EFJ Statement: Italian journalists locked up by Romanian anti-vax…

EFJ statement on Italian journalists locked up by Romanian anti-vax senator

A reporter and her crew working for Italian public broadcaster RAI were held in a Bucharest police station for several hours on Monday 13 December after an anti-vax Romanian Senator sequestered during an interview in her office. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) condemns the attack on the RAI crew and the unjustified arrest of the journalists by the Romanian police.

Italian journalist Lucia Goracci and her crew were detained after the alleged attack by the husband of Senator Diana Iovanovici Sosoaca, after the Senator blocked the crew in her office.

During her interview by Lucia Goracci, the Romanian senator decided to block the TV crew in her office and called the police.

The tension culminated with the intervention of the police in Sosoaca’s office. The Italian journalists have accused the Romanian police officers not protecting them. They said they managed to leave Sosoaca’s office only due to the intervention of the Italian Embassy in Bucharest.

Lucia Goracci was searched and questioned by the Romanian policemen. The TV crew was allowed to leave the police station only after 8 hours.

Lucia Goracci filed a complaint with the 4th police station in Bucharest against Senator Diana Şoşoacă, claiming that she was sequestered in Sosoaca’s office and that the senator’s husband, Dumitru-Silvestru Şoşoacă, bit her hand.

Dumitru Silvestru Şoşoacă was heard at the Prosecutor’s Office, being also accused of attacking a police officer amid the incident with the Italian journalists. Silvestru Şoşoacă was placed under a judicial control of 60 days.

The Romanian Government issued a statement, strongly condemning “any act of intimidation of journalists or obstruction of the right to free information of citizens. (…) Prime Minister Nicolae-Ionel Ciuca considers this incident unacceptable and categorically rejects the manifestation of differences of opinion through violence”.

It seems that the anti-vax senator wanted to trap Italian journalists by making them look like troublemakers,” said EFJ General Secretary Ricardo Gutiérrez. “The Romanian police should have protected them instead of arresting them. We call on the Romanian authorities to investigate this incident fully in order to establish the responsibility of the senator, her husband, but also the police officers who intervened.

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.

Library

Malta: MFRR expresses concern at anonymisation of court judgements

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) together with Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has written to Prime Minister of Malta Dr. Robert Abela and Minister for Justice, Equality and Governance, Dr Edward Zammit Lewis to express concern about Legal Notice L.N. 456 of 2021 and the online publication of court judgements.

Dear Prime Minister Dr Robert Abela,

Dear Minister of Justice Dr Edward Zammit Lewis,

We write in relation to Legal Notice L.N. 456 of 2021 regarding the online publication of court judgments, which codifies a highly problematic existing practice in Malta. We are concerned by its conferral of unfettered discretion upon the Director-General of Courts to decide upon an application for the exercise of the right of erasure of personal data from a court judgment published on the website of the Court Services Agency. This enables arbitrary decision-making that damages the right to information, unduly hinders journalists’ reporting in the public interest and undermines the separation of powers.

The principle of publicity of court proceedings, including the verdict, as protected under European human rights law and extensively developed in the European Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence, is an essential means for realising the right to a fair trial and maintaining public confidence in the judiciary. In this regard, court reporting by journalists is crucial because it informs the public how justice is done. To fulfil this public interest role, journalists must be able to rely on a comprehensive record of fully published verdicts.

According to the Board of the Public Inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia:

There ought not only to be structures which guarantee adequate protection of the physical person but also by the State creating a favourable environment which allows [journalists] to exercise their profession in a secure and effective manner.

We recognise there may be legitimate reasons why certain judgments or parts thereof ought not to be public, for instance to protect the rights of minors among other things. However, we are highly concerned by this Legal Notice’s codification of the existing practice that bestows the Director-General of Courts, a non-judicial appointee without statutory autonomy who is appointed by and answers directly to the Minister of Justice, with full discretion to decide whether a judgment is partially anonymised or even removed from the public record altogether or never published in the first place. This now-codified practice calls into question the Maltese government’s commitment to transparency and the separation of powers.

