In June 2025, the National Assembly of Serbia adopted amendments to three laws: the Law on Electronic Media, the Law on Public Media Services, and the Law on Public Information and Media, in a step towards aligning with EU standards and improving the media landscape.
Law on Public Media Services
The most significant novelty introduced is the establishment of the Audience Ombudsman, an independent body that protects the rights of viewers, listeners, and readers.
The new provisions regulate in detail the procedure for appointment and dismissal, the scope of responsibilities, and the obligations of the Ombudsman.
For the first time, public broadcasters will now be formally required to respond to audience complaints, which creates a new channel of communication with the public. The Ombudsman will be responsible for receiving and recording complaints and suggestions, informing editors-in-chief of relevant concerns about a wide range of issues, from offensive or misleading content to potential copyright infringements, and providing written feedback to complainants about proposed actions.
In addition to acting on individual submissions, the Ombudsman will submit quarterly reports summarising the number and nature of complaints, actions taken, and recommendations for improving both media services and the quality of audiovisual content.
However, this role is not disciplinary as the Ombudsman lacks the authority to impose sanctions. Instead, their primary function is to serve as a mediator between the public and public service broadcasters. Whether this legal framework will prove effective in practice remains to be seen.
Law on Electronic Media
Amendments to the Law on Electronic Media introduce increased accountability for the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (“REM”) and strengthen content-related restrictions.
The list of authorised nominators for REM Council members has been expanded to include the Ombudsman, the Commissioner for Protection of Equality, and the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection.
REM’s accountability to the National Assembly has also been more narrowly defined – limited to the:
- Appointment and dismissal of Council members;
- Approval of REM’s Statute and financial plan; and
- Consideration of annual and ad hoc activity reports requested by the Assembly.
Regarding financial independence, the law affirms REM’s full autonomy in managing its budget, which cannot be arbitrarily reduced or increased by other institutions.
The content-related provisions have also been tightened. Broadcasters are now expressly prohibited from airing content that promotes hate speech, violence, terrorism, or criminal activity, as well as sensationalist reporting on violence, exploitation of minors, or animal cruelty.
If these rules are violated, REM is authorised to impose a range of sanctions — from warnings and temporary content bans to full license revocation.
In practice, however, enforcement appears limited. With only nine measures issued over the past three years, questions remain about the regulator’s proactiveness and commitment to consistently applying these standards.
Law on Public Information and Media
The amended Law on Public Information and Media introduces enhanced oversight of state-affiliated media and reinforces the protection of the presumption of innocence.
The previous general prohibition on media monopolies has been replaced with broader language that bans any conduct which restricts, prevents, or distorts competition, expanding the scope of competition protection in the media sector.
The law sets out new requirements for media outlets whose publishers are directly or indirectly established by public sector bodies. These include:
- The obligation to adopt internal ethical codes;
- Safeguards to ensure editorial independence; and
- Conflict-of-interest rules for members of governing bodies.
Members must be selected from relevant professional fields and cannot be public officials or political party representatives.
Furthermore, the amendments also explicitly affirm journalists’ right to report and comment on the criminal justice system, including ongoing proceedings, while prohibiting the media from presenting any individual as guilty before a final court decision is rendered. Former Article 85, which limited reporting criminal proceedings only to information gained at the public hearing or obtained from state officials, has been repealed. The new version gives more freedom to journalists, but it remains to be seen how it will be applied in practice.
This article was prepared in collaboration with Nađa Marinković, student.
The information in this document does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter and is provided for general informational purposes only.
