orders during a demonstration:: the Court established no violation of the applicant's right to freedom of expression.  

The creation of this Publication is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this publication are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE IN SEPTEMBER 2015:

Freedom of expression - the authors of the Report point to the unfavorable environment for journalism and the media in general, dealing with the following cases: the still unelucidated attack on journalist Ivan Ninic, organized, as the victim alleges, by a state official the business dealings of which Ninic has been investigating for the last three years; the threats against the security of Natalija Jakovljevic, journalist and President of the Center for Civil Values from Subotica, made by the former Mayor of Kanjiza Lajos Bala, who published Jakovljevic's personal data and address in an op-ed online in which he voiced his disagreement with certain allegations made by the Center. The authors also analyzed the case of the attack by the Hungarian police on the RTS crew (and another two foreign journalists), which happened in the context of the refugee/migrant crisis in Europe, pointing to the fact that the problems faced by freedom of expression far transcend the borders of Serbia. Legal proceedings - the Report comments on: the verdict of the Administrative Court on the complaint by "Danas" journalist Bojan Cvejic over "administrative silence". The Court ordered the government to furnish to Cvejic information as to how many approvals for new employments in the public sector were issued despite the general ban on new employments. The authors also analyze the trial against Nebojsa Covic, the President of KK Crvena Zvezda, the former Mayor of Belgrade, and the former Vice President of the Government of Serbia, in relation to the attack against journalist Dejan Andjus in June 2014.

Implementation of the Law - The Law on Public Information and Media: With regard to the public gathering in Belgrade, the reason of which was the implementation of the provisions of the said Law concerning project co-financing, the monitoring team discuss the key findings from that gathering and analyze the potential sanctions (in the opinion of some participants of the rally) that officials could face in those local governments that failed to call competitions for project co-financing of media under new rules. The report also analyses the legal aspects of the mechanisms for the protection of minority media from political influence and for the realization of pluralism of opinions inside minority communities, in relation to the initiative from the civil sector striving to contribute to that aim (the Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina has initiated the version of its web portal Autonomija in Hungarian language). The Law on Electronic Media: the Report examines the legal mechanisms for addressing the problem of persistent violations of the provisions of the Law on Electronic Media concerning the protection of minors and protection of human rights in the reality shows aired on certain national TV stations, regarding the new measures issued by the Regulator against Happy TV due to the show "Parovi" and TV Pink over the show "Farma". The authors of the Report also review the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, building on what the editor of the web portal Mondo Predrag Vujic called a "poor practice of copy/paste journalism" and taking over texts without consent and without signing the source of the information. The Advertising Law: in relation to the public debate initiated over the advertising of food and drinking water in ads ascribing medical properties to these foodstuffs, the authors analyze the legal aspects of advertising foodstuffs and dietetic products in the media.

In the part of the Report concerning the adoption of new laws, the authors point to serious shortcomings of the Draft Advertising Law, which was at one time tabled for public debate and which will, as it stands, soon be submitted for parliamentary procedure unchanged, despite many objections.

Activities of competent authorities, bodies and organizations - In relation to the concerns voiced by the Commissioner for Information of Public Interest and Personal Data Protection over the problem of an alarming amount of personal data that appear in the public in general, especially in the media, the authors of the Report point out the related problem of "leaking of information from investigations" and misuse of such data by the media - the Report addresses this problem and its consequences for the realization of human rights and the rule of law principle, as a foundation of democracy.

The privatization process - The authors of the Report provide an overview of the media privatization process and take the example of RTV Vranje to analyze the problems that have emerged with the free distribution of shares to the employees, pointing to the roots of these problems, both legal and political, as well as to their potential consequences on media reforms.

In the Conclusion of the Report, summing up their findings about the media situation in Serbia in September 2015, the authors indicate the reasons that could put the media reforms to a complete standstill.

The Sixty-fourth Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full Report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.  

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.    

AUGUST 2015 -  SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE 

Freedom of expression - According to the findings of the monitoring team, attacks, threats and pressures against journalists and the media persisted in August. However, the characteristic of that period is that the attacks targeted mainly journalists investigating embezzlement, corruption and crime. By analyzing several of such cases, the authors of the Report pointed to their cause - the unfavorable atmosphere created in society in relation to media freedoms and freedom of expression in general. The cases described in the Report concern the attacks and threats against: journalist Ivan Ninic from Belgrade; journalist Stefan Cvetkovic from Bela Crkva; Predrag Blagojevic, journalist and editor of the portal Juzne vesti from Nis; the Responsible Editor of the news program of B92 Veran Matic and other employees of that media company. The Report points to the double practice of state authorities in cases where threats target politicians compared to those when journalists are threatened (the case of the arrest of Milan Malenovic, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the weekly "Tabloid", over the threats he had sent on Facebook to Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic and Interior Minister Nebojsa Stefanovic).

Implementation of the Law - The Law on Public Information and Media: in relation to the public procurement procedure for "inserting" the publication "Poslovi" in the daily newspaper, which the National Employment Service implemented and awarded the contract to the publisher of "Informer", the authors of the Report analyzed the regulation of public advertising in media; Viber, an OTT platform for instant text messaging, enabled only one media in Serbia ("Kurir") to place its content on that platform - the Report analyzes potential violations of the Law prohibiting the monopoly on distribution channels. The Law on Electronic Media: the Report analyzes the legal aspects of transfrontier television services, as well as the problem of inserting localized advertising messages in the programs of transfrontier channels distributed in Serbia mainly through cable distribution networks. The Report also examines regulations concerning the so-called cross-media concentration (consolidating ownership or management rights between the publishers of print and broadcast media), which regulations could be implemented in Serbia perhaps for the first time, in relation to the acquisition of the "Moja TV" cable channel by the Adria Media Group.

The authors of the Report concluded that there were no major developments related to the adoption of new laws relevant for the media sector.

Activities of competent authorities, bodies and organizations - The Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM): the Report provides a succinct analysis of the bylaws by REM that entered into force in the reporting period, the Rulebook on the Criteria and the Manner of Increasing the Share of European Audio-Visual Works, the Instruction on the Application of the Provisions of the Law on Electronic Media Regulating Own Production and the Rulebook on Audio-Visual Commercial Communications. The Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection reacted to the poor practice consisting of lowering the protection level of the right to free access to information of public importance with the new legislative concepts from different areas. The degree of protection is even reduced under the threshold provided for by the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance. The authors of the Report have itemized which provisions of the drafts of four laws were branded questionable by the Commissioner and pointed to the potential consequences of these laws on the activity of journalists and the media.

The digitalization process - The authors of the Report elaborated on the issue of the digital dividend (the part of the radio-frequency spectrum released after the digital switchover) in the context of the start of the public bid for the issuance of individual licenses for the use of radio frequencies in that part of the spectrum and provided suggestions about the use of part of the resources gained from the sale thereof for the development of media services.

The privatization process  -  The Report also contains a legal analysis of the media privatizations that were carried out in the reporting period, and, in the context of certain controversies related to the current procedures, an analysis of the legal mechanisms the state may resort to in order to counter "dubious privatizations".

In the Conclusion of the Report, the authors summed up their findings about the most relevant events on the media scene in August 2015 and pointed to the need to redefine the goals of further reforms of the media sector in Serbia.

The Sixty-third Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office "Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full Report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.   

THE MOST IMPORTANT ON THE SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE IN JULY 2015:

Freedom of expression - While there have been different problems in this area, the Reports analyses two cases of threats and two attacks against journalists and media. Threats and pressures - on the occasion of the latest hacking of the Titulli.com web portal, the authors of the report pointed to the fact that hacking attacks against news portal represent a type of media censorship, if we take into consideration their consequences. Concerning the speech of SNS official Dejan Kovacevic at the stand of the local council in Gornji Milanovac or rather his intolerable threatening message to the media (namely, their sources, as Kovacevic's colleagues from the party later tried to justify him), the authors of this Report highlighted the shortcomings of the existing criminal protection of journalists from threats, which make the latter ineffective. Attacks - the first case, although the journalist himself was most probably not the intended target (the incident in the City Hall of Uzice, when journalist Milan Djokic was stabbed on the press conference), is drastic evidence of the heightened risk carried by the journalist profession for the security of media professionals, as well as of the need to take measures to improve the security and the environment in which media and journalists work. In the second case, the target of the attack was Milorad Komrakov, the last of Milosevic's editors of RTS' news program back in 2000, although the motives of the attack remain a mystery. In the part dealing with legal proceedings, the authors of the Report have analyzed two judgments from the reporting period, which they have estimated to represented a step backwards in the Serbian judicial practice relative to media-related disputes: 1. The judgment of the First Basic Court in Belgrade, which partially sustained the claim of the plaintiffs Stojic, Nenkovic and Bosnjak, former journalists of "Vecernje Novosti", against the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS); the three sued the daily for the non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly suffered due to the criminal charges filed by NUNS in 2007 against an unknown person for the criminal offense of abetting war crimes; 2. Judgment of the Appellate Court in Nis sustaining the judgment of the Higher Court in Zajecar, which judgment ordered Vladimir Novakovic, for whom the courts determined that he was not the Editor-in-Chief of the B92.net website, to pay damages to Zivorad Nikolic, a retired police officer from Bor, for conveying inaccurate information on the said website, originally published in another media. This part of the Report also points to the Report of the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe Nils Muiznieks, which is result of his visit to Serbia in March 2015. Among other things, the Commissioner elaborated on the media freedoms in Serbia, clearly recognizing both the progress and the problems in the Serbian media landscape, giving certain recommendations and making certain conclusions.

In the part of this Report dedicated to the Implementation of existing laws, the authors of the Report elaborated on issues related to the implementation of the Law on Public Information and Media, namely: how the Serbian legal system protects the media and journalists from discrimination, in relation to the potential discrimination of the media claimed by UNS to be carried out for months by the executives of the municipality of Smederevo. The Report also analyses the provisions of the Law and the Rulebook regulating registration with the Media Registry, on the occasion of the call by the competent ministry to the media to enter the prescribed information in the Registry. The authors of the Report explained that, while registration is not mandatory, the failure to register entails certain consequences; they said that furnishing certain data is not the obligation of the media, but that of public authorities. They also pointed out to issues the Law stopped short of regulating. The Report also deals with issues related to the implementation of the Law on Electronic Media: relative to the contradictory information as to whether Radio B92 has substantially changed (apart from its name) its programming concept, the authors of the Report pointed out to regulatory shortcomings, making it unclear on what grounds the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) may react and if it may react at all in the situation involving a major change to the concept of a media outlet, especially in the case of licenses issued under the previous Broadcasting Law.  Analyzed were also the five REM rulebooks that came into force in this period, regulating the obligations of electronic media during the election campaign, the obligations related to the protection of human rights and obligations concerning prize competitions, as well as the procedure of issuance of the license for providing media services at request and the license on the basis of an open competition. For the last two rulebooks, the authors of the Report said they stop short of regulating all the significant issues (the conditions and the criteria for the issuance of licenses); as to the rulebook dealing with the obligations of media concerning human rights protection, the authors pointed to a potential problem due to the fact that the rulebook in question prescribes the obligation of media to judge by themselves if human rights have been violated during a live program as well as if the press releases or documents by agencies or the representatives of public authorities aired by such media violate human rights, and must inform the viewers and listeners about such human rights violations. The Report also deals with matters concerning the implementation of the Law on Public Service Broadcasters; the basic model of funding of PSBs - the subscription fee, its mandatory character and purpose of payment; the opaque introduction of the new media service by RTS, outside of the statutory procedure (the RTS3 channel).

Adoption of new laws - the authors of the Report deal with the Draft Law on Information Security, subject to a public debate launched by the competent ministry, the provisions of which may also concern media portals.

Since the month of June didn't see too many meaningful activities by competent bodies, authorities and organizations and such activities have been elaborated on in other parts of the Report, the authors specified where the same may be found in the Report.

