The Board of Directors of the Belgrade Bar Association has decided to delete from the directory of lawyers, the lawyer Blazo Nedic because of an alleged conflict of interest. Nedic
is a President of the National Association of Mediators of Serbia and one of the registered legal representatives of Partners for Democratic Change Serbia. In an open letter to the public, he stressed that there was no legal basis for such a decision and that it was only part of an orchestrated campaign against him and NGOs. The Bar’s decision in the Nedic case is not yet publicly known. Other lawyers who are working in citizens’ associations have received similar letters from the Belgrade Bar Association. In March 2019, the President of the Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights, Katarina Golubovic, was warned by letter that she could not represent this association and remain in the status of a lawyer. Faced with such a threat, the Committee of Lawyers for Human Rights changed its representative in April 2019.
Findings
Executive Summary
March 18, 2021Standard 1.1.1. Establishment of and Participation in CSOs
March 18, 20211.1.1. Establishment of and Participation in CSOs
Legislation is fully in line with the standards in this area. There is a possibility for any person to establish associations, foundations and other types of non-profit, non-governmental entities for any purpose as well as for both individual and legal persons to exercise the right of freedom of association without discrimination. Article 55 of the Constitution stipulates freedom of association, as well as freedom to stay out of any association. Associations shall be formed without prior approval but shall be entered in the register kept by a state body. The Law on Associations stipulates that an association shall be established and organized freely, and shall be independent in the pursuit of its goals. Article 19 of this Law stipulates that anyone may become the association’s member under equal terms laid down by its statute. An individual may be a member of the association irrespective of his age and in accordance with this Law and its statute. Article 10 of the Law on Endowments and Foundations stipulates that endowments and foundations may be established by one or more domestic or foreign natural or legal persons having business capacity, they may also be established by a will and if the testator did not specify the name of the executor of the will, competent court for probate proceedings shall determine the executor.
Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal process. Law on Associations envisages that Entry in the Association Register shall be made on a voluntary basis and the association shall acquire the status of a legal entity at the date of its entry in the Register. Law on Endowments and Foundations states that endowments and foundations shall acquire a legal person capacity on the day of entry in the Register and that they may not engage in activities before entered into the Register. However, The Law on the Procedure of Registration with the Serbian Business Registers Agency stipulates the procedure of registration of an association, the contents of the application and the form in which it was submitted.
The legislation allows for networking among organizations in the country and abroad without prior notification, while there are no legal provisions related to blocking social networks.
Practice is partially harmonized with standards when it comes to possibility for every individual or legal entity to form associations, foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations offline or online. According to the information received upon the FOI request from the Agency for Business Registers, in the past 12 months, registration applications, due to procedural reasons, was denied to 283 associations (due to formal deficiencies), while the number of endowments and foundations was 11. The Agency for Business Registers does not impose bans on the work of civil society organizations, the Constitutional Court does it. In the requested period, it did not have any decision on the ban of the work of associations, foundations and endowments, which the Agency for Business Registers was obliged to enter in the Register of Associations. According to the information received upon the FOI request, the High-Tech Crime Prosecutor’s Office does not have information on deleted online groups, as they have no technical capabilities.
According to a survey on civil society conducted by Helvetas and Civic Initiatives for the purpose of the program „Together for an Active Civil Society” in April 2019 (ACT study), 13% of CSOs have elected, appointed and/or representatives of public administration on their Managing Boards and/or among employees. Looking at the area of work, CSOs dealing with law, public representation and politics (human rights) (23%) have such a person on their Managing Board/as an employee more often than others, while they are least present in CSOs that are active in the area of culture, media and recreation and philanthropic mediation and promotion of volunteerism (10% each). CSOs from Belgrade (18%) and those with budgets exceeding EUR 20,001 (25%) have, more often than others, elected/appointed persons on their Managing Boards or among staff.
Practice also indicates partially enabling environment in the area of sanctions for non-registering organizations. The previous period in Serbia was marked by the formation of a number of grassroots organizations/movements due to the lack of space for public debate. They are particularly active in the fields of ecology and environmental protection and socio-economic rights. One of the most significant results of these local initiatives is that they unite citizens in the fight against corruption, nepotism and negligent dealing with community issues. Without clear operational division, their structure is fluid and depends on personal engagement. Grass roots’ key advantage is openness, immediacy and inclusivity, while the key drawback is a lack of clear roles and division of responsibilities. Grassroots have great reach via social networks but with no strategic approach to their work, they react ad hoc. They perceive themselves as well networked with other local grassroots and CSOs but based on personal contacts, while some representatives of formal CSOs identify the lack of strategic connections between these two groups. Due to its unregistered status, the informal group “Defend the rivers of Stara Planina” has been exposed to smear campaigns in the previous period. As they are an unregistered group, donations are received through an individual’s account. This was used to accuse them of non-transparency and spending of citizens’ donations for private purposes.
BAR ASSOCIATION AGAINST CSOS
According to available SBRA data, the number of registered associations in 2019. is 2090, while the number of newly registered endowments is 4 and 70 foundations. There are no cases in the survey that CSOs reported that the registration procedure was conducted impartially or that the required registration documents exceeded those stipulated by law.
The practice is harmonized with standards in the area of forming and participating in networks and coalitions. According to the MM survey, 18 organizations responded that they are member of a home network, 13 that they are a member of two, 13 that they are a member of three or more and 8 of them that they are not a member of them of any. Also, 13 organizations responded that it was a member of one international network, 2 that it was a member of two, 11 organizations that it was a member of three and more and 26 that it is not a member of any. Among the respondents, none of the organizations members of the network faced any demands from the state.
According to ACT study, when it comes to cooperation with other CSOs, less than 63% of organizations have so far established cooperation with other CSOs, which is significantly less than in 2011 (86%). This is expected, having in mind that number of CSOs has doubled since 2010 and that establishing cooperation requires time, knowledge and contacts with other CSOs. The most common motive for establishing cooperation are common interests and goals (92%), better exploitation of capacities (35%), helping another organization (31%) and better reputation of partner organization (22%), which is similar to 2011. The great majority of CSOs are satisfied with cooperation with other CSOs (82%), which is increase of 6 percent points compared to 2011. 33% of CSOs are members of a CSO network, which is 2 percent point less than in 2011 (35%). In most of the cases, CSOs are members of the national network (20%), and in fewer cases of international (12%), regional (11%) and local (10%). About one third of CSOs (35%) evaluate that there is a strong influence of the network to which they belong, which is significant drop of 16 percent points when compared to 2011 (51%); majority (56%) believe that network influence is weak, while 9% report no influence of the network.
