СКОПЈЕ, 12.01.2018 – Со Љубиша Станковиќ, новинар, разговаравме за ограничувањата во слобдата на изразување и контрола на медиумската слобода.
ЦИВИЛ Медиа:Што подразбирате по слобода на изразувањето, медиумски слободи и активизам?
Станковиќ: Колку и да се различни тие два термини слобода на изразување и медиумска слобода, сепак еден со друг се надополнуваат. Убаво е да има медиумска слобода, убаво е да постои слобода на говор, меѓутоа она што мене сериозно ме загрижува е што се изместија работите, во смисла ако некој каже вулгаризам и тоа е право на слобода на изразување. Напротив, мислам дека тоа е некултурен однос, нецивилизиран и треба да се регулираат тие работи, едноставно да се знае што е слобода на изразување, а што навреди, клевети или нешто посериозно за што кривично се одговара.
Дури и во однос на активизмот, не само граѓанското општество и медиумите, туку и власта треба да преземе мерки, затоа што некои работи излегуваат надвор од контрола…
ЦИВИЛ Медиа: Дали се соочувате со притисоци од политичките и бизнис центрите на моќта и како се справувате со нив?
Станковиќ: Мене, условно речено, ми е нормално кога политичка елита се обидува да врши притисок. Кога е на власт, сака да докаже дека во неа е моќта. На вас останува дали ќе се согласите или ќе пружите отпор. Кога ќе им дадете до знаење до каде им е границата и тие сфаќаат дека треба да запрат. Проблемот кај нас е што со текот на годините многу новинари кај нас потклекнаа, многу од нив влегоа во некаков клиентелистички приказни. Јас никогаш нема да се согласам со таква варијанта.
ЦИВИЛ Медиа: Кои се вашите препораки, како да се одбранат слободата на изразувањето, медиумските слободи и активизмот?
Станковиќ: Не е проблем да ја браниме и заштитиме слободата, проблем е ако ја злоупотребиме. Значи мора да има некои граници да не се премине онаа црвена линија на добриот вкус па да отидеме во некои други насоки кои што немаат врска со слобода на изразување и медиумска слобода…
Биљана Јордановска
Камера: Атанас Петровски
Фотографија: Вулнет Махмути
Овој проект е финансиран од Европската Унија преку програмата за мали грантови „Заштита на слободата на медиумите и слободата на изразување во Западен Балкан“ спроведена од Здружението на хрватските новинари, како дел од регионалниот проект „Регионална платформа на Западен Балкан за слобода на медиумите и безбедност на новинарите”, спроведена преку партнерство на шест регионални новинарски здруженија – Здружение на независни новинари на Србија, Здружение на новинари од Босна и Херцеговина, Здружение на новинари на Хрватска, Здружение на новинари на Косово, Здружение на новинари на Македонија и Синдикатот на медиуми на Црна Гора.
SKOPJE, 12.01.2018 – With the entry into force of the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation in November 2012, was introduced civil liability for defamation and insult, which regulated the issue of compensation for damage caused to the honor or reputation of a natural or legal person that is concerned by the slanderous or offensive expression. One of the main goals of this law was to avoid the occurrence of self-censorship by journalists and the media that is arising from the possibility for journalists to be criminally responsible for published critical speech towards the holders of public office.
This view was presented in the recommendations of the Council of Europe and the remarks of the European Commission presented in the reports on the progress made by Macedonia.
Effects of the application of the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation in the first four years
Around 700 cases for defamation or insult were initiated under the provisions of the Criminal Code in the courts in the Republic of Macedonia in the period prior to the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation entered into force, out of which around 330 proceedings involved journalists.
There are no comprehensive and systematically collected official indicators on the number of new court proceedings brought against journalists after the entry into force of this Law, but the general conclusion is that this number has been significantly reduced. During 2013 and 2014, the Centre for Media Development monitored 74 court proceedings, out of which 16% were lawsuits against journalists, editors and media. 43 procedures were completed before the first-instance court, and only five were found responsible for defamation and defamation. In the course of 2015, the Association of Journalists of Macedonia (AJM) also organized in-depth monitoring of 39 court procedures involving journalists; 17 court proceedings in which both the plaintiff and the defendant were journalists or editors. Out of the 39 proceedings, eight were completed before the court in which seven journalists were exempted from any liability, because it was assessed that the journalist protected the public interest and did not intend to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. In only one case, the court partially accepted the claim, i.e. found that there was slander, but did not adopted decision for compensation of damage.
The perception of the application of the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation in the period from the beginning of 2013 to the end of 2016 can be summarized in several important points:
(1) The number of court proceedings against journalists is significantly lower in this four-year period and no high court fines are issued to journalists except for individual court proceedings (example: case Mijalkov v. the weekly magazine Focus);
(2) The procedures in which the holders of public functions participated as parties were run more quickly, and during the judges actions there was tendency of ungrounded protection of the honour and reputation of the officials;
(3) The costs of conducting proceedings before the civil courts are very high, which in turn allows those who sue journalists to have high monetary claims from the court and
(4) Despite the efforts of the Academy for Training of Judges and Public Prosecutors, AJMs and other organizations, a large number of judges are still under-trained in court procedures related to insult and defamation and the use of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Protection of the public interest and the right to honour and reputation in court verdicts for insult and defamation
AJM conducted a short analysis on seven court cases for which final judgments were passed. In all seven cases, the lawsuits were rejected as unfounded, i.e. was not established the defendants responsibility for defamatory expression. At present, according to the AJM knowledge, there are about 39 cases against journalists in the court procedure, which were not covered by the analysis, since no final verdicts have been passed for them.