The privatization process - The authors point to the phase of privatization that was topical in this period.

In addition to summing up their findings about the most important developments on the media landscape in July 2015, in the Conclusion of the Report the authors pointed to the most marked developments in that period.

The Sixty-second Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia.  

JUNE 2015 - SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE

Freedom of expression - In June 2015 journalists and the media were exposed to various threats and pressures, including the specialized magazine "Vrele gume" - by the advertiser; the news portal Zajecar Online - by a person or persons unknown; and the daily "Kurir" - by politicians. In analyzing these three cases, the authors of the report pointed out to the consequences of such an attitude towards the media and journalists for the position and work of the latter. The issue of economic and social rights of journalists was also topical in this period, in relation to the layoffs of a large number of journalists employed by the publishing powerhouse Ringier Axel Springer Srbija, which case was also examined in this Report. In relation to court proceedings, the Report studied the judgment of the Higher Court in Belgrade in the trial against Radovan Krcmarevic and Bojan Krcmarevic from Lazarevac over their unauthorized broadcasting of the "pirate" radio station "Raka Esinger"; the authors of the Report pointed out to the harmful consequences of the longstanding unresolved problem of piracy in the field of electronic media.

In the part of the Report concerning the implementation of existing laws the authors delved into the implementation of the Law on Electronic Media, analyzing: the consent of the Regulatory Body of Electronic Media (REM) for the merger of the ownership of two TV stations with a national licenses - TV Prva and TV B92 and particularly REM's press release on that occasion; the issue of the financing of REM in relation to the payment of the REM's surplus (from 2014) in national budget; the drafts of the two bylaws of REM regulating in more detail the issue of own production and the share of European audiovisual works in the programming of domestic media service providers.

Adoption of new laws - The authors of the Report analyzed the amendments to the Law on Public Information and Media and the causes and legal consequences thereof.

Work of competent bodies - The activities of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) - the topic of analysis were the reports of the Regulator on the realization of the programming and legal obligations of RTS and RTV, as well as those of commercial broadcasters, in the course of the previous year (until the coming into force of new media laws); special emphasis was placed on the decision of the REM approving the continuation of the broadcasting of the programs of culture and information centers after July 1, 2015; the Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veterans' and Social Affairs - in relation to Ministry's approval of the social programs for the employees of 13 media outlets that are being privatized, the authors of the Report pointed out to the consequences of the absence, in media laws, of regulation of the social component of media privatization.

The digitalization process - the authors of this Report analysed the challenges TV stations face after the completion of the digitalization process in June.

The privatization process - the authors explained the phases in the privatization procedure after the calling of the open competition for the sale of media and pointed out to two specific cases in the field of media privatization.

In the conclusion of this Report, summing up their findings on the developments on the Serbian media scene in June 2015, the authors pointed out to what was characteristic in that period and what needs to be done going forward in order to continue the process of media reforms.

The Sixty-first Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English are available for download at the end of this page.

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

The creation of this Report is supported by the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia within the Small Projects Fund, but the views presented in this Report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Swiss Cooperation Office Serbia. 

SERBIAN MEDIA SCENE IN THE PERIOD JANUARY - MAY 2015

Freedom of expression - in the first five months of 2015 the right to freedom of expression was threatened in different ways. Journalists were subject to threats and attacks, even by ordinary citizens, just because they were doing their job. Eight selected cases were analyzed. While the police reacted relatively quickly and effectively, the prosecutor's reaction was inadequate. The authors of the Report point to the causes of the inefficient legal protection of journalists in such cases and the consequences thereof. Journalists and the media were also subject to various pressures mainly coming from the field of politics, due to critical reporting about public officials and their work. Five selected cases were analyzed. Such reactions of the authorities to criticism have significantly harmful consequences on the work and the position of the media and journalists, which is analyzed by the authors of the Reports. The cyber-attacks on news portals critical in their reporting about various topics continued in 2015, taking up new, sophisticated forms and the authors of the Report suggested measures to be taken in order to solve this problem. Seven selected cases were analyzed. Concerning legal proceedings, the authors analyzed two trials that will serve as a basis for jurisprudence in the application of the provisions of the Law on Public Information and the Media - those regulating the right of journalists to publish their truthful statements or to present their opinion in the media, as well as to voice their opinion outside of the media as a personal position; as well as in the application of the provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act and Anti-Mobbing Act. The cases in question are Srdjan Skoro vs. "Vecernje Novosti" and Jasminka Kocijan vs. the Tanjug News Agency. The third analyzed process - Emir Kusturica vs. E-novine - points to the position of Serbian courts concerning the obligations of the media to check the accuracy of information they publish, if they are passing on such information previously released by other media.

In the part of the Report - implementation of existing laws - the authors deal with the application of the Law on Public Information and Media - more specifically with the implementation of the procedure of project co-financing through open competitions and point to identified practical issues. The implementation of the Law on Electronic Media - in order to implement that Law more efficiently, the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media is must pass a series of bylaws. The subject of analysis was the six bylaws the drafts of which were laid down by the Regulator in the reporting period.

The adoption of new laws - The Draft of the new Advertising Law was tabled for public debate as early as back in January, but it is still not in parliamentary procedure. Bearing in mind that this Law is extremely important for the functioning of the media and completing the reforms of the regulatory framework relevant for the media, the authors of the Report analyzed the Draft Law and pointed to serious shortcomings, particularly the narrowed scope of application of the general rules on advertising and the lack of regulation of advertising by public authorities.

Work of the competent bodies and authorities - the work of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) - the subject of analysis were the measures REM pronounced during the reporting period against media services providers, over wrong program labeling and violations of obligations related to the protection of minors (the case of the reality show "Parovi" on Happy TV) and the breaches to the Broadcasters' Code of Conduct (the case of Kopernikus TV - the Rule of the Other Party); the work of the self-regulatory body - the Press Council - two procedures before the Complaints Commission were analyzed, namely: 1. The complaint by the daily "Politika" against the daily "Blic" for breach of the provisions of the Journalist Code of Ethics on the respect of copyright, over the publication of four texts originally published in "Politika" without the consent of the latter (the decision has been passed) and 2. The complaint filed by Beba Kanacki, the Spokesperson of the Psychiatric Hospital in Vranje against the daily "Kurir" over the unauthorized use of a video from social networks, created while she was a reporter of TV Fokus (the Commission has failed to agree on a decision); The work of public authorities: The Ombudsman - his Annual Report for 2014 was analyzed and especially the media relevant parts (state of play of media freedoms and analysis of the media situation), as well as the smear campaign in the media against the Ombudsman Sasa Jankovic; the Commissioner for Information of Public Interest and Personal Data Protection - the authors have analyzed the Annual Report of the Commissioner on the implementation of both laws from his area of competence, particularly the part relative to the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, namely the tendencies and challenges in the implementation thereof.

The digitalization process - the authors delved on the final phase of the digital switchover process, which was supposed to end by June 17 and explained what will be the biggest challenge for the media after the completion of the process.

The privatization process - the authors pointed to clear delays in the completion of the media privatization process and the causes thereof.

In the conclusion of the Report the authors summed up their findings about the developments on the Serbian media scene in the first five months of 2015.

The Sixtieth Monitoring Report was prepared by the ANEM expert monitoring team from the law office „Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English is available for download at the end of this page.

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here. 

Serbian Media Scene in December 2014 - Report by the Monitoring Team

Freedom of expression - in the section on threats and pressures, the Report analyzes two cases: the letter of two representative trade unions of the Special Hospital for Non-Specific Lung Disease in Sokobanja sent to the RTS management, which letter declares the editor of the RTS correspondent office in Nis Dragana Sotirovski persona non grata in that institution; the decision of the public company Informative Center Odzaci which claims that the journalist Radoslav Medic was redundant in the local public radio station in Odzaci. What is specific about these two cases is that Dragana Sotirovski was declared persona non grata after her year long investigation of the abuse of power by the Director of the Special Hospital "Sokobanja" Liljana Isakovic, including corruption, mobbing, nepotism and other irregularities in this institution, and that she was exposed to threats and pressures even before the trade unions' reaction, while Radoslav Medic was laid off after 30 years of working for the media outlet in Odzaci and after he was downgraded to a position of journalist-reporter (with lesser pay); he also received an oral ban on reporting from political gatherings because he had (as media reported) reported from press conferences of the Democratic Party on the opposition of democrats to the decision of the municipal authorities to relieve chemical factory „Hipol" of payment of the environmental tax, which meant two million dinars less in the local budget at the annual level.

The Report authors note that editorial autonomy in the media undoubtedly includes an autonomous decision on which journalist within the newsroom will report on what event, and that it is unacceptable that public institutions, which the public has an interest to be informed about, make lists of journalists suitable or ill-suited to report on such institutions.

The authors also note that the media should be a forum for a free exchange of information and confrontation of claims by the representatives of local authorities and the opposition on the issues of importance for the life of the community, and that the job of journalists and the media must not be to ignore criticism of the authorities (if the authorities do not respond to such criticism and do not deny facts corroborating it) so as to report „in a balanced and unbiased manner".

A section of the Report on court proceedings analyzes the decision of the Appellate Court in Belgrade revising the decision of the High Court in Belgrade and rejecting the appeal in the case of Mica Jovanovic, owner and former rector of the Megatrend University vs. publisher, editor and journalists of the magazine „Svedok". The Report authors commended the decision of the Appellate Court to characterize the claims in the disputable article, which claims were qualified as „lies and unverified information" in the appeal, as „satirical and humorous comments, personal stance and critical opinion of the author of the article" and to reject the said appeal.

Implementation of existing laws - The Law on Electronic Media - the subject of the analysis are the drafts of three rulebooks put forward to a public debate by the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM): the Rulebook on the Criteria for Making a List of Most Important Events and Exercising the Right to Access to these Events, the Rulebook on the Protection of Rights and Interests of Minors in the Area of Provision of Media Services and the Rulebook on the Pronouncing of Measures to Media Services Providers. The analysis points out that this the first time since the establishment of the independent regulatory body for broadcasting that the content of a general act is subject to a public debate. The fact was assessed as a contribution of the new Law on Electronic Media towards more transparent regulation in the sector of electronic media.

In the period covered by the Report (December 2014) there was no legislative activity regarding the adoption of laws relevant for the media.

Work of competent authorities - in this part of the Report, the authors analyze the work of state bodies: the Republic Agency for Electronic Communications and Postal Services (RATEL), which issued in December 2014 a new list of pirate radio and TV stations that illicitly (without a permit) broadcast radio and television program; the Ministry of Culture and Information - the authors analyze the announcements by Sasa Mirkovic, state secretary at the Ministry in charge of media, concerning the key activities of the Ministry pertaining to the implementation of new media laws (Mirkovic announced these activities at the ANEM seminar on the implementation of new media laws, held on 25 December 2014); Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection - the Report analyzes the absence of transparency in the work of public bodies concerning large infrastructure projects, such as the South Stream or Belgrade on the Water, as well as the Commissioner's problems in the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance after the introduction of public notaries in Serbia and the dilemma whether they are subject to the said Law.

Digitalization process - The Report authors analyze what marked the digitalization process in December 2014, particularly the publishing of the JP ETV's price list for the services of digital broadcasting. Discounts envisaged by the price list are also analyzed and who will benefit from them at the local, regional and national level.

Privatization process - The Report authors provide a short overview of the progress in the media privatization process after the adoption of new media laws; they analyze the specificities stemming from the parallel implementation of the regulation pertaining to privatization and the provisions of media-related laws.

In the Report conclusion the authors summarize their findings of the Serbian media scene legal monitoring in December 2014.

59th Monitoring Report was produced by the expert team of the ANEM legal department, Law Office "Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English is available for download at the end of this page.

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders. 

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.  

11th issue of the ANEM publication "Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene" was presented at the ANEM round table, held on 26 January 2015 in Belgrade.