One of the most important activities in the field of networking in Serbia in 2019 is the launch of the Three Freedoms platform. Representatives of 20 civil society organizations signed in Belgrade the Three Freedoms Platform for the Protection of Civic Space in the Republic of Serbia, in order to protect and promote the freedom of association, assembly and information. The launch of the Platform has also been influenced by the fact that CSOs are exposed to more frequent attacks in pro-regime media and attacks on the physical integrity, reputation and honor of their activists.
In the area of guarantees against state interference in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of non-profit entities, legal framework is in line with standards. Freedom of association is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, and there are limitations only in terms of establishing secret and paramilitary associations. CSOs are autonomous to the state, and self-govern the internal structure and procedures. There is no basis on which the state is to intervene in appointing subjects in organizations. The Law on Associations stipulates that CSOs shall be run impartially by either a body of members or by elected representatives in the association’s bodies. There is no prescribed obligation to previously seek a license for a certain activity. The Law prescribes the obligation of entering activities in the Association’s Statute and during the Register Application submission, but leaves freedom in the choice of activity.
However, when it comes to protection freedom of association, including preventing third parties from violating the freedom of association, legal framework indicates disabling environment. Although, the Article 3 of the Law on Associations stipulates that an association shall be established and organized freely and shall be independent in pursuit of its goals, there are no specific provisions aimed at direct preventing third parties from the freedom of association. Also, no legal provisions aimed at protection of specific group of CSOs based on its field of operations. Based on civil and criminal laws, they exercise the right of protection as other private and legal entities.
Partially enabling environment has been assessed in the area of financial reporting (including money laundering regulations) and accounting rules and considering the specific nature of the CSOs and are proportionate to the size of the organization and its type/scope of activities. The regulations on the annual CSOs financial reporting partially recognized specific nature of CSOs. The Law on associations prescribes that associations shall keep ledgers, draw up financial reports and shall be subject to financial report auditing in line with the accounting and auditing regulations. Law on accounting recognizes a specific nature of the non-profit entities at certain level throughout separated accountancy framework. However, it still contains numerous unnecessary elements that are not relevant for the non-profits operating and make difficulties in recording data.
Registration is not mandatory, and in cases when organizations decide to register, the registration rules are clearly prescribed and allow for easy, timely and inexpensive registration and appeal process. Law on Associations envisages that Entry in the Association Register shall be made on a voluntary basis and the association shall acquire the status of a legal entity at the date of its entry in the Register. Law on Endowments and Foundations states that endowments and foundations shall acquire a legal person capacity on the day of entry in the Register and that they may not engage in activities before entered into the Register. However, The Law on the Procedure of Registration with the Serbian Business Registers Agency stipulates the procedure of registration of an association, the contents of the application and the form in which it was submitted.
The legislation allows for networking among organizations in the country and abroad without prior notification, while there are no legal provisions related to blocking social networks.
Practice is partially harmonized with standards when it comes to possibility for every individual or legal entity to form associations, foundations or other non-profit, non-governmental organizations offline or online. According to the information received upon the FOI request from the Agency for Business Registers, in the past 12 months, registration applications, due to procedural reasons, was denied to 283 associations (due to formal deficiencies), while the number of endowments and foundations was 11. The Agency for Business Registers does not impose bans on the work of civil society organizations, the Constitutional Court does it. In the requested period, it did not have any decision on the ban of the work of associations, foundations and endowments, which the Agency for Business Registers was obliged to enter in the Register of Associations. According to the information received upon the FOI request, the High-Tech Crime Prosecutor’s Office does not have information on deleted online groups, as they have no technical capabilities.
According to a survey on civil society conducted by Helvetas and Civic Initiatives for the purpose of the program „Together for an Active Civil Society” in April 2019 (ACT study), 13% of CSOs have elected, appointed and/or representatives of public administration on their Managing Boards and/or among employees. Looking at the area of work, CSOs dealing with law, public representation and politics (human rights) (23%) have such a person on their Managing Board/as an employee more often than others, while they are least present in CSOs that are active in the area of culture, media and recreation and philanthropic mediation and promotion of volunteerism (10% each). CSOs from Belgrade (18%) and those with budgets exceeding EUR 20,001 (25%) have, more often than others, elected/appointed persons on their Managing Boards or among staff.
Practice also indicates partially enabling environment in the area of sanctions for non-registering organizations. The previous period in Serbia was marked by the formation of a number of grassroots organizations/movements due to the lack of space for public debate. They are particularly active in the fields of ecology and environmental protection and socio-economic rights. One of the most significant results of these local initiatives is that they unite citizens in the fight against corruption, nepotism and negligent dealing with community issues. Without clear operational division, their structure is fluid and depends on personal engagement. Grass roots’ key advantage is openness, immediacy and inclusivity, while the key drawback is a lack of clear roles and division of responsibilities. Grassroots have great reach via social networks but with no strategic approach to their work, they react ad hoc. They perceive themselves as well networked with other local grassroots and CSOs but based on personal contacts, while some representatives of formal CSOs identify the lack of strategic connections between these two groups. Due to its unregistered status, the informal group “Defend the rivers of Stara Planina” has been exposed to smear campaigns in the previous period. As they are an unregistered group, donations are received through an individual’s account. This was used to accuse them of non-transparency and spending of citizens’ donations for private purposes.
Article 34 of Law on Associations prescribes that any associations which have received funds from the budgets of the Republic, Autonomous Province or local self-government shall at least once a year make available to the general public the report on their activities and on the scope and method of acquiring and using the financial means and forward it to the provider of such (financial) means. No specific recommendation in regard to this based on different type or size of CSOs. Provisions of the Law on Central Record of the Beneficial Owners whose Article 2 prescribes that the provisions of the Law refer to, among others associations as well as foundations and endowments are relevant for the work of CSOs. After registration of the real owner, there are no established obligations related to further reporting according to this law neither for CSOs nor other legal entities.
