NUNS: The competition for the director of RTS is burdened by suspicion of a conflict of interest and double standards.

The Law on Public Media Services explicitly refers to the application of regulations on preventing conflicts of interest that relate to members of the boards of directors, in accordance with the Law on Preventing Corruption. According to Article 25, paragraph 3 of the Law on Public Media Services, an individual who cannot be a member of the Board of Directors cannot be appointed as the General Director. At the same time, the law stipulates that a person in a conflict of interest cannot be elected as a member of the Board of Directors. It is clear from these provisions that the rules on preventing conflicts of interest directly apply to the procedure for selecting the General Director.

In a situation where the Chairperson of the Board of Directors submits a candidacy for a position that is appointed by the same Board, the existence of a potential conflict of interest is openly questioned, as it involves a relationship in which the candidate may have personal benefits or influence in the decision-making process, even through the position they currently hold. We consider it unacceptable for this candidacy to be treated as undisputed without a prior clear stance from the competent institutions – primarily the Anti-Corruption Agency and the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media – regarding whether such a candidate's position constitutes a conflict of interest or not. If a conflict of interest is established, such an individual cannot be a member of the Board of Directors, and thus cannot be a candidate for General Director.

We remind you that the amendments to the Law on Public Media Services came into force on June 25, 2025, and that RTS and RTV have six months to align their acts with the law. This does not mean that the competition is prohibited until then, but it does mean that RTS is obliged to conduct the competition and election in full compliance with the amended law and to disregard all statutory provisions that are in conflict with it – including those that practically “silence” or relativize conflicts of interest.

Article 30 of the Law on Public Media Services stipulates that the Statute shall further regulate the internal organization, the manner of operation of the public media service and its bodies, the adoption of general acts, the authorities in managing the resources it operates, the procedure for appointing the General Director, the procedure and conditions for the appointment and dismissal of the editors-in-chief and media directors, and other matters significant for operation and functioning. The same article provides that the Statute must receive approval from the Council of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media – which has not existed in full composition since November 4, 2024. The competition for the director of RTS did include the minimum requirements stipulated by the new Law on Public Media Services in Article 25, but the real question is whether the selection criteria are aligned with the new standards of independence and accountability, and whether the decision regarding the appointment of the General Director will be explained and made available to the public, as explicitly mandated by Article 19, paragraph 1, point 7 and Article 24.

We also remind you of the decision by the Board of Directors of RTV to annul previously announced competitions for the program director and chief and responsible editors, made on October 7, 2025, based on the opinion of the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications dated August 15, 2025. In that opinion, the Ministry states that “the relevant decisions on announcing public competitions must be annulled” because after their adoption, a new law came into force that changed the rules for appointing program directors and editors, whereby the new text of the law does not specify how to conclude already initiated competitions. This position has been used to annul the competitions at RTV, also invoking the principle of the prohibition of retroactivity, while in the case of RTS, the same bodies have not yet commented on the numerous dilemmas surrounding the competition for the General Director.

This practice creates the impression of double standards and further undermines public trust in the management of public services. On one hand, formal-legal logic states that public services must immediately apply the law and align their acts within the allowed timeframe; on the other hand, the Ministry, through its opinion, influences the annulment of competitions at RTV, while in relation to RTS, there is a lack of clear and consistent interpretation of the same provisions.

For all of the above reasons, we believe it is essential for RTS and RTV to publicly explain how they apply the new Law on Public Media Services in the processes of selecting management and to ensure that the Boards of Directors strictly adhere to the rules on conflicts of interest and complete transparency in the competition. It is not possible to reform public media services or make them truly public if key decisions are made in an environment of legal uncertainty, political pressure, and inconsistent application of the law.

Without addressing these issues, every appointment of the General Director of RTS will be permanently burdened with doubts about its legality and legitimacy, further distancing the public service from its legal role – to be independent, professional, and accountable primarily to the citizens, rather than political power centers.

Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia