Committee Opinion | Doc. 14535 | 24 April 2018
The status of journalists in Europe
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
A. Conclusions of the committee
(open)![(1)
See also the report
by Ms Mailis Reps (Estonia, ALDE), Doc. 13943.](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
![(2)
See also the report
by Mr Pieter Omtzigt (Netherlands, EPP/CD), Doc. 13791.](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
B. Proposed amendments
(open)Amendment A (to the draft resolution)
At the end of paragraph 2, add the following sentence:
“However, the Assembly notes that technological changes have also had a positive impact on journalists’ work, in particular by facilitating research, communication and the creation of international networks and globally accessible databases with journalistic sources and works.”
Amendment B (to the draft resolution)
Replace paragraph 6.1 with the following paragraph:
“fully respect their obligations stemming from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards journalists and other media actors’ freedom of expression, and in particular their right not to reveal journalistic sources and their right to receive or impart information;”
Amendment C (to the draft resolution)
After paragraph 6.1, insert the following paragraph:
“take all necessary measures to strengthen the safety of journalists and other media actors, to stop any harassment (including of a judicial, administrative or financial nature) against them and put an end to impunity for attacks against them, notably by conducting effective investigations into killings and other offences against their physical integrity; in this respect, member States of the Council of Europe should implement the guidelines set out in the appendix to Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors;”
Amendment D (to the draft resolution)
Replace paragraph 6.2 with the following paragraph:
“6.2. review their domestic legislation on the status of journalists with a view to:
6.2.1. identifying any areas to be updated, taking recent technological and economic developments into account;
6.2.2. ensuring that such legislation protects journalists from arbitrary dismissal or reprisals and from precarious working conditions that may expose them to undue pressures obliging them to depart from accepted journalistic ethics and standards;
6.2.3. providing a legal definition of journalists wide enough to encompass all forms of contemporary journalistic work, including internet-based;
6.2.4. repealing disproportionally restrictive defamation laws and ensuring adequate procedural guarantees in libel proceedings brought against journalists;”
Amendment E (to the draft resolution)
In paragraph 6.5, replace the words “between workers and employees” with “between employees and freelancers, on one hand, and employers, on the other”.
Amendment F (to the draft resolution)
After paragraph 6.5, add the following paragraph:
“ensure that journalists’ right to freedom of association is respected, in particular as regards adhering to trade unions and journalists’ associations;”
Amendment G (to the draft resolution)
After paragraph 8, add the following paragraph:
“The Assembly calls on member States to support the Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists with adequate financial contributions and by co-operating in its functioning, in particular by responding to alerts and by engaging in follow-up initiated by the Secretary General.”
Amendment H (to the draft resolution)
After paragraph 8, the following paragraph:
“The Assembly strongly condemns the assassinations of journalists Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, Ján Kuciak in the Slovak Republic and Maxim Borodin in the Russian Federation. It calls on the Maltese and Slovak authorities to conduct effective investigations into these deaths, in line with the procedural guarantees stemming from Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
C. Explanatory memorandum by Ms Thorhildur Sunna Æversdóttir, rapporteur for opinion
(open)![(3)
Supra notes
3 and 4.](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
![(4)
As at 19 April 2018,
see <a href='https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom'>https://www.coe.int/en/web/media-freedom.</a>](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
![(5)
Page
35 of the report.](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
![(6)
Recommendation
CM/Rec(2016)4; see also Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7
on a new notion of media.](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
![(7)
Several jurisdictions
have recognised bloggers’ right to protection of their sources,
including the Irish High Court (Cornec v. Morrice and Others [2012]
IEHC 387, the New Zealand High Court (Slater v. Blomfield [2014]
NZHC 2221) and the California Court of Appeals (O’Grady v. Superior
Court (Apple), 139 Cal.App. 4th 1423). The NGO Article 19 believes that
bloggers “should be able to invoke the right to protect sources
in the same way as professional journalists”; see “The Right to
Blog: Policy Brief”, 2013.](/nw/images/icon_footnoteCall.png)
1. Explanatory notes
Amendment A (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims at focusing on the positive developments of the digital era for journalists. New technologies do not only pose a threat to the freedom of expression and the profession of journalism, but they also provide new opportunities. For example, journalistic research has become much easier, as a vast amount of information has become easily and immediately accessible. Moreover, journalists can communicate more easily with each other as well as with their sources. International networks for journalists and globally accessible databases with journalistic sources and works have become a reality and allow collective journalism on a whole new level (like, for example, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which has worked on the “Panama” and “Paradise Papers” and the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which disclosed the “Laundromat Affair”).
