Without opposition at the Committee meeting: The ruling majority accepted the Opinion of the Ministry on the interpretation of the Law on Electronic Media.

The Chairperson of the Committee, Nevena Đurić, stated that on June 26 of this year, she submitted a request to the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications for an Opinion on the application of the provisions of the Law on Electronic Media.

“In the request, I sought interpretation of Articles 15 and 19 of the Law concerning incompatibility with membership in the REM Council, specifically the termination of the mandate of REM Council members by dismissal,” she said.

The request also asked the Ministry to respond to whether the "obstacles identified" in Article 15 of the Law, which pertains to "incompatibility with membership in the Council," apply to elected members of the REM Council or also to proposed candidates.

As stated in the Ministry's Opinion, the Law on Electronic Media, through Article 15, establishes incompatibility with membership in the REM Council, which is binding for Council members elected in the Assembly of Serbia.

This provision concerns the members of the REM Council as public officials, in accordance with the Law on the Prevention of Corruption, which stipulates that if a public official is engaged in another job or activity at the time of assuming public office, upon election as a member of the REM Council, they are obliged to inform the relevant agency within the legally defined timeframe.

Member of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), Nataša Jovanović, stated that they received “more than clear answers” regarding the provisions that were “an obstacle in resolving dilemmas for some proposers of candidates and questioning certain candidates based on their current functions or engagements.”

“We can continue the process as soon as tomorrow and apply this Ministry Opinion based on the objections we have,” she said.

Member of the SNS, Nebojša Bakarec, mentioned that in the process concerning the election of candidates for members of the REM Council, “fifty percent of the opposition members” who are part of the Committee participated, albeit partially and actively.

“Now, there are 100 percent absent. It is not good that they did not attend the session, especially since we had discussions in the premises of the European Commission delegation and the European delegation. The conclusions from that informal yet important meeting are very significant,” Bakarec said.

He assessed it as a “scandal” that opposition representatives were not present at that meeting, as “a part of the opposition claims to be pro-European, yet they do not come to the European House.”

Bakarec noted that the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications’ Opinion “clearly states” that “the provision of Article 15 of the Law and the potential conflict of interest applies to someone who has been elected as a member of the REM Council, not to a candidate for membership in that Council.”

“Candidates have their jobs, careers, and perhaps membership on the boards of some media outlets, as well as ownership or co-ownership of media. It is not expected that these individuals destroy their careers as candidates, abandoning all jobs and careers in advance to become candidates,” Bakarec said, adding that once candidates become members of the REM Council, they are obliged to “align themselves with the law within the legally defined timeframe.”

He called on the opposition to attend the meeting of the Committee for Culture and Information tomorrow to “work together.”

Eleven members of the Committee attended the session out of a total of 17 members in that parliamentary body.