2007 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Fourth part)

REPORT

Thirty-Fourth Sitting

Thursday 4 October 2007 at 10 a.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Bartumeu Cassany. I call Mr Herkel on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr HERKEL (Estonia). – First of all, I would like us to remember that we had our last specific report about media freedom in January this year: “Threats to the lives and freedom of expression of journalists”. The discussions were held in the sorrowful atmosphere of the murders of Hrant Dink in Turkey and Anna Politkovskaya in the Russian Federation. Then, several speakers emphasised that freedom of expression is the core business of our Parliamentary Assembly, and the topic of defamation cases misused against journalists is one that must be elaborated in the future. Therefore, the EPP Group is happy about this report and we strongly support the main ideas and conclusions of the rapporteur.

Certainly, slander and other forms of defamation are unacceptable, but they should not be in the Criminal Code. The rapporteur has given us an excellent overview about different legislative practice in member states. There are countries where defamation is not in the Criminal Code; there are countries were defamation is in the Criminal Code, even with prison sentences, but is never used against a free media; and there are some member states where defamation is under criminal procedure and criticism with regard to the authorities can easily be punished on basis of the defamation paragraphs.

Several cases are carefully studied in our several monitoring reports. The rapporteur emphasised the important legal case studies in the European Court of Human Rights. The aim of this report is more general, and it is not about particular case studies, but I would like to emphasise how important it is to elaborate particular case studies to prevent the further misuse of defamation laws.

It is very easy to open the website of Reporters Without Borders and see examples even from last week. For instance, the prosecutor in Hrodna, in Belarus, threatened two journalists with legal action for “bringing the international image of Belarus into disrepute”. In our member state, the Russian Federation, a Saratov-based newspaper was threatened with closure because of “insulting a state representative”. As regards Azerbaijan, I have specific defamation cases from last week. In 2007, there are 10 times more defamation cases against journalists than two years ago. The situation is getting very bad. Cases are brought not only against particular journalists but against media outlets, as well as the implementation of strong economic sanctions.

What should we do? The position of the EPP Group is that the best way is to harmonise legislation in member states and not to have criminal proceedings and prison sentences for defamation. At the same time, however, we must have a clear and exact concept of defamation. There are several different terms. Defamation is different from hate speech; all the terms must be very exact.

The best way to combat defamation is, of course, the truth. Media laws must provide people with the ability to answer, and civil proceedings must also be possible. Defamation cannot be used against the freedom of the media.