The seven judgments are analyzed from several aspects: the length of the proceedings; the presentation of evidence by the judges; judge’s assessment of the balance between the public interest and the protection of the honour and reputation of plaintiffs; the manner and the extent to which judges in the judgment rationale refer to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The case name
Plaintiff / Defendant
Outcome
Vladimir Taleski v. Blazhevska and others
Plaintiff: Vladimir Taleski, mayor of the municipality of Bitola
Defendants: Aneta Blazhevska, correspondent of “Utrinski vesnik” from Bitola, Sonja Kramarska, editor-in-chief of Utrinski vesnik, Association for Media Print Macedonia, Vasko Kovachevski, counsellor at the Municipality of Bitola from SDSM
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, with the judgment from 11 of September 2015.
Agency for audio and audiovisual media services v. Kabranov and PRO LIBERTI
Plaintiff: Agency for audio and audiovisual media services
Defendants: Aco Kabranov, chief editor of the portal “Libertas”, Citizens’ Association PRO LIBERTI
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, with the judgment from 18 of February 2016.
Samsonenko v. Sport Info Media
Plaintiff: Sergei Borisovich Samsonenko, owner and president of the management board of HC “Vardar”
Defendants: Company for trade, trade and services Sport Info Media DOOEL Skopje, Nikola Gjurovski, Editor-in-Chief of the portal “Ekipa MK”, Stefan Canevski, journalist
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, with the judgment from 05 of May 2015
Dragan Pavlovich-Latas v.Kabranov and PRO LIBERTI
Plaintiff: Dragan Pavlovich-Latas, journalist
Defendants: Aco Kabranov, Chief Editor of the portal “Libertas”, Citizens’ Association PRO LIBERTI
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, with the judgment from 03 of October 2016
Dragan Pavlovich-Latas v.Geroski, Shushleska and “Sloboden Pechat”
Plaintiff: Dragan Pavlovich-Latas, journalist
Defendants: Branislav Geroski, editor-in-chief of “Sloboden Pechat”, Mimi Shushleska, journalist and Publishing and Marketing Company “Sloboden Pechat”
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, with the judgment from 13 of May 2016
Milenko Nedelkovski v. Chadikovski and others
Plaintiff: Milenko Nedelkovski
Defendants: Mladen Chadikovski, editor-in-chief of A1 TV, Vladimir Tevchev, journalist and Dobrivoj Budimski, source-interlocutor in the article (unemployed)
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, the judgment from 19 of May 2015
Ivona Talevska v. “Fokus”, Kostova and Jordanovska
Defendant: Ivona Talevska
Defendants: Media Plus Fokus DOOEL, Jadranka Kostova and Meri Jordanovska
The lawsuit was rejected as unfounded, the judgment from 17 of November 2015
In this context, particularly important issue for journalists is the rationale of court ruling on the balance between the public interest that protects journalists in their reporting and the protection of the honour and reputation of the persons subject to journalistic texts. Although it is only matter of seven court rulings, it can be concluded that the judges show knowledge on the character of the journalistic profession, understanding of the importance of critical journalism for democratic debate and the protection of the public interest. This applies in particular to the three cases where public prosecutors (Vladimir Talevski), public institutions (Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services) and public figures (Sergej Borisovich Samsonenko) appear as plaintiffs.
For example, in the explanation of the judgment on case Vladimir Taleski v. Blazhevska and others, it is clearly stated that the journalist Blazhevska, in the text titled “How rich is Vladimir Talevski” (published in Utrinski vesnik from 23-24 November 2013), informing on the part for the debate in the Council of the Municipality of Bitola, “… undoubtedly … was guided by the public interest, since it was about issues related to the work of the local self-government.” In addition, adds that it is expected that “journalists, analysts and all relevant experts to respond to events of this kind, taking into account the nature of publicity and accountability that has the function of the mayor.” Accordingly, it is unambiguously clear to the Court that the public interest protected by journalist Blazhevska is more important than the reputation of the mayor Talevski, who due to his function must be subject to critical observation of journalists and the public.
In the case Agency for Audio and Audiovisual Media Services v. Kabranov and PRO LIBERTI, the plaintiff is legal entity founded by the state. In the rationale of this court ruling, it was crucial that it was body with assigned public authorizations, whose work is of interest to the public, and hence it is emphasized that holders of public functions in this body should demonstrate greater degree of tolerance when it relates to journalists criticism. It is also important to note that the Court took into account the arguments presented by the defence and that according to the European Court of Human Rights, state institutions do not enjoy legal protection against defamation and insult due to the increased public interest in their work. Hence, the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation does not provide opportunity for state institution to initiate a dispute.
In the third case – Samsonenko v. Sport Info Media, the Court paid attention to the public interest that protects journalists and reporters reporting on sports events. Namely, in the text titled “The omniscient Sergej Samsonenko” (published on November 26, 2013, on the Web portal “Ekipa MK”), the journalist criticized the owner and president of the management board of HC “Vardar”, Sergej Samsonenko for the omissions in the organization of handball competition during which occurred serious incident. Therefore, it was more important for the Court that the journalist intended to point to the public the poor organization of the sporting events and the irresponsible behaviour of the organizers, rather than the reputation of the owner of the handball club.