Legislation is in line with standards when it comes to restrictions and the rules for dissolution and termination meet the standards of international law and are based on objective criteria which restrict arbitrary decision-making. The Law on Associations allows the association to cease operations at any time, at the discretion of the highest body of the organization. The law also contains some provisions that regulate liquidation of association. Similarly, Law on Endowments and Foundations prescribe terms and procedure of deleting from the Register.
Additionally, there are no legal provisions related to disproportionate termination due to failing to submit its annual report on time. This situation is resolving with a paying fine as for other legal entities.
Practice partially met standards when it comes to sanctions for breaching legal requirements should be based on applicable legislation and follow the principle of proportionality. Law on associations provides punitive provisions for corporate offences and petty offences. A fine ranging from EUR 2.500 – 7.700 shall be levied for any corporate offence on any association if it performs directly a business or another activity Law on Associations 28 in order to make profit unrelated to its statutory goals, or not stipulated by its statute, or if it performs such an activity although the competent body has established that it does not fulfill the conditions for performing such an activity. A fine ranging from EUR 250 – 700 shall also be imposed on the responsible person at the mentioned association for the corporate offence.
Concerning the petty offences fine ranging from 300 – 3.300 EUR shall be levied on any association for a petty offence: 1) if it carries out its activities contrary to the law, its statute or its other internal regulations as well as contrary to the rules of the (con)federation of which it is a member 2) if it performs a business or another activity of a larger scope, or of a scope not necessary for achieving the association’s goals, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3); 3) if it does not utilize the assets and properties solely for the purpose of achieving its statutory goals); 4) if the foreign association’s representative office starts up its activities before it is entered in the Register.
The Law on Endowment and Foundations contains similar provisions with lower fines for both legal and responsible persons. The Law also provides that a fine ranging from EUR 1.100 to 3.000 shall be levied on endowments and foundations if they engage in activities before it is entered into the Registry. When it comes to other laws containing punitive provisions, it is a regular practice to make a difference in terms of the penalty for legal and natural persons, but the laws do not consider whether it is an association, foundation or company.
Practice indicates disabling environment in the area of the state interference in internal matters of associations, foundations and other types of non-profit entities. In a parliamentary debate, Aleksandar Martinovic, the chief of the SNS Parliamentary Group, said that reporters, as well as the NGOs, posted security-sensitive questions calling upon the Law on Free Access to Information of Public Importance, and accused them for “tendentious questions aimed at bringing down the security system of the Republic of Serbia.” He also accused former Commissioner of Information of Public Importance Rodoljub Sabic of working for foreign security agencies and Serbia’s opposition and against the SNS and Serbia. Martinovic said “Serbian citizens should know that we primarily talk about those who mostly demanded (information of public importance), and I say that again, security-sensitive information, like CINS, KRIK, BIRN, BIRODI, Natasa Kandic, Nemanja Nenadic (director of Transparency Serbia) and so on. In this way, Martinovic attacked independent civil society organizations BIRODI, Transparency Serbia, CRTA and the Humanitarian Law Center and editorial offices of independent media CINS, BIRN, Istinomer, TV N1, weekly Vreme, because of their research and analyzes, which are supported by facts “destroying the security system of the Republic of Serbia”.
In September 2019, Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic called the civil society organizations CRTA (Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability) and CESID (Center for Free Elections and Democracy) “so-called” and stressed that they were “false” organizations. On that occasion, he emphasized that he accepted all five requests they made, although according the Constitution he does not have the authority to decide on these issues (adoption of emergency procedure, public hearings, meaningless amendments in the Assembly, adoption of reports of independent institutions in the Assembly, special debate on the budget). He also pointed out that this was a malicious intention of the opposition and the civil sector, thereby identifying civil society organizations with opposition parties in order to discredit their expertise and disrupt the public image about them.
CI Resource Center was alarmed in 2 cases of the oversight when 2 CSOs connected it with their watchdog activities. Both inspection oversights were conducted according to the Risk Assessment mentioned above and without any notified irregularities in CSOs work. In addition, CI Resource center has been noticed several cases related to the approach among certain banks regarding the implementation of regulations in the field of money laundering. Namely, by applying the Law on real owners, some banks require submitting personal documents of all CSO members instead of just representatives of the management structures, which was the practice so far.
The majority of activists of the movement “Do not let Belgrade d(r)own” suffer as a result of orchestrated campaign that can be linked with the ruling arty. Vladimir Djukanovic and Marijan Risticevic (MPs) showed their pictures in the live program and in the Assembly. In the media they were accused of plotting to kill the president. The activists of the Initiative were 40 times at the front covers of the Informer, daily tabloid close to government, where they were targeted as traitors of Serbia. They are exposed to the smear campaign in the media, pressures on social networks, and pressures on the street.
However, according to the MM survey, from the total number of 52 organizations, 48 organizations responded that they did not experienced threats by government officials and 4 of them responded that they had; 50 organizations did not experience government intrusion into the internal work of the organization (e.g. during board meetings or events) and 2 of them responded that they did; 50 organizations responded that they haven’t experienced unannounced inspections by state authorities and two of them responded that they did.
Partially enabling environment has been assessed when it comes to cases of invasive oversight which impose burdensome reporting requirements. No organizations from the MM survey have responded that they experienced invasive oversight (e.g. excessive audit, other burdensome administrative requirements, targeted inspections etc.). However, according to data gathered in the survey for the purpose of the ACT Program excessive supervision of work/frequent inspections was reported by 3% of the CSOs and those are mainly CSOs involved in international cooperation (including European integration).
