Malta's Prime Minister Robert Abela. EPA-EFE/Julien Warnand Library

Malta: No substantial reform five years after Daphne Caruana…

Malta: No substantial reform five years after Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination

Systematic change remains elusive despite recent prosecution of hitmen brothers

 

By IPI contributor Elizabeth De Gaetano for The Shift News

Two days before the fifth anniversary of the assassination of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, two brothers were each sentenced to 40 years in prison for their role in the journalist’s assassination.

Despite this significant turn of events, the fight for full justice for Daphne Caruana Galizia remains characterised by lengthy court delays, police inaction and a general lack of political will by the Maltese authorities to pass reforms that would help ensure journalists in Malta, an EU member state, can do their work safely.

It has been five years since Caruana Galizia was killed in a car bomb a few metres outside her home in Bidnija. Nevertheless, even as thousands gathered in Valletta this past October 16 to commemorate the journalist, the fight for justice, led by her family and a coalition of Maltese and international civil society groups and independent journalists, remains as gruelling as the day it began.

Three criminal convictions

Until recently, there had only been one criminal conviction in the murder case, that of Vincent Muscat, who was sentenced to 15 years for planting and detonating the bomb. Muscat negotiated a plea bargain that saw him become a state witness.

The two other men charged with executing the assassination, brothers George and Alfred Degiorgio, were still in pre-trial detention five years after their arrest in a dramatic raid at the port of Valletta in December 2017.

However, on October 14, at the start of the trial by jury that was being monitored by several international press freedom organisations, including the International Press Institute (IPI), the brothers changed their plea from “not guilty” to “guilty” mid-way through the first hearing. Malta’s Criminal Court sentenced each brother to 40 years in prison plus fines and the return of criminal proceeds related to the crime.

The brothers changed their plea mid-way through the court proceedings after having witnessed the assistant attorney general detail to the jurors how the police had traced burner phones that had been used in the murder to phones belonging to the Degiorgio brothers. Journalists and observers who had gone to court that day expecting to cover the trial over several weeks were presented with a dramatic turn of events that included unexplained delays and outbursts by the accused.

After the sentencing, Alfred Degiorgio was overheard telling a prison guard that he wanted to approach Caruana Galizia’s family, saying, “I want to give them the full truth from beginning to end if you want to know it”, but as the brothers tried to approach the family, they were stopped when the family refused to speak to them.

However, barely two weeks after the brothers’ sentencing, lawyers for the brothers then filed an appeal asking for their trial by jury to be held again, as well as for a reduction in their sentence.

Until the trial by jury, much of the delay in court proceedings was caused by the Degiorgio brothers filing over 100 preliminary pleas and several bids for an official pardon for their crimes in exchange for information, including about several Maltese politicians.

However, the conviction of the three assassins is only the beginning. Many local and international organisations, as well as Caruana Galizia’s family, have underscored that impunity for her assassination will only truly end when all those responsible for the journalist’s death, including other potential intermediaries and mastermind(s), are identified, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

On August 18, 2021, Yorgen Fenech, a Maltese casino boss with close ties to senior government officials, was indicted on charges of complicity in committing murder. The indictment claims that Fenech ordered and paid for the killing. He is currently in pre-trial detention.

The state is responsible – conclusions of a landmark public inquiry

Aside from the criminal proceedings, an independent public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Caruana Galizia’s killing concluded in July 2021 that the State “should bear the responsibility for the assassination”.

The government of Malta had initially resisted the idea of a public inquiry by claiming that there was no need for one since criminal proceedings were already underway.

It took a two-year campaign by civil society, NGOs, European institutions, and Caruana Galizia’s family for the Maltese authorities to finally announce, in December 2019, the panel of three judges that would lead the inquiry and examine the background that led to her assassination.

The three judges gathered evidence over a period of 18 months. They heard witness statements from investigators, politicians, persons from public administration and State entities, journalists, and Caruana Galizia’s extended family.

The report was published in July 2021 and found that the State “should bear the responsibility for the assassination” and added that her isolation and dehumanisation, coupled with the inaction of law enforcement and other authorities, helped create an atmosphere of impunity.

In other words, those who wanted to harm Caruana Galizia felt they could do so with the assurance that they would be protected.

A lack of transparency and ambition

The public inquiry report also made a series of wide-ranging recommendations for reform within the government and the police to improve the safety of journalists in Malta. Nevertheless, these recommendations have run into a lack of political will.

During an extraordinary parliamentary session to discuss the public inquiry’s conclusions, Prime Minister Robert Abela never committed to a plan or a timeline to implement the inquiry’s recommendations. Nor did he take up the technical assistance offered by several press freedom organisations to help the government with the implementation process.

detailed analysis by The Shift news portal found that Malta’s government has only fully implemented one of the 28 key recommendations.

In the meantime, the government also shot down legislative proposals presented in parliament by the opposition, which were based on the public inquiry’s recommendations. It hastily set up a committee of media experts, which was given three months to submit their comments and suggestions on draft legislation prepared by the government.

But the limitations of the Maltese government’s legislative proposals had already been identified as far back as January, and the committee of media experts was never consulted during the drafting of the bills.

Even more problematic was that the government demanded that the committee keep their discussions confidential, excluding many media and journalism stakeholders.

In the end, the most significant recommendations by the committee were ignored. Draft legislation was tabled in parliament in early October, even though some of the proposed legal amendments relating to the safety of journalists and Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) failed to meet international standards.

More than a hundred Maltese journalists, academics, and artists wrote to Prime Minister Robert Abela, urging him to hold a public consultation exercise on the proposed legislation.

The prime minister defended the proposed legislation and insisted that the committee could have consulted with whomever it wished – despite correspondence published showing this was not the case. He added that the parliamentary debate would be another opportunity for the legislation to be amended if there is the need to do so.

Only after two Institute of Maltese journalists (IĠM) members threatened to withdraw from the committee of experts did the prime minister finally halt the parliamentary process and promise to open the legislation to public scrutiny.

Increasingly restrictive access to information

While all of this is taking place, and although Malta’s prime minister has publicly stated that he supports journalism, the overall attitude of most government officials towards independent journalists is still visibly hostile.

Independent journalists, activists, and government critics are still singled out and targeted by government propagandists on both the governing party’s media outlets and social media, while access to information in the public interest is getting harder.

The most representative example of this antagonistic attitude towards journalists is the 40 Freedom of Information (FOI) lawsuits brought against The Shift by several government entities.

In July 2021, Malta’s Data Protection Commissioner ruled in favour of 40 FOI requests filed by independent media outlet The Shift to investigate the government’s spending on advertising. Each government entity lodged an identical appeal against the Data Protection Commissioner’s decisions. In six of those cases, those entities that lost the request are now pursuing a second round of appeals against these decisions.

The scope of these appeals seems intended not to win but to exhaust The Shift’s time and resources while also sending a clear signal to other newsrooms that the Maltese government will challenge their attempts to obtain information under the country’s FOI law.