Four of the analyzed court rulings are cases in which journalists (close to the then VMRO-DPMNE government) sued journalists for critical texts in which were published information about various scandals and privileges that their colleagues received from the government. Although in these cases the plaintiffs are not holders of public office, the Court emphasizes issues of public interest in the journalistic profession.
For example, in both cases in which Dragan Pavlovich-Latas appeared as plaintiff, as well as in the case Ivona Talevska v. Fokus, Kostova and Jordanovska, journalists published several texts with information about the assets of their colleagues, i.e. about the affairs in which they were involved. Most of the published information was previously presented at press conference of SDSM, regarding the investigation of the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office, based on the footage of the wiretapped conversations. In both cases, the court emphasizes that the journalist is excluded from liability when is reporting on statements and information disclosed by third party. For example, one of the verdicts states that the journalists: “… acted in accordance with the professional standards of the journalistic profession … only transferring information already provided within the framework of press conference of the political party SDSM”.
The case Milenko Nedelkovski v. Chadikovski and others is older case that was again filed after the adoption of the Law on Civil Liability for Defamation. Editor-in-chief Chadikovski and journalist Tevchev were sued for the TV article entitled “Milenko Nedelkovski owed wages” (published on the former A1 television), in which they gave the interviewer and source of information to provide to public information about the property owned by journalist Nedelkovski and the fact that that he owes him unpaid wages. The court assessed that the journalists had no intention of harming Nedelkovski’s honour and reputation, but to allow Budimski before the public “… to awaken the consciousness and plaintiff’s emotions on to pay him the debt.”
Prof. PhD. Snezana Trpevska
This activity is part of the project “Regional Platform for Advocating media Freedom and Journalists’ Safety”. The content of the analysis is the sole responsibility of the Association of Journalists of Macedonia and the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
The Association of Journalists of Macedonia is an institutional grantee of the CIVICA Mobilitas program.
BEOGRAD, 12.01.2017. – Ministar Nenad Popović tužio je Mrežu za istraživanje kriminala i korupcije (KRIK), njegovog urednika i četvoro novinara koji su radili na međunarodnom projektu „Rajski papiri“ i otkrili da Popović poseduje ofšor kompanije i imovinu vrednu više od 100 miliona dolara i traži da mu se isplati milion dinara naknadu za nematerijalnu štetu.
KRIK podseća da je sve što je objavljeno o Popoviću tačno i potiče iz autentične dokumentacije.
Popović tuži KRIK zbog sledeće dve rečenice, za koje tvrdi da su neistinite:
„Popović je došao na ideju da svoje bogatstvo reorganizuje kroz složenu mrežu ofšor kompanija koju bi kontrolisali trust iz Hong Konga i dve firme sa Ostrva Man.“
„Advokatska kucća „Appleby“ koju je Popović želeo da angažuje, međutim, sprovela je istragu i otkrila različite kontroverze u vezi sa Popovićevim poslovima, posebno onim u Rusiji.“
KRIK podseća da su sve iznete činjenice o imovini i poslovima ministra Popovića bazirane na autentičnim dokumentima koji su procurili u okviru velikog međunarodnog novinarskog projekta čiji je deo KRIK. Takođe dodaju da će dokaze za tvrdnje iznete u tekstu, dostavi sudu.
U tužbi nedostaje ono o čemu je Popović govorio u javnosti – da će tužiti KRIK zbog tvrdnje da poseduje ofšor kompanije. Popović u tužbi, međutim, ne negira da ih poseduje, piše KRIK.
Popović kao naknadu za nematerijalnu štetu traži milion dinara.
BEOGRAD, 12.01.2017. – Sva četiri člana koja su napustila radnu grupu za izradu Medijske strategije mogu u svakom trenutku da se vrate, rekao je Aleksandar Gajović, državni sekretar u Ministarstvu informisanja gostujući u emisiji N1 direktno. Gajović je naveo i da su predlozi članova koji su napustili radnu grupu uvršćeni u strategiju.
Iz Radne grupe za izradu Strategije razvoja sistema javnog informisanja u Srbiji do 2023. godine, u oktobru su istupili predstavnici Asocijacije medija Dalila Ljubičić, Udruženja novinara Srbije Ljiljana Smajlović i Koalicije novinarskih i medijskih udruženja (Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije – NUNS, NDNV, Asocijacija nezavisnih elektronskih medija, Lokal pres i Asocijacija onlajn medija) Nedim Sejdinović, a poslednji je to učinio nezavisni ekspert Dejan Nikolić.
Gajović je ocenio, bez obzira na to, da postojeća Radna grupa, prema njegovom mišljenju, ima legitimitet. “A što se toliko pažnja posvećuje ovim četvoro što su izašli, a ne ovih 12, koji su velika imena naše medijske scene… Ima novinara, ima medijskih udruženja”, kaže Gajović.
Po kom pravilniku, uredbi piše da moraju predstavnici udruženja da budu tu, pitao je državni sekretar.
Gajović je istakao da je medijska strategija “medijski Ustav”, a da su članovima koji su napustili radnu grupu vrata otvorena. Tvrdi da je Ministarstvo učinilo veliki napor i mnogo kompromisa da se oni vrate.
