The Independent Association of Journalists of Serbia (NUNS), the Association of Independent Electronic Media (ANEM), and the Lokal Pres association have raised significant concerns regarding the method of amending three pivotal media laws in Serbia.

These laws are the Law on Public Information and Media (ZJIM), the Law on Electronic Media (ZEM), and the Law on Public Media Services (ZJMS).

Today, the Serbian parliamentary Committee for Culture and Information accepted the government’s proposal for these amendments, which will be voted on in an extraordinary session of the Serbian Parliament tomorrow.

The associations criticized the process, stating that after lasting for over a year and a half, it reached a hurried conclusion without proper transparency, citing short time frames and a lack of public discussion, all under the pretext of aligning with European Commission recommendations.

They noted that comments from the European Commission on the legislative drafts were received only in December 2023, while the Ministry of Information and Telecommunications decided to respond and form working groups at the end of 2024. The working groups reportedly had an exceedingly short period to operate, also expressing concern over a lack of access to the drafts sent to Brussels.

Despite repeated requests from journalistic and media organizations for a public debate on the recent amendments to ZJIM and ZEM, the Ministry has declined these proposals.

The associations pointed out that the manner in which this process has been conducted, along with the amendments adopted, leads to further erosion of media freedoms and undermines the essence of democratic procedures.

Recent proposals from the Ministry regarding amendments to Articles 84 and 85 of the ZJIM, which pertain to the presumption of innocence and reporting on criminal proceedings, were modified according to suggestions made by NUNS, ANEM, and Lokal Pres.

However, previous language restrictions that limit journalists remain, not aligned with European standards.

Moreover, issues relating to public procurement and media ownership remain contentious and are considered a regression for media freedom.

Specifically, there remains a lack of detailed regulations concerning services, requirements under which procurement can occur, no established control mechanisms, and a failure to reference the Law on Public Procurement.

The three associations have expressed alarms over what they describe as an unacceptable reversion to state ownership of media, which contradicts the Media Strategy.

They reiterated that the introduction of obligations for media entities in direct or indirect ownership by subjects such as Telekom, lacks independent oversight and sanctions for violations.

While acknowledging some positive changes in the amendments to the Law on Public Media Services, the associations emphasized that the recent changes remain superficial and do not address core issues such as editorial independence and the concentration of power.

The Program Council formally selects the Commissioner for Viewer and Listener Rights, but the role remains marginalized, being honorary and lacking autonomy to initiate proceedings independently.

A vital issue persists surrounding the concentration of power in the hands of the general director since the Management Board continues to play no decisive role in the appointment of editorial staff.

New rules for budget financing of public services, despite a declarative ban on political influence, still leave room for potential abuses due to ambiguities in defining categories such as projects of special social significance.

Despite persistent advocacy from NUNS, ANEM, and Lokal Pres for amendments to the Law on Electronic Media to better regulate electoral campaigns, the opportunity was missed yet again.

The associations highlighted that clear rules for critical issues shaping the media landscape during election campaigns—such as concealed political advertising, official campaigns, and political marketing—remain outside regulatory frameworks.

This issue has been flagged for years by various domestic and international organizations monitoring electoral processes in Serbia, identifying it as a significant barrier to fair and equitable information dissemination.

The non-transparent legislative amendment process, along with the disregard for critical issues, further jeopardizes media freedoms and democratic principles.

There is an urgent call for concrete steps towards establishing a fair and transparent media environment in line with European standards, with full accountability from all relevant institutions.

The associations insisted that only through transparency, dialogue, and adherence to regulations can independent media be ensured, serving the interests of citizens and democracy.