Response to the statement of the Ministry and Negotiating Team

Republic of Serbia

Ministry for European Integration

Belgrade

TANJUG

Obilicev venac 2

11000 Belgrade

The request for a response and reaction to the statement of the Ministry for European Integration and the Negotiating Team

In the Press Release of the Ministry for European Integration and Negotiating Team (hereinafter MEI and NT), which is conveyed by Tanjug (the Ministry on its website transferred it from Tanjug) on November 6th 2017, under the heading “Part of civil society to politicize the negotiations with the EU, “falsehood transmitted incorrectly interpreted and applied in the context obviously distorted, statements program Director of Transparency Serbia given in an interview published by the news agency FoNet on 5th of November 2017 in a way that could harm the honour or reputation. Therefore, we expect that in keeping with the spirit of cooperation, standards, public communication and legal obligations, the requirements publish and distribute the same way as it is published and distributed to the Press Release noted MEI and NT.

MEI and NT said that “they noticed that there are tendencies of a part of civil society, the process of cooperation obstructed, and the content of individual, primarily technical issues being politicized. “Bellow these national authorities respond only to “claims the director of “Transparency” Nemanja Nenadic, “it is only logical to think that the MEI and NT wish to point out that it is precisely the organization “Transparency Serbia” wants to obstruct cooperation (it was not clear whose cooperation might be referring to the Republic of Serbia and the EU) and to politicize “technical questions”. But for these charges MEI and NT does not cite any evidence, that is, do not point to any statement of N. Nenadic which would serve as an indicator of “obstruction of cooperation” or “politicization of technical issues”.

Furthermore, MEI and NT allegedly in response to claims by Nemanja Nenadic, said that for them “the essence is undoubtedly more important than form. “Since the statement said Nemanja Nenadic does not mention that the MEI and NT “form is more important than substance” responding to such claim is moot. Comments by Nemanja Nenadic referred to precisely identified document – a statement MEI and NT, which was presented as a reaction unidentified persons from MEI/NT Tanjug, all in report of the coalition “prEUgovor” on monitoring progress in chapters 23 and 24 or the negotiations of the Republic of Serbia and the EU. Nenadic in an interview pointed out that the MEI and NT in this announcement dealt a form of communication between the NGO coalition prEUgovor and MEI/NT (that the coalition should be presentation of the report requested some information from MEI/NT, the coalition prEUgovor not part of the platform National convent for the EU, and the like). But that did not deal with the content of the report of the coalition (Transparency Serbia is one of the seven organizations that make up this coalition).

Since the reactions MEI/NT and the report of the Coalition prEUgovor are publicly available documents, anyone who is interested can itself be satisfied that the statement MEI/NT is really not related to the content of the report prEUgovor, but the question of communication between MEI/NT and civil society and the various forms of this communication (via platform Konventa EU or outside it)

MEI and NT continues to react explain what the convent and were always willing to talk with others who are looking for such a conversation, and that all information on the negotiation process within the jurisdiction of MEI and NT published on the site. Interview of N. Nenadic is not generally involved in these issues.

MEI and NT argues that “the fulfilment of the action plans of the 100 percent goal of negotiations in Chapters 23 and 24 at the time of their detention. Furthermore argue that “during the negotiations, the crucial continuous implementation of reforms and the gradual achievement of European standards in the field of rule a law” and that the current revision of the plans of action to “in order to achieve even better results than the current 70-80 per cent fulfilment of the planned activities at this stage, which is a great result but we believe that we can achieve even better”.

In this part of the response MEI and NT POLEMIS (although this is not stated) with the statement of N. Nenadic from interview that the fulfilment of the plans below 100% failure (“all below 100% is a failure if it is needed a priority. It is obvious that within the executive authorities that issue does not pay enough attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBb4zWrzF68).

On this occasion, we express surprise at such an attitude MEI and NT. The effect of the Serbian authorities in achieving the action plans is measured in relation to those activities that are due at that time, and not in relation to the goals set for the moment of accession of the Republic of Serbia to the European Union. Thus, when a government body for monitoring the implementation of AP for Chapter 23 says that this was realized 66% of the activities for the whole of this negotiation chapter, or 53% of the part related to the fight against corruption, these percentages expressing the degree of realization of commitments that had to be made until the end of September 2017 as well as those of operations carried out continuously, and not the total number of task that are in front of Serbia by the moment of PRISTUPANJA. Given that the deadlines for the implementation of activities identified precisely Government of Serbia, its conclusions of April 27th 2016, it is only appropriate to consider that only 100% fulfilment of the plan could be considered satisfactory success.

In the following statements, MEI and NT report that is structured negotiation process, what are the criteria on which the interim agreed by all Member States as well as the level to be achieved in the field of rule of law and how to prepare reports. None of that has been the subject of an interview with N. Nenadic.

MEI and NT then point out that before operation reports on the fulfilment of the actions plans to the European Commission those reports  available to the local public and to talk about it. Then they say: “We have all this information and reports transparent and accessible, we assume that the director of Transparency noticed this bar. I still think that this is not due to fulfilment of form, but because of the essence”. It is incomprehensible that MEI and NT allow ourselves this kind of public communication. In fact, not only is the Director of Transparency “noted” reports on the implementation of action plans for chapters, but the content of these reports dozens of times commented in public, including several public meetings at which the implementation of the Action Plan for Chapter 23 discusses just with representatives (current) Ministry of European Integration and members if the negotiation team.

Transparency Serbia, Belgrade, November 7th 2017