Moreover, we consider it disingenuous to rely on the right to be forgotten as the motivation underlying this Legal Notice. This principle pertains to delisting from a commercial search engine, such as Google, under specific circumstances. This cannot be compared to the removal of personal data from an online service administered by the government that contains public records. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s attention for balancing this right to be forgotten with the need to ensure access to information that is in the public interest serves to further emphasise this point, particularly in relation to criminal records.

In light of these concerns, we urge you to rescind Legal Notice L.N. 456 of 2021.

Signed by:

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

Library

Video: How Hungary’s state media interviews Orbán (Telex)

Viktor Orbán ignores questions from independent news outlets. But he’s happy to speak to state-controlled media that lob softball questions his way, explains Telex.hu.

While Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán manages to avoid tough questions domestically, he has been dropping by Kossuth Radio almost every Friday to give an interview to one of the leading editors of the public media, which operates with an annual budget of 325 million euros of taxpayer money. In his third cycle with a two-thirds majority, Viktor Orbán fields questions almost exclusively from Katalin Nagy on the state radio station. The journalist, who was awarded the Knight’s Cross from the Hungarian Order of Merit, doesn’t hesitate to take advantage of these opportunities.

This piece is part of a content series on threats to independent media in Central Europe as part of a collaboration between IPI as part of the MFRR with leading independent media in the region.

Library

Serbia: MFRR welcomes renewed convictions for murder of Slavko…

Serbia: MFRR welcomes renewed convictions for murder of Slavko Ćuruvija

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today welcome the confirmed guilty verdicts handed down to four former officials in the Serbian state security services for the murder in 1999 of leading journalist and editor-in-chief Slavko Ćuruvija.

The decision by the Higher Court in Belgrade to reaffirm the convictions in the retrial is an important victory for the family and all those involved in the long fight for justice for his assassination and represents another important milestone in the fight against engrained impunity for the killing of journalists in Serbia, where journalists continue to face multiple threats, attacks and pressure.

Ćuruvija, an investigative reporter, owner of the Dnevni Telegraf newspaper and Evropljanin magazine, and a vocal opponent of authoritarian president Slobodan Milošević, was shot 14 times with an automatic pistol outside his house in Belgrade in April 1999. He was considered an enemy of the state for advocating in his journalism for the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.

After a seven-year trial, four former spies working for the State Security Department were convicted for the killing and each sentenced to between 20 and 30 years in prison, in a landmark ruling in April 2019. In July last year, the Special Department for Organized Crime of the Court of Appeals overturned the first-instance verdict and ordered a retrial over the naming of an unidentified individual as the gunman, prolonging a 22-year fight for justice.

The retrial, which began in October 2020, suffered from multiple disruptions during the pandemic. However, the Trial Chamber of the Special Court finally reached its decision on 2 December 2021 and again sentenced those responsible to a total of 100 years behind bars. Former spy chiefs Radomir Marković and Milan Radonjić were sentenced to 30 years. Accomplice Ratko Romić was given 20 and Miroslav Kurak, who remains on the run, received 20 years. The verdict ruled that the Ćurvija was killed by an unidentified person.

While these renewed convictions are welcome, the fight for justice is not yet over. In the event of a further legal challenge, we hope the Court of Appeal will confirm final guilty verdicts for all four defendants. Full justice in this case will never be achieved, as the top state officials who may have ultimately ordered the killing are long gone. These renewed convictions nonetheless offer another damning indictment of the Milošević regime, which in its verdict the court found to have orchestrated the politically motivated killing through its security apparatus.

The fight against impunity for killings and attacks on journalists is an integral element of the efforts to improve media freedom in Serbia. As the MFRR stressed in our report following a recent mission to Serbia, impunity for the gravest crimes continues to cast a long shadow over the country’s climate for safety of the press. Serbia remains one of the most dangerous countries in Europe to be a journalist. In the last few weeks, our organisations have observed with concern several attacks and threats against journalists in Serbia, including a death threat against investigative outlet KRIK and the beating of photojournalist Andrija Vukelic by supporters of the ruling Serbian Progressive Party.

