Transparentnost Srbija Seeks Signature Vetting Transparency
Transparentnost Srbija has called on municipalities and public notaries to disclose how they handled the vetting of signatures backing election lists, and asked for a review of campaign financing.
On September 13, Transparentnost Srbija (TS) called on all municipal and city administrations, the Chamber of Public Notaries, and individual public notaries to disclose without delay how they had handled the vetting of signatures supporting election lists for the vote scheduled for October 25. The move follows public allegations that municipal administrations and notaries did not treat all political contestants equally while support signatures were being collected for the ballot.
That same day, the organization also asked the Anti-Corruption Agency to determine, on its own initiative and without delay, whether that conduct violated the rules on financing election campaigns.
In its statement, TS says it is already clear that many municipal administrations have breached their legal obligations. It cites Article 6 of the Law on the Financing of Political Activities, under which every state and local government body must regulate, through a separate act, the services it provides to political entities and how those services are delivered, and must publish that act on its own website. The same article requires public authorities to respond to a political entity’s request within two working days during an election campaign, and, if a service cannot be provided, to prove why not. Municipal administrations are further required to publish their decision on each political entity’s request on their website within one day of making it.
“A search of the websites of several city and municipal administrations that took part in vetting signatures found no information on how notarial services were provided during the pre-election period, nor any information on which political entities were granted or denied these services so far,” Transparentnost Srbija said in its September 13 statement.
According to Transparentnost Srbija, a similar duty of equal treatment applies to public notaries, who as holders of public authority must make signature vetting available to all political entities under the same conditions. The organization also points to how outdated the available data on notaries’ work during election campaigns is.
“The latest information on the website of the Chamber of Public Notaries relating to signature vetting dates back to 2020,” the statement reads, adding that it would be appropriate for the Chamber to issue a statement explaining the full scope of notaries’ duties, the cases in which they were entitled to refuse a requested service, and how an election contestant who believes they were discriminated against can file a complaint.
This is the second time the question of access to notaries has come up in this election cycle. Srpske vesti previously reported on the case of Milos Jovanovic, who could not find a notary available to vet the signatures for his own list, so Transparentnost Srbija’s call for equal treatment follows up on a question of access to notarial services already raised ahead of the deadline for submitting election lists for the October 25 vote.
The deadline for submitting support signatures is one of the most sensitive moments of any election campaign, since the unavailability of notaries in the final days can determine whether a list gets assembled at all. The Law on the Financing of Political Activities therefore explicitly requires public authorities to be transparent and to treat all election contestants equally, not only those politically close to the ruling structure in a given municipality.
As of publication, neither the municipal administrations nor the Chamber of Public Notaries had publicly responded to Transparentnost Srbija’s allegations. The Anti-Corruption Agency likewise had not said whether, or when, it would act on the organization’s request to examine the campaign’s financing.