The publication features articles about important media issues: Strategy for the Development of Radio and Audiovisual Media Services, censorship and self-censorship in the Serbian media, transparency of media ownership, and digitalization process in Serbia.

The event gathered some 50 representatives of media and media/journalists' associations, NGOs, responsible authorities, international organizations and donors, and other interested parties.

The round table was organized within ANEM project "Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene", successfully implemented for five years now. In 2014 the project is financially supported by Civil Rights Defenders and the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

In the first part of the round table, the publication was presented by its authors: Milos Stojkovic of the "Zivković & Samardzic" Law Office, Belgrade (article: "Why Do We Need a Strategy for the Development of Radio and Audiovisual Media Services and What Should This Strategy Be"); Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law (article: "Censorship and Self-Censorship in the Serbian Media"); Davor Glavas, media expert (article: "Transparency of Media Ownership - Necessary, but is it Sufficient?"); and prof. Irini Reljin, PhD - School of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade and assistant minister at the Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications (article: "Digitalization Process in Serbia").

After the presentation of articles, a discussion was opened by special guests - Branko Gogić, acting director of the public company for operating broadcasting infrastructure (JP ETV) and Radiša Petrović, special adviser with JP ETV.

Strategy for the Development of Radio and Audiovisual Media Services

Milos Stojkovic of the "Zivković & Samardzic" Law Office in Belgrade talked about the future process of passing the Strategy for the Development of Radio and Audiovisual Media Services that should be an accompanying document to the new media laws (adopted in August 2014) that set a new legal framework for the operation of the media sector. Stojkovic noted that the law does not envisage a precise deadline for the adoption of this document and thus it is not yet known when it will be adopted.

While the former Broadcasting Development Strategy, in effect until 2013, was entirely within the authority of the then Republic Broadcasting Agency (now Regulatory Body for Electronic Media - REM), draft of the future strategy is to be proposed by REM, but adopted by the Government of Serbia. The new strategy, unlike the former one, will be adopted following a market analysis, to be done in cooperation with the Regulatory Agency for Electronic Communications and Postal Services (RATEL) and the Commission for Protection of Competition (both have experience in market analysis), which means that more actors will be engaged in drafting of the new strategy than was the case with the former one. It is important to note that the said market analysis may not be reduced to economic indicators only since the protection of public interest in broadcast media is of great importance, Stojkovic said.

The former strategy was adopted in a non-transparent manner, Stojkovic noted, without properly consulting the expert public and without accepting (as it later turned out) justified suggestions of journalists' and media associations, which lead to some goals of the strategy being unrealistic and inappopriate. For that reason, it is important that the new strategy, before it is adopted, be subject to a broad consultation among the expert public, but also among the Serbian citizens (as the strategy has to address their needs) and minority groups, said Stojkovic.

Development of media pluralism was one of the aims set by the former Broadcasting Development Strategy, but the document omitted an important element - the work on the program quality. The effects can be seen in the very large number of broadcast media that our market cannot sustain and thus it is needed that this number be reduced and that the media compete with quality program and not owing to state subsidies, Stojkovic said.

The direction in which the public service broadcasters (PSB) developed is also important for the new strategy. The goals of the former strategy in this domain were realized, Stojkovic noted. The separation of the public service broadcasters Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) and Radio Television of Vojvodina (RTV) was done on the republic level and the level of the autonomous province. Also, the extraction of the broadcasting infrastructure was done resulting in the establishment of the public company for operating broadcasting infrastructure (JP ETV). Some issues regarding PSBs are still current, even after the adoption of the Law on Public Service Broadcasters - their sustainability, more precisely finding an adequate model for their financing; fostering accountability of PSBs in spending taxpayers' money and better communication with the public, i.e. transparency of their work. The Law on Public Service Broadcasters set a decent legal framework for fulfilling these goals. However, a temporary system of funding PSBs from the public budget is in effect until 2016, which makes the issue of the independence of PSBs, particularly from political influence, still current, Stojkovic said.

The year 2015 is very important for the development of Serbian media - any form of direct subsidies to the media by the state ends, public companies in the domain of public information cease to exist, project-based financing of media is introduced and digitalization process is to be completed. These processes will inevitably lead to a reduced number of media under new market conditions and there will be a need for the media to compete by means of the quality of their program and the fulfilment of public interest in the area of public information, Stojkovic concluded.

Censorship and Self-Censorship in the Serbian Media

The regulation as such is not seen as a factor leading to censorship in Serbia nowadays. However, we do not have a clearly recognized factor limiting the right to freedom of expression, said Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney at law and leader of the ANEM legal monitoring team. The laws are in place that fully guarantee the right to freedom of expression, as is the case in democratic European countries that we aspire to look up to, but we still talk about censorship, he said.

According to Kremenjak, the key problem that we face nowadays at the media scene is devastated media market, economically empowerished media that were brought into the position where they are incapable of resisting even the smallest pressure - instead, they "bend to one or another side". Another problem is that the issue of freedom of expression in Serbia today is not an issue of adopting laws or putting them out of force. Rather, it is the issue of strengthening the economic position of the media, control of the state aid, protection of competition and regulating economic conditions in the market where media will be able to grow stronger since they are currently unable to resist pressures, including informal ones.

As the causes of such position of the media are different than earlier ones (when the problems mainly stemmed from inadequate regulation), the methods of fighting censorship and self-censorship cannot remain the same. "We have to change something", Kremenjak concluded.

Transparency of Media Ownership - Necessary, but is it Sufficient?

The media privatization in Serbia is expected to end by 30 June 2015, and some 80 media are waiting to be privatized, said Milorad Tadic, ANEM president, providing an introduction to the topic of media ownership transparency.

Davor Glavas, media expert, cited the example of Croatia where the issue of media ownership transparency is adequately solved at the normative level. This means, among other things, that information on the ownership structure of every registered broadcast media is available online on the regulator's website. The ownership structure of all print media is also publicly available, although not online, but in the register of the Croatian Chamber of Economy. Media owners are obliged to update their information in the register by the end of January every year.

However, nothwithstanding transparent ownership, problem occurs (in the absence of self-regulation) in the fact that owners can use media for direct transmission of their interests (to illustrate this, Glavas cited the example of the recent change of ownership of the largest media publisher in Croatia - Europa Press Holding) and that they may not understand the concept of separating ownership function from the editorial one. This problem goes beyond the issue of media ownership. The fact that owners may see their media outlets as "toys" and promote their interest in the most direct manner by means of the media outlets is worrying, Glavas noted.

Ownership is not the only issue, there is also the issue of who controls the media, said Glavas citing the example of a Croatian media outlet practically controlled by a bank since the debts of the media outlet surpass its assets. This type of information should inevitably be made public, Glavas thinks. Therefore, it is also important what the financial structure of a media outlet is, not only its ownership structure, he concluded.

Another important issue concerning ownership transparency and the control over media is public availability of the list of the largest advertisers. The reason is that advertisers may influence editorial policy, Glavas stressed. This is particularly important in Serbia as it is considered that more than 60% of the total media marketing in Serbia is controlled by the state, which opens a set of questions (where the marketing is placed and how, who can or cannot profit from that, and what percentage the state-controlled marketing constitutes in the total marketing income of individual media outlets).

Ownership transparency is relatively easy to define at the normative level, but it triggers a number of questions - i.e. not only who the owner is, but who effectively controls a media outlet, as well as the question of insufficient media self-regulation, Glavas concluded.

Digitalization Process in Serbia 

Prof. Irini Reljin said that Serbia took upon itself the obligation, as did the other states in the region, to complete the digitalization process - until 17 June 2015. Key participants in this process are: the Ministry in charge of telecommunications, the Ministry of Culture and Information, RATEL, REM, JP ETV, public service broadcasters (RTS and RTV), national, regional and local broadcasters and the viewers who acquire set-top boxes (STBs).

Prof. Reljin said that the Strategy for the Transition from Analog to Digital Broadcasting of Radio and Television Program in the Republic of Serbia was adopted in July 2009. The document regulates several important issues: compression standard - MPEG 4; the latest standard for broadcasting digital terrestrial program; it opted for the Single Frequency Network as the best solution for effective use of the spectrum; the network architecture based on the IP technology; and the decision, passed by the government, to establish JP ETV as a network operator that will transmit digital TV signal terestrially (it is important that the network operator be separated from production capacities). JP ETV started workin in January 2011 as a public company that should complete the digitalization process. This created conditions for the access to the EU pre-accession funds, which enabled Serbia to obtain aid for implementing the digitalization process, said Reljin.

The adoption of the long awaited set of new media laws in August 2014 created conditions for completing the digitalization process as some things in the process could not have been implemented without these laws, Reljin added.

Reljin also said that there is a Rulebook on the transition from analog to digital broadcasting, which will soon be subject to amendments - deadlines for digital switchover for individual allotments will be extended for 15 days (while the final deadline remains the same - 17 June 2015). The reason for the change is a large tender for procuring reception equipment, finally approaching the end.

We can now be certain that our economically vulnerable viewers will receive STBs and we think that there will be enough STBs and TV sets in the market, Reljin said. There are currently 10 STBs and 30 TV sets with the seal of warranty as they fulfilled the conditions for broadcasting digital signal. The list of these STBs and TV sets is available on the website digitalizacija.info.

In order to help economically vulnerable categories of the population, the Government of Serbia adopted a Decree pursuant to which free STBs will be procured, Reljin said and explained that the application for receiving a free STB device may be filed with centers of social work and subsidiaries of the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund. The public call was issued on 17 November 2014 and the Ministry has been actively responding to citizens' inquiries since. A call center will be established where the citizens will obtain information on everything concering digitalization. A promotional campaign was organized with minimal funds, but it turned out that the citizens are pretty well informed about what awaits them in the digitalization process, Reljin noted.

Regarding technical requirements, Reljin said that Serbia had the opportunity to apply for a project funded from the EU pre-accession funds - it was awarded a project involving the procurement of a large quantity of the state-of-the-art equipment worth 8 million EUR. The equipment is now functional within the JP ETV initial network. According to the rules of IPA funds, the state had to secure its contribution to the project, which meant that it had to provide additional equipment worth 3,25 million EUR.

Further on, transmission sites had to be reconstructed in order to install the equipment. One of the problems was that the sites were bombed in 1999, and the infrastructure at the sites was also in poor condition due to negligence. In 2011, a tender was called for the reconstruction of 25 most important sites, which reconstruction is nearly complete and we will soon have the transmitters, Reljin said. Furthermore, JP ETV called a tender (worth 1 million EUR) for the reconstruction of another 50 sites and the work on the sites is ongoing. A loan obtained from EBRD will finance the reconstruction of additional 56 sites. A total of some 200 sites is needed, Reljin explained.

Digital switchover had been planned for March 2012, but only the initial network was activated back then. Serbia is not an exception in this respect as many countries rescheduled their digital switchover, Reljin said. The expanded initial network began operating in November 2013, and the signal was broadcast from 35 sites covering more than 75% of population. Currently, digital signal is available to more than 93% of Serbian citizens. In accordance with the applicable regulations, JP ETV must cover at least 95% of the population with programs in the first multiplex and no less than 90% with programs that will be in the second and third multiplex.

Digital dividend is a part of the spectrum that will be freed with the digital switchover. According to the relevant documents, this part of the spectrum is reserved for broadband mobile systems and it will be sold after the digital switchover.

We have the most efficient standard for digital terrestrial broadcasting, Reljin said. We also have inserting of local and regional programs, which is very interesting for Serbia as it has a large number of local and regional programs. We have 13 allotments and we insert the programs by the allotments, which is the most efficient solution for using the spectrum.

