This topic has attracted public attention after three media laws were recently presented at the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications to members of the Working Group, journalistic, and media associations. Gordana Konstantinović, a lawyer for the Association of Journalists of Serbia, stated for RTS that the draft text presented, which was sent for review to the European Commission, was inaccurately portrayed as the text of the Working Group, while Miloš Garić, advisor to the Minister of Information and Telecommunications, claims that the members of the Working Group are “very well informed” about these three laws.

Explaining the procedure by which the final drafts of the laws were aligned with the European Commission, Garić mentioned to RTS that extensive 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 law solutions.

According to Garić, the Law on Public Media Services is of a different nature, having not been changed for a long time, and that the Working Group worked from September to December.

Why are media laws being changed?

The amendment of media laws is closely related to Serbia's European integration, as the European Commission has assessed for years in its annual reports that our country has not made progress regarding media freedom. The Government of Serbia adopted the "Media Strategy 2020-2025" in 2019 to improve the situation in this area in accordance with EU standards, but media experts and journalistic associations have noted that so far it has mainly involved "cosmetic changes."

In October 2024, the Government adopted the Reform Agenda, an extensive document that contains a step-by-step plan to obtain funds from the EU Growth Plan and to accelerate Serbia's path to the EU, where one of the first measures mentioned is the amendment of media laws (Law on Electronic Media, Law on Public Information and Media, and Law on Public Media Services), as well as the selection of members of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media, but there is a delay in meeting these obligations.

The amendment of media laws is one of the conditions for opening Cluster 3 in the accession negotiations with the Union, which EU officials also referred to during their recent visits to Serbia. Other criteria relate to the amendment of electoral legislation, the election of a new Council of REM, and increasing the degree of alignment with the Union's common foreign and security policy to at least 60 percent.

The Law on Electronic Media regulates the work of REM and the conditions for the functioning of audio and audio-visual services, while the Law on Public Media Services defines the principles on which the operations of Radio-Television of Serbia and Radio-Television of Vojvodina are based, including the provision of funds for operations and their financing methods.

The Law on Public Information and Media regulates the manner of achieving freedom of public information, including the freedom to collect and publish information.

Minister Bratina: Everything is well done, together with representatives of the European Commission

Boris Bratina, the Minister of Information and Telecommunications, claims that the amendments and supplements are “well done” and that everything was accomplished in collaboration with representatives from the European Commission.

He stated last week that the three new media laws have been completed and sent to the European Union for assessment, and that they expect them to be presented to the National Assembly for adoption in June.

Bratina highlighted for K1 that his team worked on the “final details” of the amendments and supplements to the three media laws – the Law on Electronic Media, the Law on Public Information and Media, and the Law on Public Media Services, whose adoption should fulfill one of the conditions for opening Cluster 3 in Serbia's accession negotiations with the EU.

The minister noted that the proposed Law on Public Media Services anticipates the introduction of a Viewer, Listener, and Reader Ombudsman, which he believes is “a good idea, as one of the roles of that commissioner would be to warn about inappropriate content in various media programs.”

Tamara Filipović Stevanović: The legislative process was not conducted in accordance with democratic standards

According to Tamara Filipović Stevanović, Secretary-General of the Independent Journalists' Association of Serbia, the announcements regarding the accelerated adoption of amendments to all three media laws by July seem expected, “considering the Government of Serbia's desire to formally fulfill certain commitments from the European integration process, which would unlock financial resources from EU funds.”

“It is logical that the Serbian government is in a hurry because fulfilling some obligations will unfreeze funds allocated to Serbia from the EU Growth Plan for the Western Balkans, but why Brussels is in a hurry, I honestly cannot understand because this current group in power has repeatedly proven that they are not interested in joining the EU but rather in European money. It is concerning that the essence is being overlooked, which is that the legislative process was not conducted in accordance with democratic standards, without public debate and with minimal involvement of the expert and media community,” Tamara Filipović Stevanović assesses for EWB.

Our interlocutor points out that the most contentious aspect of the entire process of amending media laws is “the manner in which the procedure was conducted – non-transparently, hastily, and without real participation from the expert public.”

“Although comments from the European Commission arrived as early as late 2023 regarding the Law on Electronic Media and the Law on Public Information and Media, the Ministry of Information responded with a significant delay of one year, formed working groups with a minimal deadline for work, and without providing the members of the Working Group access to the draft versions sent to Brussels at the end of December last year. A public debate was not organized for these two mentioned laws. The deadline for comments was merely 48 hours after all three laws, including the Law on Public Media Services, were presented at a meeting of all working groups, which undermines the democratic procedure,” Filipović Stevanović notes.

