The team of journalists at KRIK. Credit: Oliver Bunic (NIN) Library

Self-defence against SLAPPs in Serbia

Self-defence against SLAPPs in Serbia

In Serbia, the investigative newspaper KRIK is the target of frequent legal harassment. To counteract it, the editorial team has developed strategies based on civil society solidarity, public denunciation and monitoring of trials

 

By Massimo Moratti
Originally published by OBCT. Also available in ITA.

In Serbia, SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) against independent journalists are causing increasing concerns.

 

What caused a stir was the start of the trial against the investigative journalism portal KRIK     by a judge of the Belgrade Court of Appeal, Dušanka Đorđević, who filed both a civil and criminal case against the journalists, demanding, among other things, a ten-month prison sentence and the imposition of an accessory penalty, a two-year ban from practicing the profession.

 

The charge? Publishing data on the judges’ assets, which were already public. The data in question are part of KRIK’s online database “Prosudi ko sudi” (which can be translated as “examine those who judge”), which discloses to the public the properties and financial status of judges presiding over highly sensitive cases, such as the murders of Prime Minister Đinđić and journalist Ćuruvija, or cases against prominent politicians and possible connections with the criminal world.

 

KRIK and SLAPPs

This is not the first harassing action targeting KRIK. In fact, the portal has collected 16 of them, most of which are civil cases, but there are also criminal or commercial cases.

 

Over time, KRIK journalists have become accustomed to it. They know that when they write about certain topics or mention certain people, they soon find themselves facing new legal harassment. Nonetheless, journalists seem to have found a way to coexist with SLAPPs and above all a way to combat and discourage them.

 

Distrust in the authorities

Many SLAPPs come from individuals close to the majority party or from members of the government majority. For this reason, despite the fact that the lack of media freedom is a sore point for Serbia and one of the obstacles to accession to the European Union, as found in the most recent EU Progress Report    , KRIK journalists do not believe that there is good will on the part of the Serbian authorities to contain the phenomenon.

 

Even if the government decides to adopt measures that reflect the content of the recent anti-SLAPP directive, as recommended on several occasions, “it is more than legitimate to suspect that such measures would in fact distort the content of the directive and turn it into another tool to muzzle the media,” as Bojana Jovanović, deputy editor-in-chief of KRIK, tells us.

 

Unfortunately, based on their experience, KRIK editors are doubtful about official initiatives and believe that, at best, they are merely formal efforts without any genuine will to solve the problem.

 

Per questo motivo, è molto meglio organizzarsi da soli e porre in atto strategie, tra organizzazioni della società civile, volte a sostenersi a vicenda e a contenere l’impatto delle SLAPP.

 

The strength of civil society

For this reason, it is much betterf or civil society organisations to self-organise and implement strategies aimed at supporting each other and containing the impact of SLAPPs.

 

KRIK’s experience is also useful for other organisations that are facing legal harassment and need to prevent those forms of intimidation that progressively lead to self-censorship and loss of quality of investigative journalism.

 

KRIK’s strategies are essentially based on solidarity among civil society organisations and on the public denunciation of SLAPPs. They clearly cannot replace the necessary legal assistance or material and psychological support among journalist organisations, but rather complement and strengthen them. These strategies consist of simple measures.

 

First, when KRIK journalists are informed that legal action has been initiated against them, they report the fact without trying to hide it, but publicly inform partners and donors that yet another SLAPP has been initiated.

 

In this way, the perpetrators of the harassment are exposed to the public and KRIK readers have the opportunity to show support and solidarity. This sends a clear signal that KRIK is not alone in facing legal harassment, but enjoys the support of other parts of civil society, international organisations and even diplomatic representations that care most about media freedom in Serbia.

 

As the case progresses and approaches the actual trial, it is very useful for the fairness and transparency of the proceedings to have independent observers following the case in court. They can be members of other professional organisations, civil society organisations, members of diplomatic representations and international organisations, both governmental and non-governmental.

 

Practice suggests that when there are observers present in the courtroom, tensions are reduced and the proceedings tend to follow the normal procedure, resulting in fairer treatment for defendants.

 

In order to better deal with SLAPPs, KRIK has joined forces with other organisations in the sector such as the Slavko Čuruvija Foundation and BIRN (the Balkan Investigative Journalism Network).

 

When one of these organisations is the target of a SLAPP, the others report the case through their channels and bring it to the attention of their readers.

 

The three organisations have decided to extend this media coverage also to local initiatives that find themselves facing similar situations.

 

Outside Belgrade, in fact, there are many journalists who are targeted by SLAPPs and their economic situation makes them even more vulnerable than the media in the capital, as the disproportion of forces is even greater. For this reason, when they learn of harassment against smaller outlets, in agreement with the interested parties, they report the news at the national level to discourage those who started the SLAPPs.

 

Finally, demonstrating that you are not intimidated by lawsuits and that you continue to do your job is another way to discourage SLAPPs. Showing that they do not have the desired effect and that journalists continue to write anyway removes the incentives to start new lawsuits.

 

Greater awareness of SLAPPs

In conclusion, it is also important to remember that, as Bojana argues, “now there is greater awareness of SLAPPs and not only those who work in the sector, but also the general public is learning to recognise them as another gag on the independent press”.

 

In the past, this was not the case; it was believed that these were limited cases and that the plaintiffs could have legitimate motivations, which could be proven in court. Now, however, we know that these lawsuits only intend to intimidate journalists and block their activity and are therefore rightly perceived in this light.

 

In this sense, it is important to continue to educate the public and spread awareness about this form of legal harassment.

Library

Press freedom organisations support Reporters United and EfSyn

Press freedom organisations support Reporters United and EfSyn

The undersigned press freedom groups condemn the ongoing, abusive legal action by Grigoris Dimitriadis against the journalists who exposed Greece’s Predator spyware scandal. Greek institutions must enact strong legal protections for journalists against the growing trend of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, aimed at silencing critical reporting.