Reljin also talked about the obligations of local and regional broadcasters. JP ETV has the obligation of distribution and broadcasting, and paying the fee for using radio-frequencies (broadcasters will cease to pay fees to RATEL, instead they are only obliged to pay fees to JP ETV). Broadcasters become providers of media content and they have financial obligations, while the permits are obtained from RATEL. The obligation of media content providers is to deliver the signal (analog or digital) to JP ETV's head-end, which means that they will first have to make agreements with JP ETV and conclude a contract concerning their obligations. JP ETV will collect, multiplex and prepare signals for broadcasting. At the request of individual broadcasters, REM has to pass a decision on the access to multiplex within 30 days. Technical and economic conditions of access are regulated by a contract concluded between JP ETV and every broadcasting service provider, and this contract becomes an integral part of the broadcasting permit. In case that such a contract is not concluded, JP ETV will not broadcast program of a service provider, Reljin said.

Discussion 

JP ETV is at the final stage of fulfilling its obligations in the digitalization process and all the technical conditions will be met within the deadline, said Branko Gogic, acting director at JP ETV. He said that the new price list of JP ETV's services was done in cooperation with the Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications, the Ministry of Culture and Information, RATEL and REM. The price list was adopted by the Government on 31 December 2014. The price for national broadcaters is 68.840.000 dinars annualy (not including VAT). The price for local and regional broadcasters depends on their allotment, i.e. where they are located. At the initiative of JP ETV and with the agreement of the Government of Serbia, local and regional broadcasters will have an 80% discount in the next two years. Gogic cited the prices that broadcasters in certain allotments will be obliged to pay to JP ETV, which was subject to a heated disucssion among the participants and the speakers, namely the drastic difference in the price for broadcasters that will air their signal via transmitter Avala (which transmitter covers the largest portion of population compared to the others) and those in other allotments. Radisa Petrovic from JP ETV said that this company is merely the operator and does not pass final decisions or strategies, and therefore complaints regarding prices may not be addressed to it.

Discussion continued with a series of questions and comments primarily concerning the digitalization process and its repercussions for local and regional broadcaters. It was also discussed what digitalization means for PSBs (PSBs will pay a fee, just like commercial broadcaters, except that they will have a discount on the quantity of broadcasted program). Other issues covered by the discussion were the relation of the media privatization process and the deadline for digital switchover, and the possibility of different broadcasters joining forces on the digital platform by means of joint procurement and production of program.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The views presented at the round table are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders.

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The views presented at the round table are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.  

November 2014 - Legal monitoring of the Serbian media scene - Report of the monitoring team

Freedom of expression - Among threats and pressures against journalists and the media, the most notable in November 2014 was the newly introduced procedure by the Serbian Business Registers Agency (APR) which entails registering of every person accessing the Agency's online archive of documents and the companies the information related to which the users review. The procedure exposes investigative journalists to serious danger. Starting from the reaction to the procedure by the Commissioner Rodoljub Šabić and statements about it by Stevan Dojčinović of the Center for Investigative Journalism Serbia (CINS), the Report authors underscore all the arguments indicating that such data processing is illicit as well as dangerous for reporters. In the section on court proceedings the Report analyzes the following: 1. the execution of the verdict reached by the High Court in Novi Sad in April 2012 upon the compensation of damages claim of journalist Vladimir Jesic against the minister without portfolio Velimir Ilic for kicking and cursing Jesic in front of TV cameras during an interview in 2003 - this eleven-year long procedure for the compensation of damages indicates that Serbia does not meet an indicator of the Council of Europe for media in democracy (the indicators measure a degree of fulfilment of freedom of expression and media freedom) - timeliness and adequacy of the protection of journalists from physical threats and attacks; 2. the decision of the High Court in Nis revoking the verdict of the Basic Court in the same city, under which the now former Director of the Municipal Heating Plant Milutin Ilic and his associates Dobrivoje Stanimirovic and Mija Jankovic were acquitted of the charges of having threatened the editor of "Juzne vesti" Predrag Blagojevic, endangering his security. The Report authors explain why the verdict of the High Court in Nis is encouraging.

Implementation of existing laws - The Law on Electronic Media - the subject of the analysis are the measures pronounced by the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) under the said law against providers of media services concerning the protection of minors in programming content - the warning to the national television Pink, for the lack of protection of identity and integrity of minors in program "DNK", and for erroneous classification marking and the time of the program broadcasting; reprimands  to the national televisions Happy and Prva, for programming content not suitable for minors broadcast in a protected time-slot; an additional reprimand to the TV Happy - for illicit manner of advertising electronic cigarettes. Another caution pronounced by REM in November, but under the Broadcasting Law, was also analyzed - against regional broadcaster RTV Enigma, for failure to respect programming concept.

There was no notable legislative activity in November with respect to adopting laws relevant for the media.

Work of competent authorities - in this part of the Report the authors deal with the work of the following state bodies: the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection - its activities regarding the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance and the public authorities' treatment of their obligations stipulated by the Law; the Culture and Information Committee of the Serbian Parliament - the session of the Committee on the freedom of the media and the Committee's conclusions reached at the session, as well as the session of the Committee in which a draft decision was passed relevant to the functioning of the public broadcaster Radio Television of Serbia (RTS);  Ministry of Culture and Information - the adopted rulebooks relevant for the implementation of the Law on Public Information and Media: the rulebooks on the co-financing of projects for the realization of public interest in the area of public information, on the documentation to be submitted in the process of registering the media in the Media Register, as well as about the keeping of the records and the entry in the records of international media representatives and representative offices of international media. The Report also covers the work of collective organizations for the protection of copyright and related rights by analyzing the work of SOKOJ (organization of music authors of Serbia) in relation to court proceedings it initiated against the public service broadcaster RTS concerning the debt incurred for using copyrighted music in its programs; in relation to that the Report points out to the years long attitude of RTS towards its legal obligations of paying fees to RATEL, JP ETV and collective organizations and what is necessary to be changed in this practice of RTS and why.

Digitalization process - the Report authors analyze what marked digitalization process in November 2014 - the second consultative meeting of the competent ministry and broadcasters; the intensified media campaign promoting the digital switchover; and the step forward concerning the support to disadvantaged citizens in acquiring STBs.

Privatization process - the Report authors provide a short overview of the progress in the media privatization process after the adoption of new media laws.

In the Report conclusion the authors summarize their findings of the Serbian media scene legal monitoring in November 2014.  

58th Monitoring Report was produced by the expert team of the ANEM legal department, Law Office "Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English is available for download at the end of this page.

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders. 

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.  

11th issue of the ANEM specialized publication "Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene"

This Monitoring Publication of ANEM contains articles that offer expert explanations of important media issues and could contribute to their better understanding.   

Contents of the Monitoring Publication XI:

• Introduction (with a summary of findings of the legal monitoring of the Serbian media scene in 2014 and a short overview of the Publication);

four articles by expert authors:

• Why Do We Need a Strategy for the Development of Radio and Audiovisual Media Services and What Should This Strategy Be - by Miloš Stojković, "Živković & Samardžić" Law Office, Belgrade (basis for the Strategy and its purpose; the purpose and the influence of the market analysis in the media sphere as a basis for the Strategy; Strategy as a foundation for regulating media sector)
• Censorship and Self-Censorship in the Serbian Media - by Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney-at-law (is there censorship and self-censorship in the Serbian media; „chilling effect" in the media sphere and its causes; what is needed for the improvement of the general conditions on the Serbian media scene);
• Transparency of Media Ownership - Necessary, but is it Sufficient? - by Davor Glavaš, media expert (the importance of media ownership transparency, particularly in the transition countries; the need to redefine that concept and how to do it; what other measures, along with ownership transparency, are needed as indicators of media independence);
• Digitalization Process in Serbia - by Prof. Irini Reljin, PhD and Milena Jocić Tanasković, Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Telecommunications  (the digital terrestrial network for television broadcasting; reception of digital television signal; the current state of the ETV network; obligations of regional and local broadcasters in the digitalization process)  

• The European Court of Human Rights - Information Notes on the Court's Case-Law (excerpts from the Information Notes available on the Court's website) - short overview of two judgments of this court from the Information Notes no. 176 (July 2014), pertaining to the application of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: the first was reached in the case A.B. v. Switzerland - the application of a journalist regarding conviction for the publication of materials covered by the secrecy of a pending investigation, where the Court established violation of the applicant's freedom of expression; the second was reached in the case Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2) - the application of a newspaper publisher regarding injunction against the newspaper restraining further publication of article concerning former head of government: the Court established violation of the applicant's freedom of expression.

Monitoring Publication XI is available for download at the bottom of this page. 

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The contents of this Publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders. 

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The contents of this Publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.  

„Serbian Media System in Transition and European Standards" was the topic of the public lecture organized by ANEM on 26 November 2014 for students of the Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Belgrade.

The lecturers were: professor Rade Veljanovski, whose lecture covered features of the Serbian media systems and key European standards; assistant professor Dejan Milenković, who spoke about the relation of Serbian media laws and European standards; attorney-at-law Slobodan Kremenjak, whose speech was about the implementation of media laws in practice and necessary changes for fulfilling European standards.

Serbian Media System and European Standards

Prof. Rade Veljanovski charaterized the Serbian media system after year 2000 as a media system in transition given that political changes in a society are also a basis for changes in the media system. The changes occur in a form of a democratic and professional transformation of media system, Veljanovski explained. Democratic transformation implies the role of the state in the institutional removal of all obstacles to free flow of information, opinions and views, in putting out of force undemocratic laws and creating laws according to democratic rules, he said.

Discontinuity with previous times cannot be made if we do not put out of force media laws that were in force during socialism and 1990s and if we do not create new laws that implement standards of the democratic world, said prof. Veljanovski. The European Union has a myriad of documents that determine the development of democratic media system and they contain regulatory basis for national legislations, he explained.

As for the standards of the European regulatory framework, the professor singled out as the most important one the separation of media system from the influence of government, politics and other power centers, that is creating an environment where editorial independence and independence of the media can exist as a precondition for a free and democratic public sphere. As for other standards, Veljanovski stated the following ones as very important: the establishment of media market (which Serbia did not have during socialism, while in the 1990s the market was very chaotic and unregulated); free establishment of print media without permits (unlike in the case of broadcast media); the establishment of an independent regulatory body for broadcasting; the establishment of radio and TV stations according to the law; the establishment of dual ownership model; the transformation of the state radio and television into public service broadcaster; the ownership transformation (privatization) of state-owned and socially-owned media; and respect of the entire set of human rights - not only the right to be informed and the right to freedom of speech, but other rights as well, because if human rights are not featured in the media, they will not be fulfilled in the best way, the professor concluded.

Professor Veljanovski then explained the development of media laws in Serbia since 2000. He said that the changes to regulation and the creation of new laws were at first primarily initiated by civil society, including media and journalists' associations. The first result of this initiative were the Law on Broadcasting from 2002 and the Law on Public Information from 2003. Veljanovski reminded the students that three new laws were adopted in August 2014: the Law on Public Information and Media, the Law on Electronic Media (that replaced the Law on Broadcasting) and the Law on Public Service Broadcasters.

At the end of his lecture, professor Veljanovski stated the most important features of the Serbian media system: the adoption of media laws that contain European principles, but also slow and inconsistent implementation of media laws; inconsistent changes to media laws and the creation of regulatory confusion; prolonged chaos in the broadcasting spectrum until 2006; the fact that media privatization has not been completed (we still have the problem of state ownership in the media although the laws from 2002 and 2003 already envisaged privatization, Veljanovski noted); slow establishment of the media market; slow transformation of the state radio-television into a public service broadcaster; uncertain future of many media, particularly media of national minorities; slowed down technological development (digital switchover was initially planned for 2012); political influence on the media is still visible; corruption in the media; the fact that the Media Strategy (of 2011) still keeps a set of issues open. As the last feature, Veljanovski stated his opinion that the latest media laws, adopted in 2014, are at the same time a step forward and a step backward for the media sphere.

Media Laws in Serbia and European Standards

What are European standards? Are these standards of the EU or the Council of Europe? Starting from these questions, assisstant professor Dejan Milenković explained important difference between the obligatory nature of the documents adopted by the EU and the Council of Europe. A significant share of European standards is contained in the Council of Europe documents, primarily in its resolutions and recommendations. These documents have moral importance, but are not obligatory for states, while directives and regulations of the EU are obligatory for member states, Milenković said.