Even though Malta’s prime minister had stated that lessons needed to be drawn from the public inquiry report, the seeming lack of political will to initiate effective and broad legislative reforms casts doubt on whether Malta’s political class has learnt any lessons from Caruana Galizia’s assassination or whether it simply plans to give the impression that it intends to protect those who work towards continuing her legacy while surreptitiously making things harder.

This article 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
Public service media Event

Threats to independent public service media in Central Europe

Threats to independent public service media in Central Europe

24 November, 10:00 CET.

In the last few years, Central Europe has emerged as a regional flashpoint in the battle for the future of independent public service media in the European Union.

 

In Slovenia, editorial staff are currently in a stand-off with the management over what they say are politicised efforts to erode editorial independence. As internal disagreements escalate and strikes continue, the new government is pushing for legislative reforms which depoliticise Radiotelevizija Slovenija – and faces an upcoming referendum challenge by the opposition in doing so.

 

In the Czech Republic meanwhile, a country often lauded as the regional model for professional public service media, after years of sustained political pressure under the previous government of former PM Andrej Babiš, the new administration is close to passing legislation aimed at limiting political interference and shoring up the broadcaster’s institutional independence.

 

Two countries, with a shared set of pressures on independent public media, and similar initiatives by newly elected governments to pass democratic reforms.

 

In this webinar, speakers will discuss the latest developments in both countries, explore parallels in the challenges faced, and asses the ongoing legislative efforts to insulate their country’s public broadcasters against future illiberal attacks.

Moderator

Jamie Wiseman

Europe Advocacy Officer at International Press Institute (IPI)

Speakers

Ksenija Horvat

Journalist and broadcaster at Radiotelevizija Slovenija (RTV SLO)

Jan Bumba

Presenter at Czech National Radio (ČRo Plus).

Radka Betcheva

Head of Member Relations Central & Eastern Europe, European Broadcasting Union (EBU)

Detail of the national flag of Slovakia waving in the wind with blurred european union flag in the background on a clear day. Democracy and politics. European country. Library

Slovakia: Government pushes ahead with ambitious media reform program

Slovakia: Government pushes ahead with ambitious media reform program

New laws on source protection and media ownership transparency provide model for neighbouring countries

By IPI contributor Miroslava Kernová, Omediach.com

In recent months Slovakia has passed important legislative changes which will ensure a better media environment and move the country closer to standards outlined by the recently published European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).

Moreover, in addition to the laws already passed, others are in preparation. If the full package is achieved, Slovakia can become a leading example of press freedom for other EU countries, such as Hungary or Poland, where press freedom continues to face major challenges from media capture.

In its program statement (2020-24), the current government promised a complex reform which would reflect modern changes in the media environment. The changes this reform introduces and proposes are revolutionary by Slovak standards.

The problem with previous Slovak media legislation was that it did not reflect the online environment, titled the scales in favour of political forces, and allowed ways for these forces to influence public media.

The motivation for the change is also public pressure for better protection of journalists after the brutal murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his girlfriend Martina Kušnírová in 2018.

 

Reforms passed already

In August, the parliament passed a new Act on Media and the Act on Publications, replacing two outdated laws, the Press Act and the Compulsory Copies Act.

These new laws strengthen the protection of journalists, extend source protection to online media, and bring greater transparency to media ownership and funding, which strengthens their credibility against media disseminating disinformation.

Firstly, under the new Act on Media and Act on Publications, the right to protect the confidentiality of sources – which was in the past only guaranteed for broadcast and print media journalists – has been extended to include journalists from online media.

Secondly, media outlets must also declare any investor or donor who invests more than €2,000 per year. This change should make the media environment in Slovakia more transparent. A number of anonymous sources of disinformation, pro-Russian or politically motivated websites operating in Slovakia would have to declare their real “final beneficiaries” in a public register, which will allow anyone to verify whose is behind these outlets. For non-compliance with this obligation, media may receive a warning or a fine of up to €20,000.

Thirdly, the new law also strengthens the protection of minors, improves access to audio-visual content for the disabled by increasing quotas for multimodal access, and specifically promotes broadcasting for national minorities and ethnic groups in public service broadcasting.

It also regulates the conditions for television and radio, regardless of whether they broadcast standardly or online, and introduces several rights and obligations for television and radio. Every viewer will now be able to find out who owns a given medium and there will be a register where all the information will be available. This will be administered by the Ministry of Culture, which is to establish the register within 30 months of the adoption of the law.

In addition, the law redefines general rules for advertising in both public and private media and, in line with European requirements, introduces the notion of community periodicals into the Slovak legislation and allows for the application of self-regulatory mechanisms.

 

Last minute amendments from politicians

The downside of the new media laws, however, is that MPs in the last steps of finalising the legislation process introduced a “right to expression” for public officials into it, thus securing for themselves more media space than ordinary citizens. The right to expression for public officials was only included in the bill at the end of the second reading in parliament – as amendments by MPs from Sme rodina and OĽaNO.

“Politicians have their channels of communication. The most followed profiles on social networks belong to politicians, they express themselves in press conferences that are broadcast. So there is no reason for a politician to exercise his right to express himself in the exercise of his public office,” media lawyer Tomáš Kamenec told the daily SME.

In the original draft law, the right to expression could only be used to deny, supplement, clarify or explain factual allegations. Parliament eventually approved amendments that extended the right to expression to value judgments based (columns or opinion pieces) on disputed claims.

Alexej Fulmek from the Association of Print and Digital Media (ATDM) and CEO of the Petit Press publishing house considers the adoption of the “right to expression” as a step backwards. “Unfortunately, politicians in Slovakia are mostly under the impression that the media are causing harm to this country and that they are the ones who have to fight them. They don’t understand that the role of the media is to be critical, especially towards politicians. In this atmosphere the idea prevailed that politicians need some ‘stick’ against the media. This probably seemed to them as an adequate solution,” Fulmek told Strategie magazine.

 

Increasing protection for journalists

Additional planned changes deal with the protection of journalists. Draft amendments to the Criminal Code would remove the long-criticised prison sentence for defamation, which has been a major threat to journalists in Slovakia for years. Under the current law, defamation carries a prison sentence of two to eight years. Under the new legislation, defamation would not carry a prison sentence.

The planned amendment to the criminal code also introduces so-called “special motives” for crimes, which will include a crime committed against someone for exercising of their job, profession or function. This may contribute to better protection of journalists and other professions (doctors, teachers, security forces…) who face many threats and can face attacks in their work. A crime committed with a specific motive will carry higher penalty.

For now, the draft of this law remains parked at the ministry of culture. Questions remain over whether the government will find the political will to pass such legislation.

 

Further changes planned

The Ministry of Justice has also proposed amendments to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment expands both the scope of information to be provided and the persons obliged to provide it. For example, the draft also extends the list of companies that are obliged to provide information to state-owned companies and second- and third-tier subsidiaries of state-owned companies, which are not covered by the current law.

