The REM Council discussed the protest letter from four members and the Informer case.

In the protest letter signed by Dubravka Valić Nedeljković, Ira Prodanov Krajšnik, Mileva Malešić, and Rodoljub Šabić, it is stated, among other things, that Stevica Smederevac violated the Law on Electronic Media, the Code of Members of the Council, as well as the Rules of Procedure of REM.

The President of the REM Council, Stevica Smederevac, responded to the letter at the Council meeting, stating that Council members do not have a monopoly on independence and cannot demand accountability from the media for publicly expressed words while exempting themselves from that responsibility, thereby reacting to the letter from the four colleagues who accused him of inappropriate and illegal conduct.

At the REM Council meeting, Smederevac mentioned that he is more concerned about the way the work of the Council and his role are presented than about the personal accusations made in the letter. He noted that Council members Dubravka Valić Nedeljković, Mileva Malešić, Rodoljub Šabić, and Irena Pradanović politically label colleagues in public statements, attribute motives to them, and make inaccurate claims and harsh disqualifications.

"Independence of the regulator does not mean that we all have to think alike. It means that no one has the right to proclaim their opinion as the only proof of independence, while a different opinion is seen as proof of political dependence," said Smederevac.

He assessed that the protest letter contains numerous evaluations about him and his alleged motives but insufficient responses to questions about the work of REM, including why the public did not receive timely results of the first monitoring cut of the election campaign, even though the professional service had prepared them.

He also asked why more than a hundred media service providers are waiting for decisions on license renewals, despite this being reiterated multiple times as a priority, and the relevant professional service having given a positive opinion on the fulfillment of legal requirements.

Speaking about the conduct of the previous meeting where the actions of the Informer television were discussed, Smederevac stated that all Council members agreed for the meeting to be broadcast live and for journalists to attend, adding that public broadcasting does not change the rules of procedure nor does it take away anyone's right to express themselves.

He noted that he reacted to inappropriate speech, and this can be verified on the meeting's recording, while the representative of the media service provider has the right to present their defense for as long as they believe it benefits them. Regarding the allegations of an incident in the hallway during the break, Smederevac stated that he was not present and was unaware of what had happened at the time the meeting resumed.

"Any form of threats, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior, both towards employees and guests we invited for some reason, as well as Council members, is unacceptable," said Smederevac in reference to the discussion involving the editor-in-chief of Informer, Dragan Vučićević, and the author of the report from the REM professional service on the operations of that television.

He added that during the break, upon hearing commotion in the hallway, he twice asked security to check what was happening, but from where he was sitting, he could not see the incident.

Smederevac also emphasized the need to protect the integrity of employees in the professional service, indicating that the names of analysts should be removed from reports so that the subject of criticism is the report itself, not the individuals who prepared it.

He reminded that REM does not only have a role in punishing media but also in preventing violations of the law, which is why a meeting with media service providers was organized the day before the meeting to inform them of their obligations during the election campaign.

"The goal of REM is not to compete on who will propose a harsher punishment, but to ensure that media comply with the law," said Smederevac.

He rejected accusations that his actions protected Informer television, stating that examining the report from the professional service and disagreeing with the proposed measure does not constitute a defense of the media.

"If Council members were expected to accept every proposal without discussion, one might question what the purpose of the Council is," said Smederevac, adding that the law must apply to media with which the regulator members do not agree on editorial policy.

He stated that the independence of REM also implies the independence of its professional services, whose findings must be produced without pressure, including pressure from members of the REM Council.

Smederevac proposed that the public statements of Council members and the official note from the head of the service be reviewed so that the public can familiarize itself with the facts regarding alleged pressures on Council members and employees in the regulator.

Citing the chronology of public appearances by the four Council members, he assessed that some of their statements and the protest letter should be considered in light of Article 19, paragraph 1, point 6 of the Law on Electronic Media.