Investigative journalists from Reporters United, newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton (EfSyn), and their colleagues – including Nikolas Leontopoulos, Thodoris Chondrogiannos, and Christoforos Kasdaglis, as well as freelance journalist Thanasis Koukakis – find themselves entrenched in an unacceptable legal harassment saga. Repeated Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) have been filed against them by Grigoris Dimitriadis, nephew of the Greek Prime Minister and former Secretary General of the Prime Minister’s Office.

 

Following the journalists’ landmark reporting on the “PredatorGate” spyware scandal, Dimitriadis initially filed a defamation lawsuit in 2022. In January 2024, we united in support of the reporters to denounce the legal action as a retaliatory attempt to suppress media coverage on matters of undeniable public interest. Recently, an Athens court dismissed the case, recognizing the value and veracity of the reporting. Now, with a second lawsuit totaling €3.3 million filed on 24 November 2023, Dimitriadis is again aiming to pressure these reporters into silence. 

 

Our organizations assessed the claims and branded them as SLAPPs, due to Dimitriadis’ apparent aim to intimidate journalists reporting on matters which ultimately led to his resignation, instead of seeking legal redress in good faith. This conclusion was supported by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), and by the revelations which followed, further validating the reporting.

 

The second SLAPP case arose after a report published in early November 2023 as part of the Predator Files investigation, implicated Dimitriadis’s phone in sending spyware-linked messages to multiple individuals, including prominent Greek public figures. The report sheds light on potential illegal surveillance practices linked to Greek intelligence. Reporters United and EfSyn, who made the revelations, should be recognized for their public watchdog role, not financially and psychologically exhausted by legal actions.

 

We call on the Greek courts to dismiss these lawsuits in acknowledgment of their chilling impact on press freedom. As European States prepare to implement the EU anti-SLAPP Directive, we call upon Greek authorities to swiftly transpose the Directive as well as follow the Council of Europe Recommendation on countering the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, thereby taking decisive action in defense of press freedom by prioritizing journalist protection. We reiterate our commitment to supporting investigative journalists and standing against SLAPPs in Greece and beyond.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

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.

Library

Study reveals 40% of lawsuits against Croatian journalists are…

Over a thousand lawsuits filed between 2016 and 2023 against journalists and media outlets, nearly half of which are SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. These are frivolous lawsuits that aim to silence freedom of expression.

Between 2016 and 2023, 1,333 lawsuits were filed against journalists and media in Croatia, approximately 40% of which with at least one characteristic of the so-called SLAPPs, or “strategic lawsuits against public participation”, which are lawsuits filed with the sole purpose of intimidating and silencing the press (and which in Croatia can be either criminal or civil in nature). This is revealed in a study   conducted by the Croatian Association of Journalists (HND) and the Center for Democracy and Law “Miko Tripalo” (CMT) and presented on September 30.

 

Defining SLAPPs

“We had to define what a SLAPP is, because in Croatia there is still no real [legal] definition. These are harmful legal proceedings, often brought by public and powerful people whose goal is to prevent the media and other civil society organisations from reporting on decisions of public interest”,  explained Ivana Zeljko of the CMT  . In Croatian law, there is no concept of SLAPP, and for this reason the research, co-financed by the British organisation Justice for Journalists Foundation (JFJ), was based on the definition used by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), the European Commission and the Council of Europe.

 

The definition – as stated on the CASE website – is simple: “It is a vexatious legal action brought by a private individual with the aim of silencing critical speech. The more difficult question is how to identify this vexatious purpose”. There are several elements to pay attention to in this case: “The damages sought are unusually aggressive or disproportionate”, “the plaintiff engages in procedural maneuvers aimed at increasing costs”, or “the arguments put forward are without legal or factual basis”. A SLAPP should not be confused with a legitimate defamation suit, in which, for example, the publication of a retraction is requested. In the Croatian case, 40% of the cases studied in the study have at least some of the SLAPP characteristics listed above, and 20% have two or more.

 

“This research refutes the statement by the Ministry of Culture and Media that there are 30 SLAPP cases [in Croatia]”, said HND President Hrvoje Zovko. There are, on the contrary, several hundred SLAPPs in the country.

 

Who uses SLAPPs

“The very high value of the disputes is important. The average compensation requested is 9,300 Euros, while the average compensation paid is 3,200. The problem is the long duration of the court proceedings, on average 4.3 years, as well as the inconsistency of judicial practice. Some judges, in case the correction is published even before the trial, consider that the damage has been compensated”, said Ivana Zeljko of the Miko Tripalo Center. Another important factor is the presence of “serial plaintiffs and recurring plaintiffs”, who file similar lawsuits against media outlets seeking the same amounts. The aim is precisely to weaken the newspapers by imposing high legal costs.

 

In the debate organised by the HND on the occasion of the presentation of the study, some colleagues testified several cases of serial plaintiffs. “Milijan Brkić has filed 50 lawsuits for moral damages for about ten published texts”, reported 24Sata journalist Ivan Pandžić, referring to the former HDZ MP and former vice-president of Sabor. Pandžić also sued former Petrinja mayor Darinko Dumbović, “and not only him – the reporter added – his son is also suing me for the same article, as it is his son’s company”.

 

The “serial plaintiffs” include politicians and businessmen, but also judges – a sad Croatian exception  . In 2022, the case of journalist Davorka Blažević, who was sentenced to pay 40,000 kuna (about 5,300 Euros) to judge Senka Klarić Baranović for “offending her honour and reputation”,  had caused the HND to react  . The text for which Blažević was convicted in 2015 was a “portrait of the week” published by Tris portal and “contained already known facts”.