The proposal also extends the mandatory disclosure of information to persons seeking public office as well as to public officials themselves. It also introduces an obligation to publish all amendments to contracts subject to mandatory publication.

The Ministry of Culture wants to implement the PersVeilig (Press Safe) platform for greater protection of journalists in Slovakia, following the example of the Netherlands.

In 2019, the PersVeilig platform was launched in the Netherlands to improve the safety of journalists. The platform was also created because although journalists faced threats, they often did not report them because they felt they were not sufficiently dealt with by the police. PersVeilig improves cooperation between journalists, their employers, the police and prosecutors.

The Slovak Ministry of Culture wants to work with the Netherlands to improve the protection of journalists domestically. “We are not talking about whether it should be an organisation, a platform, a technical or procedural solution. What we want is to reach a concrete result that can be implemented and traced,” said Radoslav Kutaš, the ministry’s state secretary, told Denník N.

If all these plans are indeed implemented, Slovakia will meet many of the requirements of the European Media Freedom Act regarding of the protection of media pluralism and independence, and in some respects may even go beyond them, such as the ambition to create a special platform to protect journalists.

 

Challenges remain

Despite many positive ambitions, the media environment in Slovakia continues to face problems. Journalists, especially those from the opinion-making media, are constantly targets of verbal attacks from politicians, mainly from former Prime Minister Igor Matovic, but also from the opposition.

For example, the deputy chairman of the opposition Smer party, Ľuboš Blaha, regularly dehumanises journalists. Matovič, who leads the biggest party in parliament, also regularly attacks journalists on his Facebook page and recently accused unspecified media of corruption, “spreading lies” and compared the work of Slovak journalists to Nazi propaganda.

In Slovakia, the problematic environment for independent public service media also remains a major issue. The main problem is that both the director and the supervisory boards of Slovak Radio and Television (RTVS) are elected in parliament after political agreements are made. Politicians still have influence over the funding of public service media. Changes need to be made to guarantee that public service media management and funding are more independent and more resistant to political pressures.

Even if the political will is there, the road ahead contains multiple pitfalls. The forthcoming changes may be stalled by the current unstable political situation that brings about the possibility of the fall of the current government and of early national parliamentary elections, which may result in a government of such parties that do not favour the idea of a free media.

However, if the planned changes are passed, Slovakia would take major steps forward in strengthening the legal frameworks for media freedom and provide a positive example to follow for other EU Members States in Central and Eastern Europe in the years to come.

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

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Turkey: International groups call to restore Evrensel’s right to…

Turkey: International groups call to restore Evrensel’s right to receive public ads

18 press freedom, freedom of expression and human rights organisations call on the Turkish Press Advertising Agency (BİK) to withdraw without delay its alarming decision to revoke the right of the independent Evrensel newspaper to receive public ads, a vital source of financial income for the publication. BİK has a regulatory duty to act as an independent and fair distributor of public ads, and not to facilitate censorship through suppressing critical news outlets.

 

Turkish translation available here.

On 22 August 2022, Evrensel newspaper received BİK’s decision backdated to July 17, 2022, revoking its right to receive public ads. This move was prompted by an audit into alleged bulk buying that distorted Evrensel’s distribution figures against which measure the advertising levels are set. The right of Evrensel to receive public advertisements has been suspended since September 2019. With the latest decision, this suspended right was completely cancelled.

 

In its decision, the BİK stated that “the public ad ban on Evrensel was observed to be suspended for a full six months without break, excluding the period when such administrative monitoring was suspended due to the pandemic, therefore its right to receive public ads was revoked”. Evrensel has the right to appeal to the decision at court. Should Evrensel be removed from BİK’s system to receive any public advertising, a new, swiftly launched application process for re-gaining the right to public ads would take at least three years. This drawn-out process would be detrimental to the newspaper’s financial stability.

 

In the last three years, IPI and undersigned press freedom organisations have repeatedly called on BİK to withdraw the initial public ad ban that was initiated in September 2019 on Evrensel. Ten members of the European Parliament had also joined the call with a letter to then-General Director of BİK Rıdvan Duran requesting the ban be lifted. Despite an in person meeting with Duran in February 2020, the ad ban remained in force until this latest decision.

 

MFRR Coordinator, Gürkan Özturan, said:

 

“The long time pressure and regulatory restrictions imposed on independent media has been impacting media freedom and society’s right to access information negatively in Turkey. The latest BİK decision to revoke advertisement revenues for Evrensel is yet another example of this ongoing and increasing trend and must be revoked immediately.”

 

In a judgment issued on 10 August 2022, the Turkish Constitutional Court ruled that BİK’s arbitrary and consecutive public ad bans on newspapers including Sözcü, Cumhuriyet, Evrensel and BirGün, violated freedom of expression and press freedom as well as constituted and evidence of BİK acting as a tool for systematic censorship and criminalization of news coverage in the country. The Constitutional Court’s verdict thus confirmed that BİK lacks impartiality towards media outlets.

 

Media freedom in recent years has been deteriorating in Turkey in light of the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in 2023, we are concerned about the state of remaining independent media outlets, the repercussions it will have on the right to access information for the residents of Turkey who will need to rely on the existing media outlets to make informed decisions in the election calendar, and how this will contribute to an already-shrinking civic space in the country. Hereby we once again call upon the Press Advertising Agency (BİK) in Turkey to withdraw the decision to revoke ad revenues for Evrensel.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19
  • Articolo 21
  • Danish PEN
  • English PEN
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • IFEX
  • IPS Communication Foundation/bianet
  • Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • P24 (Platform for Independent Journalism)
  • PEN America
  • PEN Norway
  • PEN Turkey
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Swedish PEN
  • The Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)

Uluslararası hak grupları, Evrensel’in kamu ilanı yayımlama hakkının geri verilmesi için çağrı yaptı 

Basın İlan Kurumu, Evrensel gazetesinin kamu ilanı alma hakkını iptal etti

 

Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI) ve 17 uluslararası basın ve ifade özgürlüğü ve insan hakları grubu, Basın İlan Kurumu’na (BİK) bağımsız Evrensel gazetesinin kamu ilanı alma hakkına yönelik iptal kararını derhal geri çekme çağrısı yaptı. BİK, gazetelerin yayın hayatı için hayati önem taşıyan kamu ilanlarının bağımsız ve adil bir biçimde dağıtılmasında düzenleyici bir rol oynamalıdır, eleştirel haber kurumlarını baskılayarak sansür mekanizmasını yaygınlaştırmada değil.

 

Evrensel gazetesine 22 Ağustos 2022’de tebliğ edilen 17 Temmuz tarihli BİK kararında gazetenin kamu ilanı alma hakkının tümüyle iptal edildiği bildirildi. Bu karar, Evrensel gazetesinin tirajını “çoklu alım” ile arttırdığı iddialarını takiben başlatılan denetimlerin gerçekleştirilmesinin ardından geldi. Evrensel için gazetelerin tirajlarına göre belirlenen kamu ilanı gelirleri Eylül 2019’da denetim kararına kadar BİK tarafından durdurulmuştu. Bu son karar ile Evrensel gazetesi, kamu ilanı yayımlama hakkını tümüyle kaldırdı.