Based on recommendations of FATF and MONEYVAL expert committee, in June 2018, the Government adopted the document Money Laundering Risk Assessment and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment with the accompanying Action Plan in order to implement the recommendations contained in this document. Based on this, stronger coordination was made between inspections in charge for associations and foundations. In order to exercise effective supervision and coordinate the work of inspectional services, the Coordination Commission for Supervisory Inspection established a Working Group for supervisory inspection of the non-profit sector. The Coordination Commission is an inter-agency coordination body, tasked with aligning and coordinating the work of inspections and enhancing the effectiveness of supervisory inspection through aligning plans of supervisory inspections and training programs, promoting the information exchange and professional and ethical standards of inspectors, monitoring and evaluation of inspections and supervision. The Working Group developed a document called Procedures and Criteria for Supervising NPOs. These Procedures introduce steps in preparing and developing a plan for consolidated supervision of NPOs, as well as exercising the consolidate supervision.
Practice is in line with standards in the area of sanctions applied in rare/extreme cases; they are proportional and are subject to a judicial review. According to the MM survey just 2 organizations responded they were sanctioned for noncompliance, and 50 of them they were not. One of them responded the sanction was proportional one of them considered that the sanction was excessive for the breach. According to the MM survey two organizations responded they were sanctioned for noncompliance, also responded that they used the opportunity to appeal in court. No available data on sanctions from the Working Group for supervisory inspection of the non-profit sector in the area of counter money laundry and financing terrorism.
When it comes to freely seeking and securing financial resources from various domestic and foreign sources to support CSOs activities, legislation is in line with the standards. Law of Associations stipulates that the association may perform any activities which help achieve the goals set forth in its statute. The associations, endowments and foundations may directly perform both a business activity and another profit – making activity in accordance with the law regulating the classification of activities, under the certain conditions, mostly in line with standards.
Similar findings have been identified regarding freely receiving foreign funds, as well as from individuals, corporations and other sources. There are no limitations in regards to receiving assets from public or private foreign sources and there is no discrimination against the source of financing
Although the legislation regarding this standard is mostly in place, there are certain problems with practice. When it comes to engaging CSOs in economic activities, standards are partially met. According to the MM survey, 37% of organizations reported income from economic activities, while 21% experienced administrative obstacles (no further explanations) when engaging in economic activities in practice. The total number of registered associations at the end of 2019 is 33,463 and the number of foundations and endowments is 9,111. The number of registered associations with economic activities is 25, 8% of the total number of registered associations and 3, 5% from the total number of endowments and foundations.
According to the interviewed respondents from the Coalition for developing of solidarity economy, the lack of knowledge, human and other resources represent key barriers to development of business and achievement of a greater social impact for the most of CSOs establishing social enterprises. To allow social enterprises to do their business in the market more successful, be ready for investors and achieve greater impact in the community, they need to be provided with an access to education, structured support programs for different enterprise development phases and linkages with key stakeholders in the state which could facilitate their development.
This requires creation of strong, long-lasting and stable support programs in order to enable continuous development of this sector. Improving financing from public funds is also needed including the enhancing transparency of the existing public sector financial instruments and their openness towards different legal forms of business. Raising awareness among the sector representatives about contribution these enterprises can bring to social services, health care, education, culture, employment of different categories of population and innovation in addressing fundamental social problems. Besides the grants and co-funding, advocate other mechanisms like subsidies, tax reliefs, public procurement, etc.
Partially enabling environment has been detected during assessment of restrictions of receiving foreign funding as well as receiving funds from individuals, corporations and other sources. Slightly less than 50% MM survey respondents reported that they have income from foreign sources and less than 25% of them are dominantly financing themselves through foreign funding. Also, No CSOs receiving income from foreign sources reported facing any obstacles. 44% of MM surveyed CSOs reported that they have income from private sources and none of them are dominantly financing themselves through private funding. From the CSOs that reported that they have income from private sources no one responded that they faced any restrictions when receiving funding from private sources
However, ACT study data indicates shattering the myth of CSOs as organizations that are funded mostly by the international community – namely, only 15% of CSOs reported receiving funding from these sources (including 4% EU funding). EU funds are still a limited source of income for Serbian CSOs; nevertheless, CSOs involved in international cooperation (including European integration) are in the leading position (19%). These data also show that CSOs dealing with development and housing receive 52% of their funding from citizens and 23% from the business sector, which is, in both cases, the biggest share compared to other CSOs. According to the preliminary data obtained from the Catalyst Foundation, 279 organizations received donations from private sources (from citizens and companies) in 2019.
According to Brodoto Serbia Mapping of the alternative financial mechanisms, opportunities and obstacles in Serbia, bearing in mind the general situation regarding crowdfunding and the legislative framework, there are many challenges. Currently, crowdfunding campaigns are possible, but they can be extremely complicated from the point of view of procedures and administration. This demotivates both CSOs and the small and startups and entrepreneurs, especially in early business development, to use this alternative way of financing.
BAR ASSOCIATION AGAINST CSOS
The Ministry of Labor, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs (MLEVSA) issued the Draft Law on Social entrepreneurship in November 2018. However, it does not recognize associations as owners and founders of social enterprises. The draft also predicted financial incentives for registered social enterprises. Legal forms in which a social enterprise can operate can only be companies and entrepreneurs, which is a particularly aggravating circumstance having in mind that associations are most often founders of social enterprises. After a strong pressure of interested CSOs gathered by the Coalition for Social Entrepreneurship, the process has been stopped by the intervention of the Prime minister cabinet in March 2019. The new working group has been established with expert support of GIZ Serbia and strong involvement of CSOs, but the draft is not published yet. Although, the Government expressed strong willingness for adoption the Law, there was no intention on the part of the state to consider non-financial incentives and to recognize social entrepreneurship as social value within different sectorial policies.
The legal framework in Serbia is based on international standards and provides the right for freedom of assembly for all without any discrimination. The right to Assembly is explicitly stipulated by the Constitution. Article 54 stipulates Freedom of Assembly held outdoors may be restricted by the law only if necessary to protect public health, morals, rights of others or the security of the Republic of Serbia. Furthermore, Assembly held indoors shall not be subjected to permission or registering unlike Assembly held outdoors. The Public Assembly Act provisions explicitly determining that a public assembly refers to a gathering of 20 or more persons on account of expressing and realizing different viewpoints and goals which are allowed in a democratic society. A necessary precondition for the protection of the right to freedom of assembly specified by the Act is that the assembly must be deemed peaceful. The right to assembly is guaranteed to all persons, as prescribed by Article 2 of the Act.
