Update
Who controls Serbia’s media: a map of the six dominant...
Serbia’s media landscape is not defined by many competing voices, but by a handful of owners w...
The second attempt to select a new REM Council opened with a public call published on 8 May 2025. Forty-nine candidacies were submitted by 189 nominating organizations across the nine nomination groups defined by law. At subsequent sessions, the Committee on Culture and Information established the list of candidates and nominating organizations in ways that drew immediate criticism from civil society and independent participants. Seven nominators were instructed to supplement documentation for twelve candidates - a requirement applied selectively and not uniformly across all groups. The process of determining which organizations constituted a single joint nominator was conducted without transparency and in ways that appeared to favor certain participants over others.
Legitimate nominators responded by submitting 30 formal objections to the candidate list, citing procedural violations and the inclusion of candidates and organizations that did not meet legal requirements. It is worth noting that the law does not recognize a formal right of objection as a legal remedy in this process - the objections were submitted as a way of directing the Committee's attention to its legal obligations. The Committee declined to consider these objections at its sessions.
In response, 78 nominating organizations and 16 candidates withdrew from the process. An informal meeting on 27 June between different groups of nominators - those close to the authorities and those that were not - ended with an agreement to return the matter to the Committee and apply the law equally to all participants. This represented a brief moment of potential resolution.
The agreement did not hold. At the Committee session held on 1 and 2 July, objections were again addressed through selective application of the law. Legitimate nominators walked out of the session in protest. The Committee subsequently adopted a disputed preliminary report on the proposed groupings of nominators and candidates. Legitimate nominators submitted their comments on the Committee's proposal on 14 July. The outcome of the selection remained deeply uncertain.
Legitimate nominators responded by submitting 30 formal objections to the candidate list, citing procedural violations and the inclusion of candidates and organizations that did not meet legal requirements. It is worth noting that the law does not recognize a formal right of objection as a legal remedy in this process - the objections were submitted as a way of directing the Committee's attention to its legal obligations. The Committee declined to consider these objections at its sessions.
In response, 78 nominating organizations and 16 candidates withdrew from the process. An informal meeting on 27 June between different groups of nominators - those close to the authorities and those that were not - ended with an agreement to return the matter to the Committee and apply the law equally to all participants. This represented a brief moment of potential resolution.
The agreement did not hold. At the Committee session held on 1 and 2 July, objections were again addressed through selective application of the law. Legitimate nominators walked out of the session in protest. The Committee subsequently adopted a disputed preliminary report on the proposed groupings of nominators and candidates. Legitimate nominators submitted their comments on the Committee's proposal on 14 July. The outcome of the selection remained deeply uncertain.