This verdict in the case of Slavko Ćuruvija should therefore both act as a catalyst for authorities to redouble efforts to end impunity for the other unsolved killings of journalists since the break-up of former Yugoslavia – including Milan Pantić and Dada Vujasinovic – but also to work to establish an environment in which no other journalists face attacks because of their work.

Our organisations salute the work of the special prosecutor, the Commission for the Investigation of Murders of Journalists in Serbia and the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation, who have fought for so long to achieve justice in this case. In the event of an appeal, representatives from our organisations will seek to travel to Serbia to observe the trial in person.

Signed by:

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

Library

Serbia: Penal Code amendments require open and comprehensive debate

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS) and the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (YUCOM) express concern over the limited time and space available to openly debate various amendments of the Penal Code proposed by the Ministry of Justice of Serbia.

While well intentioned, the amendments are problematic from a freedom of expression perspective. Our civil society organisations call for a broader and open consultation that comprehensively integrates the implications of the amendments on the exercise of human rights in Serbia.

We recognise that journalists in Serbia face numerous threats to their physical safety and are often the target of harassment as a result of their work. Most of the latter take place online, especially on social media platforms, and are impacting on the activities of journalists and the independent media in Serbia.

While the lack of or an inconsistent approach to investigation of these forms of attacks should be addressed, the solutions proposed in the Penal Code amendments need further and open discussion aimed at preventing negative implications on the freedom of expression of journalists and other individuals participating in public debate in Serbia.

The proposed amendments are extremely broad, based on problematic concepts, including penalising expression of opinions and criminal sanctions for “insult” and similar concepts, which can ultimately lead to sanctions against journalists.

The MFRR supports the call of civil society in Serbia to the Ministry of Justice to further extend the public consultations and enable in depth discussion on the different measures and mechanisms that can effectively improve journalists’ safety while complying with international freedom of expression standards.

The Ministry of Justice opened a first 20 day consultation in October and extended a second period of consultations in November, which will close today, after the request of civil society. However, this timeframe and the apparent drive to expedite the consensus over the proposed amendments have impeded a comprehensive discussion of the underlying issues of both the safety of journalists and the changes in the Criminal Code.

The MFRR, IJAS and YUCOM urge the Ministry of Justice to take these concerns into consideration and enable more comprehensive and adequate consultations , ideally with a three month window, to enable wide discussion among all stakeholders. Finally, the signatories to this statement recommend that these amendments are examined and assessed as part of the regular process of the ongoing wider review of the Penal Code in Serbia.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS)
Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights in Serbia (YUCOM)

Library

Poland: Journalist’s criminal defamation conviction may impair freedom of…

Poland: Journalist’s criminal defamation conviction may impair freedom of expression

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) express deep concern over the recent judgement in the case brought by two judges in Poland in their private capacity against Polityka journalist Ewa Siedlecka, who was convicted of criminal defamation.

Amid the ongoing erosion of media freedom in Poland, we believe that this verdict sets a dangerous precedent which may further facilitate the attempts to muzzle critical media coverage on public officials in the country. The MFRR reiterates that the state should guarantee an enabling working environment for journalists in Poland in which they are able to report on vital, even controversial issues and raise difficult questions without a fear of legal harassment.

On 24 November 2021, the District Court for Warsaw-Śródmieście, convicted Siedlecka, a journalist of Polityka, a weekly news magazine, of criminal defamation in the case brought by two judges, Konrad Wytrykowski and Maciej Nawacki, acting in their private capacity. The court ordered the journalist to pay 5600 zł which consists of a fine, a compensation for both plaintiffs, a payment to the National Treasury and the cost of the trial. As the ruling was delivered by a court of first instance, the journalist may appeal the guilty verdict.

