France: Three journalists summoned by security agency over suspected…

France: Three journalists summoned by security agency over suspected violation of national defence secrecy

The partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today express concern over the latest summons issued by France’s top security agency to journalists from investigative platform Disclose and public broadcaster Radio France over the suspected violation of national secrecy in connection with their reporting on the armed forces.

Our organisations raise the alarm that the three journalists summoned for voluntary questioning could face potential prison sentences of up to five years and a fine of €75,000 if charged and ultimately found guilty. We therefore urge the General Directorate of Internal Security (DGSI) to seriously consider the implications of this case for press freedom.

The trio – Geoffrey Livolsi, co-founder of investigative media outlet Disclose, Jacques Monin, head of investigations at Radio France and Benoît Collombat, an investigative journalist at Radio France – have been summoned to the DGSI for questioning on 14 December as part of an ongoing judicial investigation into alleged violation of national defence secrecy.

The summons is linked to a March 2018 investigation authored by Collombat and Livolsi, entitled “Air transport: suspicions of influence peddling in the army”, which reported that the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) was probing allegations of financial misconduct in the military. The article revealed that high-ranking officers including a named official of the Special Operations Command (COS) were being investigated over alleged air transport subcontracting fraud.

The trio are due to be questioned on the suspicion that they “committed or attempted to commit the offense of revealing or disclosing information allowing the identification of a member of a special forces unit”. According to reports, the summons comes after an unnamed former member of the French special forces filed a complaint. Livolsi from Disclose has stressed that all the officers named in the investigation work in the logistics services of the army, rather than on a mission or in a conflict area and were not in any danger. Both Disclose and Radio France stand by the accuracy and public interest nature of the publication.

Our organisations note that this summons is part of a wider pattern of criminal investigations against media by DGSI in recent years. Journalists from Disclose and Radio France were the subject of a separate investigation in 2019. That summons was based on a complaint by the Ministry of the Armed Forces about publication of classified information about French complicity in supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia which were used to commit war crimes in Yemen. In that case, the DGSI questioned the two co-founders of Disclose and Collombat about a potential violation of national secrecy and attempted to identify their sources.

A second investigation into Disclose was then initiated in November 2021 in connection with its revelations about the alleged complicity of French military intelligence in the arbitrary executions of civilians in Egypt. That time, the Ministry of the Armed Forces filed a complaint alleging the non-profit platform had violated national defence secrecy. Both of these previous probes targeted legitimate and public interest journalism which had led to serious questions and criticism about the operations of the French military and intelligence services.

As in those cases, this summons has serious implications for media freedom. Firstly, serious questions arise as to why this complaint was made now, nearly five years after the journalists’ investigation was published. Moreover, as this probe is being conducted within the scope of national security, the DGSI has the full range of investigatory powers at its disposal, including the use of surveillance tools. This not only creates a stressful climate for the media outlets but could also discourage sources and potential whisteblowers from speaking out.

Our organisations recognise the challenges which come with striking the right balance between safeguarding press freedom and protecting national security. However, it is vital for democracy that journalists and media outlets carrying out investigative reporting on matters of public interest, including about the armed forces and even the special forces, must be able to work free from all forms of pressure or retaliation.

Ahead of the summons on Wednesday December 14, our organisations emphasise that we will closely monitor developments and will respond strongly to further escalations which negatively affect the freedom of the press. If required, we also stand ready to provide assistance to the affected journalists through our MFRR legal support fund.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19 Europe
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

This statement was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States, Candidate Countries and Ukraine.

Allgemein

Italy: Lawsuits against Saviano and Domani highlight wider SLAPP…

Italy: Lawsuits against Saviano and Domani highlight wider SLAPP problem

Ongoing litigation against media by new PM and Defence Minister raise media freedom concerns

By IPI contibutor Christian Elia

In recent weeks there has been much talk in Italy about a recently opened legal case against the journalist and writer Roberto Saviano, who is accused of defamation in a lawsuit filed in 2020 by Giorgia Meloni, the new prime minister. Saviano had called Meloni and Lega leader Matteo Salvini ‘bastards’ during a La7 television programme for their policy on rescuing migrants at sea.

There have been multiple stances in defence of Saviano in newspapers and by associations for freedom of the press and freedom of expression. They have been critical of Meloni and of Salvini, who is a plaintiff in the trial, and say that Meloni’s lawsuit is intimidatory and aimed at discouraging criticism of Saviano and her.

This is not an isolated incident, however. At the end of November 2021, Prime Minister Meloni also filed a defamation case against the daily newspaper Domani. The court decided to indict journalist Emiliano Fittipaldi and the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, Stefano Feltri, over a year-old article about Meloni, who was not prime minister at the time.

The article dates back to October 2021 and reported on Domenico Arcuri, former extraordinary commissioner for the Covid emergency. Arcuri mentioned, talking to magistrates, the names of some MPs who, according to him, had contacted him to promote individuals or companies able to supply masks on “far less advantageous” terms. The MPs included Meloni, Domani reported.

In response, Meloni has demanded €25,000 in damages from the newspaper. The requested financial compensation is part of civil proceedings that can be claimed in addition to criminal proceedings, which is the legal framework for “aggravated defamation” lawsuits.

“Until a law on reckless litigation is passed, lawsuits and civil lawsuits remain the sword of Damocles over freedom of information in the country”, Feltri said in an article.

