See related documentsElection observation report
| Doc. 14326
| 29 May 2017
Observation of the presidential election in Serbia (2 April 2017)
1. Introduction
1. The Bureau of the Parliamentary
Assembly, at its meeting on 23 January 2017, decided to observe
the presidential election in Serbia, subject to the receipt of an
invitation, and to constitute an ad hoc committee composed of 20
members and the two co-rapporteurs of the Monitoring Committee.
At its meeting on 27 January, the Bureau approved the composition
of the ad hoc committee and appointed Ms Ingebjørg Godskesen (Norway,
EC) as Chairperson (see Appendix 1). On 7 March, Ms Maja Gujković,
President of the Parliament of Serbia, invited the Parliamentary
Assembly to observe the presidential election.
2. Under the terms of Article 15 of the co-operation agreement
signed between the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Commission
for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on 4 October 2004,
“[w]hen the Bureau of the Assembly decides to observe an election
in a country in which electoral legislation was previously examined
by the Venice Commission, one of the rapporteurs of the Venice Commission
on this issue may be invited to join the Assembly's election observation
mission as legal adviser”. In accordance with this provision, the
Bureau of the Assembly invited an expert from the Venice Commission to
join the ad hoc committee as an advisor.
3. The Parliamentary Assembly was the only European parliamentary
organisation, among its usual partner organisations in the framework
of the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), to observe the
presidential election. The Assembly observation delegation met in
Belgrade from 31 March to 3 April 2017. In particular, it met presidential
candidates and their representatives, the Head of the Election Assessment Mission
(EAM) of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR)
and members of his core team, members of the Republic Electoral Commission,
representatives of international organisations and missions as well
as representatives of civil society and the media. The programme
of the ad hoc committee’s meetings is set out in Appendix 2. The
ad hoc committee wishes to thank the staff of the Council of Europe
office in Belgrade for their efficient co-operation and assistance.
4. On the day of the ballot, the ad hoc committee split into
seven teams which observed the elections in a limited number of
polling stations in Belgrade and the surrounding areas as well as
in Novi Sad, Užice, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Valjevo, Požarevac and
Pančevo.
5. The ad hoc committee concluded that the voting day was calm,
well organised and that voters could make their choice freely, even
though some procedural shortcomings were observed. During the election campaign,
all presidential candidates could campaign freely without significant
restrictions. Nevertheless, the election campaign was characterised
by unprecedented unequal media coverage of the election campaign
in favour of the candidate from the ruling coalition, although the
legislation provides for equal media access for all presidential
candidates. The ruling coalition candidate benefited from his position
as Prime Minister during the election campaign, which led to an
unlevel playing field vis-à-vis his competitors. The statement published after
the election is reproduced in Appendix 3.
2. Legal framework and political context
6. The legal framework is composed
of the Constitution of Serbia of 2006, the Law on the Election of
the President of the Republic, the Law on the Financing of Political
Activities (last amended in October 2014) and the Laws on Electronic
Media and on Public Information and Media. In general, the legal
framework provides a generally sound basis for the conduct of democratic
elections.
7. The election legislation was considerably amended in 2011,
largely following the recommendations formulated by the Venice Commission
and the OSCE/ODIHR in the Joint Opinion of March 2011.
However, the
key recommendations of the Joint Opinion of 2014 concerning the
Law on the Financing of Political Activities
remained
for the most part unaddressed.
8. According to the law, election campaigns are financed from
public funds and by parties, candidates themselves and private donations.
Funding from foreign, State, public and anonymous sources is prohibited. An
individual may donate annually up to a total of 20 average monthly
salaries, whereas a legal entity may donate up to 200 monthly salaries.
This limit is doubled in an election year.
9. The Law also prohibits the collection of funds for a political
entity (Article 13). In 2014, the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR
issued a Joint Opinion on the amendments to the Law on the Financing
of Political Activities which was then passed by the National Assembly
in November 2014. Four key recommendations were formulated in the
2014 joint opinion:
- to include
provisions and guidelines in the Law on the autonomous mandate of
the Anti-corruption Agency, in particular on its competences to
apply a range of measures against illegal behaviours, while adding
provisions that ensure proportionate sanctions;
- to reconsider the level of public funding;
- to consider introducing an overall campaign expenditure
limit and a party financing limit;
- to lower the limits on private funding for both private
individuals and companies.