However, when it comes to restriction spontaneous, simultaneous and counter-assemblies, legislation partially satisfies standards. There are no legal limitations in terms of multiple assemblies on the same location at the same time. The only explicit limitation is the nature of the assembly which should be peaceful. The Act does not recognize the category of counter assembly. The Public Assembly Act stipulates a dual obligation of the competent bodies, negative and positive. The negative obligation is contained in the request that competent organs do not, by its actions, jeopardize or limit the right of citizens to public assembly, while the positive obligation implies the obligation to take all steps, primarily with regard to public safety work, so that the assembly passes without incidents. On the other hand, not having a clear legal definition of these concepts may lead to serious problems in the practical application of the Act, which was previously the case, and it was not improved by passing the new Act in 2016.
Similarly, partially enabling environment has been notified regarding prior authorization of the right by the authorities. The Public Assembly Act recognizes the system of submitting notification but not the authorization of the public gathering. The organizer, unless it is a spontaneous gathering, shall inform the Ministry of Interior on public assembly. The Act also stipulates that public gathering can be reported and organized as the motion of participants of public assembly in a specific location, provided that it is necessary to emphasize it in the application submitted to the police. Article 6 stipulates certain limitations in terms of the assembly location and states that assemblies cannot be held in front of health institutions, schools, preschool institutions as well as objects of strategic importance to the defense and security of the Republic of Serbia.
Finally, restrictions of the right based on law and prescribed by regulatory authority can be appealed by organizers, which is in line with standard. The Act envisages the possibility of complaint in the procedure as well as entering into a dispute, which is stipulated by Article 16 of the Public Assembly Act. The complaint is submitted to the Ministry of the Interior within 24 hours after receiving the decision, and the Ministry has to act within 24 hours of receiving the complaint. A dispute may be lodged against the final decision of the Ministry.
In practice, there are certain cases of encroachment of the freedom of assembly for all which indicate partially enabling environment, although the Ministry of Interior did not provide official information. According to the MM survey, 15 organizations responded that they practiced freedom of assembly. 2 of them responded that administrative requirements were not burdensome for the organizers (e.g. prior authorization to hold the event and for one of them they were. One of them responded that access to the desired venue was not limited. No CSO responded that due to restrictions, participants could not gather at the desired time.
However, CI reports “Three freedoms” record a trend of increasing of public gatherings during 2019. CSOs, informal groups, political parties, both liberal and liberal prominences, appeared as organizers. However, liberal rallies generally occurred in response to liberal group public gatherings. During 2019, the Pride Parade was held in Belgrade and for the first time in Novi Sad with great measures and police protection.
During 2019 additional restrictions in the local legislative have been recorded. Using their legal authorities in the area of governance of the public spaces, certain local-self-governments, occupying the public space needed for organizing public gatherings asked for the local tax payments or to signing commercial contract with local utility company for cleanness (to clean the space after the gathering). This means that if an association wants to set up a stage or a promotional stand during public gathering, it will not get a permit unless it has paid all local taxes imposed by the local government on any basis. Additionally, utility taxes for using public space for this purpose are the same for both profit and non-profit entities and CSOs are not able to pay it in some cases. All mentioned above could be de-motivated for exercising freedom of assembly and indicates hidden legal obstacles bellow the primary legislation.
A group of right-wingers gathered, on 5th May, in front of “Roma” bakery in Borca, Belgrade, demanding its closure because a former bakery employee was photographed, two years ago, gesturing the Albanian national symbol – the two-headed eagle. Interior Minister Nebojsa Stefanovic said police kept the peace during a gathering of citizens outside a bakery in Borca. Human rights activists and most opposition parties in Serbia condemned the attack on the bakery in Belgrade, while right-wing MP Srdjan Nogo not only attended the attack but also defended its legitimacy. Human rights activists, neighbours and the opposition organized a rally to support the bakery owner, which once again provoked right-wingers to protest. They walked around Borca singing nationalist songs and spreading hate speech against the Albanian minority, two days after the gathering. Police did not prohibit this nationalistic rally, indicating that such behaviour was permissible.
When it comes to explanations of restrictions of the freedom of assembly, practice also partially satisfies standards. According to CI bi-weekly reports “Three freedoms”, during 2019, there has been an increase in the number of gatherings of illiberal groups, which should be prohibited in relation to the requirements of the Law on Public Meetings.
During the three days of the panel, the Zone of New Optimism in Sabac, a group of young men tried to disrupt it. On the first day before the start of the event, the assembled young men shouted and insulted the participants of the panel, but there were no major incidents. The start of the panel was half an hour late. The same case was repeated for the next two days. Although Sabac television, co-organizer of the five-day event, sent a letter to the Sabac Police Department asking why they were not responding and how is it possible that an unreported rally could interfere with the event for the third day, they have not received the answer yet.
Unfortunately, disabling environment has been identified for exercising simultaneous, spontaneous and counter-assemblies. According to the MM survey, only 5 CSOs reported they have participated in spontaneous assemblies and 3 of them in counter assemblies. All respondents stated that they haven’t witnessed the lack of police protection during simultaneous and counter-assemblies as well as they weren’t involved in assemblies that were banned because of the possibility of counter-protests.
At the Kolarac Endowment building in Belgrade, 20 people wearing shirts with nationalist symbols interrupted a performance named “Srebrenica. When we, the killed rise”, which was organized by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. This is the same group of young men who was at the counter protest in front of the Presidency earlier that day and the police knew about all this but did nothing about it. During the event, the right wing activist began yelling that the genocide did not take place in Srebrenica and that Ratko Mladic, one of the masterminds of the 1995 genocide, was a hero and then they began singing nationalist songs and to threaten to throw a smoke bomb.
Selective implementation of the law is evident, as the police did not reacting in this case such as in many other cases, while for example, activists of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights, who interrupted speech of a convicted war criminal a year ago, were kicked out and sentenced.