 

BİK kararında, “23 Mart 2020 ile 30 Nisan 2022 tarihleri arasında Kurumca mevzuat şartlarının aranmadığı salgın süreci hariç bırakılmak suretiyle altı ay içinde yayınlama hakkı yeniden devam etmediği anlaşıldığından, Günlük Evrensel gazetesinin, resmi ilan ve reklam yayınlama hakkının sona ermesine karar verilmiştir,” ifadelerini kullandı. Evrensel’in kararı önce BİK’e itiraz etmek olmak üzere mahkemede temyiz hakkı bulunuyor. Evrensel gazetesinin BİK sisteminden çıkarılması halinde, ilan yayımlama hakkının geri kazanımı için bugün başlatılacak bir başvuru sürecinin dahi en az üç yıl süreceği öngörülüyor. Bu süreç, gazetenin finansal sürdürülebilirliği açısından son derece yıkıcı etkiler doğuracaktır.

 

Son üç yıl içinde, IPI ve aşağıda imzası bulunan basın özgürlüğü kurumları, Eylül 2019’da verilen Evrensel’e yönelik ilan durdurma cezasının kaldırılması için BİK’e pek çok kez çağrıda bulundu. 10 Avrupa Parlamentosu üyesi, dönemin BİK Başkanı Rıdvan Duran’a ortak mektup göndererek bu çağrıya destek vermişti. Şubat 2020’de Duran ile IPI öncülüğünde yüz yüze düzenlenen bir toplantıda bu talep ve endişeler dile getirilmiş olmasına rağmen, ilan durdurma cezası kaldırılmamıştı.

 

Sözcü, Cumhuriyet, Evrensel ve BirGün gazetelerinin toplu başvurusuna yönelik Anayasa Mahkemesi’nin 10 Ağustos 2022 tarihli kararında, bu gazetelere verilen arka arkaya ve keyfi ilan kesme cezalarının basın ve ifade özgürlüklerini ihlal ettiğini belirtti. Ayrıca bu durumun yapısal sorunlardan kaynaklandığını belirten karar ile BİK’in ülkedeki sistematik sansür mekanizmasının bir aracı olarak hareket ettiği adeta teyit etmiş oldu. Böylelikle, AYM kararı BİK’in medya kurumlarına yönelik bağımsız yaklaşımının kaybedildiğini tasdik etti.

 

Son yıllarda Türkiye’deki medya özgürlüğü alanı gün geçtikçe daralıyordu. 2023 genel ve başkanlık seçimleri takvimi devam ederken, bağımsız haber yapmaya çalışan medya kuruluşlarının durumu, bilgiye dayalı karar verebilmek için var olan basın kuruluşlarına bağımlı kalan Türkiye vatandaşlarının habere erişimi üzerindeki olumsuz etkileri ve tüm bunların halihazırda daralmakta olan sivil alana olumsuz katkısı hakkında büyük endişe içerisindeyiz. O nedenle, bir kez daha Basın İlan Kurumu’na Evrensel gazetesinin ilan yayımlama hakkının iptalinin geri çekilmesi için çağrı yapıyoruz.

İmzacı kurumlar:

  • Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI)
  • ARTICLE 19
  • Articolo 21
  • Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi (ECPMF)
  • Danish PEN
  • English PEN
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • IFEX
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • IPS Communication Foundation/bianet
  • Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • P24 (Platform for Independent Journalism)
  • PEN America
  • PEN Norway
  • PEN Turkey
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Swedish PEN
  • The Coalition For Women In Journalism (CFWIJ)

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

Greece: The government must not cover up “Greek Watergate”

Greece: The government must not cover up “Greek Watergate”

By The Manifold, an investigative media outlet covering Greece

Despite mounting pressure, the Greek government is still refusing to provide substantive answers regarding the revelations that two journalists and an MEP and leader of an opposition party have been targeted for surveillance by EYP (the Greek Intelligence Service), as well as by yet unknown operators using the spyware “Predator”.

The affair concerns two distinct operations. The first is EYP’s spying on two journalists, Stavros Malichoudis, a reporter with independent outlet Solomon, and Thanasis Koukakis, a freelance journalist investigating banking and business stories; and also Nikos Androulakis, an MEP and leader of opposition party PASOK. These surveillance operations were carried out through EYP’s “normal” procedure for listening in on a target’s communications, following approval by a prosecutor. The second was the hacking of Koukakis’s and Androulakis’s mobile phones with Predator, a spyware tool that is able to access even encrypted services.

 

Although the surveillance of journalists and political opponents by state services hardly seems like the hallmark of democratic governance, the first procedure can be legal, not only for “national security” reasons, but also in cases of serious crime like drug smuggling or human trafficking. The legal framework in Greece, however, lacks any provision for technically supervising the use of spyware, which in practice makes it illegal.

 

No conclusive link between the two operations has been proven — yet. The fact, though, that they took place one right after the other (in the case of Koukakis) or simultaneously (in the case of Androulakis) raises reasonable suspicions that they are related. Further suspicions about both the use of spyware and the ostensibly legal procedure used against two journalists and a politician are raised not only by the Greek government’s handling of the affair, but also a number of key decisions it has made in the last three years.

 

Legislating against transparency

Soon after being elected in July 2019, the New Democracy government implemented new legislation in two crucial areas regarding the intelligence service: first, it brought it under the direct purview of the office of the prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis; second, it amended the required qualifications for the position of director of intelligence, so it could appoint the prime minister’s favourite, Panayiotis Kontoleon, who fell short of the previous criteria.

 

Less than two years later, in March 2021, it made another controversial move: it introduced a rushed legislative amendment, piggybacked on unrelated legislation, that changed the provisions which allowed citizens to be informed whether they had been under surveillance (provided such surveillance had been terminated), if their surveillance had taken place for reasons of “national security”. In other words, up to that point, ADAE (the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy) could, following permission from a prosecutor, inform a citizen who requested it that they had been under surveillance in the past, which meant that there was at least a theoretical possibility to seek redress in the courts, if one believed they had been targeted unfairly. Since the law changed, it is sufficient for EYP to claim reasons of “national security” and ADAE cannot divulge anything. What is more, the law applies retroactively, so all past surveillance is now effectively beyond scrutiny.

 

Members of the ADAE board, albeit in a non-official capacity, had protested at the time and had pointed out that such legislation contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights, as it practically deprives victims of illegal surveillance of access to due process. There is no indication that the government even considered their protests.

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.

From migrants’ rights to Predator

In November 2021, Efimerida ton Syntakton, a prominent left-wing daily, published a report which revealed that EYP had targeted numerous individuals for surveillance, apparently without legitimate reason. Among them, there were participants in anti-vaccination rallies, but also a civil servant who supported migrant workers’ rights, a lawyer who defended an immigrant in court, and a journalist who was trying to locate an unaccompanied minor in a refugee camp.