Domani’s journalists have also pointed out that while is possible for Meloni to sue the newspaper, the PM – herself under investigation for aggravated defamation for a tweet against one of her former candidates – is sheltering behind parliamentary protections from prosecution.

“Meloni as a ‘citizen, journalist and politician’, as she had her lawyer write, decided to take this newspaper to trial but her personal position has changed. As prime minister she is called upon to protect among the constitutional values also freedom of expression of all, also because as a ‘politician she can already protect her own,’” the journalists of Domani wrote.

The new Italian government had already come out against Domani. Last month, Defence Minister Guido Crosetto had announced his intention to sue the newspaper for defamation over an investigation by journalists Emiliano Fittipaldi and Giovanni Tizian into the current minister’s potential conflict of interest with companies in the sector he now oversees. For now, Minister Crosetto has not followed up on the announcement.

Italy’s SLAPP problem

The president of the Federazione Nazionale della Stampa Italiana (FNSI), Giuseppe Giulietti, recalled how ”the law to oppose gagging complaints and punish reckless actions has been at a standstill since 2002 and will remain so due to increasingly clear transversal intentions”.

The law Giulietti is referring to is the law against SLAPPs, as lawsuits are called in which there is a gross disproportion of power between the person or organization suing and the accused. The goal of accusers or plaintiffs in SLAPP cases is not necessarily to win the case, but to intimidate the defendant – even if only through the many burdens and effects of a trial – and discourage his or her work, taking away time, money and initiative. Plaintiffs also take advantage of the public bias against the presumption of innocence, placing the defendant in a position of weakness and risk.

Most of the time the accusation in SLAPP cases is defamation, and these cases are almost always directed at journalists, bloggers or activists who have written or said something in public that someone claims is defamatory against them. The consequences can be both criminal and civil.In Italy, both civil and criminal lawsuits are often referred to as “querele temerarie” (reckless lawsuits), with some confusion: “querela”, however, in legal language refers only to criminal cases. They are referred to as “reckless” because they are brought despite the uncertainty of the final outcome, but precisely for the purpose of responding or threatening the defendant.

A 2016 dossier edited by the association Ossigeno per l’informazione, based on data provided by the Ministry of Justice, estimated that around 70 per cent of defamation lawsuits are dropped by the public prosecutor and therefore do not go to trial.

There is no more recent data, but lawyer Andrea Di Pietro, who has been dealing with the issue for many years, said in an interview that in 2019 the ministry confirmed to Ossigeno that that percentage was still valid. According to him and several other experts in the field, it probably still is today.Until recently, Article 13 of Law 47 of 1948 on the press, which set forth a mandatory term of imprisonment from one to six years “in the event of conviction for libel in the press committed by attributing a specific fact”, was also taken into account for defamation in the press.

This article was declared illegitimate in June last year by the Constitutional Court. By contrast, the court deemed Article 595 of the Criminal Code, which deals with defamation, compatible with the Constitution, since that provision allows the judge to apply a prison sentence only in cases of exceptional gravity and in all other cases to limit it to a fine.

Article 595 of the Criminal Code concerns anyone who”’by communicating with several persons, offends the reputation of others”. It is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of up to EUR 2,065, but both can be increased if the offence is against “a political, administrative or judicial body”.

In the case of defamation “in the press” – a definition that today includes both newspapers and other media, e.g. social networks, and therefore potentially concerns almost everyone – the penalty can be up to three years and the fine is at least EUR 516.

EU anti-SLAPP directive on the way

After years of calls for action, last April the European Commission presented two measures that are still awaiting approval. The first is a legislative proposal for a directive that would intervene precisely on the problems of civil lawsuits, which also exist in Italy: the most important measure is the introduction of a mechanism that would allow civil lawsuits that are manifestly unfounded to be dismissed quickly.

This mechanism, should the directive be approved, will, however, only be valid for cases of European relevance: i.e. cases relating to articles or public speeches involving, for example, more than one EU member country.

The directive also envisages protection for journalists working in the EU who receive convictions from courts in non-EU states, and penalties to discourage the frequent use of SLAPPs, including the possibility for an accused party who proves his or her innocence to claim damages from the plaintiff.

The other measure proposed by the European Commission is a recommendation to member states to implement measures to encourage this kind of practice in their national legislation. The recommendation, however, is not binding, and much will depend on whether and how it is implemented in each country.

The next hearing in Saviano’s trial has been set for December 12, 2022. Many journalists and members of the cultural world will be present at the hearing in support of the defendant. In the courtroom will also be the president of the FNSI, Giuseppe Giulietti, and the spokesperson of Articolo 21, an association that fights for press freedom, Elisa Marincola, as well as a delegation of CASE Italia observers who are following the case with a view to write a repor.

“It is necessary to say ‘enough to reckless lawsuits’ with a law that at this point can only be induced by the European Directive given that the Italian Parliament has failed to produce even a minimal amendment that could act as a deterrent against gag lawsuits,” Giulietti commented.

This article is part of IPI’s series “Media freedom in Europe in shadow of Covid”, which comprises news and analysis from IPI’s network of correspondets throughout the EU. Articles do not necessarily reflect the views of IPI. The reporting series is supported by funding from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for FReedom and by the European Commission (DG Connect) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response coalition.

Library

Latvia: Media regulator urged not to revoke Dozhd license…

Latvia: Media regulator urged not to revoke Dozhd license pending court review

Decision revoking broadcast license is clear violation of media freedom.