From May 29 to June 1, the “Mirëdita, dobar dan!” festival was held, presenting the cultural and social scene of Prishtina to the Belgrade audience. The trend of attacks on festival participants and supporters is increasing every year, and this year it has been noticed that the security services were practicing “over policing”. There was an incident when a lit torch was thrown in the space where the event was organized. Right-wingers gathered several times during the festival, making riots. This year, for the first time, hooligans also protested and they clashed with police, but police managed to prevent them from entering the premises of the festival. The aforementioned cases show a trend of unequal treatment of the police, where in many cases when it comes to holding events or public gatherings with sensitive topics. In many cases, the police, although present, do not respond at all, although the security of people gathered by counter-rally participants is clearly compromised. In other cases, another indicative problem arises regarding “overpolicing”.
Civic Initiatives hosted a media conference on “Rakita – The Breakdown of the Rule of Law” of the Defend the Stara Planina Rivers movement in the Human Rights House. At the very beginning of the conference, a group of thugs in t-shirts with the sign “Civil Guard” and posters on which were the lies about the members of the Defend the Stara Planina Rivers (ORSP) movement. This provocation was intended to discredit the work of the ORSP movement and to put the story of SHP aside. This GONGO was supported by the Informer team (pro-regime tabloid known for articles in which they attack and target CSOs) who appeared outside the Human Rights House, although they were told that you did not attend the conference because of their practice of violating the journalistic code and previous disruption of the similar event. After the event, Informer published a text where they falsely stated that the director of Civic Initiatives had physically assaulted their journalist. A police patrol did not respond to the call.
Practice indicates partially enabling environment when it comes to cases of freedom of assembly practiced by CSOs without prior authorization although in the MM survey, all CSOs responded that spontaneous assembly was not dispersed by police due to lack of authorization/ notification. Dobrica Veselinovic, one of the prominent members of the “Don’t let Belgrade d(r)own” initiative, received a 20-day prison sentence following a verdict by a misdemeanor court for organizing spontaneous protests after the demolition of the facilities in Savamala, even though he had previously paid a fine. This case is a continuation of attempts at institutional intimidation and pressure on activists, as evidenced by the numerous legal proceedings initiated against civil protest organizers aimed at effectively restricting freedom of assembly. There are more than 30 misdemeanor and criminal proceedings against this initiative and their activists. Such cases have been sporadically recorded and when it comes to other informal groups that have organized public gatherings such as the Local Front, an informal movement against the construction of mini-hydropower plants.
However, disabling environment has been detected regarding using excessive force. Although in the MM survey, everyone responded that authorities did not used excessive use of force on participant as well that no one from participants was detained.
Thousands of protesters in Serbia gathered for the 15th week in a row to protest against President Aleksandar Vucic. Up until the last gathering, all the protests were peaceful. The demonstrations escalated on March 18, when protesters stormed the Serbian Radio and Television (RTS) led by opposition leader Bosko Obradovic. They asked the editor-in-chief to allow them to address the public live. The editorial team denied the request, and police started pushing and dragging out the protesters. Meanwhile, the RTS director addressed the public, saying the protest had lost its legitimacy by entering the building. Police said all protesters who entered the building will be prosecuted.
Opposition leaders announced another gathering at noon ahead of the Presidency during the presidential press conference on the events of the previous night. One of the protesters was given a 30-day prison sentence for entering the RTS building, while the other was fined 20,000 dinars for assaulting a police officer. Leaders of the Alliance for Serbia and the organizers of the 1 in 5 Million protests said at a media conference on Monday that the young people arrested during the protests in Belgrade must be released. Students of the Languages High School in Belgrade staged a protest over the arrest of their schoolmate accused of participating in protests and incidents at the Serbian state TV (RTS).
There was an incident on the last “1 in 5 Million” protest in front of the Serbian Presidency building. A delegation of protesters tried to deliver a list of demands to the President but was stopped by security guards who pushed them back across the fence and then prevented others from crossing over. One of the participants of the “1 in 5 million” protest, SrdjanMarkovic, ended up in the emergency room, where he said it was determined that his ribs and head were injured. He claimed that he did not break the law because the presidency is a public building, not a residence and added that the security detail did not have the right to use force outside the building. While president said members of the Armed Forces only “protected the Presidency building” and used “minimum force”, experts say there was overuse of force and questioned why communication between the Army and Police (with whom protesters previously agreed on leaving demands in front of the Presidency Building) did not work that evening.
On the occasion of the announced guest appearance of President Vucic on the national service, students from the association “1 in 5 million” announced that they would wait for him in front of the RTS building to ask him certain questions, and several hundred citizens gathered in front of the building to support them. On the other hand, supporters of the Serbian Progressive Party organized a counter-protest at the same place, which was followed by a series of different incidents. In addition to throwing insults at citizens and certain opposition leaders, several attacks on students, citizens, and cameramen were reported, and one of the most serious incidents occurred when a group of men without any official badges prevented free movement of citizens.
There were no reported cases of violence when it comes to media access to the assembly, which is in line with the standard.
The legal framework provides freedom of expression for all which is in line with standards. Freedom of thought and expression are guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 46 prescribes that the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through speech, writing, and art or in some other manner. Article 47 of the Constitution especially emphasizes the freedom of expressing national affiliation, and that no person shall be obliged to declare his national affiliation. When talking about national minorities, they are provided with the wide scope of guarantees: in relation to freedom expression. No legal provisions aimed to limitations of the right of expression and receiving information, including the internet.
Restrictions imposed by legislation are clearly prescribed and in line with international law and standards. Article 46 of the Constitution stipulates that the freedom of thought and expression shall be guaranteed, as well as the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through speech, writing, art or in some other manner. Freedom of expression may be restricted by the law if necessary to protect rights and reputation of others, to uphold the authority and objectivity of the court and to protect public health, morals of a democratic society and national security of the Republic of Serbia.
Libel in Serbia was decriminalized in 2012 by the Amendment to the Criminal Code which is in line with standards.
However, when it comes to practice, disabling environment has been assessed regarding the freedom of expression of CSO representatives, especially those from human rights and watchdog organizations on matters they support and they are critical of.
