Media Laws in the Network of Amendments and Changes – How the Document Traveled from the Working Group to the European Commission and Back

The government states that the adoption of media laws will meet an important condition for opening Cluster 3 in Serbia's negotiations with the European Union. The Association of Journalists of Serbia claims that the presented draft text was inaccurately portrayed as the Working Group's text, adding that the relevant ministry rejected the proposal to conduct a public discussion.

Speaking about the procedure by which the final drafts of the laws were aligned with the European Commission, given that the members of the Working Group claim they have not seen these texts, the advisor to the Minister of Information and Telecommunications, Miloš Garić, asserts that the members of the Working Group are very well informed about these three laws on public information.

He cites the example that significant public discussions regarding the laws on public information and electronic media were held in four cities back in 2023, and that the comments were incorporated into the legal solutions.

According to him, the Law on Public Media Services is of a different nature, and it has not been changed for a long time, while that Working Group operated from September to December.

"I am surprised by this statement that we have heard in recent days from certain journalistic associations, including UNS. I think these are absolutely unfounded criticisms," Garić noted.

Lawyer of the Association of Journalists of Serbia, Gordana Konstantinović, states that she was a member of two working groups, for public information and for amending the Law on Public Information in December and the Law on Public Media Services. She refuted Garić's claims and explained how that process looked.

"We were read the comments from the European Commission. We were on-site without written documentation. It looks like we see the law on a video beam and change it on the go. Some comments we would implement, and some we even refused to implement because we believed they were truly unnecessary from the perspective of our legislation. We do not know where the version presented to us is. It is not the result of the work of the Working Group, which was supposed to implement the comments of the European Commission," Konstantinović stated.

**Contradictory regarding the text presented to the Working Group for review**

The interlocutors of RTS did not agree on whether the text from the European Commission was presented to the Working Group. While Konstantinović claims that the same text was not presented, Garić says that this is not true.

"In essence, for the Law on Public Information and Media, the key comments are the new Articles 84 and 85, which regulate the presumption of innocence. These are confusing articles, and the essence is that investigative journalism is minimized. There was no need to change the provision on the presumption of innocence, which was in the law, nor to broaden or supplement anything else. The question of the presumption of innocence is also a constitutional category," explained the UNS lawyer.

She asserts that she is not sure which text was sent to the European Commission, nor which was returned, nor what was agreed upon.

**Are new public discussions necessary?**

Garić notes that it seems to him that individual journalistic associations are now more important than the recommendations of the European Commission and what the consultations and meetings with the European Commission over the past six months, led by people from the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications, were about.

"I am now surprised at what is unclear here and what they see as something new, which they know nothing about. They absolutely know everything. It seems to me that someone is now upset that we received confirmation from the European Commission that we can adopt all three laws, so that with some subsequent interpretations, criticisms, and requests for public discussions, these deadlines could be delayed, in order to follow new criticisms," Garić noted.

He believes that, due to two papers of comments, there is no need for another 20 days of discussion.

Garić and Konstantinović also have differing opinions on how much the proposal sent to Brussels actually corresponds with what was previously agreed upon.

"It is absolutely on the same track; these are the same members, only technical and legal corrections have been made. I only appeal to those people to have a little understanding and to let the law start functioning so that we can see what else needs to be done. No one is shying away from that. Everything is very transparent and open," Garić stated.

Konstantinović emphasizes that harmful provisions cannot be allowed. "Again, we are talking about Articles 84 and 85 of the Law on Public Information and Media, which are very harmful provisions and absolutely different from what the Working Group, which acted on the comments of the European Commission, determined in December during the meetings," said the UNS lawyer.

She asserts that every new proposal requires new public discussions and that those held in January were not conducted in an appropriate period due to holidays, so interest was not significant.

Garić points out that some colleagues who are now criticizing and requesting a public discussion did not attend these public discussions held in January.

Konstantinović used the example of the provisions regarding the commissioner to support her claims that the same texts were not presented to the Working Group.

"The provisions regarding the commissioner are not the same. It is very simple. You take the draft provisions that were subject to public discussion and take the new drafts, cross-reference them, and see if they are the same or not," said Konstantinović.

To this observation, Garić asked what the purpose of aligning with the European Commission is, if not for those provisions to ultimately look slightly different.

**You can watch the recording of the conversation on the RTS website.**