22. 06. 2012

ANEM’S REQUEST FOR REVIEWING THE PRACTICE IN APPLYING THE PUBLIC INFORMATION LAW

Belgrade, June 22, 2012 - Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) is hereby expressing its full support to its member station TV B92, which is bound, by the decision of the Appellate Court, to pay compensation of damages to a person mentioned in a police statement that was aired in program of  this television.

ANEM points out that, at a number of workshops, roundtables and conferences for media professionals and representatives of the judiciary, organized by the Association or attended by its representatives, one of the key points of discord between journalists and judges lied in the interpretation of Article 82 of the Public Information Law, which stipulates that a journalist, editor and founder of the media shall not be held liable for damage if caused by accurate transmission of a false or incomplete information from the document of the competent state authority.

Despite the specific legal provision, for ten years now, ANEM members, as well as other media in Serbia have been paying for damages which, if any, should have been paid by the state. This is particularly visible in the cases of the faithful communication of police statements.

ANEM also notes that it is unacceptable that, although the law exists and has been in force for a decade now, in practice, however, the judgments that are passed are in absolute contradiction with it. Even moreso, the same Article 82 of the Public Information Law has practically been copied from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which, in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, is binding for the Serbian courts while deciding on the human rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and which the right to freedom of expression certainly is. ANEM points out that it is unacceptable that in the same cases, in which the European Court of Human Rights found that the media and journalists, if quoting a document of the competent authorities, were not obliged to verify the accuracy of cited defamatory allegations contained in the document (which was confirmed by numerous judgments of this Court, the most famous being the Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway in 1999 and Colombani v. France in 2002), courts in Serbia however, find that, no matter that the information has been faithfully conveyed from the document of the competent authority, the reporter still owed compensation because such information to the competent authority has not been verified with due care.

ANEM is thus asking what journalists and the media in Serbia should rely upon and what are they allowed to publish, as well as how long will they be the ones who must pay damages for inaccurate information in the official documents of the state? ANEM is also asking how does the state intend to ensure public governance if the media cannot publish a statement of a ministry without fear of paying compensation for damages? Ultimately, how will the media perform the control in society and fulfill its role of a public forum for the widest debate on matters of public interest, if the verdicts are forcing them not to reveal information from the state documents in such debate.

ANEM gives its full support to TV B92, as well as to all other media in Serbia that are paying damages for the faithful communication of information from the documents of the competent authorities, and urges the Supreme Court of Cassation to determine, in line with its competence established by the Law on Courts, the governing principles for the consistent application of law, particularly the consistent application of the provisions of Article 82 of the Public Information Law, so that the same would be applied for the benefit of promoting values ​​of a democratic society, pursuant to applicable international standards of human and minority rights and practices of international institutions that supervise their implementation, in this particular case, in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

ANEM President, Sasa Mirkovic