Kada dokument bude gotov, biće organizovana i javna rasprava u Novom Sadu, Beogradu, Nišu, a postoji ideja da bude održana i u Kragujevcu, jer i u tom gradu ima mnogo medijskih problema, naveo je.
Kazao je da će svako moći da da svoj predlog i kad se nacrt bude našao na sajtu Ministarstva.
Ministarstvo je iskazalo u formiranju Radne grupe jednu veliku odgovornost činjenicom da je htelo da pokrije sve segmente, naveo je i ocenio da je to što su pojedini članovi izašli i nisu želeli da dovrše zadatak koji im je poveren – vrstom neodgovornosti.
Sejdinović: Nismo hteli da budemo alibi
Predsednik Nezavisnog društva novinara Vojvodine Nedim Sejdinović, koji je i sam istupio iz Radne grupe, kaže da je taj čin bio veoma odgovoran u tom trenutku, i da je posle povlačenja velikih udruženja (7 novinarskih udruženja) rad grupe obesmišljen. Kaže da su ostali predstavnici nekih udruženja, ali da su oni, po njegovom dubokom uverenju, bliski vlasti.
Predstavnici države se kriju i među onima koji se predstavljaju kao predstavnici medijskih udruženja, dodao je.
Kazao je i da sumnja u njihove stručne sposobnosti i dobre namere.
Podsetio je da je Radnu grupu napustio zbog metodologije rada.
Predstavnici naše koalicije prepoznali su opasnost da ćemo biti korišćeni kao alibi za neka rešenja koja država hoće da uvrsti u medijsku strategiju, rekao je Sejdinović i dodao da je to “igra” pred međunarodnom zajednicom. Istakao je da nisu hteli da budu prinuđeni da potpisuju neke dokumente, u kojima se nalaze rešenja protiv kojih se bore.
U analizi stanja hteo sam da se konstatuje jedna rečenica, da pojedini mediji koji kontinuirano krše kodeks, dobijaju, suprotno pravilniku, ogromna sredstva, dakle – jedna obična konstatacija, ordinarna činjenica u analizi stanja, i neki od tih predstavnika udruženja, rekli se nisu složili s tim, naveo je.
Bio bih oduševljen ukoliko bi većina naših predloga bila u strategiji, rekao je Sejdinović, ali, ističe da je Ministarstvo unapred izašlo sa predloženim rešenjima, pre nego što je radna grupa počela da radi, pa je skeptičan oko toga.
Vladavina prava u ovoj zemlji je, po mišljenju ne samo nas, predstavnika medija i civilnog društva, već i relevantnih međunarodnih faktora, veliki problem Srbije. Imamo i medijsku strategiju i set zakona koji uz određene propuste, jesu dobri, i u praksi su se pretvorili u svoju suprotnost, kaže Sejdinović.
Jedan od primera je Tanjug, kaže gost N1, ali dodaje da on nije jedini. Istakao je i projektno finansiranje medija koje se izvrnulo u svoju suprotnost, pa se sredstva dodeljuju medijima bliskim vlasti. Dodao je da se nije smanjio uticaj države, iako je to bio cilj takvog načina dodele sredstava.
Ministarstvo o Politici i Novostima posle medijske strategije?
Sejdinović je naglasio probleme oko Politike, Tanjuga i Večernjih novosti.
Tanjug je pitanje vladavine zakona, odlukom vlade je prestao da postoji, a radi još, a pitanja Politike i Večernjih novosti su vrlo ozbiljna pitanja… To nije medijski problem, ni politički, to je vrlo ozbiljan problem i u njemu se govori verovatno o vrlo velikim koruptivnim radnjama… I kod prethodnog ministra i državnog sekretara videli ste strah da o tome govore”, rekao je Sejdinović.
Kako je konstatovao, “Ministarstvo ispunjava naloge koji dolaze iz vaninstitucionalnih centara moći”.
Gajović je rekao da se slaže da postoje problemi oko Politike, Novosti, Tanjuga, dodaje i novosadski Dnevnik, ali navodi da u ostalom nije saglasan sa Sejdinovićem.
“Nekad moraju da se steknu zakonski uslovi da se nešto primeni… Tanjug radi, ali se nisu stekli uslovi za to što priziva Nedim, i što prizivaju još neki”.
Kaže da se to (da nema zakonskih uslova) odnosi i na Tanjug i Politiku i Novosti, “koji su tri različita slučaja”.
Sejdinović je na to rekao da Tanjug radi zato što je Vučić rekao da ostaje.
Ministarstvo će morati da se bavi vlasničkom strukturom Politike i Novosti, ali posle medijske strategije, rekao je Gajović, koji je mišljenja da nije teško doći do toga ko su vlasnici.
Gajović se ne slaže ni sa tvrdnjom Sejdinovića da se sufinansiraju mediji bliski vlasti. Ipak, na konstataciju da su pojedini mediji izveštavali o brojnim primerima takve dodele sredstava lokalnim medijima, rekao je da Ministarstvo kulture nema nikakve ingerencije na lokalu.
Ministarstvo uprave i lokalne samouprave je za to nadležno, dodao je, govoreći o projektnom finansiranju. Gajović je rekao da Ministarstvo kulture ima samo jednu pritužbu i spor na sudu, i dodaje da je to vrlo neutemeljena primedba.
