The Coalition for Media Freedom expresses concern over the first-instance verdict against KRIK, which accepted the plaintiff’s claim for a text in which they announced that multiple SLAPP lawsuits had been filed against the newsroom, including one filed by the leaders of the police Witness Protection Unit.

The Coalition points out that the freedom of expression of journalists is threatened by this verdict, as the verdict now limits their reporting on the proceedings against them. The Coalition believes that with such a verdict, the state is interfering with freedom of expression and is putting pressure on the media not to announce that proceedings are being conducted against them.

At the same time, the Coalition believes that the public’s interest could be harmed by this verdict, because if this verdict became legally binding, then the public would be deprived of information because the first-instance verdict ordered KRIK to remove the text.

In the disputed text, KRIK stated its position that a dozen lawsuits are pending against them, which are of a SLAPP nature, i.e. lawsuits filed in order to put pressure on the media in various ways. The judge considered this to be a SLAPP lawsuit, stating in the ruling that the Constitution provides that “everyone has the right to judicial protection.”

The Coalition for Media Freedom consists of the Association of Media, the Association of Online Media (AOM), the Independent Association of Journalists of Vojvodina (NDNV), the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS), the Business Association of the Association of Local and Independent Media “Local Press” and the Slavko Curuvija Foundation. 

Following today’s acquittal of the suspected mastermind in the killing of Slovak journalist Ján Kuciak, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) joined the undersigned international media freedom organisations in expressing our profound disappointment, renewing our calls for justice and conveying our steadfast solidarity with the families of Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová.

This acquittal of businessman Marian Kočner, which was announced earlier today following a retrial at the Specialized Criminal Court, represents another devastating blow to the fight for full justice for Ján and Martina’s killing. The judges voted 2:1 to find Kočner not guilty of ordering the 2018 assassination.

The judges did convict Alena Zsuzsová, a close associate of Kočner, of ordering the hit and sentenced her to 25 years in prison. She was also convicted of ordering the murder of two Slovak prosecutors. Both her and Kočner’s verdicts, which come after the Supreme Court revoked the initial acquittals in June 2021, can be appealed.

Kuciak and Kušnírová were shot dead in their home outside Bratislava on 21 February 2018. Judges again ruled that prosecutors had not presented the concrete evidence necessary to rule beyond reasonable doubt that Kočner – a businessman with links to Slovakia’s political, judicial and security elite – had ordered the journalist’s death. Both he and Zsuzsová are currently serving lengthy sentences for other crimes.

Our first thoughts go to Ján and Martina’s families, who have endured years of painful court hearings and who have yet again been denied full justice and accountability. We share their intense frustration regarding Kočner’s verdict and stand in full solidarity with the couple’s family, loved ones and colleagues at this difficult time.

This repeated failure to secure the conviction of the suspected mastermind is another damaging setback in the fight against impunity for the murder of journalists in Slovakia, and in Europe. This case follows an all-too-common pattern in which the hitmen and facilitators involved in such crimes are put behind bars while the suspected masterminds who ordered the murder evade justice.

Another acquittal for the most serious crime against journalism in Slovakia’s modern history also has worrying implications for the fragile media freedom progress made within the country in recent years. As we process this disappointing setback, we remain as committed as ever to securing full justice for Ján and Martina and will support the families during the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Those who order the killing of a journalist cannot be allowed to act with impunity. The fight for justice will continue.

Signed:

• ARTICLE 19 Europe
• Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
• European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
• European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
• Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
• International Press Institute (IPI)
• OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
• Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

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

A session of the parliamentary Committee on Media was held at the request of opposition members due to an interview with former HRT journalist Dragan Nikolić, who told the Istra24 portal that his documentary “Russian Wall” was removed from prime time on HTV1 in spring 2016, and after “compromise” processing, it was aired on HTV4, reported Hina.

According to Nikolić, the first case of censorship of foreign policy content at HRT occurred after the current editorial staff took over the News and Current Affairs Service (IMS) of HRT.