10. During its meetings in Belgrade on 31 March 2017, different
interlocutors informed the Assembly’s election observation delegation
that these recommendations have not yet been taken into account
completely and that the regulatory system does not ensure transparency
and accountability of election campaign financing. The Parliamentary
Assembly’s observation delegation, in its report on observation
of the early parliamentary elections in Serbia (24 April 2016),
had pointed out that “the legal uncertainty leads to difficulties in
the implementation and the effectiveness of the provisions of the
Law on the Financing of Political Activities”. It also pointed out
that “the lack of transparency in the allocation of private financing
was often criticised by different civil society interlocutors. In
general, it seems that the support of the business community goes
in priority to the ruling majority, thus disadvantaging opposition
parties. The limitation of campaign expenditure called for by the
Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR could reduce the risk of disproportionate
levels of expenditure between the parties”.
11. The president is elected for a five-year term and can serve
a maximum of two terms. A candidate must receive more than 50% of
the votes cast to be elected in the first round. Otherwise, a second
round is held within 15 days between the two candidates receiving
the highest number of votes. The candidate who receives the most
votes in the second round is elected.
12. Since 2000, the Parliamentary Assembly has observed all presidential
and parliamentary elections in Serbia. After the last early parliamentary
elections on 24 April 2016, the following parties and coalitions
entered parliament: the coalition led by the Serbian Progressive
Party (SNS) – 131 seats; the coalition led by the Socialist Party
of Serbia (SPS) – 29 seats; the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) – 22
seats; the coalition led by the Democratic Party (DS) – 16 seats;
the Movement “Enough is Enough” – 16 seats; the Democratic Party
of Serbia – 13 seats; the coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party
of Serbia (LDP); the Social Democratic Party and the League of Social
Democrats of Vojvodina (LSV) – 13 seats.
13. After the early parliamentary elections in Serbia on 24 April
2016, the Assembly observation delegation had concluded that voters
had been offered a variety of choices and that fundamental freedoms
had been respected, allowing Serbian citizens to make their choice
freely from among a large number of political parties. However,
it had pinpointed some concerns, including “unclear rules for signature
verification and the lack of transparency of this process” (already
criticised by the Assembly in its election observation report in
2014), “the abuse by incumbents of the administrative advantages
of office; cases of pressure on voters and intimidation, particularly
those employed in the public sector; media coverage favourable to
the ruling parties, despite an open media environment; [and] and
the lack of full transparency in party and campaign funding”. It
also noted that, “while legally the ‘culture’ of early elections
does not pose a problem, one can nevertheless question the impact
of systematic early elections on the efficient functioning of the
parliament according to the constitutional term of office, no matter
which political forces are in power”.
14. Following the early parliamentary elections, just before the
expiration of the legal deadline, in August 2016, the new Government
of the Republic of Serbia was formed led by Aleksandar Vučić.
15. On 2 March 2017, the President of the Parliament announced
that the presidential election would be held on 2 April 2017. For
many interlocutors of the Assembly’s observation delegation the
election campaign for the presidential election was short. The calling
of the election was preceded by long discussions on who would be the
presidential candidate of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party.
The incumbent President, Tomislav Nikolić, declared that he would
not seek re-election despite being eligible. The Prime Minister,
Aleksandar Vučić, decided to run for the presidency even though
he had previously declared that he did not intend to be a candidate.
The candidacy of the Prime Minister was supported by the Serbian
Progressive Party and other members of the ruling coalition.
16. The fact that the presidential candidate Aleksandar Vučić
held the position of Prime Minister was not a violation of the law;
nevertheless, in this regard, many presidential candidates and other
interlocutors of the Assembly observation delegation expressed their
concern. The Assembly delegation, in its statement at the end of
the mission, declared that “the ruling coalition candidate benefited
from his position as Prime Minister during the election campaign,
which led to an unlevel playing field vis-à-vis his competitors.