Saša Mirković: So many oversights that it is difficult to assess what is most contentious in the procedure

In a similar tone, Saša Mirković, Director of Projects at the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), stated for EWB that there are “so many oversights that it is difficult to assess what is most contentious in the media law amendment procedure – starting from the unjustifiably long delay in the process of adopting amendments and supplements, to the drastic violations of legal procedures regulating this process.”

“If we believe the announcements regarding when the legal amendments and supplements will be adopted, we conclude that it took a full 20 months and the change of three Ministers of Information and Telecommunications for the long-promised amendments and supplements to the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media to be adopted. Up to this moment, no one has provided us with a coherent explanation as to why it took so long to fulfill agreements between Belgrade and Brussels dating back to October 2023, when the aforementioned two laws were adopted for which public debate has not yet been organized regarding their amendments and supplements,” Saša Mirković specifies.

Mirković notes that “incoherent explanations fall flat when it is known that, although minor in volume, the amendments and supplements to these two laws are far from insignificant.”

He emphasizes that even though “the amendments and supplements to the Law on Public Media Services were discussed in a public debate, it is noticeable that it was strategically organized at the end of December and the beginning of January this year with the intention of having as few interested members of the public as possible attend during the holiday period.”

“This fits into the process led by the former minister who made an effort to impose new legal solutions through voting in the Working Group, marking this legal act as an authorized law in the expert public,” Mirković assesses.

Our interlocutor also emphasizes that the fact that the amendments to the Law on Electronic Media, relating to the status and work of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media, were adopted by the Government and sent for parliamentary debate during the ongoing Public Call for the election of members of the REM Council “best describes the non-transparency of the entire process regarding the amendments to this legal act.”

Open space for abuse and limiting freedom of expression

According to the interlocutors of EWB, certain proposed amendments to the media laws open the space for abuses and limit freedom of expression. They particularly highlight Articles 84 and 85 in the Law on Public Information and Media, which relate to the presumption of innocence and reporting in criminal proceedings.

Commenting on the mentioned segments of the Law on Public Information and Media, Tamara Filipović Stevanović states that Articles 84 and 85 “can be arbitrarily interpreted and applied against investigative journalism, under the pretext of protecting privacy and the presumption of innocence, while the rules on public financing, that is, public procurement of media services remain unclear and easily misusable.”

She notes that the Law on Electronic Media “fails to address the essential problems of electoral media practices – hidden advertising and campaign financing by functionaries,” while in the Law on Public Media Services, “despite some positive developments, excessive power of the general director is retained and open space for political financing under the pretext of ‘projects of special social importance’ remains.”

Speaking on the same topic, Saša Mirković observes that Articles 84 and 85 of the Law on Public Information and Media “lower existing standards of freedom of expression which will most reflect on limitations regarding local investigative journalism.”

In Mirković's opinion, “ignoring the European Union's demands that the amendments to this law precisely define the services procured through public procurement will result in an increase in financial support to tabloid media, which by this same law are prevented from participating in the project co-financing process.”

“The proposed amendments and supplements to the provisions relating to media publishers who are indirectly or directly state-owned will not contribute in any way to the increase of freedom of expression and the strengthening of media pluralism,” Mirković assesses.

The authorities only want to “tick off obligations” to Brussels

In response to criticisms from journalistic associations regarding the proposed amendments and supplements to media laws, Miloš Garić stated for RTS that “it seems that someone is now upset that we received confirmation from the European Commission that we can adopt all three laws.” Such claims are assessed by interlocutors of EWB as a “substitution of theses” and an attempt to find justification for delays in procedures before the EU.

“We probably cannot hear anything better from a government where the Minister of Information and Telecommunications is best known for once burning the European Union flag. This is a substitution of theses aimed at hiding the fact that this process has lasted unjustifiably long and has not been sufficiently transparent and inclusive. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the government is boasting based on ticking off obligations to Brussels where form wins over substance,” Saša Mirković conveys.

Tamara Filipović Stevanović emphasizes that “the interpretation that someone is dissatisfied due to the alleged confirmation of compliance with EU standards diverts attention from the real problem: that the proposed amendments do not enhance media freedom and editorial independence but further reinforce existing patterns of control and instrumentalization of the media space.”

“Based on the statements of all officials from the Ministry, we see that they fundamentally neither understand nor want to do anything that would improve the media landscape in Serbia even a little; everything being done is to the detriment of professional media and journalists who think critically and work in the public interest, benefiting those who call themselves media but are in fact mere transmitters of government messages,” concludes our interlocutor for EWB.

Source: European Western Balkans