“To sufinansiranje je pod velikom lupom javnosti, i ja ću to gledati kao oči svoje, da nema ni jedne jedine primedbe u vremenu koje predstoji”, dodao je.
Stav izašlih udruženja prema strategiji
Vraćajući se na Radnu grupu, Gajović je ocenio da je ona “autonomna i nezavisna, i da na njih niko nije uticao”. Naveo je da ima samo komandnu odgovornost za medijsku strategiju, i da nema nikakvog uticaja na nju.
Na pitanje kakav je stav udruženja koja su izašla iz priče, ako ne prođu njihovi predlozi u strategiji, Sejdinović odgovara da, za njih, ta strategija neće biti legitimna. O svim tačkama ćemo javno da se izjasnimo i da ponudimo rešenja koja su bitna, ali ne želimo da joj dajemo (takvoj) legitimitet, dodao je.
Meni je ova priča da državni sekretar ne utiče na medijsku strategiju, a da su članovi Radne grupe autonomni, pomalo komična, zaključio je Sejdinović.
O setu medijskih zakona
Govoreći o setu medijskih zakona, donetih 2014. godine, Gajović kaže da je ponosan na te zakone i na činjenicu da su harmonizovani sa evropskim zakonodavstvom.
“Mislim da jeste problem, što se oni ne primenjuju, a mogu da se primene”, rekao je i dodao da postoje organi koji ih nadziru, i koji bi trebalo da ih sankcionišu.
“Zašto taj koji je povređen ne primenjuje zakone, ne piše tužbe, to pitanje nije za mene”, rekao je. Vrlo srčano sam branio te zakone, u trenucima kad su napadani, oni su svakako bolji nego oni prethodni, i tu ćemo se svi složiti, a ranije sam rekao da će neka nova radna grupa za četiri, pet godina, uraditi zakone koji su bolji od ovih sada, naveo je.
Kaže da veruje da će uskoro neki zakoni biti dopunjeni i uređeni.
PRISTINA, 11.01.2018 – The Basic Court in Pristina ruled in favour to a consortium of NGO’s that requested four and a half years ago access to contract between Pristina’s government and KEDS, Turkish company that runs Kosovo’s electric power distribution network since June 2012.
The verdict of the Basic Court in Pristina dated January 9th this year that the Ministry of Economic Development and the Kosovo’s Energy Corporation (KEK) are found to have violated country’s Constitution and the law on access to public documents.
GAP, think tank based in Pristina, on behalf of KOSID, Kosovo Civil Society Consortium for Sustainable Development, have filed a request on freedom of information to ministry and KEK asking the contract that was signed between Kosovo’s government and Turkish company, Limak-Calik, in amount of 26.3 million euro. The ministry refused access to this and other contracts from privatisation claiming to be classified documents.
GAP introduced its lawsuit on June 3, 2013 at the Basic Court in Pristina. Almost five years later, the court ruled that ministry of economic development is obliged within 30 days to allow access to requested documents.
Agron Demi from GAP stated that they are satisfied reaching this goal which aims to increase transparency and accountability in the process of privatisation and energy too. “Unfortunately, the verdict does not have any particular impact because such processes (of privatisation) have already passed,” Demi, policy analyst at GAP told AJK.
The verdict, Demi opines, brought to attention three points that include: draft documents are subject to access to public documents, if such documents are of public interest – the institutions can no longer call on confidentiality and public enterprises are subject to the law on access to public documents.
Demi said that the office will send again another request to ministry of economy to have access to five important documents related to privatisation process of KEDS, including the final contract between Kosovo’s government and the winning consortium.
In the reaction of NGO consortium it is stated that the ministry has kept also out of public reach the list of assets of privatisation of KEDS. The list included four hydro-plants in Kosovo that were sold secretly even from Kosovo’s Assembly.
“KOSID evaluates that blocking access in the assets of KEDS at the time when the request was filed, it would have prevented harm of public interest”, KOSID’s press release reads.
KOSID expressed disappointment that the verdict did not provided sentences against the institution and responsible persons that blocked access to public documents, as foreseen by the law.
BEOGRAD, 11.01.2018. – Poseta predstavnika Evropske federacija novinara Srbiji i sastanci sa predstavnicima vlasti i novinarskih udruženja u vezi sa medijskim slobodama, izazvali su oštru polemiku u javnosti, koju je pokrenula savetnica predsednika Srbije Suzana Vasiljević. Ona je protestovala što predsednik EFJ Mogens Bliher Bjeregord nije tražio sastanak sa predsednikom Aleksandrom Vučićem i što će se u Srbiji susreti samo sa predstavnicima NUNS-a.
Nakon oštrog pisma upućenog Bjeregordu, predsednik EFJ je rekao da bi se rado susreo sa Vučićem tokom naredne sedmice, kada delegacija EFJ bude u Srbiji.
Upitan da li je će do susreta doći zbog pisma koje mu je Vasiljevićeva poslala, predsednik EFJ je za Danas odgovorio da nije bitno ko je kome prvi pisao, te da se raduje susretima sa zvaničnicima i novinarima u Srbiji.
– Kao i uvek u našim misijama, pokrenutih kako bismo se upoznali sa realnom medijskom situacijom, planirali smo da se sastanemo sa zvaničnicima, i uvek sam srećan kada uspemo da to učinimo na najvišem nivou. Organizacija takvih susreta je uvek teška i predstavlja “slagalicu”, uključujući gomilu mejlova, pisama i procedura, a ne vidim zbog čega je značajno ko je prvi poslao pismo – ističe Bjeregord za Danas. On dodaje da je najvažnije da se tokom posete saslušaju sve strane.