Numerous domestic international reports (Three freedoms, CI Annual report on shrinking civic space, Freedom House, Civicus Monitor) recognize the permanent practice where human rights and watchdog organizations are the subject of the smear campaigns due to their critical approach to the Government. Following the appearance of Sonja Stojanovic Gajic, director of the Belgrade Center for Security Policy, on a television show stating that the announcement of the hunger strike by Defense Minister Aleksandr Vulin is just another reality show, aimed at distracting citizens from thinking about current issues, a GONGO called National Avant-garde published a video criticizing the work of the BCSP, and its director personally.
The BCSP has been targeted lately because of their reports in which they are describing Serbia as a captured state and also calling for introduction of the “Pribe mechanism” in Serbia as an aid in fighting the capture state. The captured state implies a state of widespread corruption, which allows public resources to be used for private purposes, while control mechanisms are neutralized, either by legal or illegal channels. This situation extends to sectors covered, to a varying extent, in certain negotiating chapters, but also to the political criteria whose fulfillment is more difficult to follow. European Commission ordered independent expert report about the state of rule of law in Macedonia. BCSP stated that if the EC would send experts to Serbia to make a similar report it would make a difference in the rule of law in Serbia. After those claims, GONGOs and pro-government media started targeting BCSP even more.
However, according to the MM survey, 44 out of 52 CSOs responded that they did not have pressures for critical speech (e.g. intimidation, threats for persecution, censorship) and 8 of them had. 50 organizations did not have pressures for activities targeting state policies and 2 of them had. All MM respondents stated that they did not have their communication tools hacked or blocked.
POPULISM AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
Igor Juric, founder of the Tijana Juric Foundation, verbally attacked the Child Rights Centre on Twitter, asking whether they were “putting the wind in the back of the murderers of children” through their actions. This attack was triggered by a joint initiative of several CSOs and representatives of the professional public aimed at the Constitutional Court, demanding that the constitutionality of the adopted amendments to the Criminal Code be questioned. These amendments introduced a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Mr. Juric’s guest appearance on Radio Television of Serbia was followed by numerous negative reactions addressed to the Child Rights Centre and other CSOs. Among them, Pavle Bihali, founder of Levijatan movement, known for nationalistic statements and spreading nationalistic hatred and intolerance stood out. The aforementioned public appearances were followed by death threats to individuals from organizations, which forced them to file criminal charges. Threats of death and lynching on social media continued after the appearance of the program director of Civic Initiatives on N1 television with Igor Juric. This only contributes to the ongoing stigmatization of the civil sector, which is often targeted by a section of the public that describes them as traitors and foreign mercenaries.
Practice also indicates certain cases of encroachment of the right to freedom of expression for all which means that standards are not satisfied. Through its bi-weekly monitoring reports on the fundamental rights “Three Freedoms under the Magnifying Glass”, Civic Initiatives have identified in total of 94 cases of violations of the right to freedom of expression in 2019.
These are just some of the most representative examples of violations of freedom of expression and the media. Cancelling debates, pressuring journalists, underestimating their work, constant campaigning in pro-regime media are just some of the ways in which the right to freedom of expression and the media is violated. Of particular concern is that most of these attacks come from top government officials and close associates.
Through the requested FOI requests, the Ombudsman replied that there were no instituted proceedings initiated through this institution regarding the violation of the right to freedom of expression.
Similarly, there are also cases where individuals, including CSO representatives are persecuted for critical speech in public or private
Through the requested FOI requests, the Ombudsman replied that there were no instituted proceedings initiated through this institution regarding the violation of the right to freedom of expression.
The Serbian Parliament, without the presence of a part of the opposition that boycotted the sessions, adopted controversial amendments to the Criminal Code. There was also no public consultation and no experts in the field were consulted. During the parliamentary debate, MPs of the ruling majority attacked Judge Miodrag Majic, who is also a representative of the Center for Judicial Research, who criticized the amendments to the Criminal Code, and according to the representatives of the legal profession and the opposition, these attacks are a new phase in relation to political authorities towards the judiciary and this practice undermines the country’s legal order. The High Judicial Council as the highest legal body condemned the attacks on Judge Majic.
Activist Milinka Nikolic has been repeatedly questioned by police officers, and the last in a series was a polygraph examination because of “inflammatory speech” held in September in front of the Presidency building in Belgrade to protest the construction of mini hydropower plants. Milinka, who performs the job of secretary general of the Stara Planina Union of Local Communities, was initially questioned in the village where she lives, after which she was summoned to the police station in Pirot. Eventually, she was sent to the Nis police station to have her testimony checked on a polygraph. This case is a continuation of the pressures on the activits in the Stara Planina area that culminated in physical assaults conducted by private security who were hired by the investor to oversee illegal work in those areas.
However, according to the MM survey 50 out of 52 organizations responded that they were not persecuted due to critical speech, in public or private and 2 of them were. 45 respondents stated that they did not succumbed to self-censorship and 7 on them did.
Disabling environment has also been identified when it comes to sanctions for critical speech, in public or private, under the penal code. Although the libel is de-criminalized, certain cases of sanction for critical speech under the penal code have been recorded.
The trial of the Aleksandra Jankovic who was accused of sending threats and insults to President Aleksandar Vucic and his children began in Sabac. This express reaction of those in charge is not an indicator of the efficiency of the judicial system, but of the different standards used to protect the rights of persons in power or those close to them from those which apply when the rights of other citizens are threatened. This is supported by the huge number of unresolved threats against journalists and civil society organizations that are left without a closure. She was in custody and her lawyer pointed out that this case is used as a punishment for political opponents. Her trial is still ongoing.
However, 51 MM respondents stated that they were not sanctioned for critical speech private and 1 of them was. Through the requested FOI requests, the Ombudsman replied that there were no instituted proceedings initiated through this institution regarding the violation of the right to freedom of expression.
ATTACKS ON JOURNALISTS
In December 2018, there was an attempt of murder of a journalist Milan Jovanovic when his house was set on fire in December 2018, and several shots were fired at the front door of his home. Former Grocka mayor Dragoljub Simonovic and a high official of a ruling party has been charged with organizing the attempted murder. A year later, no verdict was rendered in this case, and one of the reasons was the frequent adjournment of the trial due to the alleged absence of the accused Simonovic. This sends an extremely bad message that journalists are not adequately protected and that an attack on their physical integrity can take place without prompt and adequate punishment. Two people who set the journalist Milan Jovanović’s house on fire were arrested. The Mayor of Grocka, Dragoljub Simonovic, was arrested on suspicion that he had ordered the burning of the house of journalist of the Žig Info news portal following his reporting on corruption in the municipality.