 

“This harassment of journalists – there is no other way to call it – and the demand for huge compensation for insults to honour and reputation is shameful”, HND president Hrvoje Zovko commented at the time. Davorka Blažević ended up paying an amount eight times more than her monthly salary and the judge initially asked for much more.

 

Another “serial complainant” judge is Zvonko Vrban, president of the regional court in Osijek, who has repeatedly filed complaints against the Telegram portal, its editor-in-chief Jelena Valentić and journalist Drago Hedl. At the regional court in Zadar, judge Ivan Marković has filed 26 complaints against journalists and media, demanding compensation for 400,000 kuna (about 53,000 Euros) from Hanza Media alone for criticising his ruling in the case of rape of a minor.

 

Pressure on the press

According to Neven Mates of the Miko Tripalo Center, the success rate of SLAPPs in Croatia is less than 10% in criminal cases and 20% in civil cases. “However, if the real motivation of the lawsuit is to put pressure on the press, then that result is not important, because if for four years you face the risk of conviction or compensation, it will definitely affect the way you write”, Mates said, adding that the Croatian judiciary “does not handle SLAPPs well”.

 

“Judges”, journalist Ivan Pandžić said during the meeting at HND, “do not understand the work of journalists. Some people are not interested in what happened after the publication of the text, for example if it turned out that we were right, but only in what the text was based on”, Pandžić said. To resolve this situation, judges specialised in SLAPPs and able to recognise them would be needed. However, in Croatia, on the contrary, we are witnessing the practice of judges using SLAPPs to silence criticism of them. And SLAPPs are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

study   published by the Croatian NGO Gong, conducted by journalist and media expert Đurđica Klancir on the basis of a questionnaire to which 23 journalists and editors-in-chief of various media outlets responded anonymously, notes that the majority of those involved (15 out of 23 journalists) have been subjected to some form of pressure in the past two years. In this context, SLAPPs are only “the most important and most visible processes”, while “the more subtle mechanisms that concern the relationship of politics and politicians with editorial offices and those concerning the relationship between editorial offices and their respective journalists have not been studied in depth so far”.

 

Giovanni Vale Zagreb

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Slovakia’s Prime Minister launches SLAPP case against leading investigative…

Slovakia’s Prime Minister launches SLAPP case against leading investigative journalist

Media freedom groups today condemned the legal action taken by the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, against the editor in chief of Aktuality.sk, Peter Bardy, as well Ringier Slovak Media, the publisher of the book, for the use of a photo of Fico on the cover of the book ‘Fico-Obsessed with Power,’ We call on the court to dismiss the case.

Fico is claiming 100.000 euros from Bardy, and another 100.000 euros from the publisher as compensation for non-material damage caused by the choice of cover photo. Fico’s lawyers claim that Fico has the right to decide how his photograph is used. 

The action has all the hallmarks of a SLAPP, or Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, that is used by the powerful to intimidate journalists and end their investigative reporting.  

The book, which charts Fico’s long political career, includes statements by Fico’s colleagues and political opponents. 

Aktuality.sk is one of Slovakia’s leading news media with a reputation for hard hitting investigative journalism. It was also the home of Jan Kuciak before he was murdered in February 2018 following his exposures into corruption in the heart of the Slovak state during Fico’s last tenure as Prime Minister. The killing of Jan Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kusnirova, sparked huge public protests, leading to Fico’s eventual resignation. Fico has regularly blamed the media for his departure. He wasted little time in acting against those he described as ‘enemy media’ after returning to power with the 2023 elections.  

“We are convinced that we have not violated the law, which we will defend and explain in court. And we believe in a fair trial,” said editor-in-chief Peter Bárdy. “If someone wanted to intimidate me with this lawsuit, if it was meant to trigger self-censorship in me, it didn’t work. I will continue to do what I have been doing for almost three decades in journalism and together with the editors of Aktuality.sk, but also with many great journalists from other Slovak media, we will point out problems in the state, criticize politicians, heads of institutions and publish verified information in the public interest. Because that is our job,” 

According to our analysis, the lawsuit fulfills key indicators for a SLAPP. There is an imbalance of power between Fico as the claimant and Bárdy as the defendant, considering Fico’s political influence and the lawsuit targets not only the publisher but also Bárdy in his individual capacity. The lawsuit does not object to the content or the veracity of the information in the book, and the damages requested, namely EUR 100,000 from each defendant, are highly excessive.

The Council of Europe and the European Union have introduced new instruments to counter SLAPPs, including the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive which member states should implement and transpose. Instead of intimidating journalists with SLAPP legal actions, Fico and his government should focus on implementing these standards at the national level.

The Media Freedom Rapid Response consortium and its partners will continue to closely monitor the SLAPP case as well as document it on Mapping Media Freedom and the Council of Europe Platform for the Safety of Journalists.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)

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.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Press freedom in Italy: those in power are not…

Press freedom in Italy: those in power are not to be criticised

In 2021, then opposition leader Giorgia Meloni sued Roberto Saviano for defamation. Last October, the Rome Criminal Court issued a sentence against the Italian writer. A ruling that alarmed Italian and European civil society. We had a conversation about it with Antonio Nobile, Saviano’s lawyer.

 

By Sielke Kelner

Originally published by OBCT. Also available in ITA

The defamation lawsuit filed by Giorgia Meloni against Italian writer Roberto Saviano has ended with a first-degree criminal conviction issued by Rome Criminal Court. The judge convicted Saviano of criminal defamation, acknowledging, however, mitigating circumstances: the moral motivation that, according to the Court, led Roberto Saviano to formulate his criticism. While the prosecutor had asked for the writer to pay a fine of 10,000 euros, the criminal court reduced this to 1,000 euros. The verdict was met with dismay by Italian and European civil society. The involvement of a high-level public figure, specifically the Prime Minister acting as plaintiff, along with the public interest nature of the dispute concerning the rescues of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea by NGOs, has raised significant concerns regarding Italian freedom of expression. According to MFRR and CASE, Meloni’s lawsuit is a SLAPP. They also argue that the verdict sets a dangerous precedent that could facilitate further attempts to silence public watchdogs criticizing political leaders. We discussed this with Antonio Nobile, Saviano’s lawyer. Nobile is a criminal defense lawyer registered at the Naples Bar Association, he also acts as an expert in criminal procedural law at the University of Southern Lazio.