 

When Stavros Malichoudis, the journalist in question, recognised himself in the report, Solomon, the independent website where he works, published a scathing article, asking: “In which system of government does the state record the movements of journalists?” No justification for the surveillance was ever made public.

 

In December 2021, in a seemingly unrelated development, two reports, one by Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto and one by Meta (Facebook’s parent company), pointed out the threat of Predator, a new spyware developed by so-called “cyber-mercenaries” of the global surveillance-for-hire industry. Predator closely resembles Pegasus, a similar spyware tool implicated in illegal hackings across the world since 2016.

 

The reports did not exactly rock the Greek mainstream media’s news cycle. However, one independent, investigative website, Inside Story, picked up on the fact that the reports mentioned the possibility of Predator “customers” in Greece. It followed up on the reports and published a story showing that a corporate structure had been established in Greece to market Predator, and also most disquietingly that dozens of fake urls had been created to resemble existent Greek webpages, in an apparent phishing set-up for potential Predator targets. Despite the obvious implications for the security of communications, there was no official response from competent authorities.

 

A private citizens’ affair

Inside Story’s next feature, however, in April 2022,  launched the torrent of revelations that have been termed the “Greek Watergate” — a title repeated by no less an authority on the matter than The Washington Post. It showed that investigative journalist Thanasis Koukakis’s phone, analysed by Citizen Lab, had been hacked with Predator, the first such confirmed case in Europe. It also showed that Koukakis, alerted by a source that his communications might have been monitored, had submitted a request to ADAE to be informed if he had been a surveillance target in the past. ADAE replied that “no event that contravenes relevant legislation has been noted”. Inside Story pointed out that the “relevant legislation”, which could have compelled ADAE to inform Koukakis of his surveillance, had been hastily amended.

 

The publication provoked the first reaction from the government, which amounted to no more than a dismissal: the government spokesman Yiannis Oikonomou simply said there should be an investigation if “one private citizen had another private citizen under surveillance”.

 

The “private citizen” argument, though, was immediately questioned when, a few days after Inside Story, another independent investigative website, Reporters United, published a report that proved that EYP had Koukakis under surveillance, citing “national security”, under its “normal” procedure, for three months in 2020. EYP broke off the surveillance on the very day that Koukakis filed his request with ADAE. His phone was hacked with Predator immediately after that.

 

The government neither confirmed nor denied the “normal” surveillance of Koukakis by EYP, following the same pattern it had established a year earlier with Malichoudis, but it continued to deny any involvement with Predator. Moreover, EAD (the National Transparency Authority, created by the New Democracy government), which had been tasked with investigating Koukakis’s phone hacking, issued a report absolving the government of any wrongdoing, although it failed to even consider important evidence. This is not the only time that EAD has been criticised for incomplete and pro-government investigations. Its report on illegal pushbacks of refugees had met with international ridicule when it found no wrongdoing by the Greek authorities, based solely on the testimony of the police and coastguard.

 

Denials and resignations

Barely a few days after EAD had cleared the government, Nikos Androulakis revealed that according to the EU Parliament’s security experts, there had been an attempt to hack his phone with Predator. Under pressure for answers, EYP revealed in July that it had been spying on him under its “normal” procedure, for reasons of “national security”, during the time he was a candidate for PASOK’s leadership. This surveillance had taken place simultaneously with the attempted Predator attack.

 

Meanwhile, the two independent outlets, Inside Story and Reporters United, had persisted with their investigations, and through a series of stories had established that EYP and the Greek police services had been in the market for spyware in the past, and that Intellexa, the company that markets Predator, was active in Greece and was indirectly connected, through a web of corporate entities, with government contracts. The more recent of these reports, by Reporters United, also published in Efimerida ton Syntakton, indirectly tied some of these corporate entities to Grigoris Dimitriadis, the general secretary of the Prime Minister’s office.

 

Initially, Dimitriadis had defended his business activities as legal, and had denied any involvement with Predator or related corporate entities. After a few days, though, under the weight of the revelations, both Grigoris Dimitriadis and Panayiotis Kontoleon, the director of EYP, submitted their resignations. Dimitriadis, however, followed his resignation with lawsuits against Reporters United, Efimerida ton Syntakton and Thanasis Koukakis, demanding exorbitant sums for alleged defamation.

 

It is worth noting that during the four months since Inside Story’s revelation that Koukakis’s phone had been hacked with Predator, there has barely been a mention of the affair in Greek mainstream media, whose overwhelming pro-government bias we have analysed in a previous article. It has only been since Androulakis made the attempted Predator attack on his phone public that most mainstream media saw fit to cover the scandal to a limited degree — presumably because he is a centrist politician rather than an independent journalist.

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Image via Shutterstock/Alexandros Michailidis Library

Greece: The government must not cover up “Greek Watergate”

Greece: The government must not cover up “Greek Watergate”

Revelations about wiretapping and spyware surveillance of journalists underscore press freedom concerns.

 

By The Manifold, an investigative media outlet covering Greece

Despite mounting pressure, the Greek government is still refusing to provide substantive answers regarding the revelations that two journalists and an MEP and leader of an opposition party have been targeted for surveillance by EYP (the Greek Intelligence Service), as well as by yet unknown operators using the spyware “Predator”.

The affair concerns two distinct operations. The first is EYP’s spying on two journalists, Stavros Malichoudis, a reporter with independent outlet Solomon, and Thanasis Koukakis, a freelance journalist investigating banking and business stories; and also Nikos Androulakis, an MEP and leader of opposition party PASOK. These surveillance operations were carried out through EYP’s “normal” procedure for listening in on a target’s communications, following approval by a prosecutor. The second was the hacking of Koukakis’s and Androulakis’s mobile phones with Predator, a spyware tool that is able to access even encrypted services.

Although the surveillance of journalists and political opponents by state services hardly seems like the hallmark of democratic governance, the first procedure can be legal, not only for “national security” reasons, but also in cases of serious crime like drug smuggling or human trafficking. The legal framework in Greece, however, lacks any provision for technically supervising the use of spyware, which in practice makes it illegal.

No conclusive link between the two operations has been proven — yet. The fact, though, that they took place one right after the other (in the case of Koukakis) or simultaneously (in the case of Androulakis) raises reasonable suspicions that they are related. Further suspicions about both the use of spyware and the ostensibly legal procedure used against two journalists and a politician are raised not only by the Greek government’s handling of the affair, but also a number of key decisions it has made in the last three years.

Legislating against transparency

Soon after being elected in July 2019, the New Democracy government implemented new legislation in two crucial areas regarding the intelligence service: first, it brought it under the direct purview of the office of the prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis; second, it amended the required qualifications for the position of director of intelligence, so it could appoint the prime minister’s favourite, Panayiotis Kontoleon, who fell short of the previous criteria.