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today express serious concern over the decision by Latvia’s National Electronic Mass Media Council (NEPLP) to revoke the broadcast license of exiled independent Russian TV station Dozhd, which is based in Riga. Given the clear implications for media freedom, our organisations urge the regulator to refrain from enforcing the revocation until a court has reviewed the decision.

On 6 December, the NEPLP’s chairperson said that Dozhd’s license had been withdrawn “in connection with the threat to national security and the public order” and citing three serious violations of the country’s broadcast law since it began broadcasting last summer. Dozhd’s broadcasting ban enters into force on December 8, but it has the right to appeal. The NEPLP also announced its intent to block Dozhd’s YouTube channel within the country.

Our organisations acknowledge and welcome the steps taken by Latvian authorities since the war began to provide visas for more than 470 Russian journalists and their families, including those from Dozhd, who were forced to flee the country. This allowed Dozhd and others to re-establish operations and continue working. Latvia has provided a welcome example for Europe to follow and deserves praise for its overall support for free and independent media.

While our organisations recognise the sensitivity of this issue in Latvia, our shared view is that the decision to revoke their broadcast license is disproportionate and ultimately counterproductive.

In our assessment, appropriate steps were taken by Dozhd to address the three violations of Latvia’s broadcast law cited by the regulator. The presenter who misspoke about ‘support’ to Russian troops has apologised and been dismissed; the use of a map downloaded from the internet showing Crimea as part of Russia’s territory was a clear mistake for which the editor has since apologised; and the single reference to Russia’s military as “our army” was dealt with and the media outlet was fined. While Dozhd must respect Latvian law, in our view these three editorial errors were mistakes and do not meet the threshold for the outright revocation of a media outlet’s broadcast licence.

Arguments raised about Dozhd’s journalists posing a potential national security or intelligence threat are very serious accusations that need to be addressed by independent courts rather than a broadcast regulator. There is clear guidance on restricting freedom of expression on the basis of national security that needs to be followed by the authorities.

The wider implications of this decision for the Russian anti-war movement are significant. As the most influential exiled Russian broadcast media outlet, Dozhd’s resolutely anti-war coverage of issues such as mobilisation, Russian atrocities and the realities from the front lines have provided a crucial alternative to government propaganda.

Moving forward, we urge the NEPLP to refrain from enforcing the decision on revocation of Dozhd’s licence. We also urge the Administrative Court to reverse the NEPLP decision until a court has reviewed the decision on appeal. The Court must is should consider both the violations committed and the alleged national security or intelligence allegations, as well as the broader implications the decision will have for Dozhd, its editors and journalists, and other exiled Russian media.

Until then, our message is clear: independent Russian journalism should be provided a safe refuge in Europe. Dozhd’s mission of providing independent news to Russian-speaking audiences is a crucial one and we hope this matter can be resolved.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19 Europe
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Allgemein

Portugal: Press freedom remains robust even as media face…

Portugal: Press freedom remains robust even as media face resource strains

Strong legal framework and lack of political interference in media create open climate for independent journalism

By IPI contributor Cláudia Marques Santos

Press freedom remains strong in Portugal. The country is democratically stable and the risks of government interference in the media are low. Both the constitution and the national Press Law safeguard journalists in their daily reporting.

But there are some areas of concern: journalists’ deteriorating work conditions and precarity, as well as significant concentration of media groups. The number of cases from Portugal that end up in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding press freedom violations is also high. The ECtHR has convicted Portugal in three major cases this year alone.

Portugal consistently ranks well in international press freedom rankings. In addition, according to the 2022 Digital News Report, 61 percent of Portuguese people have trust in news overall as well as in news they read or listen to. The European University Institute’s 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) finds that Portugal presents a stable situation.

“Portugal is not a problematic country”, says Carla Baptista, academic and one of the authors of the 2022 MPM entry on Portugal. “In the case of political independence, the question is whether there are media outlets that are directly controlled by political forces, by parties or others. [In Portugal] Political parties cannot own television or radio stations, they can only own newspapers. There is no direct use of the media [by political parties] as there is in many European countries.”

Besides this low risk concerning political independence, the country has a strong legal framework regarding the practice of journalism and the right to inform, as well as guaranteeing the fundamental right not to reveal sources.

Plus, according to the Media for Democracy Monitor, Portugal scores maximum points concerning pluralism in newsrooms’ rules and practices. “There’s no tradition for news media to endorse publicly a political party or a presidential candidate”, it said in its 2022 report. “All of the main media insist on independence as their supreme value, promising to offer their audience all the relevant perspectives on any issue under debate.”

Some challenges remain, however. In early 2021, controversy erupted when it became known that two Portuguese journalists were subject to a two-month long police surveillance operation, in 2018 April and May, ordered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with the purpose of revealing their confidential sources, because of investigations they were doing about corruption and a major football club.

As a result, the European Commission severely criticized Portugal, considering it “unacceptable” that, in a state governed by the rule of law, journalists are subject to police surveillance and harassment when it comes to accessing sources. Just last April, the Lisbon Court of Appeal reverted the investigating judge’s decision not to order a trial of the two journalists for crimes of breach of secrecy of justice.

Legal landscape for press freedom

Though the rights of Portuguese journalists are secured by the Press Law (nr. 2/99, whose Article 1 says “freedom of the press includes the right to inform, to be informed and to be informed without hindrance or discrimination”), the practice of Portuguese courts explains why many cases end up in ECtHR.