 

From the perspective of a criminal defense lawyer, what are the consequences of this verdict on press freedom and freedom of expression in Italy?

First and foremost, the immediate effects are on Saviano, who has a defamation conviction on his criminal record, which is damaging for a political intellectual. Additionally, from the beginning, this trial has had a strong symbolic element. This legal action and the decision to pursue it even when Meloni became Prime Minister [when the lawsuit was filed she was the leader of the political opposition] have a symbolic value because the individuals involved are very well-known. Saviano is a very well-known Italian intellectual, in Italy and abroad. If someone wanted to dispatch a clear message, then Saviano was the ideal target. The consequences for the rule of law are immediately measurable starting from a technical consideration: the whole jurisprudence produced by the ECtHR which has recognized investigative and political journalists as public watchdogs.

 

Have we experienced a deterioration of Italian freedom of press and expression in recent years? 

The state of affairs is worrying because this trial represents a worsening drift. I have been defending Saviano for almost 15 years now, and over the years Saviano has faced numerous lawsuits. The only two criminal lawsuits which have not been dismissed during preliminary investigations, were those in which the plaintiffs were Giorgia Meloni and Matteo Salvini. If we want to consider free expression, even in relation to a sharp and strong criticism, as a sort test of the health of democracy, then indeed, this conviction is bad news. The way in which the entire process has been managed is bad news.

 

During the hearing last October, the prosecutor argued that calling a politician a bastard does not fall under the exercise of harsh political criticism, it rather constitutes an attack on the person. Why does the insult formulated by Saviano not represent an attack on reputation?

It is not an attack on reputation because when talking about defamation in connection to the right to criticize, it is important to assess the context of the criticism. The prosecutor’s conclusions would have made sense if, during an interview, Saviano had gratuitously and casually called Meloni a bastard. Moreover, those conclusions of the Prosecutor’s Office are based on falsification. Saviano never used the singular. Its plural, “bastards”, gave much more the sense of political criticism. However, the expression was tuned to the singular by both the private and the public prosecutors because there was a need to portray a political criticism— directed towards multiple subjects across the political spectrum who had expressed the same negative approach regarding NGOs’ sea rescues of migrants—as a personal attack, which was the only way to rule out any legitimacy to the criticism formulated by Saviano. Exonerating circumstances related to the right to criticize, moreover, were partly recognized in the verdict. In fact, while Saviano was convicted, the judge acknowledged a mitigating circumstance associated with the high moral and social value of his criticism. Nonetheless, in this trial, the prosecution was very worried about the plaintiff.

 

How do you explain the decision of the Roman court?

What struck me from the very beginning is that the day before, another verdict was issued in the appeal against Mimmo Lucano [former mayor of Riace, in Calabria, who had promoted a progressive model for the integration of migration in his town]. Another judicial case that has drawn a lot of attention. Mimmo Lucano, like Saviano, was identified as an extraordinary propaganda opportunity by the same politicians who chose Saviano as their ideal target. Because in defamation cases, alongside with defendants, their ideas are objects of the trial. If I were to give a legal explanation, I would imagine that in the best-case scenario, the court considered the ECtHR judgment analyzing the case of an Austrian politician who was called an idiot by a journalist criticizing him because this Austrian politician had said that even Nazi soldiers had contributed to building peace. The Court makes a very interesting reasoning by saying: this criticism is justified because the politician, while making that abhorrent statement, has in mind a propaganda purpose. In that ruling, the Court mentions the concept of consciously provoked outrage, which according to me is a very convincing definition of the concept of propaganda. What does this mean? The politician, to put it informally, makes a big statement because he knows that he will provoke outrage, for opposite reasons, both among his supporters and the other political party. When this happens, criticism, argues the ECtHR, can be proportionate. Hence, even very harsh criticism is allowed. The verdict convicting Saviano does not address this issue and also confuses some of the constituent elements of the crime of defamation. While reading it, I had the strong feeling that the judge herself was not convinced of the decision to convict, but I think external factors weighed in heavily.

 

What is the context in which the verdict was issued?

A few days before the verdict, Italian politics were dominated by the debate surrounding a Sicilian judge who had refused to apply the so-called Cutro decree [the governmental decree issued after a shipwreck off the beach of Cutro, in Calabria in which almost 100 people lost their lives]. According to the rule of law, judges are called to interpret the law in order to apply it. They are asked to take into account laws’ compatibility with the constitutional framework. Arguing, as Meloni did, that judges must apply the laws tout court and refrain from any interpretation is outrageous. The idea that a judge must apply a law always and in any case, even when the law is unconstitutional, goes against the principles considered essential by our fundamental Charter. It is an extremely dangerous idea that indicates an authoritarian and illiberal vision of democracy on the part of the Government.

 

What does it mean to have a high level public official suing you? 