Less than two years later, in March 2021, it made another controversial move: it introduced a rushed legislative amendment, piggybacked on unrelated legislation, that changed the provisions which allowed citizens to be informed whether they had been under surveillance (provided such surveillance had been terminated), if their surveillance had taken place for reasons of “national security”. In other words, up to that point, ADAE (the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy) could, following permission from a prosecutor, inform a citizen who requested it that they had been under surveillance in the past, which meant that there was at least a theoretical possibility to seek redress in the courts, if one believed they had been targeted unfairly. Since the law changed, it is sufficient for EYP to claim reasons of “national security” and ADAE cannot divulge anything. What is more, the law applies retroactively, so all past surveillance is now effectively beyond scrutiny.

Members of the ADAE board, albeit in a non-official capacity, had protested at the time and had pointed out that such legislation contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights, as it practically deprives victims of illegal surveillance of access to due process. There is no indication that the government even considered their protests.

From migrants’ rights to Predator

In November 2021, Efimerida ton Syntakton, a prominent left-wing daily, published a report which revealed that EYP had targeted numerous individuals for surveillance, apparently without legitimate reason. Among them, there were participants in anti-vaccination rallies, but also a civil servant who supported migrant workers’ rights, a lawyer who defended an immigrant in court, and a journalist who was trying to locate an unaccompanied minor in a refugee camp.

When Stavros Malichoudis, the journalist in question, recognised himself in the report, Solomon, the independent website where he works, published a scathing article, asking: “In which system of government does the state record the movements of journalists?” No justification for the surveillance was ever made public.

In December 2021, in a seemingly unrelated development, two reports, one by Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto and one by Meta (Facebook’s parent company), pointed out the threat of Predator, a new spyware developed by so-called “cyber-mercenaries” of the global surveillance-for-hire industry. Predator closely resembles Pegasus, a similar spyware tool implicated in illegal hackings across the world since 2016.

The reports did not exactly rock the Greek mainstream media’s news cycle. However, one independent, investigative website, Inside Story, picked up on the fact that the reports mentioned the possibility of Predator “customers” in Greece. It followed up on the reports and published a story showing that a corporate structure had been established in Greece to market Predator, and also most disquietingly that dozens of fake urls had been created to resemble existent Greek webpages, in an apparent phishing set-up for potential Predator targets. Despite the obvious implications for the security of communications, there was no official response from competent authorities.

A private citizens’ affair

Inside Story’s next feature, however, in April 2022,  launched the torrent of revelations that have been termed the “Greek Watergate” — a title repeated by no less an authority on the matter than The Washington Post. It showed that investigative journalist Thanasis Koukakis’s phone, analysed by Citizen Lab, had been hacked with Predator, the first such confirmed case in Europe. It also showed that Koukakis, alerted by a source that his communications might have been monitored, had submitted a request to ADAE to be informed if he had been a surveillance target in the past. ADAE replied that “no event that contravenes relevant legislation has been noted”. Inside Story pointed out that the “relevant legislation”, which could have compelled ADAE to inform Koukakis of his surveillance, had been hastily amended.

The publication provoked the first reaction from the government, which amounted to no more than a dismissal: the government spokesman Yiannis Oikonomou simply said there should be an investigation if “one private citizen had another private citizen under surveillance”.

The “private citizen” argument, though, was immediately questioned when, a few days after Inside Story, another independent investigative website, Reporters United, published a report that proved that EYP had Koukakis under surveillance, citing “national security”, under its “normal” procedure, for three months in 2020. EYP broke off the surveillance on the very day that Koukakis filed his request with ADAE. His phone was hacked with Predator immediately after that.

The government neither confirmed nor denied the “normal” surveillance of Koukakis by EYP, following the same pattern it had established a year earlier with Malichoudis, but it continued to deny any involvement with Predator. Moreover, EAD (the National Transparency Authority, created by the New Democracy government), which had been tasked with investigating Koukakis’s phone hacking, issued a report absolving the government of any wrongdoing, although it failed to even consider important evidence. This is not the only time that EAD has been criticised for incomplete and pro-government investigations. Its report on illegal pushbacks of refugees had met with international ridicule when it found no wrongdoing by the Greek authorities, based solely on the testimony of the police and coastguard.

Denials and resignations

Barely a few days after EAD had cleared the government, Nikos Androulakis revealed that according to the EU Parliament’s security experts, there had been an attempt to hack his phone with Predator. Under pressure for answers, EYP revealed in July that it had been spying on him under its “normal” procedure, for reasons of “national security”, during the time he was a candidate for PASOK’s leadership. This surveillance had taken place simultaneously with the attempted Predator attack.

Meanwhile, the two independent outlets, Inside Story and Reporters United, had persisted with their investigations, and through a series of stories had established that EYP and the Greek police services had been in the market for spyware in the past, and that Intellexa, the company that markets Predator, was active in Greece and was indirectly connected, through a web of corporate entities, with government contracts. The more recent of these reports, by Reporters United, also published in Efimerida ton Syntakton, indirectly tied some of these corporate entities to Grigoris Dimitriadis, the general secretary of the Prime Minister’s office.

Initially, Dimitriadis had defended his business activities as legal, and had denied any involvement with Predator or related corporate entities. After a few days, though, under the weight of the revelations, both Grigoris Dimitriadis and Panayiotis Kontoleon, the director of EYP, submitted their resignations. Dimitriadis, however, followed his resignation with lawsuits against Reporters United, Efimerida ton Syntakton and Thanasis Koukakis, demanding exorbitant sums for alleged defamation.

It is worth noting that during the four months since Inside Story’s revelation that Koukakis’s phone had been hacked with Predator, there has barely been a mention of the affair in Greek mainstream media, whose overwhelming pro-government bias we have analysed in a previous article. It has only been since Androulakis made the attempted Predator attack on his phone public that most mainstream media saw fit to cover the scandal to a limited degree — presumably because he is a centrist politician rather than an independent journalist.

A televised smokescreen

The prime minister’s attempt to contain the scandal by giving a televised address to the nation failed to provide answers to pressing questions. Kyriakos Mitsotakis spoke only of the surveillance of Androulakis, which he said was legal, but “politically wrong”. Despite the EYP being under his personal purview, he said he did not know about it, and would never have allowed it if he did. Which begs the question: in what sense would the prime minister have prevented a legal action for political reasons?

The prime minister announced vague measures to bolster the transparency of EYP’s activities, “without hindering its mission”. But he said nothing about the legality of the surveillance of journalists — in fact he didn’t mention them at all — or about the free hand that “national security” had lent the intelligence service to monitor his political opponent. Above all, he said nothing about Predator, despite mounting evidence that the spyware hacks are not unrelated to EYP’s ostensibly legal procedures.

The government’s unwillingness to really uphold transparency is exacerbated by the fact that the investigation ordered by the Supreme Court prosecutor, Isidoros Doyiakos, concerns only the circumstances under which EYP’s classified activities became public, and not the legality of the activities themselves.

While the scandal is increasingly unnerving EU authorities and is being covered by media across the world, the government has reluctantly agreed to shorten the Parliament’s summer recess, in order to allow for a thorough parliamentary discussion.

