The Discussion Was Held at the Ministry of Culture on 21 February 2008

Minutes

Of the discussion on the election of members of the HRT programme council and the council for electronic media

The discussion was held at the Ministry of Culture on 21 February 2008

Participants in the discussion:

1. Mr. Zdenko Duka, President, Croatian Journalists’ Association
2. Mr. Srđan Dvornik, Executive Director,Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
3. Mr. Ivan-Zvonimir Čičak
4. Mr. Antun Vujić, PhD, Member of the Croatian Parliament
5. Mr. Denis Peričić, MSc,Chairman, Electronic Media Agency
6. Ms. Olga Ramljak, Member of the Council for Electronic Media
7. Mr. Vanja Sutlić, Director General, Croatian Radio Television
8. Mr. Zdenko Ljevak, President, Croatian Radio-Television Programme Council, Zagreb
9. Mr. Christoph Mainusch, Chairman of the Management Board, RTL Hrvatska d.o.o. za usluge,Zagreb
10. Mr. Dražen Mavrić, Chairman of the Management Board, Nova TV d.d.,Zagreb
11. Mr. Robert Veseljak, Association of Independent Television Stations–NUT, Televizija Z1
12. Mr. Ivan Butković, President, Croatian Association of Radio Stations and Newspapers – HURIN
13. Mr. Željko Matanić, Croatian Association of Radio Stations and Newspapers – HURIN
14. Mr. Martin Mayer, Political Adviser, Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Croatia
15. Ms. S. Đokić-Marković, Delegation of the European Commission to the Republic of Croatia
16. Ms. Ljerka Draženović, OSCE Office, Zagreb
17. Mr. Dragutin Lučić, Media Consultant,Croatia

18. Mr. Miljenko Krivšek, Deputy President, Croatian Telecommunications Agency

19. Ms. Marija Nemčić, Croatian Radio Television

with the attendance of members and assistants of the Negotiating Team for the Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union:

1. Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak, Chief Negotiator, Office of the Chief Negotiator, Trg Sv. Marka 2
2. Mr. Miroslav Kovačić, member of the Negotiating Team in charge of Chapter 10 – Information society and media
3. Mr. Jadran Antolović, DSc, Head of the Working Group for Chapter 10 -Information society and media
4. Mr. Darko Dvornik, DSc, Head of the Sub-group ontelecommunications
5. Ms. Ivana Mrkonjić, DSc, Media Counsellor with the Mission of the Republic of Croatia to the European Communities
6. Mr. Joško Klisović, Secretary of the Negotiating Team
7. Ms. Maša Ivaniš, Public Relations Adviser of the Chief Negotiator
8. Ms. Željka Babić, Secretariat of the Negotiating Team
9. Ms. Gordana Vidović Mesarek, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration

Opening remarks

Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak

An essential requirement for the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union is to close the still open Chapter 10 – Information society and media by fulfilling three benchmarks, one of which requires holding a public debate on the election of the members of the HRT Programme Council and the Council for Electronic Media in order to conclude the process of screeninglegislation on audiovisual media and to ensureindependent functioning of regulatory bodies,as well asto prevent political interference.

This is an introductory meeting the Minutes of which should be uploadedto the website so that the public canjoin the public debate.

After the public debate is closed, there are two possible options: first,the public debate could concludethat changes are necessary,and the second, that changes are not necessary and that thecurrent situation can continue. Thus, the aim is to hear public thoughts about the present situation.

It is estimated that in this way the Republic of Croatia could, in fact should, fulfil the previously mentioned benchmarks.

Jadran Antolović, DSc

Since 1992 up to now, the Republic of Croatia has had different models of electing regulatory bodies, particularly with respect of the HRT Programme Council, which gives us the right to speak about different experiences as we have put them to test in practice.

Thus, pursuant to the Croatian Radio-Television Act of 1992, the HRT Council consisted of 35 members, 15 of whom were appointed by the Croatian Parliament from the ranks of representatives in the Parliament, 10 members were elected by HRT employees from amongst themselves, and the rest (one member respectively) were appointed by: the Union of Croatian Universities, the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts (HAZU), Matica Hrvatska – the Central Croatian Cultural and Publishing Society, the Croatian Writers' Association, the Croatian Journalists’ Association, the Croatian Association of Dramatic Artists, the Croatian Association of Musicians, the Catholic Church, and the SerbianOrthodox Church.

In line with the 1996 Act on Amendments to the Croatian Radio-Television Act, the then HRT Council dropped from quite a large number to just 19 members, 15 of whom were elected among the MPs.

