Resigned Serbian Media Regulators Refuse to Return Without Legal Clarity

Four members of Serbia's Regulatory Body for Electronic Media (REM) council have rejected an invitation to return to their posts, stating that a recent conclusion by a parliamentary committee is insufficient to resolve the legal issues surrounding their resignations. Rodoljub Šabić, Mileva Malešević, Ira Prodanov Krajišnik, and Dubravka Valić Nedeljković resigned in December and maintain that only the National Assembly, acting within the law, can address the legal uncertainties that have arisen.

“

Legal ambiguities that arose after their resignations can only be resolved by the National Assembly, and in accordance with the law.

The parliamentary Committee on Culture and Information had previously suspended its process for selecting a new member representing national minorities. The committee's chair, Nevena Đurić of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS), suggested waiting for new national minority councils to be formed before proceeding. The committee then invited the four resigned members to resume their functions.

In their response, the resigned council members acknowledged that the committee's conclusion signals a departure from the "persistent illegal and discriminatory favoring of one candidate." They also welcomed the intention to draft a new REM Statute, hoping for a transparent and inclusive procedure. However, they firmly stated that the committee's conclusion misinterprets legal provisions regarding resignations and election postponements, asserting that such interpretations cannot legally alter explicit statutory provisions.

“

Undoubtedly, it is good that the committee's conclusion confirms that the authorities have abandoned the persistent illegal and discriminatory favoring of one candidate.

The members emphasized their continued belief in the necessity of a functional REM and their willingness to contribute to a better council, but only if established lawfully. They resigned because the situation at the time made a lawful constitution of the council seem impossible. Their current stance highlights a deep-seated disagreement over legal procedures and the legitimacy of the REM's formation process.

“

By such an interpretation, explicit provisions of the law are actually being changed, and such a thing is not legally feasible by a committee's conclusion.