Surveillance for reasons of “national security” in Greece has increased to 15,000 orders last year, according to ADAE’s records. In combination with the knowledge that at least some of these orders concern journalists, lawyers, pro-migrant rights activists and politicians, this staggering rise truly prompts the question if Greece is sliding back to its undemocratic past. Given the current government’s track record of withholding answers, it is no small consolation that independent journalists are still digging.

This article 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
Serbian flag Library

Serbia: Tendering process of national FTA TV licences must…

Serbia: Tendering process of national FTA TV licences must be open and transparent

Partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS) are concerned about the lack of a transparent process for the allocation of national free to air (FTA) TV licences in Serbia and of a Development Strategy for radio and audiovisual media services.

On 15 April 2022, Serbia’s Regulatory Electronic Media (REM) opened a tendering call for four national TV licences, which were reduced from the five frequencies previously available. We believe that the current allocation process lacks transparency. Broadcast frequencies are a limited resource that should be managed by an independent regulatory authority, through open, transparent and participatory processes that ensure that the use of spectrum contributes to media pluralism and diversity.  

 

According to Article 23 of Serbia’s Law on Electronic Media, REM should determine the number of national frequencies needed in the country following a seven years Development Strategy Proposal for radio and audiovisual media services. Although a draft strategy plan was put up for a public debate in 2015, the consultations lacked transparency and did not seem to include all the relevant stakeholders in the discussion. Currently, the deadline for submitting applications to the tendering process is 20th June and the REM is due to publish its decision no later than 4th August.

 

The allocation of frequency spectrum across all frequency users should follow an open and participatory decision making process, as reflected by the Principles on Freedom of Expression and Broadcasting Regulation, based on international freedom of expression standards. This process should lead to the adoption of a transparent plan for broadcasting frequencies, in order to promote their optimal use as a means of ensuring diversity and must be overseen by a body that is protected against political and commercial interference. 

 

The MFRR previously highlighted concerns over the highly politicised composition of REM. According to the 2021 MFRR mission report to Serbia, the latest changes to REM’s members only produced superficial results aimed at improving its image in the eyes of international partners, while REM’s decisions seem to be often disregarded and rarely implemented. In its 2021 Serbia progress report, the EU also urged Serbia to strengthen REM’s independence “to enable it to efficiently safeguard media pluralism”. According to the national media strategy action plan, amendments of the media laws, including REM’s role, are planned to be enacted in 2022.

 

The MFRR together with NUNS urge the REM to ensure a fair and transparent tendering process of FTA TV licences in Serbia, which must comply with national legal requirements and international freedom of expression standards, and whose outcomes must ensure a diverse and plural broadcasting media landscape in the country. Alongside the EU’s recommendation, we also call on a comprehensive plan to strengthen the independence of REM in the upcoming reform to national media laws. The undersigned organisations will continue monitoring this process and the forthcoming measures.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19 Europe 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists
  • Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS)
  • 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.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

Purchase of services for an external content evaluation of…

Purchase of services for an external content evaluation of MFRR-II

Location: Europe (flexible)

Deadline for applications: February 28, 2022

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) tracks, monitors and reacts to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. This project provides legal and practical support, public advocacy and information to protect journalists and media workers. The MFRR is organised by an alliance led by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) including ARTICLE 19, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Free Press Unlimited (FPU), the Institute for Applied Informatics at the University of Leipzig (InfAI), International Press Institute (IPI) and CCI/Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT). The project commenced in 2020 and is funded by the European Commission.

With funding from the European Commission, the current MFRR project period started at 4 May 2021 and runs until 3 May, 2022.

The final evaluation is scheduled to take place during the last two months of the project period, from March to April, 2022.

Terms of Reference

Background

The programme’s overall objective is to continue the implementation of the previously established Media Freedom Rapid Response mechanism within the European Union and Candidate Countries. The project is following the MFRR pilot project implementation in 2020.

The general objectives and expected results of the programme to be evaluated are:

  • Strengthen media freedom and media pluralism to foster open democratic debate.
  • Enhance protection and direct support of journalists, media workers and outlets under threat in Europe.
  • Rapidly respond to and prevent media freedom violations in Europe by appropriate intervention to mitigate consequences of deterioration of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.
  • Support and expand the media freedom community in Europe; stimulate collaboration, joint initiatives and new alliances amongst European, regional and local stakeholders.

A detailed list of the specific objectives can be provided on request.

The activities conducted under the programme consisted in design and managing a Europe-wide rapid response mechanism to support media freedom and journalists’ safety. With the following main pillars of the action: 1. Monitor the state of media freedom in the EU Member States and Candidate Countries. 2. Legal and practical support to journalists and other media practitioners in need. 3. Advocacy and awareness-raising in the field of media freedom and safety of journalists. 4. Awareness-raising campaigns. 5. Ensure communication and dissemination activities. 6. Monitoring and evaluating the action.

Objectives of the evaluation

An indicative list of the areas of assessment is provided below. The evaluation questions can be further refined by the provider carrying out the evaluation.

Relevance: Assess whether the funds from the European Commission contributed to the development and implementation of the Media Freedom Rapide Response across Europe.

  • To what extent did MFRR-2 achieve its overall objectives?
  • To what extent did MFRR-2 contribute to strengthening mediafreedom in Europe?
  • To what extent did MFRR-2 achieve the specific objectives?

Effectiveness: Assess whether the grant was implemented effectively and efficiently by the partners in the consortium to fulfil the planned deliverables, especially amid upheaval caused by the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

  • To what extent were the planned activities carried out and were these delivered within the planned budget and timetable?
  • Were risks properly identified and managed?
  • How effective was the programme’s design in the success of the project? (Elements of the programme’s design include the roles and responsibilities of consortium partners)

Impact: Assess the changes resulting from the programme (positive/negative, direct/indirect, intended/unintended).

  • What measurable impact, if any, did MFRR-2-supported investigations have on policy, public discourse or any specific outcomes?
  • How did MFRR-2 help to safeguard Media Freedom across the EU?
  • To what extent did MFRR-2 help build a clear picture of threats against Media Freedom in Europe?
  • To what extent has MFRR-2 supported media workers under threat in the EU?

Sustainability and replicability: Assess whether the impacts achieved through the programme are likely to be sustained after the current funding period and if they are replicable in other regions.

  • What are the prospects of the programme being sustained?
  • To what extent has government (EC) grants and private philanthropy been successful in contributing to the production of independent journalism in the public interest?
  • To what extent are the outputs of the project (i.e., supported investigations) likely to continue fostering debate across borders and result in progressive change?

Learning Review: Identify and expand upon lessons learned that have not been drawn in the sections above.

  • This section will cover any key areas that have not featured in the sections above and that may surface throughout the evaluation process.

Methodology and deliverables

The selected provider will:

  • Review all grant-related documents;
  • Assess the impact of the different activities implemented throughout the project implementation of MFRR-2;
  • Interview staff from the consortium organisations involved in the project, including project managers and senior management;
  • Interview a cross-section of MFRR-2 beneficiaries;
  • Other relevant activities.