The most important document of the Council of Europe pertaining to media systems is the Convention on Transfrontier Television, ratified by Serbia, which means that Serbia has to respect contractual obligations stemming from the Convention.

A document of the Council of Europe that is obligatory for the states that ratify it is the Europan Convention on Human Rights. It is important because it contains the list of the first generation of human rights, freedom of expression included, and a part of the Convention is dedicated to the mechanism important for the media sphere - transnational mechanism of the protection of freedom of expression personified in the European Court of Human Rights. The court has excellent case law pertaining to the Article 10 of the European Convention. Article 10 is the basis of media freedom, freedom of expression and public information, including a part of the case law pertaining to the media, Milenković explained.

As for the EU directives, standards they contain have to be adapted and transferred to the legislation of member countries and further elaborated. Directives, conventions and recommendations contain general views, that is principles that member countries elaborate within their legal systems based on the respective features of these legal systems, Milenković said.

The EU, primarily through its directives, as obligatory documents for its member states, created a part of standards pertaining to broadcast media, that is audio-visual content and audio-visual market, as the latter is one of the most important markets of the EU. Since Serbia is on the path to becoming a full member of the EU, it has began to implement standards stemming from the directive, Milenković explained.

When we launched the first media system reform in Serbia in the period 2000-2003, we took into account all the recommendations pertaining to the media and we tried to build the Law on Broadcast Media and the Law on Public Information on the basic principles contained in the recommendations, Milenković explained. European standards were built into our legal system with the laws from 2002 and 2003. The elaboration of these principles was fairly good, but the problem arose in the implementation of the laws, he said. For example, already in 2003 the Law on Public Information envisaged media privatization, but the privatization has not happened to this day. „The existence of good standards is not enough. It is necessary that the state is prepared to implement these standards fully, correctly and in the spirit of the law", Milenković concluded.

Implementation of Media Law in Practice and European Standards

Attorney-at-law Slobodan Kremenjak explained that Serbia aligns its legislation with the standards of the Council of Europe and the EU because this is envisaged by the Serbian Constitution and international treates signed by Serbia and ratified by its National Parliament. He also said that the Serbian Constitution directly refers to international standards of human rights - it is said in the Constitution that provisions on human rights in Serbia, including the right to freedom of expression, will be implemented in accordance with the international practice and will be interpreted and implemented in the manner they are interpreted and implemented by international bodies in charge of monitoring their implementation.

More precisely, regarding Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - it is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the case law of this court pertaining to the implementation of the Article 10 of the European Convention that is a part of standards that our Constitution obliges us to align with. However, this practice is rarely applied by Serbian courts. As for the Council of Europe, Serbia is its member, and it is recommended that it respects the standards defined by the Council of Europe documents, Kremenjak said. When it comes to standards, recently adopted media laws in Serbia are a step forward in harmonization with the European regulation, but it remains to be seen how the laws will be implemented in practice as it is not enough that laws are good - it is also important that they are properly implemented.

Practice is a bigger problem than regulation in Serbia, Kremenjak said and stated the following - for example, freedom of expression may be only exceptionally limited under the following conditions: if the law prescribes it, if it is with the aim of protecting a legitimate interest, and if it is truly necessary in a democratic society (the issue of proportionality). All the three conditions must be fulfilled. The biggest problem in practice is recognizing what is necessary in a democratic society regarding freedom of expression, and to ensure proportionality of possible limitations. Failure to implement the law (and its poor implementation) was one of the biggest problems with the old media laws - for example, media privatization has not been completed, the media did not have equal conditions in the market, there was no control of state aid, although this was prescribed or guaranteed by law. This significantly hampered the development of media sector because of the failure to create a functional, competitive market that would enable financial stability and independence of the media. Hence many problems in the media sector. The new laws prescribe clear rules regarding the right to competition and the control of the state aid, in accordance with European standards. Their consistent implementation can lead to the improvement of the situation in the media sector. Therefore, in order to fulfill European standards in the realm of freedom of expression, it is important not only to have good laws, but also to implement them and to do it properly, Kremenjak concluded.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, the experts answered students' questions pertaining to reporting on minors, withdrawal of the state from media ownership, censorship and self-censorship in the media.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders. 

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders. 

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia. 

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.  

Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene - Report for October 2014

Freedom of expression - The report analyzes two cases of pressures on journalists: non-transparent denial to issue an accreditation for covering military parade to Miroljub Mijuskovic, acting editor-in-chief of „Dnevnik" - the reason justifying the decision was an alleged negative security assessment; the second case concerns pressures by the prime minister and his associates against Olja Beckovic, the author of the program „Utisak nedelje" - in October, the journalist spoke publicly about the pressures, and the report points with this case to the thin line between what may consitute private communication or a contact with a journalist to a politician and an undue influence on editing and conduncting a program to a journalist. In the section on court proceedings the report analyzes the decision of the High Court in Belgrade to adopt the appeal of Dusan Stojic, Nenad Nenkovic and Milorad Bosnjak, who used to report from the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1990s for „Vecernje novosti", against the decision of the First Basic Court in Belgrade from 2013 rejecting their indictment for a criminal offence false reporting,against Nadezda Gace, Jelka Jovanovic and Miomir Brkic, all from the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (IJAS - NUNS)

Implementation of existing laws - The Law on Public Information and Media - regarding violation by daily „Blic" of the presumption of innocence of actor Goran Jevtic, the report notes frequent disregard for this legal and ethical obligation of journalists and inadequate legal provisions sanctioning such cases; the report particularly analyzes whether stating criminal charges constitute news; the report authors also stress key findings of the regular yearly report of the European Commission on the Serbia's progress pertaining to the media sector situation; the authors also cover the issue of distribution of budgetary means for public information at the local level after the adoption of new media laws, starting with a case in the city of Nis; The Law on Electronic Media - the subject of the analysis is the legal solution allowing owners of media content distribution networks to simulateneously be providers of audio-visual media services; the reason is the removal of B92 Info channel from analogue cable offer of SBB.

Adoption of new laws - Regarding drafting of the new Advertising Law, the report notes that state advertising in the media is one of the issues that the new law should regulate.

Work of competent authorities - The report analyzes the activities of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media, more precisely the Body's Council's interpretative release regarding the implementation of certain provisions of the Law on Electronic Media that regulate audio-visual commercial communications, and the Council's release on the specific international standard that will guide the regulator in the control of volume balance of all programs. The releases clarify the manner in which the regulator will implement certain provisions of the Law on Electronic Media until a relevant bylaw is adopted, which is very important for the functioning of the media. As for the state bodies, the subject of the report's analysis was the work of the Parliamentary Committee on Culture and Information, more precisely the procedure of the adoption of the report on the work of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media, as well as the failure to hold a Committee session on the freedom of media. The conclusion is that the activities of the Committee in the period covered by the report did not contribute to the improvement of the situation in the media sector.  

Digitalization process - The report points to continued problems of the media in the process of digitalization.

Privatization process - Commenting on the statements of privatization opponents from the media sector, the report authors stress the importance of carrying out privatization for solving the problem of undue influence on the media.

In the Report conclusion the authors analyze the media situation in Serbia in the context of the regular yearly report of the European Commission on Serbia's progress that includes the findings about the situation in the media sector as well.

57th Monitoring Report was produced by the expert team of the ANEM legal department, Law Office "Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English is available for download here below.

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia. 

Round table "Relationship between Media and Judiciary", organized by ANEM on 30 October 2014 in Belgrade, gathered 30 representatives of judiciary, media and journalists' organizations, media outlets, NGOs, responsible authorities, international organizations, donors and other interested parties.

ANEM organized this round table because it is of opinion that the implementation of reforms in the media sector, creation of a more favorable media environment and the improvement of the media and journalists' position requires finding solutions for the problems that have been a burden to the media sector for a while. Among the problems are those of the mutual relationship between the media and the judiciary. Therefore, the aim of the event was to initiate dialogue between the media sector and the judiciary about the said problems and possible ways of overcoming them, and with the aim to contribute to the establishment of constructive cooperation between the media and the judiciary.

The Round Table was organized within ANEM project "Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene", financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders and the Open Society Foundation, Serbia. 

Case-law as a source of media law in Serbia

Judge Dragica Popesku, PhD, first pointed out that in Serbia courts reach decisions based on the Constitution, laws and other general acts when envisaged by law, according to widely accepted rules of the international law and international treaties, in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia that guarantess independence of courts. Case law in Serbia is not a formal source of law according to the Constitution, althought it practically becomes so when courts use a certain court decision as a model for future acting, that is when they apply legal solution from the decision as a rule upon which they resolve further cases. In the case of a legal vacuum - when certain life situations are not covered by a legal norm, or when a situation is regulated by norms of the same rank, but different content, which are in mutual collision, such situations are resolved by setting rules most appropriate for given cases. In the situation when a court creates law and when a certain court decision in fact creates a new norm, a rule often emerges that other judges and courts decide to act upon.

However, the key question that arises then is how justified it is to use case law as a source of law, and whether it is should be allowed to a court to apply only formally recognized sources of law and to each judge to interpret and apply the law in the manner in which he/she understands and interprets it. Namely, it could happen that later regulation brings a change with an entirely different solution, which creates a problem as some decisions will be annuled while they have been confirmed until then, and this causes legal insecurity. Even greater problem arises by creation of so called negative case law, that is taking as a model decisions based on wrong interpretation of existing norms, when such interpretation is later changed and a new stance is taken. This issue also pertains to a case when a court stance is correct from the point of view of the interpretation of a legal norm since uncertainty remains if a judge is obliged to act upon the stance or upon a precedent (a judgment which for the first time solves a particular case that will oblige courts further on to act in the same manner in future disputes containing the same or similar case - the source of law in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system), or a judge can act upon his/her discretion or personal understanding, that is understanding of a legal norm, and whether this creates legal insecurity or it shows that each case is a separate matter, although a norm regulating such situation is unique with its strict content and it is generally binding, but interpreted differently.

Judge Popesku further stated that that a stance passed by a general session of a civil deparment of a court is binding for the court, but not for a court of a lower rank. However, in reality stances of court practice are applied en masse, particularly those of high courts, for the simple reason to prevent annulment of decisions of judges of lower courts. However, there is always the issue of correctness of decisions made in a such a manner or the correctness of the stance a court of higher instance assumes, because it happens that norms are not properly interpreted even then. Judge Popesku stated the example of the right to appeal for indemnity of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in the case of breach of the right to privacy - the right to privacy or the right to personal records, based on the Article 46 of the Law on Public Information from 2003. She said that the stance of the case law that non-pecuniary damage due to the breach of personality rights in the media should be low and that every breach of personality rights equals damage is wrong becuase our positive law does not say so; she deemed inaccurate the interpretation of the provision of the Article 46 of the Law on Public Information stating that in the case of the breach of the right to private life one can demand indemnity of non-pecuniary damage by appealing against the editor of the media only (and not against the founder - media publisher, or journalists as information authors) because they are jointly responsible, and that the indemnity may be requested without establishing whether the damage was incurred because the indemnity of non-pecuniary damage can be fulfilled only if the damage exists.

Finally, judge Popesku stated that the new Law on Public Information and Media unified the responsibility of editors, journalists and media publishers for indemnity of damage incurred by publishing information the publishing of which is forbidden by this law. She also said that it may be useful if future law (de lege ferenda) envisages possibility that the aggrieved party requests compensation for the mere breach of the right, as a declarative establishment of the breach, in which case the monetary compensation would not be of significant importance, while the indemnity of non-pecuniary damage, if the damage really exists (which would be established in court proceedings), could be awarded as a significant sum of money in order to present an adequate satisfation.