Since 2005, the European Court of Human Rights (EctHR) has ruled in more than 20 cases that Portugal violated Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding freedom of expression. These have included cases involving the television broadcaster SIC, daily newspaper Público and newsmagazine Visão.

In December 2003 SIC reported that the then Azores’ secretary of Agriculture and Fisheries was implicated in a pedophile case in the islands, which was being investigated. Last year the ECtHR found in favour of SIC.

In 2017 the ECtHR found in favour of José Manuel Fernandes, Público’s former director, who had been convicted in court over a 2006 editorial article he wrote about the then newly elected president of the Supreme Court, criticizing his inauguration speech.

In 2016 the ECtHR also found in favour of Visão. Six years earlier, the news magazine had been convicted over an opinion article saying that the then prime minister would have to be on drugs to start a war with a political commentator (who is today the president of Portugal).

And only this year the ECtHR found against Portugal in the case of a satirical newspaper based in Madeira. In 2007, this newspaper had written that “unloading a ship at Caniças is the same thing as unloading a pallet of money at the orange foundation”, referring to the orange-coloured PSD party that ruled the island for decades.

“It’s cultural”, says Ricardo Correia Afonso, a Portuguese lawyer whose career has been built on defending journalists in court. “Until very recently, Portugal was a country where you’d put freedom of expression and the right to inform on one side and the right to honour and good name on the other.” Afonso said that, traditionally, the latter principle prevailed.

Another concern is the horizontal concentration of media companies, with several big media groups controlling the market, as noted in the 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor. In 2015, a new Transparency Law obliged media companies to report every year their financial outcomes and ownership details to Portugal’s media regulator, Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social (ERC). While this has increased transparency in media ownership, concerns remain about some large media companies not sending all the required data. Another concern this study points out is the lack of funding of this institution, which has an ex-judge as president.

Working conditions

Job security is another major concern in Portuguese journalism. According to the Media for Democracy Monitor, Portugal scores poorly on this metric. “In the last 10 years, all of the most important Portuguese news media downsized their newsrooms, dismissing dozens of journalists”. Between 2009 and 2020 the number of professional journalists decreased 23 percent, from 6,673 to 5,124.

Resources for Investigative journalism have also dropped, which isn’t a good indicator for democracy. News media are clearly underfunded. Most journalists in newsrooms aren’t given time to investigate- Freelancers cannot afford going to court if someone presses charges against them. All of this raises the risk that important stories may not come to light.

Another matter in discussion in Portugal is the fact that the Press Law, which dates from 1999, hasn’t been updated since. Digital media, for instance, remain unregulated. In Portugal, media matters are under the umbrella of the Ministry of Culture. The last government had a secretary of state for cinema, television and media affairs. This specific position no longer exists, although media still remain under the culture ministry.

Disinformation also stands out as a great risk for democracy and news reporting in Portugal. In May 2021 a law (no. 27/2021) was published approving the Portuguese Charter on Human Rights in the Digital Era. “Alongside ensuring basic rights, freedoms, and guarantees for citizens in the online environment, the legislation establishes that the state must protect citizens from people who produce, reproduce, and disseminate misinformation, in line with the European Action Plan against Disinformation”, writes the Digital News Report. On the other hand, according to Media Democracy Monitor, there’s no significant online harassment of Portuguese journalists. There are exceptions, however.

In December 2020 and January 2021, journalists who made an investigation on the broadcaster SIC about the far-right populist party Chega were subjected to a torrent of insults, harassment, and threats online. The same happened earlier this month, with the release in several media of an investigation made by a new consortium of Portuguese investigative journalists about online hate speech made by police forces in private social media groups, powered by movements linked to Chega.

Another concerning phenomenon is the increasing bias displayed in online news platforms. “There is a proliferation of digital news media that are a one person company”, says Carla Baptista. “The law only demands an editorial project and a director which means ERC approves news media almost automatically.” Fake news is a big problem, and Portugal is no exception.

Library

Multiple journalists threatened and harassed in Serbia, authorities must…

Multiple journalists threatened and harassed in Serbia, authorities must take urgent action

In the past month in Serbia, several journalists have been targeted by serious threats raising fears for their physical safety. Partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response and the Safe Journalists Network in condemning in the strongest terms the intimidation and often orchestrated campaigns by pro-government media outlets and members of the public to silence journalists.

The undersigned organisations urge the authorities to take the necessary measures to ensure their protection and prevent further threats.

The latest shocking threat reported on 1 December 2022 targeted Nova S TV’s journalist Jelena Obucina. Obucina received messages via Twitter, threatening her with “impalement” and stating she “would be burned”. The chilling text is composed of repeated and meticulously described death threats and threats of sexual violence. The messages were sent after a statement published in the tabloid Alo wrongly accusing Obucina of threatening Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić on television and of making anti-state propaganda.

A few days ago, the home address of Serbian journalist Nenad Kulačin was published on posters pasted in downtown Belgrade. His colleague at the daily newspaper Danas, Marko Vidojković, received more than 20 death threats via social media following a guest appearance on TV Nova S, during which he commented on the FIFA World Cup match between Serbia and Brazil. Several tabloid newspapers published an identical article that targeted and insulted him over his views expressed regarding that match.