All interviews with beneficiaries will remain confidential and anonymised. During all contacts with stakeholders, the independent evaluation provider will clearly identify themselves as independent consultants and not as an official representative of the consortium behind MFRR-2.

The consultant will provide one draft report (approximately 30 pages long) covering all areas noted in Section 2. It shall be submitted to ECPMF by May 15, 2021. The final report – which incorporates or has responded to any internal feedback provided on the draft version – should be submitted to ECPMF by May 30, 2022.

Eligibility criteria

The selected provider will need relevant subject knowledge and experience conducting journalism-related evaluations.

The independent evaluation provider must be strictly neutral, and they will not have had any involvement in the project prior to this activity, so as to avoid any potential conflict of interests.

Award criteria

Quality of the offer (60%), including:

  • Methodology proposed;
  • Previous experience in evaluating journalism-related projects/programmes;
  • Technical competence and experience in conducting evaluation from a distance/by video conference.

Financial offer (40%).

Eligible tenderers will be invited for an interview to discuss their credentials and proposed plan. All tenderers will be informed about the outcome of their submission by email.

Applications

Interested parties must provide a short proposal outlining their approach (two pages maximum). This should be accompanied by:

  • CV(s) of staff who will be involved in carrying out the evaluation;
  • A proposed methodology for carrying out the monitoring and evaluation;
  • Ideally, one example of an evaluation report recently completed in English.

Tenders shall be submitted by email only (with attachments) to the email address application@ecpmf.eu with the reference “MFRR-2 2021/22 evaluation”. Deadline for submission: February 28, 2022.

Interviews are tentatively scheduled to take place between March 5-10 and these will be conducted remotely to address COVID-19 related health and safety risks.

Other considerations

The assignment shall be conducted remotely, following all COVID-19 safety recommendations.

The maximum amount available for the evaluation of the project, covering all the deliverables to be achieved by the selected tenderer as listed above, is 15,000 Euros (incl. VAT). The allocated budget includes consultancy fees, and travel and subsistence if relevant and in line with COVID-19 safety rules, and translation costs, if any.

Peter R de Vries (composition + photo: DWDD) Library

Netherlands: Shocking attack on veteran crime reporter requires swift…

Netherlands: Shocking attack on veteran crime reporter requires swift action

The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) is appalled by the attack on veteran Dutch crime reporter Peter R. de Vries.

We call on the Dutch authorities to swiftly investigate and establish whether de Vries was targeted for his work as a journalist. The perpetrator(s) and mastermind(s) behind this horrific crime must be brought to justice without delay.

The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) is appalled by the attack on veteran Dutch crime reporter Peter R. de Vries.

We call on the Dutch authorities to swiftly investigate and establish whether de Vries was targeted for his work as a journalist. The perpetrator(s) and mastermind(s) behind this horrific crime must be brought to justice without delay.

De Vries is well-known for his investigative reporting on the Dutch underworld and has repeatedly received serious threats as a consequence of his work. On Tuesday evening, de Vries was gunned down on the street in Amsterdam by an unidentified attacker after appearing as a guest on TV show RTL Boulevard. He was taken to hospital in critical condition. As reported on national broadcaster NOS, five shots were fired and de Vries was shot in the head. 

Regardless of the motive, the attack on de Vries is a tragic event for Europe’s journalistic community. Without safety for journalists, there can be no free press. 

“We are shocked by the attempted murder of investigative crime reporter Peter de Vries in the Netherlands. The manner in which he was attacked reminds us of the murders of Ján Kuciak, Daphne Caruana Galizia and Giorgos Karaivaz. We have to face the fact that investigative journalists exposing the actions of organised crime are in constant danger. The state must protect them”,

says Lutz Kinkel, Managing Director of ECPMF.

“The King and the Prime Minister of the Netherlands rightly called this an attack on journalism, press freedom and the rule of law. Now we ask them to follow through with conducting a thorough investigation of the case. The Netherlands are a role model regarding press freedom. But the horrible attack on de Vries also makes clear that the protection of journalists must be improved.”

Peter R. de Vries (Photo: DWDD) Library

Dutch crime journalist fighting for life after being shot…

Dutch crime journalist fighting for life after being shot five times

The International Press Institute (IPI) today expressed horror at the shooting and serious wounding of Dutch journalist Peter R. de Vries in Amsterdam and urged authorities to do all they can to ensure that all those responsible for both carrying out and possibly ordering the hit do not escape impunity.

A veteran investigative journalist focusing who has long reported on the Dutch criminal underworld, de Vries was seriously wounded after being shot five times including once in the head in a broad daylight attack in downtown Amsterdam at 7.30pm on Tuesday.

The journalist was rushed to hospital and is currently fighting for his life. Three arrests have so far been made including the suspected gunman, though no motive has yet been suggested by police.

“The shooting of courageous crime journalist Peter R. de Vries is a direct attack on the country’s journalistic community, on the freedom of the press and on Dutch society and democracy as a whole”, IPI Deputy Director Scott Griffen said. “We express our full support and solidarity with Peter, his family and his colleague and we hope he pulls through and makes a full recovery.

“While no movie has yet been confirmed by police, all signs point to this being a targeted and calculated attack aimed at silencing de Vries’s journalistic work. To see yet another journalist who has spent their career fighting for justice and exposing criminal acts gunned down is shocking and disturbing, and another heart-breaking day for media freedom in the European Union.

“The reaction so far from the authorities in the Netherlands – immediate arrests, strong condemnation from the Prime Minster and engagement with the national security and terrorism agency – has been commendable. Yet while the swift arrests are welcome, as previous cases of such attacks on journalists within the EU have shown, arrests and prosecutions do not guarantee convictions. Authorities must take the utmost care to ensure all those who carried out and possible ordered this assassination attempt must be swiftly brought to justice.”

 

de Vries, 64, was gunned down at close distance on Lange Leidsedwars minutes after he left the studio of daily television programme RTL Boulevard, where he had just appeared as a guest. Witnesses at the scene heard five gunshots and found the journalist in a pool of blood.

During his career, de Vries had worked on numerous high-profile investigations into the criminal and drug underworld of the Netherlands. Previously had had reported for newspapers De Telegraaf and Algemeen Dagblad, where he investigated and helped police solve cold cases. For the last two decades he had also hosted his own televised crime show

The well-known reporter, who is also the director of a law office, had received numerous death threats in the past due to his work and had previously been under police protection. He has regularly appeared as a spokesman for victims or as a witness and two years ago, he posted on Twitter that he was on a “death list”.

On Wednesday, Amsterdam’s police chief confirmed that one of the suspects arrested was “probably” the suspected shooter. Two individuals were arrested while driving a car on the motorway and another in Amsterdam, following information from witnesses at the scene. No further information has been provided on the suspected motive of the attack.

Police have cordoned off the area of the shooting and are currently analysing forensic evidence and CCTV footage from the scene.