Relationship between media and judiciary from the point of view of judiciary

Judge Omer Hadžiomerović pointed out that the similarity of media and judiciary is in the fact that they both have control function over the authorities. Media also control judiciary, which is an important role of the media as judiciary is the only branch of government that is not controlled by two other branches. Independence of the media and judiciary is necessary for the performance of the control function. Additionally, the media perform this function successfully to the extent that they present public opinion - the problem arises when they merely form public opinion, Hadžiomerović said.

Relationship between the media and judiciary depends on their lack of bias, professionalism, expertise and public trust they enjoy, Hadžiomerović thinks. The important question is how media behave when reporting on specific court cases or developments within judiciary that are of public importance. There is often a problem of understanding the truth, which the media and courts are tasked with establishing, because court truth and media truth do not necessarily have to be the same since different methods are used to arrive at it. Thus the public is often presented with one view by the media and another in court proceedings, he said.

According to Hadžiomerović, media have the right to comment on court proceedings, but the question is how they do it (starting from the vocabulary they will use). He is often of the impression that journalists comment on some court decisions without having read them or without having followed the court proceedings. As for reporting information from trials, media should not impart only basic information, but the information has to be processed in order to get additional quality, it should be placed into context, which all requires the knowledge of court proceedings, functioning of the court system, its obligations and problems - not only so that journalists would pose questions to a court, but also to those who comment on court proceedings, particularly representatives of the other two branches of government. Otherwise, ignorance is easily manipulated, said the judge Hadžiomerović.

Hadžiomerović is of opinion that the role of judges is to help media, to point the media attention to problems of public interest. Also, in order for the media to help judiciary and vice versa, it is very important that judiciary understands the problems of the media, starting from the basic one - what information they need. When courts fail to supply some information to journalists, the journalists will look for it in other places, and that is how the courts sometimes contribute to unobjective reporting, Hadžiomerović concluded and stressed the need for the courts to open up towards the media.

Relationship between media and judiciary from the point of view of the Public Prosecutor's Office

Goran Ilić explained three angles of viewing the relationship between the Public Prosecutor's Office and the media. The first angle pertains to the range of information that the Prosecutor's Office can offer to the media regarding criminal proceedings. There are often misunderstandings with the media in this domain, said Ilić. Regarding this issue, he explained that the Public Prosecutor's Office practice is based on three important criteria. The first criterion is determined by the Law of Free Access to Information of Public Importance that defines situations in which the Prosecutor's Office and other bodies involved in criminal proceedings are not in a position to provide information. These limitations should enable unhindered course of preliminary and criminal proceedings and it is established for each individual case whether public prosecutor may offer certain information to the media. The second criterion is privacy. Regarding provision of information pertaining to criminal proceedings there has to be a balance between public interest (to know certain information from the criminal proceedings) and the need to protect privacy. One should bear in mind that there are several levels of the privacy protection. Persons of general interest to the public, such as politicians and public office holders, enjoy the least degree of privacy protection, while there are persons who enjoy absolute privacy protection, such as parties in criminal proceedings. In the latter case, the Prosecutor's Office should avoid providing personal information about these persons. The third criterion is the presumption of innocence, which is the basic principle guiding the Public Prosecutor's Office in providing information from criminal proceedings, Ilić explained.

The second angle of viewing the relationship between the Public Prosecutor's Office and the media is the media reporting on the Prosecutor's Office, on the topics important for explaining the work of public prosecutors in specific cases or the work of the Public Prosecutor's Office in general. The example of this is the situation in which the Public Prosecutor's Office found itself after the new Criminal Code came into force recently - numerous competencies were shifted from the courts to public prosecutors although there are not enough resources (personnel and funds), due to which proceedings are mainly inefficient. Also, another problem is that prosecutors and their deputies are overburdened with numerous cases. Additionally, the problem is the manner of electing prosecutors, as defined by the Constitution. However, as Ilić said, these issues are hardly ever mentioned in the media.

The third angle pertains to the relation between freedom of expression and the protection of human rights. Defamation was decriminalized in Serbia recently, while many other crimes agains dignity and reputation remained in the Criminal Code, which Ilić thinks is an absurd situation. He presumes that decriminalization of defamation was motivated by the protection of freedom of expression. „Has decriminalization of defamation contributed to better quality of the freedom of expression? I am afraid not", said Ilić adding that wrong conclusions regarding this issue are suggested to the public - for instance, one could hear, particularly from journalists, that defamation is not common in the European case law, which is not so, said Ilić and explained that the case law of the European Court for Human Rights features numerous judgments indicating that punishment for defamation is an intervention necessary in a democratic society (with many limitations, naturally). Unfortunately, we face defamation in our criminal proceedings daily, said Ilić and expressed his concern that decriminalization of defamation in Serbia was premature for our legislation and that it has not produced good results. As Ilić said, it seems that the balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of other human rights, such as the right to reputation, honor, dignity - has shifted at the expense of the latter rights of individuals.

Tabloidization of media and judiciary

Vukašin Obradović expressed his opinion that the phenomenon of tabloidization is extremely important for the judiciary, judges and prosecutors because the tabloids ruin the reputation of the judiciary. They assume the roles of the prosecution and courts - they „sue" and „pronounce judgments" even before the institutions perform their role, said Obradović adding that this consitutes a system of pressure on the work of the prosecution and judiciary. Journalism profession takes measures against such media reporting, Obradović said, but his impression is that those who are real victims of such „journalism" - primarily judges and prosecutors - do not voice their concern regarding this problem.

Another problem that Obradović pointed out is that some media outlets have preferential treatment by individuals in the judiciary. Tabloids could not exist if they did not receive from the judiciary, the police and other institutions information that should not be made public, he said and added that he did not notice that judiciary initiates internal investigations to establish how such information is made public.

Obradović concluded that tabloidization is a very serious problem that Serbian judiciary and the media should face because dialogue about it is persistenly being avoided.

Zorana Delibašić, judge of the Appellate Court in Belgrade, asked how tabloidization can be prevented and what judiciary can do towards this goal. She also stated her idea that every judge who has a case of public interest could revise it with the court spokerperson and thus offer some good topics to the media. The media mainly insist on criminal proceedings featuring very well-known names, but there are also „simple" topics of interest to ordinary citizens that the media could report on, but they do not do it properly, said Delibašić and cited as an example the topic of protecting marginalized groups from discrimination and the topic of family violence. She said that she had not encountered media reporting about court proceedings in such cases, involving, for instance, information that a court extended protection to a family violence victim.

Vukašin Obradović responded that courts and the Prosecutor's Office can fight tabloidization by being fully open towards the media within legal limits, and that they should also take responsibility for so-called „leaking" of information that influences public perception of judiciary and court proceedings. Therefore the courts must establish a precise limit which they may reach in communication with the public and they must hold responsible judges and prosecutors who exceed this limit, Obradović said.

Answering the question of Vesna Miljuš, judge of the High Court in Belgrade, who asked what the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia (NUNS) does about tabloidization, Obradović explained that two mechanisms are at its disposal. One mechanism are courts of honor in journalists' associations, that are, according to his opinion, an obsolete form of protecting journalism profession. The other is self-regulation, more precisely the Press Council, the body only four years old, that decides through its Complaints Committee if the journalists' ethical code is violated. However, Obradović added, an additional problem is that tabloidization in Serbia is not only a professional, but also political issue.

Media and judiciary - partners or opponents?

In his speech, Nedim Sejdinović first addressed the problems that are common to the media and the judiciary. He said that problems in the media and in the judiciary are featured prominently in reports assessing the state of human rights in Serbia or the progress in the EU integration process and they are recognized as a hindering factor in improving social, political and economic situation in the country. Further on, what they hold in common is that they can be the most important corrective factor or an obstacle to the abuse of power, while if abused, they can be one of the most significant leverages for uncontrolled exercise of power, he said. They also hold in common frequent and cursory assessment by citizens that they are the cause of or the main culprit for social and political turbulence, Sejdinović said and added that they are merely the most visible parts of a much more serious social and political problem. He stated his opinion that the worryingly high level of mistrust of citizens in courts and the Prosecutor's Office are a consequence of media reporting that is evidently under government control.

However, as Sejdinović said, media and judiciary are natural partners in the fight against numerous social deviations, such as crime, corruption, abuse of power etc, and their relationship is much more complex than mere reporting about court proceedings and judgments. Media can put pressure towards fostering the work and professionalization of judicial institutions and strengthening their independence by means of passing systemic laws; they can educate citizens about court proceedings and functioning of the judiciary in general; and they can also act preventively, by creating the environment and value system in which crime and corruption will be socially undesirable.

Drastic violation of ethical standards in the media has become a rule, particularly lack of respect for presumption of innocence, Sejdinović said. However, one should not neglect the insufficient education of journalists about the work of the judiciary, the fact that many media outlets do not have the capacity to professionally report on court proceedings and developments in the judiciary, and corruption in some tabloid media, he said.

As for the relation of judiciary towards media, Sejdinović thinks that the publicity of the work of courts is not only a legal obligation, but also the best way for the protection of judiciary. However, judiciary in Serbia more often defends itself from the media than it opens itself up to the media, he said. Sejdinović thinks that judiciary should undertake a series of steps, including spokespersons choosing the cases that could be interesting to the public and devising a strategy for accessing the media with the information about such cases. Good relationship with the media also means knowing routines and problems they face daily, including their lack of competence or lack of beat journalists that could cover judiciary, Sejdinović said.

The media can be a tool in the hand of the authorities for the fight with the judiciary, while the courts can be a tool for the fight against insubordinate media and media freedoms, Sejdinović said and added that there are numerous examples of this, while the most telling is the one from late 1990s pertaining to the implementation of the draconian Law on Public Information that brought some media to the verge of existence and shut down some media outlets.

Discussion

Judge Omer Hadžiomerović pointed out as interesting the question of who should and could act towards preventing tabloidization and related phenomenon of „leaking" information. He said that journalists' associations do act, while within judiciary only the Judges' Association acts as there is no institutional framework for such action. He also noted that the role of the prosecution has changed with the new Criminal Code and that, therefore, the role of the prosecution in relation to the media should also change - while the prosecution used to be a party in court proceedings, it is now also a body leading investigation and it should act towards the media accordingly.

Zorana Delibašić, a judge of the Appellate Court in Belgrade, asked the NUNS president Vukašin Obradović what the role is of the self-regulatory body and what journalism profession can do to improve the quality of the media and stop tabloidization. Obradović explained the structure and the work of the Press Council and stressed that the Council is in the process of establishing itself as a self-regulatory body as it is only four years old. He said that the goal is that the media publish decisions of the Press Council's Committee on the violation of journalists' code of ethics because that is the way to raise awareness among citizens on deciding which media outlet to turn to, and it is up to the media outlets to decide whether they will change. Apart from the Press Council and court appeals, there are no additional mechanisms, said Obradovič and pointed out that what the media and the judiciary can do jointly is to try to protect journalism profession from those who violate the ethical code, and the judiciary can tackle the issue of information „leaking". Nedim Sejdinović of NDNV added that the importance of the Press Council is increasingly recognized judging by the increasing number of appeals filed to it; however, the media often do not publish the decisions of the Press Council's Committee. He also stated that the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media is in charge of the regulation of electronic media.

Judge Dragica Popesku said that education would be a solution for journalists who are not trained enough to report from courtrooms, but that education of judges who deal with media cases is also needed and it should be focused on journalism and communicology. This means that media and judiciary should cooperate and organize joint events where journalists could present their problems and ask judges and prosecutors how to solve them, and where media and judiciary could exchange experiences. Several participants positively reacted to the idea of education considering it needed, and thus the need for education surfaced as the key conclusion of the event. ANEM Coordinator Jasna Milanović said that ANEM had recognized the need for education early on and that this event was organized with education in mind, as well as that ANEM plans, through a series of round tables, to continue to work on the education and strengthening judiciary and media for conducting mutual dialogue and solving problems in their relationship.