He noted that Šabić publicly linked the election of the Council president on September 23 with a political agreement and announced the possibility of filing a criminal complaint against him for alleged abuse of official position or negligent performance of duty.

Smederevac assessed that Šabić's statements about voting concerning Informer, as well as claims that certain REM Council members are close to the authorities and prevent measures against media significant to the authorities, represented an attribution of political dependence without presenting concrete evidence.

He also pointed to the public comment by Dubravka Valić Nedeljković from October 6 regarding the report from the professional service on monitoring the election campaign, which was described as "an excerpt from Excel without analytical elements."

Smederevac reminded of the letter that four members of the REM Council sent on October 1 to the President of the European Commission, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), and other international actors, in which they pointed out direct political influence on certain Council members and assessed that REM is formally constituted but essentially non-functional.

According to him, the signatories drew conclusions about political influence based on the voting regarding the inclusion of Informer in the systematic monitoring of the election campaign, without concrete evidence.

Speaking about the protest letter dated October 12, Smederevac stated that the four Council members accused him of inappropriate behavior, unprofessional and improper work, violating the Law on Electronic Media, and jeopardizing the reputation and independence of the regulator.

In the letter, they expressed concerns that during the statement of the Informer television representative, he did not react to insults and threats directed at REM Council members and employees and that he acted as an advocate for the editor-in-chief of that television.

Smederevac assessed that the signatories presented different legal interpretations of the conditions for imposing regulatory measures as evidence of his illegal conduct, and linked his advocacy for a milder measure with representing the interests of the media service provider.

**Accusations of Inquisition**
Council member Rodoljub Šabić, on the other hand, assessed that it is questionable that some Council members, who previously voted to initiate proceedings against Informer, disputed the report from the professional service based on which the proceedings were initiated at the meeting. Šabić added that the members had previously accepted the analytical material from the professional service, but during the discussion about imposing a measure on Informer, some members actively opposed it, even though they had no objections earlier.

Šabić disputed the claims that proposing a ban on broadcasting for one day is illegal, stating that it is the mildest measure he proposed in a case he considers to represent a particularly serious violation of the law.

In the discussion, he also pointed to the importance of monitoring, stating that the results of that procedure should serve as a basis for establishing facts and deciding on potential violations of the law.

To the remark that initiating an investigative procedure does not imply pre-determined guilt of the broadcaster, Šabić responded that he is precisely seeking an explanation as to why some Council members changed their stance in a later phase of the procedure.

During the discussion, the question of publicly disclosing how Council members voted was also raised. Šabić stated that he sees no problem in the public being informed of the positions of Council members, while it was pointed out in the discussion that it is necessary to clarify whether such conduct is in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

Šabić insisted that Council members have the right to express their opinions and that proposed measures must be discussed in accordance with the law.

The Council meeting proceeded with vigorous discussion, where member Miloš Garić accused Šabić of wanting to "conduct an inquisition" and shut down the media.

Šabić responded that it is a matter of respecting the law.

Council member Milan Petković emphasized that the purpose of the law is "prevention, then correction, then repression."

"In live programming, an account gets blocked, a signature is lost, and you file a complaint today. It happens again in three days, the signature for 'election program' is lost, and what? Do we take away the license? A thousand people lose their jobs," said Petković.

Council member Dubravka Valić Nedeljković stated that jobs are not lost if, due to warnings about editorial policies that, as she noted, are not in line with media laws, a one-day interruption of broadcasting is determined.

"As for Informer, there are currently over a thousand proceedings against it. In 2025, there were more than 30 complaints to REM. That's already alarming," Valić Nedeljković said, adding that for that reason, Informer should have been included in REM's monitoring.

An hour into the meeting, the discussion on the agenda items regarding investigative proceedings against public service and television stations with national frequencies had not yet begun.
Source: [N1](https://n1info.rs/vesti/stevica-smederevac-odgovara-na-optuzbe-clanovi-saveta-rem-a-nemaju-monopol-na-nezavisnost/)