On 6 November 2022, Danas’ daily received a threatening email via an unknown Switzerland-based Protonmail email address directed at the newsroom, which listed specific journalists and columnists. The email read that “salvos of bullets” could be fired at them, and that it could “end up” like what happened to journalists of the French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo, who were killed in their offices by terrorists in 2015. The email called the journalists “enemy of the Serbian people”, “traitors” and mentioned the newspaper’s coverage of Kosovo, Montenegro, and the Republika Srpska. Since then, permanent police security has been positioned in front of the editorial offices in Belgrade.

The Safe Journalists Network said that, while the number of cases did not increase above the standard figures recently, the severity of those threats are of great concern: “It is again clear that narrative and negative campaigns that start with statements from high-ranking government officials, usually continued by tabloids, lead to terrible threats from unknown people, especially on social media. We are concerned because such cases and incidents create confusion among citizens, who receive a completely wrong message from government officials and tabloids, that says that journalists are working against their country, that they are targeting the president and senior officials, and that they are actually enemies of Serbia.”

The undersigned organisations urge the Serbian authorities to publicly condemn the threats against the media, thoroughly investigate these cases as well as all reports filed by journalists, and ensure prevention of further attacks by promoting an environment that respects pluralistic opinions and diverging editorial policies.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19 Europe
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Library

Italy: Prime Minister sues Domani newspaper for defamation

Italian defamation laws are once again being misused by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to silence and threaten independent journalism in Italy. The undersigned organisations call for the lawsuit against the newspaper Domani to be dropped and for the Italian Parliament to adopt a comprehensive reform of defamation laws in Italy.

In October 2021, the current Prime Minister, at the time member of the Italian Parliament and leader of the far-right party Fratelli d’Italia, initiated legal action for aggravated criminal defamation against Emiliano Fittipaldi and Stefano Feltri, respectively correspondent and editor of the daily national newspaper Domani. The lawsuit originated from an article that raised questions over an obscure procurement process of face masks during the first waves of the Covid-19 pandemic. In particular, the article was investigating the alleged role Meloni played in influencing Domenico Arcuri, then Covid Commissioner, by recommending certain suppliers for medical equipment intended for the Italian healthcare system. According to the authors of the article, her interference in the process consisted of endorsing Fabio Pietrella, a businessperson and newly elected Fratelli d’Italia member of the Parliament, for the procured services.

Prime Minister Meloni is requesting damages with an interim compensation of 25,000 euros from the newspaper. After a preliminary hearing, which took place on 15 November, the public prosecutor decided to open a criminal defamation trial, which is due to begin on 10 July, 2024.

Our organisations have consistently advocated for a reform of both civil and criminal defamation laws in Italy to bring legislation in line with international freedom of expression standards and the recent Constitutional Court rulings. In its 2020 and 2021 decisions, the court urged the Parliament to enact a comprehensive reform of defamation laws in Italy. As of today, the Parliament has failed to respond to such calls.

In April 2022, the European Commission put forward a Directive proposal that would prompt EU member states to take action to counter Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) in civil law cases for matters with trans-border application. The proposal on SLAPPs is expected to be adopted in 2023 after discussion and a vote by the Council of the EU and the European Parliament. Alongside the directive proposal, the European Commission has formulated a set of Recommendations identifying a number of measures meant to counter both vexatious criminal and civil lawsuits. Furthermore, according to international and European human rights law, top public officials should tolerate a higher degree of scrutiny and criticism than others, in light of the public position they hold.

Our organisations acknowledge with growing concern the rising number of SLAPP cases against journalists brought by public officials in Italy against those who express dissent or inform the public on contentious issues, question their work or, as in the present case, expose alleged wrongdoing.

We call on Prime Minister Meloni to withdraw the defamation lawsuit against Italian newspaper Domani and to initiate a reform process of defamation laws in the country to avoid the abuse of vexatious lawsuits against the public interest. We also call on the Italian Parliament to begin comprehensive reform of defamation laws in line with international freedom of expression standards as soon as possible. Such reform should centre on the decriminalisation of defamation and set limits within civil law on the amount in damages that can be sought to avoid creating undue obstacles to the journalistic profession.

Furthermore, this reform should address specific challenges posed by SLAPPs against journalists within the Italian framework. While the Italian Civil Procedural Code includes some provisions aimed at countering SLAPPs – article 96 provides that those plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit in ‘bad faith’ must compensate the defendant – judges rarely recur to this provision in practice. Within this context, we also urge the Parliament to start a discussion to follow up on the Recommendations included in the EU Anti-SLAPPs initiative and to support the adoption of an advanced text of the EU Anti-SLAPPs Directive.

An Anti-SLAPPs Working Group in Italy, part of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), brings together representatives of the world of journalism and civil society in Italy to raise awareness about SLAPPs and sustain advocacy towards a set of measures that would effectively counter them.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19 Europe
Articolo 21
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
The Good Lobby Italia

Library

Slovenia: Media freedom groups back legislative efforts to depoliticise…

Slovenia: Media freedom groups back legislative efforts to depoliticise public media

Reform aimed at limiting political interference over RTV SLO faces upcoming referendum challenge.

The undersigned international media freedom and journalists’ organisations today outline their tentative support for reform of the law on Radiotelevizija Slovenija (RTV SLO) and the urgent need to depoliticise the public service media and their oversight bodies amidst continued threats to their independence. Our organisations welcome the initiative of the new coalition government to reduce the influence of politics on the broadcaster’s operations and foster an enabling climate for its public service mission.