Siedlecka is one of the journalists who tackled in their reporting the issue of a so-called “hate campaign affair” that broke out in Poland in 2019. At that time, a journalistic investigation led by a digital media outlet Onet.pl revealed that the representatives of the Ministry of Justice, including deputy justice minister Lukasz Piebiak, orchestrated and coordinated a hate campaign aimed at several selected judges who openly opposed the controversial judiciary “reforms” pushed through by the ruling Law and Justice (PiS). The “reforms” – in particular, creation of the disciplinary chamber – form an essential part of plans to “overhaul the judiciary” and were found incompatible with EU law by the European Court of Justice. In response to the ruling, Poland indicated its intention to dismantle the disciplinary chamber in the foreseeable future.

Siedlecka referred to the details of the investigations carried out by journalists of Onet.pl in her Twitter and blog posts as well as in three articles published by Polityka. In one of the pieces, Ms. Siedlecka called Wytrykowski and Nawacki, two judges allegedly involved in the hate campaign – “haters”. As a result, Wyrzykowski, a member of the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court and Nawacki, of the National Council of the Judiciary, who were both promoted to their current positions due to personnel changes stemming from the controversial judiciary “reforms”, filed a defamation lawsuit against her with the initial demand for 20 thousand złoty compensation, 24 hours of community work, and imprisonment for four months. During the trial, the court dismissed the defence’s motions to find out whether the plaintiffs were members of the aforementioned “hate group” operating in the Ministry. The judge explained that “the trials under Art. 212 of the Penal Code regarding the journalists focus on assessing the credibility of a reporter, not investigating the truth”.

Siedlecka wasn’t present in the court while the judgement was delivered. She did, however, comment on the case and the decision online. “The verdict may be perceived as a restriction of freedom of speech”, she wrote in a short opinion piece published on her blog, noting that she “does not know the details of the justification” of the court’s decision. She calls herself “the first person convicted in the hate campaign affair”.

“I did not insult the plaintiffs, I did not mock them. I simply expressed my opinions. The plaintiffs are high officials, they must thus be prepared – which was repeatedly stated by, inter alia, The Court of Human Rights – to be a subject of criticism”, Ms. Siedlecka stressed in the comment.

The MFRR remains highly alarmed by the continuing deterioration of media freedom in Poland and multi-pronged attacks backed by the authorities aimed at stamping out critical voices. There is a justified fear that this verdict against Ewa Siedlecka might pave the way for a wider criminalisation of expressing an opinion based on information present in the public space. In addition, legal proceedings against a particular journalist may exert a major chilling effect on the journalistic community as a whole.

We have been observing the increasing use of defamation lawsuits targeting journalists that aim to dissuade them from reporting on a controversial story and drain them both psychologically and financially. We find the recent defamation conviction of Ewa Siedlecka deeply distressing, in particular given the fact that she mostly quoted the existing reporting and not formed accusations on her own. The MFRR stands in solidarity with the journalist and her inalienable right to express opinions, especially in regard to the activity of public officials.

Signed by:

ARTICLE 19
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
International Press Institute (IPI)
OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

Library

After Czech elections, new push for public media independence…

After Czech elections, new push for public media independence (HlídacíPes)

Vojtěch Berger, HlidaciPes.org

The nationalization of the Czech Television and the Czech Radio has not taken place yet. On the contrary, they are to receive a “vaccine” against political pressures, writes HlidaciPes.org.

Back in September, just before the parliamentary elections, then-Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš attacked Czech Television for allegedly “dividing society” during the pandemic. The far-right SPD movement spoke openly about its plan to nationalize both Czech Television and Czech Radio. However, after the elections, in which Babiš lost and the radical populists remained behind their own expectations, everything is (somewhat unexpectedly) different. After many years, there is a chance to cut the public media as much as possible from political influence.

MPs could get draft amendments to the acts on Czech Television and Czech Radio to be examined and scrutinized in the coming months. Senator David Smoljak is involved in their drafting, along with the Endowment for Independent Journalism and a non-profit organisation, Reconstruction of the State. The changes in the acts concern, in particular, how media councils, which in the Czech Republic serve as a “buffer” between political power and editorial independence of public-service media, are formed and elected.

“Firstly, they should strengthen the diversity of the Council, so that it is not elected by only one chamber of the Parliament, which has been the case so far, and thus it is not absolutely dependent on the current winner of the election. There is an emphasis on the competence of the councillors and on the reviewability of their decisions,” Smoljak lists the main objectives of the acts.