In Saviano’s case, a head of government who acts as plaintiff in a trial poses enormous consequences for the separation of powers, affecting the independence of the judiciary. If I, as a judge, know that the lawyer I have in front of me will become a deputy minister of justice within a year, or I know that the lawyer I have in front of me will become a member of the Superior Council of the Judiciary within a year, and that therefore my career could pass through the desk of that lawyer, you understand well that independence is compromised. The situations described are not random examples: they concern respectively what happened in the trials brought against Saviano by Meloni and Salvini. Throughout the whole process, we experienced an anomaly, where the powerful individual seemed to be Saviano. And the person to be protected, Meloni, even when she became Prime Minister. This suggests that politicians believe they are entitled to a sort of retaliation against the journalistic community. Today we have reached the point where, and this is what the Meloni government has legitimized, lawsuits are filed no matter what. Or at least the threat of lawsuit, because between the threat of a lawsuit and the formalization of a lawsuit, there is the ocean in between. Threats of lawsuits are made public without any attempt by the plaintiffs to refute the criticism that was formulated against them. An investigation provides evidence of a certain situation involving a minister, a deputy minister, or a party member, and the response is: I will sue you. There is hardly any justification. Because what it is conveyed is that power is not to be criticized. And if it is criticized, you are criticizing it for an interest, so you must be punished.

 

Moving on to the activities of the Italian legislature, in 2020 and 2021, the Constitutional Court had invited Parliament to initiate a broad debate on the issue of defamation through the press, both in civil and criminal matters. During the past year, 5 different bills were presented. Last fall, only one was selected to be pursued in the parliamentary process, the Balboni bill.

I say this against my professional interest, but my idea is that defamation should be decriminalized: defamation should not be a crime. Provided that there is a legal framework in place for those who feel that have suffered damages to their reputation. They are entitled to take action in civil court and obtain damage compensations. A provision which should be balanced by the possibility of declaring the recklessness of the action. A possibility that already exists in our legal system in civil matters, but which should be implemented by establishing criteria of proportionality between the damage claimed by the plaintiff and the severity of the penalty in the event of proven recklessness in the dispute. If we truly want to implement and fully fulfil the spirit of Article 21 of the Italian Constitution, the idea that someone can be criminally prosecuted for expressing their ideas is, in my view, no longer acceptable. As long as defamation remains a crime, we risk interpretations that are each time different and linked to contingencies.

This interview was conducted by OBCT as part of 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 and candidate countries. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

The Netherlands: The MFRR and the CASE deplore abusive…

The MFRR and the CASE deplore the lawsuit against Het Financieele Dagblad

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) deplore the lawsuit against Dutch daily newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad (FD) and stand in solidarity with the FD and its journalists. The case, of which the hearing will take place on 13 November 2023, is a clear attempt to silence and discourage Het Financieele Dagblad and its journalists from further reporting.

On April 6, 2023, het Financieele Dagblad (FD), a Dutch daily newspaper specialising in business and finance, received a summons from Willem Blijdorp, founder and majority shareholder of the wholesale company B&S. Blijdorp is suing the newspaper and its editor-in-chief Perry Feenstra in a civil case before the Amsterdam District Court over two articles published in November 2022 about his investments in Iranian quarries. The legal basis of the claim is a wrongful act: Blijdorp’s lawyers argue that the article violates his honour and good name, and thereby violates Article 8 of the ECHR and article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Published on November 2, 2022, the first article revealed that Blijdorp, who was vice-chairman of the B&S supervisory board, had hired nine B&S employees to advise and direct his private investment in Iranian marble. According to the newspaper, the involvement of B&S employees contradicts what the B&S executives had told other shareholders in April 2022, thereby omitting the risk that Blijdorp’s Iranian interests would violate sanctions.

A follow-up article was published on November 3, entitled “American watchdog: major shareholder B&S violates Iran sanctions”, which quotes the American non-profit organisation, United Against Nucluear Iran (UANI), describing Blijdorop’s simultaneous business relations with Iran and the United States as “a clear violation of Iran sanctions”.

The summons claim that the sole purpose of the reporting by the FD was to damage Blijdorp, and that the claims were “suggestive and partially incorrect”. Blijdorp asked for the two articles to be removed from the FD website, a correction in the print and online editions and for compensation of both material and immaterial damages to be paid.

 

Abusive tactics

Our organisations have closely assessed the legal claim and believe it qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): abusive litigation filed by powerful individuals aimed at silencing and intimidating legitimate watchdog journalism.

Blijdorp did not opt for summary or preliminary relief proceedings (kort geding), the common route in the Netherlands for cases legitimately aimed at limiting reputational damage following a publication, but instead started main proceedings (bodemprocedure, i.e. proceedings on the merits). These proceedings are much longer than a kort geding and will unnecessarily drive up the legal costs for Het Financieele Dagblad. Blijdorp also asked the journalists to present all their sources to the court. In addition, he claims an excessive amount of €150.000 for non-material damages, while material damages will be calculated in separate proceedings.

In a concerning development on June 20, 2023, Blijdorp filed a petition to summon witnesses, including the journalist and possible sources. Furthermore, several sources received letters from Blijdorp’s lawyers – prior to the lawsuit – requesting them to urgently clarify which information the FD provided to them before giving their testimony. 

A hearing will be held at the Amsterdam Civil Court on November 13,  2023. The MFRR and CASE argue that this legal claim should be considered as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and needs to be dismissed at the earliest stage. We also reiterate our solidarity with the journalists of Het Financieele Dagblad who have already had to devote a great deal of time and resources to their defense, while trying to protect the confidentiality of their sources.

 

Threat to press freedom

The case against Het Financieele Dagblad highlights the threat posed to press freedom in Europe. While the European Union has traditionally been considered a beacon of press freedom, we see an alarming increase in legal intimidation through the use of SLAPPs that threatens the freedom and safety of journalists.  

A draft EU Directive to protect targets of SLAPPs held high promise, but ongoing negotiations between the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union, may fail to translate European values into action. A watered-down version of the directive will provide no meaningful protection for journalists, media outlets, activists and civil society organisations in Europe. 

