THE LETTER THAT SAID TOO MUCH

The Civic Movement Solidarity publishes a review and analysis of the open letter sent by the Minister of Information to Pedro Vargas David, owner of Alpak Capital.

Minister Boris Bratina, the signatory of the letter, failed to do three basic things: accurately identify who owns the media outlets he writes about, remain consistent with his own claims, and conceal why the letter was actually written.

We set out, point by point, what the letter revealed.

1. Illegal and impermissible recommendations

1.1 Political pressure by the executive branch on the media

The Minister publicly instructs the owner of private media outlets on how to deal with editorial teams. This is contrary to the freedom of the media guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the Law on Public Information and Media, as well as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which directly binds Serbia as a member of the Council of Europe.

The same standard — prohibiting interference by the executive branch in editorial decisions — is incorporated into the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), with which Serbia, as a candidate country, has committed to aligning its legislation.

The Minister of Information is not, and must not be, a party to ownership or editorial decisions concerning private media outlets, nor may he exert influence of any kind.

1.2 Undermining the independence of the regulator

By publicly directing how the regulator (REM) should treat certain media outlets, the Ministry undermines the independence of the regulatory body — an independence also required by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), to which Serbia has committed itself.

1.3 Presumption of guilt without a single conviction

In the Minister's letter, acting in the name of a state institution, the activities of private media outlets and their owners are described as the “fraud of the century,” a “criminal project,” and “money laundering” — without a single final court judgment.

This is a serious violation of the presumption of innocence and is unacceptable behavior for a public office-holder.

1.4 Legitimation of a takeover without approval

The Minister calls on the buyer to proceed with and register the media outlets even though the change of control has not been approved either in Luxembourg (by the Ministry and the regulator ALIA) or by Serbia's Commission for the Protection of Competition.

The state is therefore encouraging the circumvention of regulatory procedures instead of protecting them.

1.5 Invoking the jurisdiction of a regulator that the government itself failed to make functional

The Minister demands that the media outlets be brought under REM — a body whose Council remained unconstituted for more than a year and a half and was only constituted in July 2026, in an incomplete composition and without an elected president.

A government cannot invoke the oversight of a body it itself failed to make functional.

2. Inconsistencies and contradictions

2.1 He attacked the wrong owner

The Minister portrays Dragan Šolak as the current owner and architect of the “scheme.” The facts say otherwise: the majority owner of United Group since 2019 has been the investment fund BC Partners; Šolak is now a minority shareholder and was removed from all positions during 2025.

The seller of the media assets is BC Partners, through the company Summer Parent, while Šolak is precisely the person who is attempting, before a court in London, to STOP this sale.

The Minister is therefore attacking as the main culprit a man who is fighting against the very takeover the Minister is endorsing — demonstrating that he does not even know who owns the media outlets he is writing about.

2.2 He contradicts himself regarding ALIA

According to the Minister, the same ALIA is simultaneously a twelve-year-old “steel umbrella” protecting Šolak and the body now “causing the biggest problems” for the sale of that same structure.

It cannot be both.

If ALIA is Šolak's shield, why would it obstruct a sale being carried out by Šolak's opponent, BC Partners?

The claim collapses under its own contradictions.

2.3 “Equal rights and obligations” as a cover

The Minister claims that he wants these media outlets to have the same rights and obligations as everyone else — while in the same letter he welcomes a takeover that threatens their independence and the removal of editors who protected it.

Concern for “equality” is, in this context, a cover for establishing control.

Employees of the media outlets are named personally in the letter.

2.4 Praising the move that lies at the heart of the problem

The Minister welcomes the fact that the buyer “on its own initiative” removed the existing directors from the register.

That very move — carried out before approval — is at the heart of the dispute.

The state is thus supporting the circumvention of the very procedure it is supposed to uphold.