Smoljak spoke about the preparations for the amendments last year, but he assumed that the Parliament, in its then composition, would not approve such changes. The past year and a half showed the weaknesses of the current system of nominating and electing the members of the media councils. This is true for both the television and radio councils.

A significant number of the Czech Television Council members have been replaced in the last two years when, after last year’s election of six new members, another five out of a total of fifteen were to follow this year. The nominations of candidates, as well as the selection of the finalists, often noticeably correlated with the parliamentary voting alliance of the ruling ANO movement, the far-right SPD and the Communists.

This alliance often selected candidates without the necessary expertise, but with an openly hostile attitude towards, for example, the management of Czech Television. In the Television Council in particular, this led to the Council meetings becoming hours-long skirmishes between some of the councillors and the Director General, instead of the councillors addressing the control agenda that appertains to the Council members.

It was precisely because of the doubts about the competence of the candidates supported by the ANO government that this spring, the then-parliamentary opposition decided to block the election of four new members of the TV Council by obstructions, resulting in its being incomplete for several months.

Elections also interfered in the staffing of the media councils this year when some councillors themselves decided to run for Parliament. One of the councillors resigned because of this, while another councillor was removed. The act foresees that councillors are not to work for the benefit of any political party. However, the resignation/removal of two councillors has contributed to the vacancies in both of the councils, namely in a situation whereby the Parliament has been unable to elect new councils members due to the obstructions and the upcoming elections.

The aforementioned amendments to the Czech Television and Czech Radio acts therefore prefer to expressly ban councillors from running for political office. However, they bring about an even more fundamental change elsewhere: After twenty years, the acts change the very manner in which media councillors are recruited in the Czech Republic and who is allowed to nominate them and who elects them.

While today any social organization or association – even an absolutely marginal one or one that was founded briefly before the nomination – can send a candidate to the council, the amendment stipulates that the nominating organization would have to have at least a decade-long tradition. They would also have to have been active for a long time in one of an exhaustive list of fields, such as, in addition to the media, culture, trade unions, education, science and protection of human rights. According to the authors of the act, this is a safeguard to ensure that “only active entities, and not ‘shell companies’, nominate the candidates”.

The amendment also sets a minimum threshold of expertise for councillors themselves. They should have experience holding a senior position in public administration or a private company and be knowledgeable in fields such as economics, law or finance or management and, of course, the media.

“There was no political support for the German form of the act,” Senator Smoljak said on the examination and scrutiny of the amendment so far, referring to the way media councils are formed in Germany. What is common there is an enumeration of specific social organizations that are allowed to nominate candidates to the councils, for example churches or trade unions.

Another major change is the election of television and radio councillors, which is now entirely in the hands of the Chamber of Deputies. Under the new arrangements, half of the councillors would be chosen by the Chamber of Deputies and half by the Senate at each election. At the same time, the number of councillors would be reduced to 12 for the television council and to six for the radio council.

However, according to David Smoljak, this would also mean building both councils on a completely new basis. In other words: removing the existing councils, with their current members. “My view is, and not everyone agrees, that when this act comes into force, the existing council should end and a new one should be created because it is difficult to combine that,” Smoljak confirms.

But even if the media acts arrive to the Chamber of Deputies soon, it will probably take many months before the Chamber of Deputies discusses them. The aforementioned vacant positions on the Council of the Czech Television and one position on the Council of the Czech Radio will have to be filled much earlier. And even that could be a problem.

When the election committee of the Chamber of Deputies selected the 12 finalists – candidates for the Television Council – in the spring, some media experts failed to be selected, while open critics of the current management of the Czech Television got the green light. The then-opposition, which became the government majority after the October elections, resorted to the aforementioned obstructions and prevented the election.

The option now is for MPs to start the whole election once again. “Now the election committee has a new composition and the same applies to the whole Chamber of Deputies, so the process will have to be done again,” says Senator Smoljak. Petr Gazdík, the deputy chair of the STAN movement and a member of the election committee in the previous Chamber of Deputies, feels the same way: “In my opinion, nominations and selection should start from the beginning.”

