Agency Decisions on TS Complaints Regarding Violations of Campaign Regulations

• 

The Agency for Prevention of Corruption has issued decisions on some of the complaints submitted by Transparency Serbia due to suspicions that political actors, as well as national and local officials, violated regulations during the local election campaigns in ten cities and municipalities.

All cases in which decisions were made relate to violations of the Law on Financing Political Activities. In some instances, the Agency concluded that the Serbian Progressive Party did not breach the law, while in others it found that it did. Among the complaints for which we still have no information on whether they have been resolved are those concerning unlawful conduct by local and national public officials during the campaign, including cases of illegal promotion of the ruling coalition’s list on official websites and social media accounts of municipalities and national authorities.

In the case from the municipality of Aranđelovac, the Agency determined that attributing public works to a political party in a video clip was contrary to the law (specifically, “laying the foundation stone for a new power line in Bukovik”). On the other hand, complaints were dismissed in several similar situations where a party broadcast clips from local TV stations.

The Agency also found that providing free legal and health advice to citizens in the offices of a political party, as well as a party donating sports equipment to a local football club, violated the law. However, in the same case, it was not determined whether the local sports organization, by allowing promotional filming, provided a free service to the party and whether such a clip would have been permitted.

In cases where a violation of the law was established, the Agency imposed a warning and required that the contested content be removed from the internet. However, given that this type of legal violation recurs in every election and was practiced almost daily during this campaign, it is clear that such a measure is insufficient to ensure compliance with the rules.

The Agency dismissed a complaint regarding the filming of one of SNS’s pre-election spots, even though it was filmed in the presidential office. While there is no doubt that the President of the Republic and other protected persons have the right to use public resources when conducting activities unrelated to their public functions, as the Agency correctly notes, it is equally clear that the same pre-election spot could have been filmed elsewhere with appropriate security measures (e.g., in party premises).

Transparency Serbia submitted complaints between March 12 and 18. The deadline for acting on a complaint during the election campaign is five days, counted from the expiration of the period for providing the requested information or statement.