The President of the Croatian Journalists’ Association (CJA), Hrvoje Zovko, stated that it is incredible that three judgments of Croatian courts, including a judgment in a case initiated by HRT against him for statements about censorship at HRT, have been ignored. He also quoted the judgment in that case.

“The court considered the statements of witnesses and the defendant to be directly convincing and sincere, and based on them, it determined that the working atmosphere and environment at the plaintiff’s (HRT’s) premises in the period preceding the defendant’s controversial statements were such that they could lead to the conclusion of a certain degree of restriction of employees in expressing and exchanging opinions and ideas,” Zovko said.

He also mentioned statements from HRT officials that it is not censorship but editorial policy, or “program corrections.” Zovko reminded of testimonies about censorship at HRT published in a network campaign by the CJA and the Croatian Journalists’ Union during the “HRT for Everyone, Not Just Them” campaign in late 2021.

HRT Director General Robert Šveb said that HRT has been frequently accused of censorship for many years, emphasizing that no accusation has been proven in court. “There is no censorship at HRT, nor has HRT ever been sued or sued for censorship,” Šveb said.

He added that HRT has a clearly defined procedure for reporting censorship led by the Ethics Committee, and in the last ten years, only three reports have been received, the latest in 2023, from former HRT journalist Marko Stričević, due to an unpublished comment on the war in Ukraine in Dnevnik 3.

Minister of Culture and Media Nina Obuljen Koržinek said she was not satisfied with the way the session was convened and attended to express disagreement with what she sees as a repeated “political attack on HRT orchestrated by the united opposition.”

She also stated that she has been advocating for the independence of HRT and defending journalists and editors from political pressure for years, and she wants to continue doing so. Addressing the proposers of the discussion on censorship at HRT, she said that their claims of “court-confirmed censorship” would be defined as fake news by an independent fact-checker.

“This is a notorious lie. No one has been definitively convicted of censorship,” the minister said, concluding that facts should be adhered to.

After hours of debate on censorship at HRT, Mirela Ahmetović (SDP) proposed a conclusion stating that there is “reasonable suspicion of the existence of censorship and self-censorship at HRT,” and the Director-General was asked to submit a report within 90 days on the number of received reports of censorship and self-censorship and the measures to be taken. However, the proposed conclusion was rejected by the majority of Committee members.

Source: Hina and telegram.hr.

The Nova.rs portal said on Tuesday that pro-regime Belgrade tabloid Informer reported that staff at a Belgrade think-tank are among the sources for an investigative report by the London Guardian three days before the story was published.

Informer said that staff at the Belgrade Center for Security Policy (BCSP) were among the sources for the Guardian story that called Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic a populist and pro-Kremlin authoritarian.

Nova.rs said that the question now is whether the Guardian journalists who worked on the story were under surveillance.

Informer’s story titled “Serbian NGO Haters Preparing Attack on President Vucic” said that the Guardian was writing what it called an extremely negative story about Vucic and events in Serbia, naming the BCSP and Bureau for Social Research (BIRODI) as sources.

Nova.rs said that the tabloid often takes Vucic’s side in defense from alleged attacks but unusually this time it published the names of sources days before the Guardian story was published.

The BCSP asked how Informer learned that one of its researchers was talking to the Guardian, whether the British reporters and NGO staff were under surveillance and whether the authorities would react to protect the NGOs.

BCSP International Advisory Committee President Srdjan Cvijic told the portal that he has no idea how Informer learned who the Guardian reporters would be talking to.

“If we knew, the question would not be raised. The authorities should investigate whether there was any illegal surveillance of journalists or our researchers who were interviewed for the story. We know who the competent authorities are – the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA), police, prosecutors,” Cvijic said.

Opposition parties that organized the recent Serbian Against Violence protest also raised the question of possible surveillance. Their suspicions were aroused by President Aleksandar Vucic’s statement that the opposition would block the Gazela bridge. That possibility was raised as a suggestion at a protest organizers’ meeting a day earlier.