Events of the last few years at RTV SLO have provided a clear illustration of why such changes are urgently needed. Under the previous government, leading politicians created an atmosphere of hostility towards public service media, including smears against journalists and aggressive accusations of political bias, as reflected by the 2021 mission report of the undersigned organizations and Slovenia’s fall to 54th place in Reporters Without Borders’ 2022 World Press Freedom Index. This was accompanied by politicised appointments to RTV SLO’s programming council and supervisory board, on occasion through legal yet questionable practices. Politically-affiliated appointees to these two bodies then utilised voting majorities to approve controversial decisions on staffing and programming favourable to the ruling SDS party, particularly at the public television. These appointments of often unqualified candidates or individuals with links to the former government were pushed through despite the widespread criticism.

Since then, directors and management have been accused by staff of axing shows, removing editors, pressuring or reassigning journalists, and attempting to engineer a political shift in news and current affairs programming. Unions representing RTV SLO have repeatedly undertaken strike action to protest what they claim are unjustified infringements on editorial freedom, while repeated calls have been made by the largest journalist unions for the director general and director of television to step down. These near daily internal clashes, which have intensified in recent months, have led to more than 30 staff quitting and resulted in a damaging drop in viewership and a loss of public trust. Recently, 38 members of staff received warnings about the potential termination of their employment due to their public support for colleagues in the studio. Negotiations to resolve the situation remain unsuccessful. This situation jeopardises RTV SLO’s journalistic mission and undermines the public’s right to information.

It is clear to our organisations that efforts are urgently needed to address the root cause of these issues: the disproportionate influence of all forms of politics on RTV SLO’s governance structures. While previous governments have pledged to amend the 2006 law on RTV Slovenija to reduce political representation on the councils, proposals have always fallen away when reality of governing set in. This lack of political will to address the situation has left the RTV SLO at the mercy of political forces and open to successive periods of instability after election cycles. While concerns over independence in management are nothing new, the changes enacted under the previous government have left the broadcaster in the most challenging situation in decades. We therefore welcome the legislative initiative by the new coalition government led by Prime Minister Robert Golob to address this extraordinary situation.

The draft proposals would restructure the two current governing councils into a single, 17-member decision-making body. Appointments to this new Council of RTV would be made by representatives of civil society and RTV SLO employees. The National Assembly, which currently appoints the majority of members, would play no role. Under the reorganised system, the council would be led by a four-member management board, headed by a president, which would oversee financing and programming. Appointments would be made in a staggered manner. If the changes are approved, the mandate of the current members of the current program and supervisory councils, director general director, director of television, and director of the radio would end, though they would continue in their position until the new council is established. Current editors would remain in their posts, except in cases where it is determined that they do not enjoy the confidence of the majority of employees in their editorial team.

Our shared assessment is that overall these draft amendments represent a justified and principled attempt to revise an outdated legislative framework, depoliticise the broadcaster and foster a more enabling environment for the free exercise of RTV SLO’s journalistic mission. If approved, the new system of governance would significantly limit the ability of any government, current or future, to use its parliamentary majority to fill the councils with allies and interfere in the work of public media. The management model outlined is representative and would reflect a broad range of civil society groups.
However, we note that it is regrettable that the Parliamentary Committee for Culture did not first hold a public consultation on the bill or seek review of the draft from the Council of Europe or international media organisations and journalists’ organisations/unions. While we recognise the need to urgently address the situation at RTV SLO, such changes to the legal framework should have been developed in an open and transparent manner and with the full involvement of civil society and journalist organisations. To ensure full functional independence of this new council, it is vital that all candidates meet strict professional criteria, be selected under clear and transparent rules and be committed to ensuring pluralistic and professional programming. Candidates from civil society should not have any direct or indirect links to political parties. It is vital also that the new financial committee will fully operate in the public interest. Questions also remain about the management of the RTV SLO during the transition period. Nonetheless, in our assessment the draft amendments align with European standards on public service media governance and should have an overall positive impact.

The law was adopted by the National Assembly on 14 July 2022. Before any changes are made, the amendment will face a referendum initiated by the opposition on November 27. If passed, this should ensure the stability of RTV SLO in the short term. Even then, it must not be seen as an antidote to all the challenges currently facing public service media. The process of depoliticisation will be long and challenging. It is crucial also that this legislation be accompanied by a secondary bill which provides for long-term sustainable financing and establishes a solid economic foundation for RTV SLO to hire and train a new generation of professional journalists, re-establish public trust and meet the challenges of the future. This accompanying bill must follow quickly and should establish autonomy in editorial decision-making and modernise the organisation of the institution.

This reform is an important first step forward. If passed, this legislative amendment would move towards fulfilling a key recommendation of the European Commission’s Rule of Law report 2022 on Slovenia, which called for stronger mechanisms to enhance independent governance at public service media. Applying these standards would likewise represent a boost for the media freedom credentials of the new government, which made reform of public service media a priority during its election campaign. Our organisations will continue to closely monitor the situation and call for an end to all politically-motivated pressure on the editorial autonomy of the country’s public service media.

Signed by:

Balkan Free Media Initiative (BFMI)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Public Media Alliance (PMA)
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Library

Journalists in Residence Milan – 25th November

Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa, Q Code Mag, and ECPMF, in collaboration with the Feltrinelli Foundation, present the event “Milan shelter city: protected residences for threatened journalism”.

