Analysis of the Selection Process for the Council of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM)

This report states that the process of selecting the REM Council has been seriously jeopardized due to widespread procedural issues and questions related to the eligibility of candidates and proposers. Although certain areas demonstrate compliance with legal standards, systemic irregularities in most groups indicate a lack of political will to elect an independent REM Council.

It is important to emphasize that at the very beginning of the election process, a new Statute of REM was adopted, containing deeply problematic provisions that declare nearly all operations of this institution as business secrets.

The process of selecting the REM Council has reached a critical phase as of January 14, 2024. The Committee for Culture and Information concluded its session on December 30, failing to resolve any issues; proposals to address conflicts of interest, non-compliance of candidates, and procedural shortcomings were rejected during voting by the ruling parties. The objections of the proposers and the proposals from opposition MPs were also dismissed, leaving all issues unresolved. Meetings with proposers and interviews with candidates are yet to be held, while the final parliamentary session for the election of Council members is unofficially scheduled for the end of January. Urgent measures are needed to adopt recommendations and ensure compliance with the law in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the REM Council, which is fundamental for media regulation, informing citizens, and holding institutions accountable.

Legitimacy of candidates and proposers:

● Of the 34 candidates, 17 do not meet legal criteria.

● Of the 121 proposers, 32 do not fulfill legal requirements, further undermining the credibility of the process.

● One of the groups of proposers – the Association of Electronic Media Publishers in the Republic of Serbia – has no legitimate candidates, necessitating a restart of the process in this domain.

Procedural irregularities:

● Systemic failures in verifying the eligibility of proposers.

● Unequal scrutiny of candidates, where some were required to submit additional documentation while others were not.

● There are credible allegations of governmental interference in the nomination process, with significant pressures recorded in 8 out of 9 areas, particularly evident among independent institutions, accredited universities, associations of film, stage, and dramatic artists, and composers, as well as journalists' associations.

● The Ministry of Information and Telecommunications issued a legal interpretation on the last day of the application deadline, December 16, 2024, interpreting that former members of the REM Council can be re-elected. This interpretation is legally unfounded as it misinterprets the provisions of the Law, and it is also procedurally problematic since it was issued too late for practical application, directly favoring candidates nominated through political pressures.

Advantages in certain areas:

● In groups of proposers from civil society organizations dealing with freedom of expression and child rights, despite political pressures, there are enough legitimate proposers to nominate two legitimate candidates from each area for the parliamentary session. The followed procedures and practices in the field of freedom of expression demonstrate compliance with legal and professional standards, providing a framework for good practice in other areas and potential future election processes.

● An additional 4 groups of proposers – independent institutions, accredited universities, associations of film, stage, and dramatic artists, and composers, and journalists' associations – continue to include legitimate proposers and candidates, despite the challenges. If there is political will, a truly independent REM can be chosen from these nominations.

Challenges in other areas:

● Procedural deficiencies, political pressures, illegitimate proposers and candidates dominate most areas, seriously affecting the transparency and fairness of the process.

The full report is available at this link.