As we enter the final stages of the negotiations on the directive, this timely example again illustrates the crucial importance of a strong early dismissal mechanism, a wide definition of the notion of ‘cross-border’ and full compensation of damages. Otherwise similar cases will continue to mushroom throughout the EU, seriously weakening media freedom and the ability of journalists and media outlets to play their watchdog role, thereby undermining the public’s right to know.

Signed by:

  • Free Press Unlimited
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe

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.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Italy: Roberto Saviano’s conviction a major blow to free…

Italy: Roberto Saviano’s conviction a major blow to free expression

The undersigned international media freedom, free expression, and journalist organisations express shock over yesterday’s criminal conviction of writer and journalist Roberto Saviano, in a case brought by current Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, and we convey our full solidarity with him.

On 12 October 2023, the Criminal Court of Rome convicted Saviano of criminal defamation. The case was initiated by Meloni in November 2021, prior to her assuming the current role of Prime Minister. The criminal lawsuit accused Saviano of aggravated criminal defamation due to his critical comments about Meloni’s persistent anti-migrant stance, voiced during the television programme, Piazza Pulita. Saviano’s remarks came after Piazza Pulita covered the tragic death of a six-month-old baby from Guinea, one of the migrants who drowned  in the Mediterranean when Italian authorities delayed their rescue efforts.

 

The prosecutor had asked for a fine of 10,000 euros for the criminal charge while its civil law counterpart demanded an additional 75,000 euros in damages. The judge acknowledged the mitigating circumstances, mentioning the moral motivation that led Roberto Saviano to formulate his criticism. The criminal court ordered the writer to pay a fine of 1,000 euros, and 2,600 euros of legal expenses; a further compensation for civil claims of the plaintiff will be determined by a civil court. The final text of the decision that includes the judge’s reasoning will be published in 90 days. 

 

We believe that Roberto Saviano’s criminal conviction sets a dangerous example which may further facilitate attempts to muzzle critical commentary on public officials and political leaders, bearing grave consequences not only for Roberto Saviano, but also for Italy’s wider press freedom. Defamation laws used to silence criticism have a chilling effect on the society as a whole, and can lead to self-censorship among writers, journalists, activists and human rights defenders and the general public. 

 

The right to freedom of expression encompasses the right to express opinions and ideas that may be considered offensive, shocking, or disturbing. The ECtHR has clarified that public figures, especially those in political roles, should tolerate a higher degree of criticism and scrutiny due to their prominent position in society. Criminal prosecution to suppress criticism against public officials is a violation of the right to freedom of expression as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

 

Our organisations  have been observing how public officials have been increasingly using defamation lawsuits to target journalists and writers reporting on issues of public interest. We emphasise the necessity of ensuring a conducive work environment for journalists in Italy to empower them to report on crucial topics in the public interest and to pose challenging questions without the fear of facing legal threats. Using a criminal defamation lawsuit to silence critical voices cannot happen in a democratic society. We call again the urgent need for Parliament to comprehensively reform outdated defamation laws in Italy and bring them in line with international freedom of expression standards.  

 

As Saviano’s lawyer has announced that the decision of the court will be appealed, we will continue to monitor the legal proceedings of the Rome court and stand strong in  support of the Italian writer and journalist.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe 
  • Blueprint for Free Speech 
  • Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • Frente Cívica, Portugal 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU) 
  • Fondazione Libera Informazione 
  • Index on Censorship 
  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • Meglio Legale 
  • OBC Transeuropa 
  • The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation 
  • The Good lobby Italia 
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)

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 and candidate countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

For a transnational anti-SLAPP network: Countering gags on public…

For a transnational anti-SLAPP network: Countering gags on public participation

On October 16, 2023, the first public event of CASE Italia dedicated to countering SLAPPs will take place in Rome. Speakers include journalists, activists, experts in the field, and representatives of a range of organisations advocating for freedom of expression.

SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) are a form of legal harassment affecting not only press freedom, but the right to freedom of expression of our societies as a whole. The goal of those who resort to SLAPPs is to inhibit public participation by silencing critical voices on matters of public interest. Organised on the sixth anniversary of the murder of the Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, the first public event of the CASE Italia working group aims at examining the impact of the SLAPP phenomenon in Italy, contextualise it in the European landscape, and offer recommendations so that journalists, activists, lawyers, and citizens can counter it.

The meeting is organised in two sessions. The first panel offers the chance to hear from journalists and activists targeted by SLAPP about their personal and professional experiences. The second panel is centred around a debate among a number of experts, such as media professionals, lawyers and activists, who will discuss specificities of the Italian context and the continuity with the broader European panorama, as well as possible proposals aimed at contrasting SLAPPs and at strengthening the European anti-SLAPP transnational network.

The event will take place in Italian. 

 

Programme

14:30 – 14: 45 Registration

14:45 – 15:00 Introduction: Sielke Beata Kelner – Researcher and advocacy officer OBCT

15:00 – 16: 30 Panel: SLAPPs: voices and experiences from the field

 

Speakers:

Francesco Zambon – Whistleblower

Nello Trocchia – Domani journalist

Sara Manisera – Freelance journalist

Antonio Tricarico – Public and corporate finance campaigner ReCommon

Cecilia Anesi – Editor and co-founder IrpiMedia

Antonella Napoli – Freelance journalist

Moderator: Martina Turola – Head of Communication The Good Lobby Italia

16:30 – 17:00 Coffee break

17:00 – 18: 30 Roundtable: Countering SLAPPs: What can Italian civil society do to strengthen the transnational network?