Since 2020, OBCT and Q Code Mag have been managing a protected residence programme for threatened journalists in Milan, aimed at protecting media professionals who experience threats, intimidation, and perils due to their journalistic work. The programme is part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response initiative funded by the European Commission, and in coordination with the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, which manages the residences of Leipzig in Germany and Pristina in Kosovo.

The day of discussion aims to make the public aware of the reality of protected residences, which have been active for almost three years, and to expand support for this initiative by involving the city’s institutions as well as civil society groups. The ambitious goal is to make Milan a shelter city for threatened journalists and, in the future, also for human rights activists and defenders.

The event will be held on Friday 25 November with two work sessions, at 15.00-16.30 and 18.00-20.00 CET, and will be hosted by the Feltrinelli Foundation in its headquarters in Milan.

The afternoon session will involve representatives of over 25 groups that include local institutions, private foundations, trade unions and from the civil society, in a debate aimed at exploring ways to consolidate Milan as a safe shelter for journalists. This session will be conducted behind closed doors and accessible remotely only through an invitation link. Speakers of this event will be Christian Elia, co-director of Q Code Magazine and coordinator of JiR Milan, Alina Toporova of JiR Leipzig, Xhemajl Rexha of JiR Pristina, and two journalists currently hosted in the residencies in Milan, under protection of their privacy and anonymity.

Dimitri Bettoni from OBCT will moderate this session and he will also present the results of a collective work of a research group that will convene during the morning for a “from-practice-to-theory” round table. The group will explore the concepts of shelter residencies/shelter cities from a transdisciplinary perspective, with the aim of providing insights and recommendations to the stakeholders involved in the afternoon session. This research group comprises researchers and experts from the Bicocca University of Milan, the Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Right, the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom of the European University Institute, and OBCT itself.

The evening session will be open to the public, both in presence and streamed through social media channels. Speakers will be journalists Nancy Porsia and Khalifa Abo Khraisse, past beneficiaries of the JiR Milan protection programme, Laura Silvia Battaglia documentarist, filmmaker and Italian representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Lorenzo Bagnoli co-director of IrpiMedia. Christian Elia, co-director of Q Code Magazine and head of protected residences in Milan will moderate this session.

The event will be held in Italian and English, with simultaneous translation.

Library

Bulgarian far-right party’s ‘foreign agent’ bill sparks media freedom…

Bulgarian far-right party’s ‘foreign agent’ bill sparks media freedom concerns

Press freedom groups raise alarm that law appears intended to target critical media.

The undersigned international media freedom and journalists organisations today raise the alarm over a draft law submitted to Bulgarian parliament by the far-right Vazrazhdane (Revival) party which would introduce a Russian-style “foreign agent” law involving potential sanctions for media outlets that receive funding from abroad.

The draft legislation has been developed by the pro-Russian Vazrazhdane party, which became the fourth largest faction in parliament in the recent elections and is currently in negotiations to form a coalition government. While the passing of the law in the current political climate remains doubtful, it nonetheless represents a serious threat to media freedom which the European Commission should closely monitor.

Although the progress of the bill remains stalled for now, the proposal should set alarm bells ringing given the similarities to Russia’s notorious “Foreign Agents Act”, which has been systematically weaponized over the last decade to block and shut down what remained of the country’s independent media and NGOs.

Any efforts to implement such laws in the EU should be resolutely opposed due to their potential to seriously undermine media freedom. No EU member state has passed such legislation, though in 2017 Hungary passed a law which applied to foreign funded organisations and NGOs but excluded the press, which was later found to violate EU law by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Our organisations fear the adoption of such legislation in Bulgaria could pave the way open for abuse by any government current or future seeking to discredit, stigmatize or defund critical and independent news media. Such a bill would also be highly discriminatory, create a climate of hostility for media investment, and would directly violate EU law.

The draft ‘Law on the Registration of Foreign Agents’ was unveiled by Vazrazhdane on November 2. The law would compel any media outlet which receives over BGN 1,000 (500 euros) a year from a foreign source to register as a “foreign agent” in the Ministry of Justice. Among those to be considered ‘foreign agents’ if designated as such would be a private media outlet’s founders, managers, employees, owners, partners and shareholders.

Individual journalists labelled as ‘foreign agents’ by the Ministry that fail to register would face fines of BGN 1,000 to BGN 5,000. Legal entities, such as media organisations, would face fines of BGN 5,000 to BGN 10,000. These media would also not be permitted to receive money from state funds, such as state advertising revenue. The law would apply to mass media outlets, organisations and NGOs.

As well as applying to money coming from authoritarian states like Russia or China, it would also include grants from EU Member States and the United States. The only exception to the rule would be for funding and grants from the EU Commission itself.

The timing of this bill also raises major questions about its motive. We note the proposal comes just over a month after Vazrazhdane party chairman Kostadin Kostadinov attempted to expel four private media outlets – Dnevnik, Capital, Club Z and Mediapool – from a press conference and attacked them for being “foreign agents”, drawing condemnation. All four are funded in part by grants from the U.S. but are widely viewed as being professional and independent sources of news in Bulgaria.

Our organisations find it hard to avoid the conclusion therefore that Vazrazhdane’s ‘foreign agent’ bill appears to be retaliatory in nature and targeted predominantly at media critical of the party’s policies. Another target which would be affected by the law is Svobodna Evropa, the Bulgarian arm of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is funded by the U.S Congress.