Pursuant to the 1998 Act on Amendments to the Croatian Radio-Television Act, the HRT Council consisted of 23 members who were appointed by the House of Representatives of the Croatian Parliament; 10 members were selected from among the MPs in proportion to their party representation, while the rest, onememberrespectively, were appointed by the Croatian Parliament at the proposal of the Croatian Universities, HAZU, Matica Hrvatska, theCroatian Writers' Association, the Croatian Journalists’ Association, theCroatian Association of Musicians, Croatian Film and Dramatic Artists’ Association, the Homeland War Associations, vocational associations in primary and secondary education, the Croatian Olympic Committee, the Croatian Heritage Foundation, the Catholic Church and one representative from each of the remaining religious communities.

Pursuant to the 2001 Croatian Radio-Television Act, the HRT Council consisted of 25 members. Yet again we had a very sophisticated method of appointment. At that moment there were no more political representatives, save for three members who were chosen among eminent non-party public personalities and were appointed by the President of the Croatian Parliament, the Prime Minister and the President of the Republic of Croatia, while the rest were appointed byeach institution respectively.

In conformity withthe 2003legislation still in force, the HRT Programme Council has 11 members. Members of the HRT Council are elected and relieved of duty by the Croatian Parliament and the appointment is carried out based on a public invitation.

As for the Council for Electronic Media, it consists of 7 members. They are appointed by the Croatian Parliament at the proposal of the Croatian Government after conducting a public invitation.

Moreover, there is no single model for the election of regulatory bodies in Europe, nor are there guidelines for such a model. In each case it is developed individually according to needs and expectations.

Consequently, oftentimes the conclusion is reached that it is far more important how a regulatory body functions than how it was elected, even though appropriate rules and democratic principles have to be observed in the election method.

Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak

In Europe, among the EU Member States, there is no golden rule that could be applied to all 27 of them. In my opinion, this is an advantage because it opens up a wide range of possibilities for action. Somebody could say it would be simpler if we had a rule not leaving much room for deliberation, as is the case in many other chapters. There is much leewayforvarious activity and interpretation here, which in my opinion additionally expands the framework for our activities.

speeches during the discussion

Antun Vujić, PhD

Public television, with the exception of certain smaller media, is the only medium in Croatia which is not private, so an even greater emphasis is placed on the role of television and public interest, including the fact that public television is a mediator for democratic and cultural processes, etc.

Numerous interests arise in relation to public television. I do not want to engage in polemics about any such interests, because all interests are legitimate. Any television station, for example a private one, has the interest to perhaps become more powerful than the public television. This in itself is a competitive relation and a completely legitimate one. Certain groups of owners of certain media also want to have an influence on public television, certainparties wish to be present on public television as do individuals. This means that the debate we had in the Parliament, where this topic has always provoked heated and stormy discussions, only testifies to the fact how important, extremely important it is for further democratic development of Croatia.

At the moment when the decision was being made onwhat we here and now consider a burning issue, the issue of the Programme Council, we had already had all these models that are presented here. We were familiar with the basic principles, as we were with the following: this issue was not so dramatic and involving such varying interests in any other European country. Here it is a crucial political issue. All these models had one requirement, which was at the time the European requirement not very aptly put forward, that the Council should be formed so as not to have any marked political functions. On the other hand, it had to be formed so that it would reflect the entire functionof what is commonly called civil society, which, in my opinion, is not devoid of politics but is very much an integral part of politics, moreover,of non transparentpolitics. When politics is public, supporters advocating this or that view have to bear the responsibility.

So,we were left with two models and we drifted in between them. One of those, actually the model of the so-called ‘civil society’ with large quotation marks, proved to be the least successful. It was preceded by a model which proved to be almost the most successful. It is a paradox that this was the model where Members of the Parliament were directly involved, of course with representatives of other institutions present.

The option with the civil society was a disaster. Everyone remembers this divide on television,which was reflected through the image of the Council as a new political body. We heard statements directly from Council members that went along these lines: “This Parliament is good for nothing, we should start a movement for anew Croatia.”, and in the end the Council substitutedexactly what we tried to avoid – politics. It became a political organ of a kind,representing not politics that received legitimate confirmation through the elections or elsewhere,but the politics of individuals who perceived the Council as a means of influencing the programme, and a place where they could validate their own importance. We had to change this but at the same time ensure some form of contact between the state as the owner of television, the television itself, and television subscribers. Again we had to be careful not to have a marked political will of the majority party deprecating the position of the minority party, so along these lines we tried to create some kind of mechanism, which you are well familiar with.

This mechanism is probably not fortunate due to numerous reasons, but I do not know what other mechanism could be more appropriate than this one, which has been said to be overly dominated by politics.