In addition, many interlocutors expressed concern regarding the
misuse of administrative resources during the election campaign”.
17. Some prospective opposition candidates announced their candidatures
even before the elections were called. Several political parties
called for a single opposition presidential candidate, but the opposition
was not able to achieve consensus on a joint candidate.
3. Election
administration, voters lists and registration of presidential candidates
18. The presidential election was
administered by a two-tier system, comprising the Republic Election Commission
(REC) and 8 396 polling stations. According to the REC, 53 polling
stations were opened abroad and 90 polling stations in Kosovo*.
Despite recommendations
by the Venice Commission and the OSCE/ODIHR, there is no intermediate
level of election administration, that is to say at the regional
level.
19. The REC is a permanent body in charge of preparing and conducting
elections with permanent members (including the secretary of the
Commission and a representative of the Statistical Office of Serbia,
both without the right to vote) who are appointed for a renewable
term of four years by the National Assembly. The permanent members
(apart the representative of the Statistical Office) represent parliamentary
groups proportionally. The extended composition of the REC – during
electoral periods – includes one representative appointed by each
electoral contestant. Such “extended” members have the same rights
and duties as permanent members. The Assembly’s observation delegation
considers that this composition of the REC leads to an excessive
politicisation of the electoral administration to the detriment
of its neutrality.
20. The polling stations are composed in the same manner as the
REC, and have three permanent members and their deputies, as well
as, in their extended composition, members and their deputies nominated
by the electoral contestants and appointed by the REC. In its previous
observation reports, the Assembly remarked on the presence of considerable
number of people without clear identification in cramped polling
stations. For the 2 April 2017 presidential election this problem
was resolved and each member was wearing a badge with a clear identification.
21. According to many interlocutors of the Assembly’s observation
delegation, the Republic Electoral Commission in general worked
in a transparent and efficient manner; political contestants had,
in general, confidence in its work.
22. A presidential candidate may be nominated by a political party,
a coalition of political parties or a group of citizens. Candidates
have to collect at least 10 000 signatures of voters supporting
their candidacy.
Self-nominated candidates are not permitted.
Candidate registration begins when the election is called and lasts until
20 days prior to election day, potentially leaving only ten days
for registration. The REC publishes in the Official Gazette the
list of candidates not later than 15 days before election day.
23. The registration of all presidential candidates was conducted
in an “inclusive process”. The REC informed the Assembly observation
delegation that one person was refused registration because of a
lack of supporting signatures and other relevant documents. Eleven
candidates were registered for participation in the first round
of the election: Aleksandar Vučić (Serbian Progressive Party – SNS);
Miroslav Parović (People’s Freedom Movement); Saša Radulović (Enough
is enough – DJB); Boško Obradović (Dveri); Vuk Jeremić, independent
candidate (supported by: New Serbia, Together for Serbia, Social
Democratic Party, People’s Movement of Serbia); Vojislav Šešelj
(Serbian Radical Party – SRS); Aleksandar Popović (Democratic Party of
Serbia); Luka Maksimović – independent candidate, “Ljubisa Preletacevic
Beli, Beli – Samo jako”; Milan Stamatović, independent candidate,
“For Healthier Serbia – Milan Stamatović”; Saša Janković – independent candidate
(supported by Democratic Party, New Party, Social Democratic Union
and several civic movements) and Nenad Čanak (League of Social democrats
of Vojvodina (LSV). The Assembly observation delegation invited
all 11 candidates to meet with the delegation, but only five candidates
and/or their representatives were available to meet the delegation.
24. The Assembly’s observation delegation noted with satisfaction
that, contrary to previous elections, no major concerns were communicated
concerning candidacy registration and procedures for the verification
of supporting signatures.
25. The right to active suffrage is granted to citizens who are
over 18 years of age, have legal capacity and domicile in Serbia.