However, representatives of the ANO movement, which led the election committee for the past eight years, disagree. “I don’t like it, but I can’t do anything about it, I have to respect it. I’m curious to see how the former ‘democratic opposition’ will behave now. Whether they outvote us by force and push through their 12 members in the committee,” said Martin Kolovratník, a deputy and member of the committee for ANO.

“In addition to the fact that it’s not all that fair, it also involves a risk that the same obstructions may occur which would replicate the previous obstructions. Looking at it this way, the council is actually unelectable forever,” said another ANO MP, Patrik Nacher, criticizing the announcement of new elections for the television council.

The amendments to the act on Czech Television and the act on Czech Radio, however, envisage other significant changes. Not only the decisions of the councillors themselves, but also their election or dismissal by the Parliament should be subject to judicial review. The review would be carried out by the Supreme Administrative Court.

In addition, the acts also address the issue of sustainable funding of Czech Television and Czech Radio. The Act on radio and television license fees proposes to insert a procedure for adjustment of fees so that they are automatically increased on a regular basis by the current inflation rate announced by the Czech National Bank for a specific calendar year.

The draft act is now undergoing final examination and Senator Smoljak claims that public service media “have priority”. Whether this will remain the case in light of all the gigantic problems awaiting the new government – from COVID-19 and the national debt to expensive energy – remains to be seen in the coming months.

This piece is part of a content series on threats to independent media in Central Europe in collaboration with leading independent media in the region. Read more.

Library

The shredding of the free press in Hungary (Telex)

Viktor Orbán’s takeover of the media didn’t come overnight. It’s been a long time in the making. Hungary’s Telex.hu traces the evolution of media capture.

For 30 years Viktor Orbán and his old political colleagues have held the view that the press is against them, that journalists always help their opponents. If Fidesz loses, they think, the power of the press has won. If Fidesz wins, it does so in spite of the media headwind. The same line was taken in Orbán’s 2019 governmental press conference— when he told members of the Hungarian and foreign press that more journalists were against him than for him, “but even in such circumstances it is possible to win” — as in the analysis of the 1994 election result, where Fidesz’s defeat was blamed on a media superiority stacked up against the party. However, the party did not always view the press this way.

In this article we look at the development of the Hungarian media over those 30 years. Today, Hungary is in a dismal 92nd position in the World Press Freedom Index, which is put together by Reporters without Borders (RSF). How did it reach the point where ownership of most of the Hungarian TV, radio, printed and internet media is in some way tied to the government and its politicians.

Read the full article on Telex.hu

This piece is published as part of a collaboration between IPI as part of the MFRR with Telex.hu as part of a content series on threats to independent media in Central Europe.

Library

MFRR to hold press freedom mission to Greece

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) will hold an online fact-finding mission to Greece in the first half of December to assess increasing concerns about media freedom and the safety of journalists in the country.

The online mission will be led by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) and implemented together with its partners in the MFRR and representatives from other international press freedom groups. The delegation will meet with a range of domestic stakeholders, including journalists and editors, journalists’ unions and associations, civil society and academics, and representatives of government and state institutions.

The aim of the mission is to better understand key developments and help develop solutions to the challenges media actors face. It will follow up on a host of recent concerns. These include primarily: the murder of veteran crime reporter Giorgos Karaivaz and the limited progress of the investigation into the crime; numerous attacks on journalists; interferences faced by reporters specialising in migration, including surveillance by state authorities; the impact of the recent changes to the criminal code regarding so-called “fake news”; and, problems with weak media pluralism.

A mission report with findings and recommendations will be published following the online fact-finding mission. Depending on travel restrictions and sanitary measures, an in-person advocacy mission is expected to follow in the first quarter of 2022.

The MFRR monitors violations of press and media freedom in the EU Member States and Candidate Countries and responds with practical and legal support and advocacy. Since the project’s start in March 2020, a number of similar missions have been organised to Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Spain and Slovenia.