– Ovo je zajednička misija koja uključuje tri međunarodne organizacije i naše srpske članice, ali i gomilu zahteva za razgovore i sastanke. Stoga, ne bi bilo pošteno da u ovoj fazi govorimo o krajnjem ishodu, već će to biti učinjeno u Beogradu, na kraju misije – naglašava Bjeregord.
Savetnica predsednika Suzana Vasiljević je u pismu Bjeregordu navela da je Vučić “glavna meta većine kritika” koje dolaze iz Evropske federacije novinara i upitala zar ne bi bilo pošteno da njihovi predstavnici lično kažu Vučiću zašto smatraju njegov odnos prema medijima problematičnim i pruže mu priliku da iznese svoje viđenje situacije i svoje argumente. Ona je podsetila da je predsednik EFJ nedavno ocenio Srbiju kao najgori primer kršenja medijskih sloboda na Balkanu i izrazila negodovanje što će se članovi evropske misije sastati samo sa predstavnicima NUNS-a, a ne i sa predstavnicima drugih medijskih organizacija u Srbiji “ukoliko im je cilj da otkriju prave činjenice o situaciji u ovoj zemlji”.
Nezavisno udruženje novinara Srbije odbacilo je juče optužbe savetnice predsednika Srbije Suzane Vasiljević o namernom izostavljaju sastanka predstavnika EFJ sa predsednikom Aleksandrom Vučićem.
“NUNS ukazuje da je EFJ, planirajući posetu i sastanke sa predstavnicima državnih institucija imao u vidu njihova ustavna i zakonska ovlašćenja, i da je zato poziv za razgovore upućen premijeru, ministru za kulturu i informisanje, ministru pravosuđa i ministru policije. Reč je o predstavnicima Vlade, odnosno izvršne vlasti u čijoj su neposrednoj ingerenciji ključna pitanja slobode medija i bezbednosti novinara i drugih medijskih radnika u Srbiji”, navodi se u saopštenju NUNS-a i dodaje da je pravo predsednika Srbije da traži sastanak sa predstavnicima međunarodnih organizacija koje brinu o medijskim slobodama, “ali to nikako ne treba da bude povod za napad na novinarsko udruženje i EFJ”.
Suzana Vasiljević je odbacila optužbe NUNS-a navodeći da nije protivzakonito da se predsednik EFJ sastane sa predsednikom Srbije.
– Nije protivzakonito, a kulturno je i odgovorno sastati se sa čovekom koji je na meti njihovih skoro svakodnevnih napada, a koji je i slučajno predsednik države u koju su pozvali Evropsku federaciju novinara. Ukoliko je namera NUNS-a da EFJ zaista utvrdi činjenično stanje u Srbiji, osnovni red je da čuju i drugu stranu. Drugo je pitanje da li NUNS želi da se čuje druga strana i da li uopšte želi da predstavnicima EFJ pokaže da u Srbiji postoji i drugo mišljenje – navela je Vasiljević.
Vasiljević: Čega se NUNS plaši?
“Čega se to NUNS plaši i o kojim zakonskim i ustavnim ovlašćenjima govore? Da li se pozivaju na isti onaj ustav po kome su 15. juna 2011. godine pozvali tadašnjeg predsednika Republike Srbije da otvori Skupštinu Evropske federacije novinara i da govori o medijskim slobodama i njihovom kršenju?”, pita Suzana Vasiljević.
ZAGREB, 11.01.2018. – Mission of representatives of South East Europe Media Organization (SEEMO), European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Reporters without Borders (RSF), European Center for Media Freedom (ECPMF), European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and Association of European Journalists (AEJ) is coming to Croatia on January 15 for the 2nd time because of attacks and pressures on journalists as well as of disturbing situation in Croatian media.
Croatia is the only member of EU that has been visited by international professional mission for the second time in less than two years due to discouraging media freedom and pressure on journalists. After its first visit the Mission in June 2016 issued a comprehensive report stating many problems. It pointed out that the authorities did not do enough to stop political pressures on media and to clearly condemn attacks against journalists.
Unfortunately, the situation has not become better. On the contrary, according to all reports of relevant organizations dealing with media freedom and working conditions of journalists for 2017 situation in Croatia has deteriorated and our country, along with Romania, has been trailing behind all European countries. That is the reason for the Mission to visit Croatia on January 15 and 16, 2018.
Meetings with journalists, publishers, media organizations and representatives of politicians,
including the President and the Prime Minister have been planned.
Mission members are as follows: Oliver Vujović, SEEMO, head of the Mission, Marijana Camović, EFJ, Pauline Adès-Mével, RSF, Sophie Albers Ben Chamo, ECPMF, Boris Bergant, EBU and Otmar Lahodynsky, AEJ.
Press Conference is planned for January 16, 2018 at 14:30, Journalist Building, Zagreb and the Mission report will be published later.
PRIJEDOR, 11.01.2018. – The Steering Committee of BH journalists’ Association considers the examining of Slovenian journalists by the police in the Police Station Prijedor that took place on Wednesday, 10 January unacceptable and characterized this procedure as violation of Freedom of Expression. It is particularly worrying that the arrest and questioning followed after police officers legitimized Slovenian colleagues and found that they were journalists on the job.