Speakers:

Vittorio di Trapani – FNSI president

Linda Ravo – Liberties – Liberties lawyer and activist

Virginia Ripa di Meana – lawyer

Giulio Vasaturo – Articolo 21 lawyer

Marino Bisso – Rete No Bavaglio journalist

Moderator: Graziella Di Mambro – Articolo 21 journalist

18:30 – 18:45 Closing remarks: Roberta Taveri – Media Freedom Senior Programme Officer ARTICLE 19 Europe

Address: Industrie Fluviali – Via del Porto Fluviale, 35, Rome, Italy 
Date: October 16, 2023 from 14:30 to 19:00 

Participation to the event is free, but registration is required by October 14, 2023 via this link  . The event will be live streamed via OBCT YouTube channel  .

Through the initiative of Articolo 21  , the meeting is approved as part of the professional training courses directed to Italian journalists. For the recognition of credits, members of the Ordine dei Giornalisti must register on the dedicated platform  .

This first CASE Italia event is co-organised by Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa and ARTICLE 19 Europe   in the framework of the Media Freedom Rapid Response  – MFRR project with the support of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe  – CASE.

 

CASE Italia

CASE Italia is an informal working group established in 2020, whose work is coordinated by Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa. The working group supports CASE in countering SLAPPs in Europe. In support of journalists, activists, whistleblowers, human rights defenders and others targeted by SLAPPs, our efforts are directed at exposing legal harassment and intimidation, and protecting the rights of those who speak out on matters of public interest. CASE Italia members are: Amnesty International Italia, ARTICLE 19 Europe, Articolo 21, Certi Diritti, Environmental Paper Network, Greenpeace Italia, Meglio Legale, OBC Transeuropa, The Good Lobby Italia, Transparency International Italia.

 

Contacts:

resourcecentre@balcanicaucaso.org

kelner@balcanicaucaso.org

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Sara Manisera: The challenges of investigative journalism

Sara Manisera: the challenges of investigative journalism

Investigative journalists, in addition to the risks of the trade, often incur libel lawsuits, SLAPPs, etc. Especially if, like Sara Manisera, they deal with sensitive issues such as organised crime.

 

By Sielke Kelner

Originally published by OBCT, also available in ITA

Sara Manisera is a freelance journalist who is part of the Fada collective of journalists, photographers, and authors. She writes about gender issues, minorities, agriculture, the environment, and civil society. Her contributions have been published by various international newspapers including Al Jazeera, Liberation, and The Nation. She has written “Tales of slavery and struggle in the countryside”, a book that originated from her degree thesis in the sociology of organised crime in Rosarno, in the province of Reggio Calabria. Since 2023 she has been affiliated with Bertha Challenge Investigative Journalist Fellow, a grant that is allowing her to devote herself to a year-long project on the wheat supply chain. On September 1, 2022, the Municipality of Abbiategrasso adopted a resolution to initiate an aggravated criminal defamation lawsuit against her. A sentence pronounced in Cutro in June 2022, during the acceptance speech of the Diego Tajani award, about the pervasiveness of mafia infiltration even in municipalities such as that of Abbiategrasso, did not go down well with the council of the municipality in Lombardia.

Is this the first defamation lawsuit you have faced?

Yes, it was notified to me in January 2023. I was not reported for a published article, but for a sentence I uttered in a speech in which I quoted the Municipality of Abbiategrasso during an awards ceremony in front of students. That day I had in front of me some classes from Cutro who have probably only heard of ‘Ndrangheta and Calabria in their life, of the south in a certain way. I wanted to show them that the mafias are not only in the south, but also in the north. And they have been infiltrating the northern economy for decades. The municipal administration of Abbiategrasso has not asked for any rectification of the sentence I have pronounced; it did not invite a public discussion on the subject. This would have been the most appropriate response from a local politician attentive to the infiltration of mafia-type organisations and which could have been offended by the sentences pronounced in Cutro.

 

Why do you think the council of Abbiategrasso felt resentful of your comment?

I do not know. I tell you the facts. We are talking about a territory that is in the south-west of Milan, next to Gaggiano, Corsico, Trezzano, Buccinasco. Territories that, for over 30 years, have seen not infiltration, but colonisation by the ‘Ndrangheta and, in the Abbiategrasso area, by bosses linked to Cosa Nostra. Various members of gangs linked to Cosa Nostra have been sent to this area on compulsory stays. In this area, there are parts of the economy that also feed on the laundering of capital from illicit activities by mafia-type organisations. This is not my own theory, the sentences say it, the operations directed by the District Anti-Mafia Directorates such as Crimine-Infinito, which acknowledged the presence of the mafias in the North. Now, if you refuse to see or to tell about it, quoting Professor Nando dalla Chiesa, “Either you are an idiot, and therefore you are an accomplice in some way, or you are actually an accomplice”. Anyway, I think that there is very little talk about public ethics and the role that politicians should have, that is, politicians with a straight back who should not go and have coffee with what is considered a member of a gang or a clan. As for the Municipality of Abbiategrasso, I do not know why they felt their image was damaged in 2023. There are other ways to protect the reputation and image of one’s territory, starting with serious environmental policies aimed at effectively protecting the territory and the landscape.

 

Let’s talk about gag complaints. How has this lawsuit affected your work and personal life?

Thanks to the solidarity of civil society and the mobilisation that took place for my case, several people from FNSI, Articolo21, Ossigeno, Libera, and Un Ponte Per took action. There have been many public and non-public voices that have come to my defense. Ossigeno per l’Informazione granted me pro bono defence. Many other colleagues do not receive this type of media coverage or, as it is very often referred to, media escort. When you are alone and do not have a media escort, these lawsuits have a huge impact, both on your work – because they intimidate, stop, and discourage you – but also on mental health because they are a constant concern. All the papers, the documents you have to collect to defend yourself; trials that go on for months, years. This has a greater impact on freelancers, because it is one thing to have a publisher behind you with an editor, a lawyer, a team that supports you; another thing to be alone.

 

What would we need to counter this phenomenon?

Definitely free legal coverage for all journalists who suffer this type of lawsuit. An ad hoc fund for compensation for damages.