Since the entry into force, in 2012, of the Law on the Single Electoral
Unit, the Unified Electronic Voter Register (UVR) has been used
and serves as a single data source from which voters lists for each
polling station are extracted. Voter registration is passive, meaning
that voters are not required to take any specific action of their
own to be included on the voters list. The Ministry of Public Administration
and Local Self-Government maintains and continually updates the
voter registry based on municipal records and voter requests. The
voter registry closes for changes 15 days before election day. After
this, amendments can be made by the Republic Electoral Commission
until 48 hours prior to election day.
26. The REC informed the Assembly’s observation delegation that
for the presidential election on 2 April, 6 724 949 voters were
registered, including 11 590 voters to vote abroad. In accordance
with the 2011 amendment to the Election Law, voters could register
to cast their ballots at a place of temporary residence or abroad.
Some concerns were raised about the accuracy of voters lists for
Serbian citizens residing in Kosovo and in the Roma communities.
4. Election
campaign and media environment
27. The election campaign for the
presidential election officially started on 2 March, it was calm,
peaceful and short. All presidential candidates were able to campaign
freely without major restriction. According to many presidential
candidates and their representatives with whom the Assembly’s observation
delegation met, the ruling coalition candidate benefited from his
position as Prime Minister during the election campaign, which led to
an unlevel playing field vis-à-vis his competitors. In addition,
many interlocutors expressed concern regarding the misuse of administrative
resources during the election campaign. The election campaign was focused
mainly on economic, social and security issues, on European integration
and fighting against corruption.
28. The presidential election was mostly characterised by negative
campaigning. According to representatives of non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) and other interlocutors, these elections were transformed
into a referendum “in favour” or “against” the Prime Minister Aleksandar
Vučić. All this created an atmosphere which was sometimes dominated
by hate speech and intolerance.
29. The legislation provides for equal media access for all presidential
candidates. Nevertheless, the presidential election once again proved
that the media coverage and the transparency of its financing are
a matter of serious concern. With regard to the media coverage of
the election campaign, it is regulated by the Law on Public Information
and Media, the Law on Public Broadcasting Services and the Law on
Electronic Media. The provisions of the Law on Public Information
and Media guarantee media pluralism.
Article 47 sets the framework for
the identification of threats to media pluralism. In case of such
threats related to printed media, it is the responsibility of the
Minister for Information to launch a procedure against the media
concerned. Within a legal framework which generally guarantees freedom
and plurality of the media, this provision might be problematic
as its implementation depends on a member of the executive power.
30. The Assembly, in its previous election observation reports,
was very critical concerning the media coverage of elections in
Serbia. Regrettably, many serious concerns in this field still remain
unaddressed. While the current legal framework appears to be advanced
and protective of freedom of expression and media, its implementation
remains a major issue, especially in times of elections. The ownership
structure of the media is seen as the key systemic problem. A large
number of media outlets are owned by the State either at local, regional
or national levels. The new set of laws requires State-owned media
to be privatised. However, as underlined by the Anti-Corruption
Agency,
when it comes to private ownership,
the main issue becomes the transparency of the ownership structure.
Non-transparent ownership structures lead to non-transparent funding
sources, which enables the development of connections between media
outlets, political structures and big business.
31. The State remains the main source of funding for media outlets
through the purchase of advertising space, providing subsidies from
the State budget, direct project financing through the newly introduced
call for projects mechanism,
and
tax relief. According to different interlocutors of the Assembly
observation delegation, this situation may alter the independence
and plurality of the media, and potentially favour the ruling majority.
32. Many presidential candidates and representatives of NGOs and
the media community informed the delegation about the unequal media
treatment of the presidential candidates. The presidential candidates’ activities
were relatively fairly covered in the programmes of public services
on the first channels of the State-run Radio and Television of Serbia
(RTS) and Radio and Television of Vojvodina (RTV). Aleksandar Vučić
was the most represented presidential candidate in the electronic
and printed media, including on the front pages of daily newspapers.