Nedim Sejdinović of NDNV asked the lawyers present at the event for their opinion on whether it is good that NDNV recommends its members who are sued for their articles to turn to the Press Council, as NDNV is of the opinion that a defendent in a court proceedings could be helped if the Press Council decided that he/she did not violate the ethical code. Judge Dragica Popesku explained that the respect for the ethical code does not mean da respect for personality was not violated. Even if the published information is true, journalist must pay attention to the type of information. If it pertains to the right to privacy, no matter the fact that it is true, it can be painful and harmful for the person in question, it could be information that must not be made public due to the interest of criminal proceedings, or the information may influence the public opinion in the environment where the person lives or works, said Popesku. A recommendation to a journalist to apologize for a violation may be productive with respect to reducing the compensation for the damage, particularly non-pecuniary damage, in a proceedings before a civil court, said Popesku. However, she added that the fact that it is established that someone did not violate the ethical code does not mean that a court will not establish a violation of a right.

Judge Omer Hadžiomerović stated his opinion that it is not good that defamation was decriminalized and that courts contributed to such a development. He is of opinion that reputation, as a social value, deserves criminal protection, and that the problem arose not in the law itself, but in the manner the courts interpreted it and implemented it in media-related cases. His opinion is that judges need to be educated, that they need to be informed about judgments of the European Court for Human Rights and that they should not interpret norms literally, which is often the case.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders.

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia. 

Report for September 2014 - Legal monitoring of the Serbian media scene

In September 2014, according to the monitoring team, the media sector was marked by debates about narrowing of debating space about issues of public interest in Serbian media. How and why the debates marked the sector is analyzed in the Report Conclusion.

Pressures, threats and attacks on journalists and the media were not in short supply in September. Several of such cases are analyzed in the Report section on freedom of expression. The analyzed cases are the following: threats on the Facebook to journalists of the portal „Juzne vesti" in Nis and a verbal attack by Deputy Mayor of Nis against a „Juzne vesti" journalist; pressure by a local official on the news portal „SOinfo" in Sombor due to comments on the portal's forum. Both cases open up the question of the treatment of user comments on social networks and Internet forums, e.g. the question of responsibility of the media for the content of such comments, as treated by the Serbian law. The Report authors answer these questions. Apart from those two cases, the following cases were also analyzed: pressure on the printing press „Grafoprodukt" in Novi Sad, e.g. closing down of printing press and blocking of its bank account that is possibly related to articles published in one of the weeklies printed by it; physical attacks on a photo-journalist of daily „Blic" and on the B92 media company building during Pride parade in Belgrade; conflict between TV B92 and Olja Bećkovic and discontinuation of the program „Utisak nedelje" on TV B92. In the section on court proceedings two court rulings were analyzed: the decision of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad to annul the judgment of the High Court in Novi Sad rejecting the appeal of Marija Mikovic, secretary of the Becej Association of Nature Conservation, against the newspaper „Bečejski mozaik" - this case poses the question of distinction between facts and value judgments; the judgment of the Basic Court in Valjevo obligating former Valjevo official, Dragoljub Krstic, to indemnify non-pecuniary damage caused by insult to the editor-in-chief of website Kolubarske.rs and former editor of Radio „Patak" from Valjevo.

Implementation of existing laws - The Law on Electronic Media - in relation to the decision reached by the Administrative Court in the proceedings on the lawsuit of Television K9 from Novi Sad, which decision was published on the website of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (former Republic Broadcasting Agency) and pertains to calculating fees for broadcasting of radio-television program, the Report authors analyze the provisions of the old Broadcasting Law and the new Law on Electronic Media which regulate the issue; The Law on Public Service Broadcasters - Contrary to what was expected, the Managing Board of the Radio Television of Serbia did not reach the decision on the date of issuance of the job opening competition for director general and editor-in-chief of the television, having interpreted provisions of the law in their own way. The Report authors provide their interpretation of legal provisions pertaining to the issue.

Adoption of new laws - On the occasion of the establishment of the working group by the compentent ministry for drafting the new Advertising Law, the Report authors point out the reasons why the adoption of this piece of regulation is important and necessary.

Work of competent authorities -The Report analyzed the work of state bodies, specifically the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection. On the occasion of the Right to Know Day, established in 2002, the Commissioner issued awards for the contribution to the promotion of the right to free access to information. The Report authors point to the assessment of the implementation of the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance provided by the Commissioner on the occasion of the Right to Know Day.

Digitalization process - The Report authors cover consultation meetings of the competent authorities with broadcasters' representatives from the territory of Vojvodina, Belgrade and a part of Central Serbia, as well as with interested manufacturers and dealers of TV sets - in relation to branding TV sets with a seal of warranty Digital TV.Privatization process - The Report authors analyzed the work of the Privatization Agency with respect to procedures by which the remaining publicly owned media enter privatization process, and some unofficial, disputable information pertaining to the deadline for media privatization.

56th Monitoring Report was produced by the expert team of the ANEM legal department, Law Office "Živković&Samardžić", in cooperation with ANEM.

The Summary and Conclusion of the Report in English is available for download here below. 

The full report and its sections in Serbian are available for download here.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The contents of this Report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The contents of this Report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia. 

10th issue of the ANEM publication „Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene" was presented at the round table held on 20 October 2014 in Belgrade. The Publication features articles on important media issues: new media laws, freedom of expression on the Internet, the importance of media financing for citizens and the media, and an article on the media as a channel for publicity of criminal proceedings.

The event was attended by some 40 representatives of media/journalists' associations and media, NGOs, responsible authorities, judiciary, international organizations and donors, and other interested parties.

The round table was organized within ANEM project „Legal Monitoring of the Serbian Media Scene", successfully implemented for five years now. In 2014 the project is financially supported by Civil Rights Defenders and the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

In the first part of the round table the Publication was presented by the authors: Slobodan Kremenjak, attorney-at-law (article: New Media Laws - Achievements and Future Challenges; Miloš Stojkovic from the law office „Živkovic & Samardžić", Belgrade (article: The Right to be Forgotten - Six Months of the Implementation of the ECJ Judment); Nemanja Nenadić, program director of Transparency Serbia (article: The Financing of Media); Siniša Važić, judge of the Appellate Court in Belgrade (article: Dilemmas Related to Recording and Releasing Footage from Criminal Trials). After the presentation of the articles, a discussion ensued on the issues covered in the Publication.

New Media Laws

Attorney-at-law Slobodan Kremenjak said that his article analyzed some of the key requests that media associations brought to the public debate about the adoption of the media strategy and the new media laws and that his conclusion is that a majority of these requests materialized in the new laws.

However, Kremenjak noticed a sort of a calm after the adoption of the laws. The associations have not clearly defined their further steps, although it is necessary to work on other very important issues considering that media laws are only a part of the framework for the functioning of media in a society. No matter how good media legislation is, Kremenjak noted, it is not enough to solve all the problems that media in a society face. He stated his wish that his article in the Publication be a sort of a call to renew the activities of the Media Coalition that successfully operated for several years on the changes of media regulatory framework, which brought about the adoption of new laws. It also showed that results can be achieved by clearly defining viewpoints and goals and persisting in joint endeavors.

Implemenation of the laws and defining the direction of the activities toward improving other elements of the framework for the functioning of the media in Serbia are very important in Kremenjak's view.  In his opinion, it is important that associations attempt to carve out systemic solutions that would enable better quality media and improved business environment for media industry where media currently operate with enormous losses.  

The Right to be Forgotten

Miloš Stojković from the law office „Živković & Samardžić" and a member of the monitoring team, spoke about the effects of the European Court of Justice ruling in the case Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, which pertains to so-called right to be forgotten. Stojkovic said that the ruling caused a turmoil in European countries as two human rights collided in it - the right to privacy, e.g. protection of personal data, and the protection of the right to free expression on the Internet. Stojković stressed that the right to be forgotten is not a new institute. However, the ruling of ECJ was the first time that such a high-level court regulates it. He explained that in European countries, particularly in France and Germany, the right to be forgotten has existed already, but it pertained to the rehabilitation of persons who served a prison sentence.

Explaining the case he analyzed in the article, Stojković said that a Spanish citizen requested that Google removes from its search results certain information about him, and that the information be removed from the newspaper La Vanguardia where it was originally published. Stojković noted as important that the judgment pertains to the old principle regarding personal data protection - as long as there is a consent by a private person for data processing, the data may be processed, but when the consent is withdrawn every data controller should cease processing the data. This was one of the grounds of the judment, as Stojković said, and thus the right to be forgotten was reaffirmed, e.g. the right that personal data, in this case the name and surname, be deleted from Google search results. The judgment did not interfere with the editorial responsibility of media, and thus it did not forsee the removal of the personal data from the article in La Vanguardia, Stojković explained. Moreover, the links are deleted under a geographical principle and hence they will be unavailable only on localized google services (such as those bearing the extension .uk, .es or .fr), while they remain available outside of the EU4.

Numerous organizations involved in protecting freedom of expression voiced their concern over this judgment, Stojković said. Their concern has been related to the issue of public interest and removing content from the Internet, e.g. from search results. Namely, there is a concern because Google, as a private entity, is in the position to assess whether the public has the right to know certain piece of information. As Stojković explained, the issue of public interest remains controversial in this judgment because the latter did not provide the criteria and it brought Google in the position to set them. Only some of the criteria that Google uses when excluding articles from its search results are known. They are used to assess whether information in question is in the public interest (whether the information concerns a public figure, whether it originates from reputable sources, whether it contains information on professional conduct relevant for the audience, and whether it pertains to a conviction in criminal proceedings).

Stojković also said that Google founded an Ethical committee to deal with the issue of public interest with respect to the removal of information from search results. The Committee comprises some well known individuals from the media industry, the field of personal data protection and freedom of expression - among them are an editor of Le Monde, former director of the Spanish regulatory body for data protection, and Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.

As in some cases Google did not consult the media that originally published contentious information and it simply removed the information from search results, informing the media thereof, now large media lead a campaign with the aim to be consulted before such removal from search results, Stojković explained.

Finally, Stojković said the the ECJ judgment still does not pertain to Serbia - fortunately or unfortunately. Fortunately - because it would be problematic to have one more technological means of removing unpleasant articles from politicians' past in the state of fragile media freedoms in which we live, Stojković noted and expressed his hope that by the time Serbia begins to implement the right to be forgotten it will have a well-defined practice on this issue. Unfortunately - because the right to be forgotten entails an already high degree of media freedoms, while in Serbia we still deal with some basic issues related to, for instance, censorship, self-censorship, opaque financing of media etc, Stojkovic concluded.

Responding to the Stojković's presentation, Nevena Ružić from the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection said that the key issue in the case analyzed by Stojković is whether Spanish Google was responsible or not, particularly because this search engine is not registered in Spain, but in the USA, and the question was whether the relevant directive related to a legal entity registered in the USA and whether such entity is a data controller. Ružić added that „the right to be forgotten" is now called „the right to be delisted" and it pertains only to the cases when the search is performed based on the name and surname of a person, and not based on some other personal data (such as nickname, place of birth, date of birth or a unique ID).

The Financing of Media

Nemanja Nenadić from Transparency Serbia talked about the financing of media starting from its importance for the citizens. If the basic premise is that the interest of the citizens, as media consumers, is to recieve complete, updated, objective information, then media financing is obviously a factor that can influence the selection of topics to be presented in the media, the extent to which individual topics will be covered, and the viewpoint during reporting, Nenadić said. The second reason why media financing is important for the citizens is the fact that some media are partially funded from the public budget, so the interest is obvious that we should get information on financing of media based on which we can form an opinion whether tax payers' money is spent in accordance with the law and the purpose for which it was earmarked, as well as in the most efficient way, Nenadić explained.

Nenadić then outlined different forms of media financing and some of the risks for the media independence related to them.

