Accelerating the path to the EU or a new blow to media freedoms: What do the amendments to the three media laws bring?

Three media laws were presented at the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications (MIT) during a meeting with members of the Working Group, as well as journalistic and media associations. So far, only the Proposal for Amendments to the Law on Electronic Media has been submitted to the Assembly, while the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Public Media Services are expected to follow soon.

However, the entire situation has led to a game of blame between the relevant ministry and media associations. While the MIT announces that amendments to the media laws presented at the meeting were “fully created in accordance with the recommendations of the European Commission (EC) and in line with Serbia's Media Strategy,” the Association of Journalists of Serbia (UNS) claims that two out of the three media laws, which were presented as a harmonized text of the draft by the Working Group and the EC, were actually not prepared by the Working Group. UNS also states that the relevant ministry rejected the proposal to conduct a public discussion. Criticism has also come from the Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS), which expresses “serious concern over the way MIT is handling the process of amending key media laws,” adding that the interested public has not been given sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the amendments and raise objections. As this association emphasizes, MIT is ignoring the public and, under the pretext of EU reforms, risks further undermining media freedoms.

“NUNS demands the opening of a public discussion on the amendments to the media laws, primarily the Law on Public Information and Media and the Law on Electronic Media, which have not undergone public discussions in accordance with the minimum democratic standards and professional participation,” NUNS states.

Commissioner for Viewers' Rights

Among other things, the amendments to the Law on Electronic Media declaratively strengthen the independence of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM), while the Law on Public Media Services provides for the introduction of a “Commissioner for Viewers' and Listeners' Rights,” which is an institution that already exists in many European countries, where it was introduced to improve public oversight of public service operations. The most attention and criticism have been drawn to the Law on Public Information and Media, which is assessed to contain provisions that—although declaratively affirming freedom of expression and the presumption of innocence—could be arbitrarily applied against investigative journalists in practice.

Journalist and president of the Management Board of the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM) Veran Matić points out to NIN that if there had been a public discussion on the amendments to the Law on Public Information and Media, “many issues that have attempted to be legalized through the back door under the pretext of harmonized amendments between MIT and the EC would have come to light.”

“Certainly the most controversial are the proposed amendments to Articles 84 and 85, which limit freedom of expression. The proposed restrictions are set too broadly and are inconsistent with the standards for limiting freedom of expression that are part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia, aligned with the European Convention on Human Rights. The proposed provisions seriously undermine the already achieved standards of freedom of expression, particularly in the domain of investigative journalism,” Matić states and adds:

“The proposed amendments and supplements to the Law on Public Information and Media regarding public procurement encourage government authorities that have already directed a significant portion of the budget for project co-financing for these purposes. The EC's request to precisely define the services that can be procured and under what conditions has been ignored, leaving a declarative provision that will, through further abuse of the Law on Public Information and Media, allow an increase in financial support for tabloid media. If this remains as it is, what is happening these days in Novi Pazar regarding the tender won by Informer will become a daily occurrence.”

Controversial Amendments to Two Articles

UNS lawyer Gordana Konstantinović also tells NIN that the most problematic amendments for the association concern Articles 84 and 85 of the Law on Public Information and Media.

“Although the EC's suggestion is to move towards lifting restrictions and enabling the realization of the freedom to report, it seems that the draft proposes further limiting it, with questionable definitions that could lead to varying, and for journalists, especially investigative ones, dangerous practices,” she notes and continues:

“The proposed amendments introduce heightened scrutiny for media regarding the respect for the right to the presumption of innocence, stating that information related to criminal proceedings can only be made public if obtained or could have been obtained lawfully, while respecting the privacy rights of participants in the proceedings, as well as the accused's right to a fair trial. UNS's position is that the provisions defining the presumption of innocence should not be changed, and that the only limitations regarding information in relation to criminal proceedings should be those prescribed by special law or court decision regarding the exclusion of the public from the main hearing in certain proceedings as a whole or only for a portion. UNS reminds that trials are public, and the public can only be excluded in cases where some other interests outweigh the public interest, such as in cases involving the protection of minors, whether they are defendants or victims in the proceedings.”

“It is concerning that UNS has stated that the proposed drafts do not represent a harmonized text of the working groups and the EC. This justifiably raises suspicion that the proposers are trying to conceal something, and the absence of a public discussion supports this. I remind you that at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, we had a situation where the Law on Electronic Media was practically suspended during the election of members of the REM Council, which was implicitly confirmed by some members of Parliament, members of the Committee for Culture and Information, responsible for carrying out this process, through their statements. Precisely because of the lack of transparency of the entire process, as well as the unequivocal violation of the provisions of the Law on Electronic Media regulating the election of members of the REM Council, seven candidates withdrew their candidacies,” he says.

According to him, it is now evident that the proposer is in a hurry to get these laws into the parliamentary procedure under the pretext that it is in the national interest, or in order to open Cluster 3 in negotiations with the EU.

“However, based on the objections that members of the working groups publicly raised after their drafts were finally delivered to them, it is clear that the manner in which these laws are being adopted is not democratic. Therefore, there is a justified fear that behind the lack of transparency of the entire process and insistence on urgency lies a need to embed political interests and agendas into legal frameworks. This would certainly negatively affect freedom of expression, as well as media pluralism and media freedoms in general,” Aleksić stated.

Source: NIN