Although the likelihood of this bill ultimately becoming law is questionable, vigilance will be needed. Legitimate concerns have rightly been expressed about the incompatibility of the bill with either EU law or the Bulgarian constitution. Moving forward, it is vital that democratic parties in Bulgaria coalesce in opposition to the bill and ensure it does not progress in parliament.

We urge Vazrazhdane to withdraw the draft bill and to refrain from future attacks on independent media. Our organisations will continue to monitor the situation closely, warn about further developments, and plan to organise an international press freedom mission to Bulgaria early next year to assess the wider climate for media freedom.

Signed by:

European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Library

Italy: a call of support for Roberto Saviano, defendant…

Italy: a call of support for Roberto Saviano, defendant in a defamation trial

Members of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), with the support of the coalition’s Italian group and Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), express solidarity with Roberto Saviano who attended the first hearing in the proceedings for aggravated defamation initiated against him by current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

We are seriously concerned about the criminal proceedings initiated in 2021 by the current Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the leader of Fratelli d’Italia. Under the current provisions on defamation, Roberto Saviano risks imprisonment for his criticism of Meloni during a TV programme.

Such accusations act as a gag on freedom of expression, a fundamental right enshrined in the Italian Constitution and international law. No journalist or writer should be prosecuted for expressing their honest opinion on issues of public interest. A criminal defamation suit is not an acceptable response in a democracy, all the more so when it comes from a high ranking representative of the institution. This threat to Saviano reveals, once again, the degree of the abuse of defamation suits or SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in Italy.

The lawsuit for aggravated defamation was initiated by current Prime Minister Meloni in November 2021, in response to comments made by Roberto Saviano during the episode of the TV programme Piazza Pulita which aired on 3rd December 2020. Saviano’s comment was formulated in response to the controversial rhetoric employed in recent years by the two political leaders to describe the migration emergency in the Mediterranean.

In November 2020, the NGO ship Open Arms rescued a number of displaced individuals from a shipwreck, caused by a collapsing dinghy in the Mediterranean Sea. The delayed rescue by the Italian authorities had prevented timely assistance to the survivors who were in dire need of specialist medical care, including a six-month-old infant who later died on the Open Arms. Following Piazza Pulita’s coverage of the investigation on the authorities’ delayed response, Roberto Saviano had referred to both Meloni, the then leader of Fratelli d’Italia and the Lega secretary, Matteo Salvini as ‘bastards’.

The possibility that Roberto Saviano, in his role as a writer and journalist, could incur a prison sentence for expressing his opinion on a politically sensitive issue, such as the treatment of migrants in Italy, once again draws attention to the serious inadequacies of Italian libel laws. The right to freedom of expression is enshrined in Article 21 of the Italian Constitution. Furthermore, international law and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) guarantees that the right to freedom of expression extends to statements and ideas that may ‘offend, shock or disturb’ and that opinions are entitled to enhanced protection under the guarantee of the right to freedom of expression. Further, the ECtHR has clarified that public figures and, in particular, political actors must tolerate higher levels of criticism and scrutiny given their public position within society, and that in such cases criminal prosecution has a chilling effect and is violating the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR.

Those who express their opinion on matters of public interest should not fear nor be exposed to intimidation, conviction, or imprisonment. On this last point, the Italian Constitutional Court has made its position clear, urging lawmakers to initiate a general reform of the legislation on defamation that would bring Italian legislation in line with the standards of European and international law. With the ruling of 9 June 2020 and the decision of 22 June 2021, the Court, in line with previous judgments of the ECtHR, declared prison sentences in cases of defamation in the press unconstitutional. However, the provision of prison sentences remains in place for cases of ‘exceptional gravity’. In accordance with such provisions, Saviano still faces a custodial sentence because the formal charge is aggravated defamation.

At the conclusion of the first hearing at the Criminal Court of Rome on 15 November 2022, it was decided that the trial will be re-assigned to a new judge and adjourned to 12 December. The current Minister of Infrastructure, Matteo Salvini, has filed a petition to become a civil plaintiff. The Lega leader has also a pending defamation lawsuit initiated against Roberto Saviano in 2018: its first hearing is scheduled for 1 February 2023. Further, on 28 January 2023 another defamation trial instigated by Gennaro Sangiuliano, current Minister of Culture, awaits Roberto Saviano.

At the end of the first hearing in the Meloni case on 15th November, Saviano reiterated the central role that writers play in a democratic society: “My tools are words. I try, with the word, to persuade, to convince, to activate”. Exiting the courtroom, he argued that: “Democracy is based not only on a consensus that can lead to winning the electoral lottery, but exists if dissent and criticism are allowed. Without such premises there is no democratic oxygen”.

The perilous situation in which Roberto Saviano finds himself must also be taken into account. Life under escort, already a cause of marginalisation for journalists, was only necessary due to threats made against Saviano by organised crime and these threats should not be amplified through further threats made by high ranking politicians.

Joining the dissent expressed by Italian and European journalists’ associations, the undersigned organisations call on Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to immediately withdraw the charges against Roberto Saviano. We support the recommendation formulated by Italian and European civil society and international organisations to the new parliament to act against vexatious complaints and to quickly adopt a comprehensive reform of both civil and criminal defamation laws in Italy. Finally, we urge Italy to bring forward legislation to tackle the use of SLAPPs in line with the EU Anti-SLAPP Recommendation of 27 April 2022. The Italian Government is also urged to give its full support to the Anti-SLAPP Directive as proposed by the European Commission.