The first form of financing is direct payment by consumers (for example, financing newspapers from the sales) and it seems to be the model that carries the least risk for independence, said Nenadić. However, as he explained, this model does not necessarily mean that media will be independent because it is not only money that creates dependence. Media need information (that will be processed and presented to the audience) and the information is not always easy to aquire by regular means. What is more, the unknown information, that is not available to all, is particularly valuable for the media, and thus the newspapers can be sold with the help of information from the sources „close to the government" or „close to the investigation".

Media are also financed by advertising, where there is also danger to independence, Nenadić explained. The first reason is that advertisers are interested that their products, companies, business policy etc. is reported on in positive terms, or at least not in negative terms. This is where the danger arises of aspirations to buy not only media space, but also media information space. This is particularly visible in political advertising. The second factor that can significantly influence media independence is the lack of balance of forces in the Serbian market, in Nenadić's opinion, where the advertisers can condition the media by deciding not to place advertising in them. What additionally aggravates the fulfillment of the media independence is the role of an intermediary where the media are not dependent only on one large advertiser, but on all its partners and thus their reporting may hurt the interests of intermediaries, such as a marketing agency through which advertising is conducted.

Nenadić is of opinion that even donations, as a form of media financing, may influence media independence, primarily in the choice of topics to be covered, considering that in a certain period a certain topic can be „popular" with donors, which could lead to the media reporting about it more than they would do otherwise and neglecting other, equally important topics.

Financing by the state is usually considered the most problematic, Nenadić said and outlined the forms of such financing. Direct budgetary funding, the model that will be abandoned with the new legislative changes, has the gravest consequences for independence as it directly creates dependence; this mainly depends on the integrity of those leading media outlets, Nenadić said. The second form of budgetary financing is project-based, envisaged by the new media laws, where the risks are similar as in the case of donations - they pertain, primarily, to the choice of topics to be covered (what will be defined as a priority during a certain year, how much money will be earmarked for each of the public interests defined by the Law on Public Information and Media), but there are other risks, as well, Nenadić said. One of those is defining criteria for allocating funds. The law says that the criteria are defined for each individual call for proposals, so we still do not know what the criteria will look like. Nenadic expects this to be clearer with the adoption of a relevant bylaw and hopes that the situation will be avoided where different criteria are defined for each individual call for proposals. There are other forms of state aid, apart from budgetary financing - these are, for instance, financing in kind, giving preferential treatment for the import of raw material, lower taxes, debt reschedulling (a frequent form of state aid that is practically not subject to control). Also, another form of financing is when state institutions and public enterprises pay the media for services, such as advertising public procurement or property sale, which opens up numerous questions - e.g. what criteria should be used to choose a media outlet to advertise in (one could choose based on the lowest price, but it seems that it should not be the only criteria when deciding in such cases).

Nenadić said that bylaws are being awaited regarding media financing because the law left some issues unresolved. One of these is sources of media funding that are not public. Nenadic said that we now have a regulation that will introduce media ownership rules, so we will know who invested in a company that is a media outlet founder, but we will still not know who finances the media outlet. Also, the problems of buying media influence and complete lack of transparency of sources of income have not been solved. Additional problem are insufficiently developed provisions on the implementation of calls for proposals and that is where a bylaw can be very important - it should leave as little space as possible for various interpretations during its implementation, Nenadic said.

Recording and Releasing Footage from Criminal Trials

Judge Siniša Važić outlined the main points of his article in the ANEM Publication about dilemmas regarding recording and releasing footage from criminal trials. He first stated his position on the matter - that he supports releasing footage from criminal trials, although he bears in mind all the dilemmas and problems related to the topic. He then talked about the legislation that pertains to the matter, stating that there is also the issue of written consent which must exist before a footage from a trial could be broadcast. This written consent is „almost mission impossible", said Važić, because it has to be provided by all the participants in a court proceedings, and it is likely that one or more persons will not provide it. 

Regarding the influence of the media on the participants in a criminal proceedings, Važić stated as the essence of the problem the need of the legislators (if the latter decides to regulate this issue) to find the proper balance between undisputable and very important need to inform the public about the course and the content of court proceedings and the interest of the court proceedings, primarily its legality and efficiency.

As one of the problems regarding this he stated the possibility that witnesses who have not yet been heard in the proceeding may be in some way prepared for their testimony by watching the footage of the trial. They could adjust their statements, even unintentionally, by following the proceedings (the manner in which the questions are asked and what is required from the witnesses who already gave their statements). This affects the very essence of a trial, that is the proceedings and the parties in it, Važić said and added that those who are against recording and releasing footage from criminal trials say that in this way court proceedings are trivialized. The second argument against broadcasting trials is that attorneys, judges and prosecutors may become interesting to the public via media, which can influence their professional and personal life as they may become recognizable in the public, vulnerable and possibly succeptible to incovenient situations, including provocations and threats, Važić said.

One of the issues that ought to be solved, said Važić, is the issue of the choice of trials to be recorded and broadcast and the issue of who should make such a choice. He suggested one solution - that media outlets decide individually what trial is interesting for them. Another option is to include the public or a public body (which could be comprised of representatives of judges', prosecutors' and lawyers' organizations) in the selection of trials, with the presence of media outlets and with the help of independent media experts, Važić said.

Regarding the influence of the media on the public in the criminal proceedings, Važić said that the media are already present in court proceedings and they impart to the public what they hear and see there. The question is whether to curtail the possibility to those who were not present in the courtroom to hear and see the same as those that were present, Važić said. Is the unavoidable selection of information by journalists needed, and is it not enough to let cameras do that, he asked and gave the example of broadcasted parliamentary sessions where viewers often see as important information different than that reported by the media.

Recording and releasing court proceedings would make the work of the courts and judiciary on the whole more transparent and it could help assess the work of the judges, their conduct and attitude towards work; it would be a chance to acquaint oneself better with judiciary and judicial branch of government in general, which would make judiciary more understandable and accessible to ordinary citizens; this certainly has an educational element, Važić said.

As for the influence of the public on court proceedings and justness thereof, Važić said that the public can have a certain influence on court proceedings and that possible consequences regarding the legality and justness of court proceedings depend on many factors. The latter are, in his opinion, the number of reports on the court proceedings in the media, the degree of objectivity in reporting, statements by public figures, and especially politicians and political parties, particularly those in power, regarding a court proceedings. In the latter case, politicians or other influential public figures may state that a person is undoubtedly a perpetrator of a crime although only the charges have been pressed against the person or the investigation has only been initiated; they may also state that a court proceedings will be completed by a certain deadline. Such claims not only directly violate the presumption of innocence of the defendant, but may also undermine the lawfulness of the criminal proceedings.

The impression that the public may influence the course of the trials and the outcome thereof becomes even greater when the courts start making "expectative" rulings, after being exposed to justified and unjustified criticism (often inappropriate and containing foul language) in a situation where a decision adopted by the court is not "liked" by the public. These are typically decisions to release someone from custody, which are usually interpreted as freeing the defendant from all charges; or the decision to postpone a hearing or inappropriate commenting the severity of a prison sentence. The public typically looks for the reasons for such rulings and decisions in "illegal" and "unfair" views and conclusions of the court, explained as corruption, political bias of the judges, negligence and incompetence. The legitimacy of the courts' arguments is seldom accepted. The consequence is that the courts may begin to make decisions that satisfy the wishes and views of the public, primarily the "lay" public, while not excluding the "political public", Važić said. Naturally, the key element for concluding if such pressure really exists is the "degree of resistance" of the courts to such perceived or actual influences, Važić commented. It is easy to conclude that all the aforementioned actors of this important public work - the judiciary in particular, followed by the media and the politicians - must strengthen their professional capacity and integrity.

As for the trust in the work of the judiciary, Važić said that there is no dilemma that Serbian judiciary has been in a crisis for a while. One of important questions is to what degree citizens trust their judiciary, and the response is predictably unfavorable for the judiciary.

As one of the remedies that could boost the healing process and restore at least part of the trust in the judiciary is, in Vazic's opinion, the introduction of cameras in the courtrooms, namely the filming and broadcasting of certain trials. He is convinced that it would help the public get to know better not only the work of the courts and judges, but also prosecutors, attorneys, court experts, the police and various agencies and inspectorates; in a nutshell, all those appearing in court proceedings. It would be an opportunity to have better insight in their work and contribution to the successful completion of trials, Važić said.

Stating the examples of countries which allow recording and releasing footage from trials, such as the U.S.A, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some European countries, such as Norway, Važić said that it would be good for Serbia to take a courageous step towards allowing cameras in courtrooms.  Pilot project and ensuing analyses could help us reach conclusions on such trials, he said and added that it presupposes a form of education of all participants in a proceedings, including media. He noted that there would be certain limitations because the trials would not be broadcast live, so the necessary trimmings would trigger the questions of bias towards certain party, but Važić is of opinion that such issues are to be dealt with on the go.

Finally, Važić said that trust in the judiciary and the rule of law is, after all, one of priorities on the road to the European Union and that nothing will build trust in the courts better than transparency and openness.

Judge Omer Hadžiomerović commented that direct broadcasting of trials is „naked" information, while the public requires added value to the information, provided by journalists who either posses their own knowledge to do so or they consult experts in order to present the information to the public that can help them see a broader context. He also said that it is not enough that the public watches a trial, it has to understand it. However, in practice, a viewer will skip some parts of the televised trial and will not understand the entire proceedings, said Hadžiomerović and addedd that he thinks that the media have a special role and importance in bringing the judiciary closer to the public and that there is a room for cooperation between the judiciary and the media regarding giving information to the media and educating journalists about trials. He emphasized the role of professional associations in this - journalists' and judges' associations. Replying to Hadžiomerović, judge Važić said that the question if the citizens will understand court proceedings well is valid, but that the essence of the matter is something else - whether citizens should have the right and the opportunity to be present at a trial since a trial is a general public good.

Dragan Kremer from the Open Society Foundation, Serbia, said that, from the contemporary view on the media, it is not about „broadcasting" the trials (because in this case we talk about traditional media), but it is about the access to information for the public. He said that it is not necessary to broadcast sessions of the parliament and thus „sacrifice" one channel of the public service broadcaster. Instead, the footage should be made available on the website of the Parliament, and the same goes for the courts. The footage could be examined by an expert body in order to remove information that could potentially harm the course of the proceedings. Websites could additionally feature court documents, interpretations, expert opinions, anything that is needed for ordinary citizens to understand trials, Kremer said and concluded that the media should report where reporting is allowed, but that courts should be modernized so as to provide access to information to the public.

Omer Hadžiomerović noticed that comparing the work of the parliament and the court is inadequate. As he said, the parliament discusses and adopts general acts that affect all citizens, while courts decide in specific cases. The public may be interested in a specific case for various reasons, but it does not mean that trials should be televised as a viewer cannot make conclusions based on simply viewing the trial, particularly when broadcasting is fragmentary. Thus, the public will again build the trust in the courts based on media reporting, said Hadžiomerović and added that we must ask why we wish to record trials. He expressed concern that we cannot have a clear answer at present; instead, the level of legal and political culture in Serbia should be raised before we can have it.

In the opinion of Nemanja Nenadić, if an event is initially public and if anyone, at least in theory, could have been present at it, there can be no reason that could justify depriving the person of such information later. He said that we can only discuss technical aspects of recording trials (where the cameras will be positioned, whether there should be one camera or more), but the issue whether trials should be recorded is beyond debate as it stems from the public nature of trials. However, he noted that there is the issue of whether something that was public once should remain public in the future because there is a serious collision of regulation in Serbia on the matter - the regulation pertaining to publicity of trials and that pertaining to erasing information from criminal records. According to Nenadić, it is impossible to join the two principles.

10th ANEM Monitoring Publication is published on the ANEM website and available here.

This project is financially supported by the Civil Rights Defenders.

The views presented at the round table are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Civil Rights Defenders.

This project is financially supported by the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.

The views presented at the round table are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Open Society Foundation, Serbia.