According to surveys of different media associations of Serbia,
the parties of the ruling coalition and their candidate took up
a huge part of information programmes of the most important TV stations: out
of a total of 30 676 seconds on pre-election activities of candidates
on seven TV stations, Vučić was given 58.45%, followed by Vuk Jeremić
(6.99%) and Saša Janković (6.75%). In addition to his position of
presidential candidate, Aleksandar Vučić also appeared in the media
in his quality of Prime Minister.
33. Regarding the media coverage of the election campaign, the
Assembly observation delegation, in its statement after the election,
pointed out the unprecedented unequal media coverage of the election
campaign in favour of the candidate from the ruling coalition, and
that the oversight of media during the campaign, including electronic
media, was inefficient. The ruling coalition candidate benefited
from his position as Prime Minister during the election campaign,
which led to an unlevel playing field vis-à-vis his competitors.
In addition, many interlocutors expressed concern regarding the
misuse of administrative resources during the election campaign.
5. Election
day
34. On the election day, the members
of the Assembly observation delegation visited a limited number
of polling stations in Belgrade and the surrounding areas as well
as in Novi Sad, Užice, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Valjevo, Požarevac
and Pančevo. The voting day was calm and well organised. Voters
could make their choice freely, even though some procedural and
technical shortcomings were observed in the polling stations visited:
- presence of a considerable number
of people in the polling stations which were often far too small;
- the design of the polling booths – particularly the flimsiness
of the partitions – was not sufficient to ensure the secrecy of
the ballot. Nevertheless, no attempt to take advantage of this anomaly
was mentioned. The same problem was already reported during the
monitoring of the early parliamentary elections in April 2016;
- ballot boxes were not properly sealed in some polling
stations visited;
- in general, the polling stations were not accessible to
people with disabilities. However, they could vote from home (mobile
voting);
- isolated cases of non-compliance with the counting procedures
in certain polling stations were observed, mainly in rural localities,
- isolated cases of family voting in some polling stations;
- cases of the presence of SNS representatives in and around
some of the polling stations in Pančevo, with the intention of orienting
the voters;
- very limited cases of the presence of citizen observers.
35. On 5 April, the Republic Election Commission announced the
results of the presidential election. Aleksandar Vučić won the election
with 55.02% % of votes cast. The other candidates obtained the following results:
Saša Janković – 16.36%; Luka Maksimović – 9.43%; Vuk Jeremić 5.65%;
Vojislav Šešelj – 4.51%. The rest of the candidates obtained less
than 3% of the votes. The turnout was 54.57%. Due to some irregularities, the
REC decided to organise repeat elections on 11 April in one polling
station in each of the municipalities of Backa Palanka and Zrenjanin.
6. Conclusions
and recommendations
36. The Assembly’s ad hoc committee
concluded that voting day was calm and well organised; the voters could
make their choice freely, even though some procedural and technical
shortcomings were observed in the limited number of polling stations
visited on 2 April 2017.
37. The Assembly observation delegation stressed that the election
is not limited to election day and, with regard to the election
campaign, while the presidential candidates could in general campaign
freely without significant restrictions, the ruling coalition candidate
nevertheless benefited from his position as Prime Minister during
the election campaign, which led to an unlevel playing field vis-à-vis
his competitors. In addition, many interlocutors expressed concern
regarding the misuse of administrative resources during the election campaign.
38. Although the legal framework provides a generally sound basis
for the conduct of democratic elections if applied in good faith,
the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission had previously noted that
the legislation would benefit from a comprehensive review to address
loopholes and unclear provisions. Most of the Venice Commission’s
recommendations have not been addressed, in particular concerning
the election dispute resolution process, and the need for effective
provisions to prevent and sanction the misuse of administrative resources
and abuse of office.
39. The Assembly, in its previous election observation reports,
was very critical concerning the media coverage of elections in
Serbia. Regrettably, many serious concerns in this field still remain
unaddressed. While the current legal framework appears to be advanced
and protective of freedom of expression and media, its implementation
remains a major issue, especially during elections. The Assembly
observation delegation pointed out the unprecedented unequal media
coverage of the election campaign in favour of the candidate from
the ruling coalition. Moreover, the oversight of media during the
election campaign, including electronic media, was inefficient.