 

What is the relationship between the press and politics, including local?

I think the state of the relationship between the local and national press and local and national institutions is not the best. I see, at the local level, an absence of journalism-journalism, quoting Giancarlo Siani, journalism that should question power. Local journalism, with rare exceptions, is a megaphone of power. This happens because there is no money; because local newspapers very often have publishers who work hand in hand with local business and therefore with local politics; because there is a lack of real independence of the journalist, also due to business models.

 

It goes without saying that political power that is not used to being questioned by the press resorts to lawsuits when subjected to criticism, because it is the easiest weapon. The lawsuit is the weapon used to silence and intimidate. It’s not just a warning to that particular journalist who writes, talks, and says certain things. It is also a warning to other journalists.

 

These gag complaints filed by people in power reveal a lot about the state of journalism in Italy and about the relationship between the press and institutions. But also on the freedom of speech and the right to inform, or Article 21 of our Constitution. The mafias are not just a judicial phenomenon, they are a social, cultural, economic, and political phenomenon and therefore we need to talk about them and I believe that journalists today have the role of informing and explaining to citizens also the forms and the metamorphosis of criminal organisations. As Paolo Borsellino said, talk about it. Talk about it on television, talk about it on the radio. But talk about it. If journalists do not tell the public that mafias today launder their money in costructions, that the mafias have also entered the municipalities of the north, who is going to do it?

 

What does it mean for you to be a journalist and in particular an independent investigative journalist?

I believe that what I carry on together with the Fada collective is committed journalism. It is militant journalism with a political gaze. It is non-neutral journalism, because it takes the time to look at the ecological and social fractures of certain societies and certain issues. I always give this example, quoting French colleague Salomé Saqué, who explains that deciding to give the floor to the CEO of Total, who is responsible for environmental crimes in Uganda that will force millions of people to leave the country, or to the environmentalists who are fighting against that project means making a precise choice. So, choosing to tell the story of the struggles of environmentalists in Uganda or Iraq means bringing their voices to the centre of public debate.

This interview 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 and candidate countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
The team of journalists at KRIK. Credit: Oliver Bunic (NIN) Library

Serbia: Legal harassment of investigative media outlet KRIK must…

Serbia: Legal harassment of investigative media outlet KRIK must stop

The legal harassment against Serbian investigative media outlet KRIK continues as the portal was convicted for reporting on a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) case it was facing, at the same time as a new abusive lawsuit has been filed against it.

We, international press freedom and journalists’ organisations, stand in solidarity with KRIK’s newsroom, which is currently fighting 12 legal proceedings, and raise the alarm about the use of SLAPPs in Serbia, considered as a growing threat to independent journalism.

 

In recent months, KRIK has been facing multiple lawsuits as a result of public interest investigations exposing crime, corruption and other abuses of power committed by powerful people in Serbia, often affiliated with the ruling party.

 

The latest alarming development came from the Belgrade High Court on 3 May. In a first instance decision, the court condemned KRIK for naming in an article the individuals who sued them – police commander Goran Zivkovic and two of his colleagues from the Witness Protection Unit. In the article published in December 2021, the media outlet detailed the avalanche of lawsuits it is currently fighting: namely who brought the cases, on what grounds and their impact on the whole editorial team. As a result, KRIK must pay 374,200 dinars (almost 3,200 €) in compensation for “emotional pain” and for trial expenses. The court also ruled that part of KRIK’s web article must be deleted. KRIK has appealed.

 

In a reaction to the verdict, KRIK’s editor Stevan Dojčinović said SLAPPs are the outlet’s biggest challenge: “this latest ruling makes it clear that SLAPPs have become the regime’s main tool for shutting down the few remaining independent media outlets. Things have gone so far that we are no longer even allowed to complain in public about the fact that our newsroom is flooded with lawsuits – we are found guilty even for that.”

 

On 11 May 2023, KRIK reported that the media outlet is facing a new lawsuit in response to an article published on 11 April 2023. The lawsuit was filed by Nikola Petrović against KRIK’s editor and investigative reporters Bojana Jovanović and Dragana Pećo. He demanded the removal of the article and is seeking 200,000 dinars (1,700€) in compensation for “mental suffering”. Nikola Petrović has filed two other lawsuits against KRIK: one ended in favour of KRIK and the other is still pending.

 

This case is the last in a series of 12 lawsuits initiated in most cases by people from the government or businessmen close to them. The amount of damages claimed is completely disproportionate and exceeds by three times the organisation’s annual budget. While the financial burden is huge, the negative impact on the day-to-day operations is equally significant. The time spent on preparing the defence, presenting the evidence, analysing hundreds of pages of legal documents is effectively taking journalists away from their core work: investigating and informing citizens. 

 

SLAPPs threaten the future of independent journalism – aiming to intimidate, drain resources and isolate reporters so they abandon their hard-hitting investigations. We, the undersigned organisations, renew our support to the KRIK journalists and call on the Serbian judicial authorities to finally acknowledge SLAPPs as a means to silence voices and suppress information of public interest. Serbia continues to provide one of the most fertile grounds in Europe for suing journalists in retaliation for their work. By failing to recognise the threats posed by SLAPPs, the latest court decision sends a worrying signal to all Serbian journalists who investigate sensitive political and economic issues. We hope that the appeal process will consider the serious impact of SLAPPs against journalists, and will finally uphold the public interest and international standards on freedom of expression.

Signed by:

  • Blueprint for Free Speech
  • Civic Initiatives
  • Civil Rights Defenders
  • Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • Index on Censorship
  • Institute for Mass Media Cyprus
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Justice for Journalists Foundation
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)
  • PEN International 
  • Reporters Sans Frontières / Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • SafeJournalists Network
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Solomon

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 and candidate countries.

MFRR 3 consortium logos