Implementation of Transitional Laws in Serbia 2006

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Implementation of Transitional Laws in Serbia 2006Conclusions on the Implementation of theLaw on BroadcastingOn the basis of the monitoring of the implementation of the Law onbroadcasting, the YIHR arrived at the following conclusions:• The Council of the Broadcasting Agency announced the tenderwithin legal deadline for the allocation of radio and televisionfrequencies for the territory of Serbia, Vojvodina and Belgrade. Thecompetition for regional networks was launched only in November2006, which was explained by technical problems.• Elimination of RTL in grounds of its alleged failure to meet thelegal conditions has stirred contradictory reactions by experts andprofessionals; the initial elimination-decision was soon amended,allowing the RTL to remain as candidate in the competition.• The Agency’s Council allocated the licenses for the broadcasting onthe territory of Serbia and Vojvodina. The final Agency’s decisionhas stirred numerous fierce comments and objections.• After the public campaign against the Agency’s decision to withdrawthe TV BK’s license, the Agency’s Council ordered the suspensionof TV BK’s program. The order was executed in late-night hours,with the assistance of the police, which caused numerous protestsand comments.• The Serbian Assembly passed new amendments to the Law onBroadcasting through an urgent adoption and without a publicdebate. Domestic and international media experts agree thatamendments to the Law made a step backward in regulating themedia sphere. The main remarks refer to the greater control of thegovernment over the RRA and expanding discretion jurisdictionsof the RRA when the closedown of the media is in question.• The Serbian President rejected to sign the Law, so the Assemblywas forced to adopt it again. It was finally adopted in September2006 despite numerous remarks by the OSCE, Council of Europe,the EC, NUNS, ANEM and respected experts for media law andthe media.• The Agency’s Council established the existence of hate-speech inthe TV Pink program “Pyramid”. This was the first case in whichthis state institution has established the existence of hate-speech inelectronic media.114
Implementation of Transitional Laws in Serbia 2006• The Agency’s Council refused to punish TV Pink, because,officially, this television does not qualify as broadcaster, since theirbroadcasting license had not been issued by the Agency. However,when it suspended the TV BK’s program, the Council decided thatit did have the right to punish this broadcaster despite the fact thatit had not issued its broadcasting license.• Even after the existence of hate-speech had been established inthe TV Pink program “Pyramid”, the practice of discriminationagainst the citizens of “other” sexual orientation continues. Anothercomplaint has been submitted to the Agency’s Council against TVPink.Recommendations for the Implementation of theLaw on BroadcastingOn the basis of the research of the implementation of the Law onBroadcasting, the YIHR establishes the following recommendations:• Allocation of frequencies, especially the national ones, must becarried out under clear and transparent conditions. It is intolerablethat legal provisions and regulations be interpreted in the midst ofthe competition, and it is just as intolerable to change the rules andconditions under which the media houses are eligible to apply forfrequencies.• Any suspicion regarding the Agency Council's impartiality andobjectivity must be eradicated. Allocation of frequencies for theterritory of Serbia and Vojvodina was carried out hastily and withoutclear explanations, which created among the public an impressionof injustice and partiality.• The Agency Council must be careful and moderate in executingits decisions and orders. The intervention of the police in latenighthours must not be the way in which Agency’s decisions areeffectuated.• The latest changes to the Law happened hastily and without apublic debate. Despite criticisms of very relevant organizations andrespected individuals, the Serbian Assembly still adopted the Law.• Arrogant behavior practiced by RRA Council members, accusingdomestic and international organizations and experts, must be115
Page 2 and 3:
Implementation of Transitional Laws
Page 4 and 5:
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65: Implementation of Transitional Laws
Page 138 and 139: 138Implementation of Transitional L
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
show all

Implementation of Transitional Laws in Serbia 2006

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?