40. Regarding the funding of the election campaign, the Assembly’s
observation delegation recalled that many recommendations still
remain unaddressed, in particular the Venice Commission had recommended including
in the Law on the Election of the President of the Republic provisions
on the autonomous mandate of the Anti- Corruption Agency, reconsidering
the level of public funding; considering introducing an overall campaign
expenditure limit and a party financing limit and lowering the limits
on private funding for both private individuals and companies. All
these recommendations, if implemented, could reduce the risk of disproportionate
levels of expenditure between the parties.
41. The Assembly’s observation delegation considers that the
current system of composition of the Republic Electoral Commission
could lead to an excessive politicisation of the electoral administration
to the detriment of its neutrality. Nevertheless, the REC worked
in a transparent and efficient manner. The registration of candidates
was inclusive and no major concerns have been reported regarding
the accuracy of the voters lists.
42. The Assembly observation delegation identified a number of
irregularities and shortcomings during the whole electoral process
of the presidential election. Serbia therefore needs to improve
its electoral legal framework, as well as certain electoral practices,
taking into consideration the lessons of past elections, in order
to increase the citizens’ confidence in democratic elections. This
work should be accomplished in the framework of the Assembly’s monitoring
procedure and in close co-operation with the Venice Commission.
Appendix 1 – Composition
of the ad hoc committee
(open)
Based on the proposals by the political groups
of the Assembly, the ad hoc committee was composed as follows:
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN (Norway,
EC), Chairperson
Group of the European People’s
Party (EPP/CD)
- Giuseppe
GALATI, Italy
- Jordi ROCA, Spain
- Egidijus VAREIKIS, Lithuania
- Adão SILVA, Portugal
Socialist Group (SOC)
- Paolo CORSINI, Italy
- Renata DESKOSKA, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”
- Luis Alberto ORELLANA, Italy
- Predrag SEKULIĆ, Montenegro
European Conservatives Group (EC)
- Ingebjørg GODSKESEN, Norway
- Arkadiusz MULARCZYK, Poland
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
for Europe (ALDE)
- Eerik-Niiles
KROSS, Estonia
- Anne MULDER, Netherlands
Secretariat
- Chemavon CHAHBAZIAN, Head of
the Election Observation and Interparliamentary Co-operation Division
- Danièle GASTL, Assistant, Election Observation and Interparliamentary
Co-operation Division
- Gaël MARTIN-MICALLEF, Legal advisor, Venice Commission
Appendix 2 – Programme
of the presidential election observation mission
(open)
Friday
31 March 2017
09.00 – 09.45 Ad hoc committee meeting:
- Opening by Ingebjørg Godskesen,
Head of Delegation
- Briefing by the member and secretariat of the Venice Commission
on the legal framework
10.00 – 10.30 Interventions by heads of international offices
in Serbia:
- Andrea Orizio, Head
of the OSCE Mission to Serbia
- Oskar Benedikt, Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European
Union to Serbia
10.30 – 11.30 Meeting with the Head of the OSCE/ODIHR election
observation mission in Serbia and members of the core team:
- Ambassador Alexandre Keltchewsky,
Head of Mission (France)
- Tatyana Hilsher Bogussevich, Deputy Head of Mission (Kazakhstan)
- Armen Mazmanyan, Legal Analyst (Armenia)
- Andreas Raab, Political Analyst (Germany)
- Vania Angeluova, Election Analyst (Bulgaria)
- Ivan Godarsky, Media Analyst (Slovak Republic)
11.45 – 12.30 Meeting with representatives of the Civil Society:
- Sonja Biserko, Helsinki Committee
for Human Rights
- Rasa Nedeljkov, Center for Research, Transparency and
Accountability (CRTA)
- Emilija Brkic, CESID
- Ana Janković Jovanović, Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights
(YUCOM)
13.45 – 14.45 Meeting with Tamara Skrozza, Press Council
15.00 – 15.45 Meeting with representatives of the Republic
Electoral Commission
16.00 – 20.00 Meetings with the presidential candidates:
- Marija Obradović and Aleksandra
Djurović, representatives of the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS)
- Miroslav Parović, People’s Freedom Movement
- Vuk Jeremić, independent candidate (supported by: New
Serbia, Together for Serbia, Social Democratic Party, People’s Movement