Be as it may, the HRT Programme Council elected in this manner endured through a difficult trial. It has stabilised the television after a period which saw it in complete disarray.

Now we are again faced with the debate on the same issue, the same topic; the same voices can be heard as when we were passing this Act. Once more the interests of partial relationships and articulated relationships are appearing, even private interests related to public television. Now we have to find a way to protect public television as the publicly owned asset when media are concerned.

My recommendation would be to improve on this part of the proposal as it is, and makean attempt to subjectively convince the partiesin the Parliament that elect members of the Programme Council to choose quality people, and jointly when necessary –both the ruling party and the opposition. Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide for that in the Act. We can have an ingenious Act, but we cannot foresee who will be implementing it. The only thing that could be done is to recommend more prudence when electing these people, meaning that the persons who see their membership in the Programme Council as a political affirmation should not be elected, but those who see it as their public duty; their public duty in the sense of civil society, protection, etc. I suggest we try and persevere in this model, and try to develop itfurther.

In Croatia the media are completely free from all the existing political factors. However, there is also very strong non-freedom of the mediawhich arose through the freedom of the media ideology, meaning proprietary freedom of the media to influence journalistsand theirway of reporting,the commissioning of articles,commissions by personalities who need to be promoted etc. Despite the Act, which is elaborated in that context and contains protective provisions, journalists cannot exercise their rights, not with regard to political committees or political parties, but with regard to proprietary interests in those media. What do the newspapers sell: is it information to the readers, or the readers to their proprietary interests? This is not my thought but of one journalist.

Mr. Ivan Zvonimir Čičak

Regarding the Croatian Radio-Television Act, I agree with most of Mr. Vujić’s speech, especially when he speaks about the past, the disastrous Council in which thementioned politics was actually led by some of the then members and the Council President. Some of them, interestingly enough, are today still members of certain non-governmental organisations. In truth, they ruined one Act with their public conduct and compromised a solution which was, in my opinion, the best one in comparison to other laws and solutions in Europeat the time. The Council of Europe does not provide directives on how to solve the Television Act, but they have intentions to deregulate and remove politics from the Council’s activities.

In fact, the biggest objection is what you have just pointed out – that political structures have appropriated the right to appoint who they want without listening to the voice of the civil society. Let me give you an example. During the last election of members, the Writer’s Association and Matica Hrvatska nominatedErnest Fišer, a writer, but he did not enter the Council. This means that two key institutions have not had their representative in this establishment for a long time.

It is doubtful whether the Croatian civil sector is really mature enough to elect members of the Programme Council in this traditional environment, since we have witnessed various scandals related to the conflict of interest and conduct of the people who are at the head of non-governmental organisations and are downright degrading the civil sector in Croatia.

Regardless of my opinion that the role of the Parliament is bad, it is better than having those people manage the television. I think that what we are doing today is actually making an evaluation of the situation and not debating about a new Act.

In that context, I repeat, the situation is such that we simply have to accept the solution which we have, even though the other one would be better, until our civil sector is developed enough to produce credible people, thosewho will be the result of the present Act.

The key provision of this Act is that the people in the Council have to be persons whose biography clearly shows that they are advocates of human rights, freedom of the media, etc.

I’m sorry to say that in a number of people and their biographies I do not recognise such persons.

In that sense I second this solution as well although it is the worse, I think it is bad, and I think it would be good if the Parliament could enable the civil sector to choose its own representatives. But, as I say, if this solution is accepted, there would have to be a possibility of recall which would have to be incorporated in the Act, the possibility to remove from office those Council members who do not comply with the provisions of the Act. It is highly important. This has not been incorporated in the Act, and could be introduced by amendments.

The questionis, first of all, why didn’t wehold a public debate on the candidates? So, why not announce a call for applications, publish the names and request a one monthlong public debate so as to identify indubitable people who could be appointed to the Council.

Mr. Christoph Mainusch

Following on the words of Mr. Antolović and Mr. Vujić, it is not only the procedure that is important, I mean the election procedure, it is also very important how the HRT Programme Council will work and what the members of the Council are like.

As the representative of a private radio-television, by which I mean RTL in Croatia, I think the way and the procedure of electing Council Membersare also verysignificant. In our opinion, it is absolutely satisfactory as it is at present in Croatia.

I completely agree with you, Mr. Vujić, that public television should be fully protected externally in order to be able to function in line with the definition of public television.

However, in order to achieve that I think that the first and the most important obligation of all competent bodies, including the Council, is to clearly define public television so that it could really function as a public television and be protected in the process.

It is not my intention to usurp the right of passing judgements or giving recommendations, but you can and should discuss competencies; about the competence of the Council members themselves and composition of the Council.