2.5 Jurisdiction is determined by the regulator, not the Minister

Whether these channels should fall under the jurisdiction of the domestic regulator is a legitimate legal question — but it must be resolved by an independent regulator through the prescribed procedure, not by a Minister through an open letter.

Moreover, this issue is separate from the change of ownership and the origin of the capital, about which the Minister remains silent.

The Minister invokes the part of European rules that Serbia has already incorporated (the AVMSD), while ignoring the standards that this transaction calls into question — the European Media Freedom Act, an assessment of the impact on media pluralism, and mandatory approval of a change of control — as well as domestic procedures, including the consent of the Commission for the Protection of Competition and notification to REM.

2.6 Who actually failed to provide oversight?

The Minister criticizes the media for having “evaded” the domestic regulator for twelve years — while the government itself left REM without a properly constituted Council for a year and a half.

If oversight was absent, it was absent in part because the state failed to ensure that it existed.

3. How was the new director registered before the acquisition — and where are the approvals?

The central question, which the Minister avoids throughout the entire letter, is this:

How is it possible for the new owner to control the editorial operations before the transaction has been legally approved and completed?

• Sequence of events. On 17 August 2026, Pedro Vargas David was registered with the Serbian Business Registers Agency (APR) as director of the Serbian media companies, while the previous directors were removed — based on an application personally submitted by him. On 18 August, ALIA confirmed that the transaction HAD NOT been approved and that the procedure was still ongoing.

• Ownership had not yet passed to the buyer. At the time of the registration, the company on the seller's side was still listed as the owner of the companies in the APR, and according to reports, the transaction had not yet closed. The new director was therefore appointed before ownership had legally changed hands.

• Where are the approvals? Where is the approval of Serbia's Commission for the Protection of Competition? Where is the notification to REM and its assessment of the change in ownership structure and its impact on media pluralism? Where is the approval of the Luxembourg Ministry and the opinion of ALIA?

There are no such approvals — yet without them, the change of ownership has not been legally completed.

• APR is not a media regulator. APR is a registry operating according to the principle of formal review and does not determine whether such approvals exist. That is why the registration could pass through an institution exercising a more limited form of substantive oversight.

But the absence of the required approvals does not disappear simply because someone has been entered in the register.

Instead of answering this question, the Minister welcomes the takeover — thereby signaling state support for a transaction carried out before the competent authorities have given their approval.

• Implementing a concentration before approval is punishable. Under Serbia's Competition Act, participants in a concentration are required to suspend activities until the Commission for the Protection of Competition reaches a decision (the standstill obligation).

Implementing a concentration before approval constitutes a violation of the law, punishable by a fine of up to 10% of the buyer's total annual turnover, while the Commission may also order the transaction to be reversed through deconcentration measures.

The fact that the transaction formally takes place in Luxembourg does not exempt it from Serbian law — Serbian competition law also applies to operations outside Serbia insofar as they affect the Serbian market.

This raises the question: does the assumption of operational control on 17 August, before any approval had been issued, constitute precisely such an unlawful implementation of a concentration?

We call on the Commission for the Protection of Competition to urgently address this issue.

Conclusion: The Letter That Said Too Much

In his own letter, the Minister of Information described independent journalism as “dishonor” and characterized the arrival of the new owner as the “clinical death” of critical television channels.

In doing so, he answered the only question he was attempting to avoid — why this takeover is taking place and in whose interest.

A man who calls free journalism “dishonor” has forfeited the right to speak on behalf of media freedom; but he has not forfeited his obligation to respect the law.

This concerns the public conduct of a holder of public office and the application of the law — and the law is clear: without the approval of the competent regulators, this takeover has not been legally completed.

We therefore call on the competent authorities — the Commission for the Protection of Competition, REM, the Luxembourg regulator ALIA, and European institutions — to act urgently and to ensure that no further steps are taken until the origin of the capital has been examined.

The citizens of Serbia demand that the law apply equally to everyone — and that no one take away their right to hear the other side.