Croatia supports the adoption of the Media Freedom Act in the EU, as it can significantly contribute to strengthening professional journalism, media freedoms, and combating disinformation, said Croatian Minister of Culture and Media Nina Obuljen Koržinek in Brussels on Tuesday.

At the meeting of culture ministers of EU member states, the Swedish presidency of the Council of the EU presented a progress report on aligning positions on the Media Freedom Act, proposed by the Commission in September last year.

“Our position is that such an act is necessary. I believe it has the potential to contribute to what is important, namely strengthening professional journalism, enhancing media freedoms in the digital market, and combating disinformation,” Minister Obuljen Koržinek said after the meeting.

On September 16 last year, the European Commission proposed the Media Freedom Act to protect media pluralism and independence, prevent excessive ownership concentration, ensure transparency of ownership, and provide stable funding for public media, which must not become party propaganda channels. The Commission proposed a regulation containing a set of rules to protect media pluralism and independence in the EU. The proposed regulation includes protective measures against political interference in editorial decisions and oversight.

It emphasizes the independence and stable funding of public service media, as well as transparency of media ownership and distribution of state advertising. Measures are also proposed to protect the independence of editors and disclose conflicts of interest. The proposal also addresses media concentration issues and proposes the establishment of a new independent European Board of Media Services, consisting of national media authorities.

Minister Obuljen Koržinek said that some member states have certain dilemmas regarding the jurisdiction of this Media Services Board, which should involve all regulators and will itself have certain powers. “There is some doubt about the influence the Commission will have in this Board. However, I think everyone has expressed a view that we will continue to work on this text, that it is necessary, and that consensus must be found,” the minister said. The draft regulation on media freedom is being considered by the Council Working Group on Audiovisual Policy and Media.

The aim is to reach agreement on the negotiating mandate in September or October 2023. Co-legislators, the Council, and the Parliament, share the common goal of reaching a general agreement on this regulation before the upcoming European elections in May 2024.

The International Press Institute (IPI), the Balkan Free Media Initiative (BFMI) and the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (IJAS) called on European institutions to make it clear that Serbia risks losing access to pre-accession funds if the media situation in the country continues to deteriorate.

The three organizations expressed “deep concern” over the findings on media freedom and freedom of expression in the European Parliament’s Report on Serbia 2022, which MEPs adopted last week.

“Free media, and thus functional democracy, are in increasing danger in Serbia.” We welcome the strong formulation of the European Parliament, but we believe that more must be done in order to protect the rights and freedoms of Serbian journalists and the media,” it is said.

IPI, BFMI and IJAS state that Serbia, as a candidate country for EU membership, must adhere to the principles and policies of the Union, and point out that “democracy and the rule of law are currently under threat”, that “free media are of vital importance for preserving those fundamental rights” and that “their protection must be ensured”.

The findings of the European Parliament and Rapporteur Vladimír Bilčík, based on the European Commission report from October 2022, are damning and record that no progress has been made in the past year across all 33 negotiations chapters, including the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.

Expressing concern over the crisis faced by independent journalism and media freedom in Serbia, the three organizations remind that Serbia fell by 12 positions, from 79th to 91st place, according to Reporters Without Borders’ latest World Press Freedom Index.

IPI, BFMI and IJAS also point to the statement of several international organizations for freedom of the press, published during the recent visit of their representatives to Belgrade, in which it was pointed out that “no tangible progress has been achieved in the matter of media freedom, despite positive developments”.

The European Parliament report finds that activists, journalists and media outlets face pressure, intimidation, harassment, hate speech and attacks in Serbia. Meanwhile, the wider media market is distorted by a lack of transparency of media ownership and state financing. The report also urges the government to ensure the independence of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM).

Furthermore, the report makes clear that Serbia has become a hub for pro-Russian disinformation and anti-EU rhetoric since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The report states this is the result of “long-standing anti-EU/pro-Russian political rhetoric widely spread via government-controlled media as well as by government officials.”, according to IPI, BFMI and IJAS.