Serbian legislation does not contain prohibitions regarding communication and access any source of information, including the Internet and ICT which is in line with standards.
When it comes to prohibition unjustified monitoring of communication channels, including Internet and ICT, or collecting users’ information by the authorities, legal framework indicates partially enabling environment. Interception of communication in criminal proceedings without a warrant issued by the competent court is forbidden. Covert Interception of Communications is ordered in the case where grounds for suspicion exist for a certain person who committed the criminal offense, and for a criminal procedure where evidence cannot be gathered in another manner, or where gathering would be significantly aggravated, as well as where grounds of suspicion exist for the person preparing to commit a criminal offense which cannot be prevented or proved in any other manner that enters into the domain of privacy to a lesser extent
Article 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that the special evidentiary action referred to in Article 166 of this Code is ordered by the judge for preliminary proceedings by a reasoned order. The order is executed by the police, Security Information Agency or Military Security Agency. Legal entities, companies and other enterprises registered for transmission of information are required to cooperate with competent bodies and enable the implementation of this evidentiary action.
There are certain cases in practice where restrictions are imposed on accessing any source of information, including the Internet or ICT which means that standards are partially met.
According to the MM survey, 49 organizations responded their channels of communication were not blocked and 3 of them responded their channels of communication were blocked. 50 organizations responded that they did not have restrictions to access to information online or offline and 2 of them had.
An employee at the Krusik Factory, who leaked information to the Arms Watch portal that Serbia’s Interior Minister Nebojsa Stefanovic’s father was involved in the arms trade, was arrested on charges of disclosing business secrets. The whistleblower, Aleksandar Obradovic was initially sentenced to house arrest, but under alleged political pressure the judge later decided to order a 30-day stint in jail. While Serbia’s Special Prosecution for High-Tech Crime claimed that the investigation and proceedings against the Obradovic were in accordance with the law, former Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, Rodoljub Sabic, noted that the public remained deprived of key facts regarding the case. A petition calling for Aleksandar Obradovic’s release amassed over 30,000 signatures in December 2019. At the end of December, Obradovic was released from house arrest, but no decision has been taken on his return to work and criminal proceedings against him have not been completed.
Facebook prevented the Autonomous Women’s Centre from sharing the link with a statement by the Autonomous Women’s Centre the Court of Appeal’s verdict in the case of the rape of a Roma girl, as the link allegedly violated Facebook’s standards. This case was recorded by the Share Foundation as the algorithmic blocking and suspension of content.[1] When she pointed to nationalist attacks on an Albanian bakery in Borca, activist Sofia Todorovic faced the blocking of her Twitter account. This case was recorded by the Share Foundation Content as manipulation and organized logging in to social networks and blocking accounts.
In Serbia the internet is widely accessible and affordable. 72.9% of households have an internet connection according to 2018 data (data for 2019 are not yet available). Data also shows Internet is affordable in Serbia because 1GB of data is priced at 0,85% of average income. All this indicates fully enabling environment.
However, there are some cases of unjustified monitoring by the authorities of communication channels, including the Internet or ICT, or of collecting users’ information which is partially in line with standards.
After KRIK (the Crime and Corruption Investigation Network) published the story of a corruption affair, whose main actor is the brother of Finance Minister Sinisa Mali, Predrag Mali, orchestrated attacks on KRIK in pro-regime tabloids have begun. Pro-regime tabloids, known for constantly presenting lies and defamation against anyone who dares to criticize the ruling party reported that KRIK journalists chased an unmarried wife and child of Predrag Mali, what KRIK sharply denied. KRIK has explicitly stated that he is not their journalist or associate. Police announced the reward for anyone who knows the person who followed Predrag Mali‘s wife. Fifteen days later, police arrested the suspect, who was soon released. For now, it remains unclear whether the man surrendered himself or was identified and arrested by police according to someone’s information. A journalist for the KRIK investigative journalism portal said that there are indications that the portal and its staff are being monitored by the authorities.
A report from the Belgrade Centre for Security Policy „A Case Study – Threats and Pressures on Activists”, states that almost all of their interviewers are sure that their electronic communications have been monitored, although most of them point out that there is no solid evidence for this. This is mainly conclusion from interference with their cell phone calls, or “a crystal clear signal, even in places where the signal is weak to others.” Also, some of the respondents pointed out that their batteries in the phone get unusually low in the small period of time and that their phones are “hot”.
It is similar with cases of police harassment of members of social networking groups. Through the FOI request sent to Ombudsman, this institution stated they had no reported cases of police persecution/harassment of members of online initiatives and groups recorded by your institution in the past 12 months.
According to the MM survey, 49 CSOs and informal groups responded that they did not face persecution for activity in an online network/ initiative and 3 of them did.
Previously mentioned case of Aleksandra Jankovic who was accused of sending threats and insults to President Aleksandar Vucic and his children, was also assessed within this indicator. This express reaction of those in charge is not an indicator of the efficiency of the judicial system, but of the different standards used to protect the rights of persons in power or those close to them from those that apply when other citizens’ rights are threatened. This is supported by the huge number of unresolved threats against journalists and civil society organizations that are left without a closure. She was in custody and her lawyer pointed out that this case is used as a punishment for political opponents. Her trial is still ongoing.
LegislationPractice 0 – 20 Fully disabling environment 20 – 40 Disabling environment 40 – 60 Partially enabling environment60 – 80 Enabling environment 80 – 100 Fully enabling environment
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Optio, neque qui velit. Magni dolorum quidem ipsam eligendi, totam, facilis laudantium cum accusamus ullam voluptatibus commodi numquam, error, est. Ea, consequatur.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Optio, neque qui velit. Magni dolorum quidem ipsam eligendi, totam, facilis laudantium cum accusamus ullam voluptatibus commodi numquam, error, est. Ea, consequatur.
