Front page




 


Chronology of establishing the Broadcast Agency Council

2000
November
A task force of media consultants and lawyers begins drafting the Broadcast Act in consultation with the Council of Europe and OSCE.

2001
August
The Serbian government receives the draft Broadcast Act (seventh version)

2002
July
Broadcast Act adopted.

September
All parties authorised to nominate candidates for the Broadcast Council, apart from the parliament and the government, submit nominations within the legal deadline (45 days after the law takes affect)

2003
April
While Serbia is under martial law, the Serbian government announces the nomination of Nenad Cekic. The parliament, after a public outcry, withdraws its nomination of Zoran Petrovic, a former dean of the Belgrade University Electrical Engineering Faculty who had collaborated with the Milosevic regime in the purge of the universities and ordered the beating of students. On April 11, the parliament announces the nomination of Vladimir Cvetkovic.

Despite the stipulation in the Broadcast Act that the election may not be held until thirty days after the public announcement of nominations, the Parliament on April 11 elects eight members of the Council, clearly violating the law in the case of Cekic and Cvetkovic.

On April 16, the Independent Association of Serbian Journalists, Spektar and ANEM demand the dismissal of the disputed members of the Council.

On April 24 2003, eight members of the Council are elected by majority vote.

Goran Radenovic is proposed as the ninth member.

On the same day, sixteen media editors from Belgrade invite the authorities to a dialogue in order to resolve differences and conflicts which had arisen under the state of emergency.

The issue of the illegal appointment of the disputed councillors is not resolved on this occasion.

 

Front page of special

News

Chronology of events

 


DOCUMENTS

Media situation in Serbia, May 2003

Invitation to dialogue between government and media

Full text of the demand to replace two members of the Broadcast Agency Council

 


ANALYSIS

Srecko Mihajlovic: Lost in advance: the battle against pubic

Does the law not matter?

IFJ Warns of “Damage to Integrity of Broadcasting Law”

SEEMO Concerned over Press Freedoms in Serbia

 
FORUM

OSCE urges new election for broadcast monitoring body

CPJ concerned about government harrassment of the press

IPI Serbia Alert

RWB Call for re-election of council

OSCE urges transparency in media appointments

ANEM: repeat Broadcast Council election

NGOs shun Broadcast Council debate

EC Charge d’Affaires: Cause for concern

US Ambassador Extremely Disappointed at Status of Media

Verena Taylor: Legal procedure was not respected

OSCE Chairman: Laws may never be broken

Head of OSCE Mission: (1) “Aware of certain criticism”

Dimitrijevic: Against flouting of law in name of public interest

Head of OSCE Mission: (2) The law was broken in the Broadcasting Council’s constituting

Andric: Decision will stand

Milivojevic: If there is suspicion about autonomy form outset, Council will not be able to operate.

Veljanovski: There is deliberate negative pressure from the authorities.

Lucic-Cavic: Angry that candidate of professional associations, one of our greatest media experts, won’t be sitting on the Council

Matic: Not only an issue for our profession, it is a problem for the entire society

Lucic-Cavic: We could have survived another month

Milenkovic: Will broadcasters follow Parliament’s suit in breaching law?

Radulovic: Guiding principle was bad

Zink: Govt and parliament should consider grounds and response


Click Here!

© 2003, B92