Library

Poland: Journalist must not be jailed for refusing to…

Poland: Journalist must not be jailed for refusing to disclose source

MFRR urges district prosecutor to drop legal case. The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today call on the District Prosecutor’s Office in the Polish city of Gdansk to drop its legal case against Gazeta Wyborcza reporter Katarzyna Włodkowska and to respect the journalist’s right of source confidentiality protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.

If the prosecutor issues a second demand for Włodkowska to reveal the identity of her source for a report on the investigation into the assassination of the city’s mayor, and she refuses to comply, she could face a prison sentence of up to 30 days. The threat of imprisonment puts undue pressure on Wlodkowska and, beyond her, has a chilling effect on the journalistic community in Poland.

The unjustified demand for the disclosure of Włodkowska’s source stems from an article she published in Gazeta Wyborcza and its supplement Duży Format in January 2020, entitled “Killer of Paweł Adamowicz: I will sit for two years and leave“. The report, published on the first anniversary of the murder of the mayor, published a fragment of a letter written by the alleged killer while in detention in which he said he would face a milder sentencing because he had been assessed as criminally insane.

At the time, the initial investigation by a group of expert psychiatrists had concluded that the man, who is accused of fatally stabbing Adamowicz on stage at a Christmas charity event in December 2019, was mentally ill at the time, meaning he could not face criminal liability. The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party has claimed the liberal mayor’s killing was not premeditated and that the murder was instead the act of a mentally deranged individual.

Włodkowska’s reporting, and the information provided by an anonymous source with knowledge of the psychiatric assessment, presented a different version of events: that the assailant was fully conscious of his actions and had been planning the murder since December 2018. The report caused a scandal in Poland and led to significant media attention and criticism of the government. Since then, additional assessments have deemed the defendant mentally fit enough to stand trial and have suggested that his drive to murder Adamowicz may have been fuelled by reporting by the government-controlled state broadcaster, Telewizja Polska.

Following publication of the article, the Gdańsk prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation and Włodkowska was questioned. She declined to disclose her source, who believes their safety would be jeopardised if they were identified. After multiple failed attempts to pressure the journalist into revealing her contact, the prosecutor appealed to a court to try and force the disclosure. In January 2021, the Gdańsk district court sided with the prosecutor and ordered her to reveal the source. After multiple appeals, the verdict was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk on 15 October.

Two weeks later, the District Prosecutor’s Office again interrogated Włodkowska about the source. With the backing of her newspaper, she again refused to reveal the source’s identity, citing journalistic confidentiality. On 5 November, she was ordered to pay a fine of PLN 500 (€108), which she rejected. An appeal is currently underway. If the prosecutor again orders her to reveal the source, and she refuses for a second time, under the Polish criminal code she could be fined again and/or jailed for up to 30 days.

If this happens, Poland could become the only EU member state to have a journalist in prison for doing their job. The protection and confidentiality of journalists‘ sources is a fundamental element of press freedom. It allows the media to report on matters of public interest without fearing that confidential sources or whistleblowers will face retaliation, and helps ensure that people with information feel comfortable approaching reporters. It is also a right protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and repeatedly recognised by the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Exceptions to this rule are extremely rare and European jurisprudence is clear: such disclosure can only be justified if there is an overriding public interest for the source’s identity to be revealed.

Our firm assessment is that this case comes nowhere near the threshold required to force the disclosure of a journalistic source. Rather, this prosecution appears aimed at punishing a journalist working for the country’s biggest critical newspaper over a story which undermined the prosecutor’s office and damaged the credibility of the state’s probe into Paweł Adamowicz’s murder. If Włodkowska is jailed, it would have a chilling effect on the country’s entire journalistic community and lead to a further deterioration in Poland’s standing on the freedom of the media. We urge the district prosecutor to drop the legal case immediately.

Our organisations stand in solidarity with Katarzyna Włodkowska. If she is arrested for upholding basic journalistic ethics and refuses to disclose her source, we stand ready to support Gazeta Wyborcza with further legal appeals, including taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In the meantime, we urge international human rights bodies and the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights to intervene immediately to ensure Włodkowska is not jailed for doing her job.