of Serbia)
- Vojin Biljic, member of the election committee of Saša
Radulović, Enough is enough (DJB)
Saturday 1 April 2017
10.00 – 10.30 Milan Stamatović, independent candidate, “For
Healthier Serbia – Milan Stamatović”
11.00 – 12.00 Meeting of the ad hoc committee:
- Briefing by Tim Cartwright,
Head of Council of Europe Office in Belgrade
- Information by the Secretariat; deployment; meeting with
drivers and interpreters
Sunday 2 April 2017
06.30 – 07.30 Observation of the opening of polling stations
08.00 – 20.00 Observation of the elections
20.00 Observation of the closing of the polling stations,
counting and presentation of results
Monday 3 April 2017
09.00 – 11.00 Debriefing by the members of the ad hoc committee
on the election observation and preparation of the statement
Appendix 3 – Statement
by the ad hoc committee
(open)
Presidential election
in Serbia: Statement of the observation delegation of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe
Belgrade, 03.04.2017 – On the invitation of the Serbian authorities,
a multiparty delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe (PACE) observed the Presidential election in Serbia on 2 April
2017. The Assembly has observed all presidential and parliamentary
elections in Serbia since 2000.
Yesterday, the PACE delegation visited a limited number of
polling stations in Belgrade and surrounding areas as well as in
Novi Sad, Užice, Kragujevac, Kraljevo, Valjevo, Požarevac and Pančevo.
The voting day was calm and well organised. The voters could make
their choice freely although some procedural shortcomings were observed.
Many presidential candidates and other interlocutors of the
PACE observation delegation pointed out the unprecedentedly unequal
media coverage of the election campaign in favour of the candidate
from the ruling coalition, although the legislation provides for
equal media access to all presidential candidates. Moreover, the oversight
of media during the campaign, including electronic media, was inefficient.
The Assembly observation delegation noted that the election
campaign was in general peaceful. All presidential candidates could
campaign freely without significant restrictions. The ruling coalition
candidate benefited from his position as Prime Minister during the
election campaign, which led to an unlevel playing field vis-à-vis
his competitors. In addition, many interlocutors expressed concern
regarding the misuse of administrative resources during the election
campaign. The election campaign was focused mainly on economic,
social and security issues, on European integration and fighting
against corruption.
While the legal framework provides a generally sound basis
for the conduct of democratic elections if applied in good faith,
the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission had previously noted that
the legislation would benefit from a comprehensive review to address
loopholes and unclear provisions. Most of the Venice Commission’s
recommendations have not been addressed, in particular concerning
the election dispute resolution process, the need for effective
provisions to prevent and sanction the misuse of administrative resources
and abuse of office.
Many presidential candidates and other interlocutors expressed
their concerns about the disproportionate system of financing of
political parties and election campaigns. In this regard, the Assembly’s
delegation recalls that the PACE in its different resolutions, as
well as the Venice Commission in its opinions, repeatedly recommended
to Serbian authorities to lower the levels of public and private
funding and to introduce an overall campaign expenditure limit and
a party financing limit. In addition, there is a lack of effective
legal mechanisms to increase the transparency of political party
and election campaigns funding, its oversight and accountability.
The Republic Electoral Commission worked in a transparent
and efficient manner, and political contestants had, in general,
confidence in its work. The registration of candidates was inclusive
and no major concerns have been reported regarding the accuracy
of the voters lists.
The delegation held meetings with the presidential candidates
or their representatives, representatives of the Republic Electoral
Commission, the OSCE/ODIHR Assessment Mission, representatives of
the international organisations, and representatives of civil society
and the media.