In this context, the Steering Committee of BH Journalists reminds the police structures in Prijedor and the relevant authorities of The Ministry of Interior Affairs of RS that the OSCE Police Guideline in Dealing with the Media explicitly state that ” Police cannot be involved or cannot punish journalists during their performing of tasks”, and in particular emphasizes that ” Journalists have right to take photos, to record, make notes, observe, make interviews and/or make reports without asking for promotion of government or police.”
The unreasonable and uncivilized act of the police in Prijedor is also a violation of the right on free, safe and undisturbed work of journalists. This right is protected by the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Constitution of the Republika Srpska, as well as numerous domestic laws and international declarations, and equally applies to Bosnian-Herzegovinian journalists as well as journalists from other countries that record and work in the territory of BiH.
Therefore, the Steering Committee of BHJA demands from The Ministry of Interior Affairs of Republika Srpska to to inform the public in Bosnia and Herzegovina why and by whose order the Prijedor police officers violated the media freedom and rights of journalists from Slovenia and to publicly apologize to this journalists.
We remind, that the journalists Irena Joveva and Miha Orešnik were taken to the Police Station in Prijedor while filming an investigational journalists’ story about Dijana Đuđić, a BiH citizen from Prijedor, who is apparently borrowed 450,000 Euros to Janez Janša, president of the Social Democratic Union of Slovenia.
PODGORICA, 10.01.2018 – The government should take steps to maintain RTCG editorial freedom or its democratic credibility will decrease, said U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Hoyt Brian Yee. During his talk with “Vijesti”, he said that taking political control over the Public Service could be a step backward on Montenegro’s Euro-Atlantic path.
“We are concerned that the Parliament has jeopardized the editorial independence of the Public Service with changes in its governing body, RTCG Council – the action which seems to have political motivation to limit the freedom of the media. The Government should urgently take steps to underline RTCG editorial freedom or the Government’s democratic credibility will decrease, which would be a step backward on the Euro-Atlantic path of Montenegro. More importantly, Montenegrin public could lose confidence in the Public Service whose duty is to provide independent and objective reporting to citizens”, said Yee when asked to comment on notices of the opposition, NGOs, and media that DPS is openly attempting to take over political control over RTCG.
Experts- officials are talking about “re-engaging” the United States in the Western Balkans. What will the U.S. do in 2018 to prevent the region from slipping further into the deterioration of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law?
At least for the last quarter of the century, the U.S. is an active and important partner of the Western Balkans and we intend to continue that. Our primary goal during the mandates of several different U.S. administrations was to work with our partners to strengthen democratic institutions and implement the reforms necessary for Euro-Atlantic integration. This remains our priority.We are particularly committed to support strengthening of the rule of law, fight against corruption, and ensuring that governments are transparent and accountable. We will also continue to support strong independent voices, including journalists, non-governmental organizations, and other civil society members, who strive to build societies that are free, inclusive and prosperous.
What will Washington do to prevent other players, such as Russia, China or Turkey, from making, sometimes damaging, influence on the Western Balkans, filling thus the vacuum, which was created, according to some interpretations, while Brussels, and especially Washington, dealt with themselves?
Far from ignoring the Balkans, the United States and the EU have actually intensified their support to the security, stability and economic development of the region. Montenegro’s accession to NATO, democratic transfer of power and renewed commitment to reforms in Macedonia, further steps of Serbia and Montenegro towards the European Union and judicial reforms in Albania are just some of the examples of successful cooperation between the Balkans, the EU, America and other related states in 2017.Nevertheless, in 2018 the governments in the region can and should make progress more rapidly, including setting aside politicization and use the advantages of the assistance and opportunities provided by international partners.
We believe that the future of the region lies in the West, but transparent, legal investments and assistance from other parts of the world can, as well, assist the Balkans achieve their goal of European and Euro-Atlantic integration. At the same time, governments have to resist the false friendship of some foreign actors who ignore international law or oppose the Western orientation of the Balkans. Russia, for example, has shown its readiness to interfere in elections, undermining the key institutions of the West, such as NATO and the EU, using energy supplies as a political weapon, and weakening confidence in democracy and the free market. We will continue to help our partners to strengthen the resilience to such malignant impacts, including the strengthening of police and judicial institutions, the fight against energy supply and the promotion of sustainable economic growth and Euro-Atlantic integration.
You recently had said that it was shameful that Balkan political leaders, despite their undemocratic behavior, were welcomed in many European capitals, as if they weren’t doing anything wrong. Whom did you specifically have in mind?
My comment did not relate to anyone in particular. It is about the need to keep the undemocratic or corrupt Balkan leaders responsible. One of the methods is the way we welcome or do not welcome such leaders in our capitals. Politicians who are corrupt, who oppose the rule of law and the international community, encourage instability and tensions should not be given the opportunity to legitimize their undemocratic behavior through meetings and photographing with senior officials in European metropolises.
In the Atlantic Council report “The Balkans Forward: A New US Strategy for the Region”, the authors warn of the so-called “Big Men” that are actively hindering the reforms, and they mention several leaders, including Milo Đukanović. You recently said that the partnership between the West and the Balkan leaders should be a two-way street, and that they are expected to fulfill their obligations. Do you think that these leaders deliberately do that to remain in power, and what can Washington do if they continue to do that?
I refer you to the Atlantic Council for a comment on the report. My statement referred to the kind of partnership that the United States wants with the Western Balkans. We will fulfill our obligations toward governments, whether it concerns assistance, technical advice or political support, and we expect those governments and leaders to fulfill their obligations, for example to implement reforms or respect the rule of law. We will work with those officials who adhere to the rule of law and share our commitment to democratic and economic development. Leaders, of course, are firstly and foremost responsible to the ones who elect them, who are free to choose a new one.
What do you think about Đukanović’s recent comments in which he has labeled independent media as a “media mafia”?
All political leaders have the responsibility to respect the freedom of the media, which is one of the pillars of democracy. The United States is joining the European Union in emphasizing the need for Montenegro to show significant progress in protecting journalists and maintaining media freedom. Freedom of media enables a forum for all society members, and not just those having power. Political leaders have the responsibility to ensure that the government properly investigates physical attacks on journalists. On the other hand, the media is obliged to report independently and responsibly.
There was a collapse of the opposition boycott of the Parliament and 21 opposition MPs returned to it. Is this a good step towards the solution of the crisis, despite the high tensions and insults at all sessions up to now? What should the rest of the opposition do?
During the past year, we encouraged politicians from different sides to jointly work in the Parliament, where they can represent the best interests of the citizens of Montenegro. The message remains the same. Elected representatives of citizens cannot fulfill their duties if they stay aside and only selectively engage in discussions or if they focus on spreading instability. Citizens throughout the Balkans want their leaders to solve problems, not just to complain and accuse each other. Montenegro faces very important challenges. It is necessary that all of its elected officials participate fully in the political process, present their voters and work for the common good of their country.
There is an ongoing trial for alleged attempted coup in Montenegro. Political and public opinion is divided about whether something really happened or not, and to what extent, if at all, Montenegro was at risk. Based on the evidence which the U.S. helped investigate and what you know, what do you think about that event and the trial that followed?
The trial is still ongoing, but the evidences presented so far clearly indicate the interference of Russia and the brazen attempt to disrupt the independent electoral process in Montenegro. Continuous dissemination of disinformation and propaganda campaign aspire to discredit public confidence in the special prosecution and judiciary. Probably RT, Sputnik and state-sponsored trolls will continue these activities in 2018. We call on responsible independent media to inform the public about it and help citizens to differentiate facts from fiction.
Credibility of elections remains a priority
Would it be good or bad for Montenegro if Đukanović runs for president?
Who will or will not participate in the elections is not an issue for the United States. That is a decision that politicians, parties and voters should make. We are interested in the credibility of the election process, whether the campaigns are fair, transparent, and meet international standards. Can anyone run for elections on the basis of his/her own merits? Are Montenegrin citizens free to vote for candidates of their choice? Do institutions provide a forum where citizens’ voices will be heard during free and fair elections? We are not speaking about individuals here but about rules, norms, and institutions that represent a strong democracy.
The authorities and the opposition have to find a way to jointly solve problems
What should the Montenegrin authorities, the opposition, civil society and the media do in 2018 in order to solve political crisis which goes on lasts since 2016 elections?
The current political situation hampers Montenegro’s progress towards European integration, supported by the vast majority of Montenegrin citizens. All those who are interested in the political and economic well-being of Montenegro should do what they can to solve the political stalemate, in accordance with the Constitution and European standards. In every democracy it is normal for parties to have disagreements. However, it is high time that the ruling and opposition parties find a way to work together to solve some of the urgent challenges facing the country, including how to strengthen the economy and convince young Montenegrin citizens not to leave the country. Journalists and civil society should assist in informing the public about the most important issues and current events, and serve as controllers of abuse of power. Citizens should clearly communicate to their elected leaders that they want results and functional democracy, and not empty posing and stagnation.
Protests and riots are possible if promised improvements are not achieved
In its Preventive Engagement Report, the Council on Foreign Relations’ identifies the Balkans as one of the 30 potential “hot spots” in the world, warning on possible political riots and extremist violence in the region, even re-drawing some borders. How real are these threats in the region?
The region faces serious challenges – external and internal threats that, if left unanswered, can cause serious consequences for the aspirations of the Western Balkan countries. Fragile institutions, poor rule of law and lack of media freedom provide endemic corruption, discourage foreign investment, and force citizens to emigrate into more stable and prosperous countries. Protests and riots can also occur if governments fail to meet the promised improvements in governance and living standards. Poor economic conditions also open up paths for potentially destabilizing things such as violent extremists, organized crime, and states with malignant influences. The United States will continue to provide funding and technical assistance to help governments in the Balkans counteract these threats and harmful actors who want to weaken institutions, undermine reforms and prevent progress of the region.
Овој проект е финансиран од Европската Унија преку програмата за мали грантови „Заштита на слободата на медиумите и слободата на изразување во Западен Балкан“ спроведена од Здружението на хрватските новинари, како дел од регионалниот проект „Регионална платформа на Западен Балкан за слобода на медиумите и безбедност на новинарите”, спроведена преку партнерство на шест регионални новинарски здруженија – Здружение на независни новинари на Србија, Здружение на новинари од Босна и Херцеговина, Здружение на новинари на Хрватска, Здружение на новинари на Косово, Здружение на новинари на Македонија и Синдикатот на медиуми на Црна Гора.