Amendment B (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims at slightly rephrasing paragraph 6.1 and
at separating the issue of the protection of journalistic sources from that of journalists
and other media actors’ safety (it is proposed to consider the latter in
a separate amendment, see Amendment C). On numerous occasions, the
European Court of Human Rights has stressed that the protection
of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press
freedom. The amendment also proposes to mention the “right to receive
or impart information”, which is crucial for journalists’ work.
Moreover,
it is also proposed to replace the word “media professionals” by
“journalists and other media actors”, as the draft resolution and
the report by Ms Drobinski-Weiss (see, in particular, its Section
2.1) are about “the status of journalists” and the proposed protections
should extend also to other relevant media actors, as is the case
under Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4.
Amendment C (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims at considering the issue of journalists and other media actors’ safety in a separate paragraph. Furthermore, it is proposed to stress the necessity of preventing any form of harassment against journalists (of a judicial, administrative or financial nature) and of conducting effective investigations into killings and other offences committed against their physical integrity. In this context, it is also worth recalling Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4. The appendix to this recommendation contains guidelines on what member States of the Council of Europe could do to ensure the safety of journalists and other media actors. The guidelines focus on four pillars: prevention, protection, prosecution (including a focus on fighting impunity) and promotion of information, education, and awareness-raising, and they offer detailed recommendations to member States on how to fulfil their relevant obligations within each pillar.
Amendment D (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims at adding additional considerations for member States when they review domestic legislation on the status of journalists. Therefore, it is proposed to keep the words “with a view to identifying any areas to be updated, taking recent technological and economic developments into account” and to insert them into a new paragraph.
Furthermore, in paragraph 6.2.2, it would be useful to stress
that when reviewing their legislation, member States should also
take into account the issue of protecting journalists from “arbitrary
dismissals or reprisals and from precarious working conditions that
may expose them to undue pressures obliging them to depart from accepted
journalistic ethics and standards”, as stressed in the guidelines
attached to Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4. The
issue of providing a stable legal framework for journalists’ work
has been examined at length in Ms Drobinski-Weiss’s report (see
Section 3.3) and deserves to be mentioned in the resolution. As stressed
in the above-mentioned 2017 report by the Secretary General, arbitrary
interference in the work of media professionals, licensing restrictions,
censorship or self-censorship also restrict media freedom.
As regards paragraph 6.2.3, the issue of defining the profession
of journalist constitutes the main subject matter of the report
(see in particular Sections 2.1 and 5.1). Although the rapporteur
does not strongly insist on this idea and stresses that the essence
of the profession lies in the tasks and not in the definition of
the profession, she considers that “… a legal definition of journalists
may be useful for protecting their rights (including the right to
keep their information sources secret) as well as for drawing a
clear distinction between a professional journalist and a blogger.
In countries where there is no legal definition of a journalist
it might be advisable for legislators to consider this matter”. Therefore,
in light of this proposal by the rapporteur, it would be useful
to mention it in the resolution and to recommend to certain member
States to give thought to a definition of “journalist”, which should
be wide enough to encompass all forms of journalistic work, including
internet-based (such as certain categories of bloggers, who often
have more readers than many traditional media, Ms Caruana Galizia
being
a tragic example).
Concerning paragraph 6.2.4, it is also proposed to repeal disproportionately restrictive defamation legislation. In some member States, including Azerbaijan and Iceland, criminal laws foresee prison sentences as a criminal sanction against defamation. Even if such laws are not always applied, they curtail freedom of expression. Moreover, in the event of libel proceedings, there should be sufficient procedural guarantees ensuring that journalists enjoy their right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5).
Amendment E (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims mainly at replacing the words “workers” (which is not appropriate in the context of journalists) by “employees and freelancers”. As explained in Ms Drobinski-Weiss’s report, due to the outsourcing of work contracts, the number of journalists who are forced to practise their profession as so-called “freelancers” has considerably increased. Despite the fact that their legal status differs from that of journalists employed under the provisions of labour law, they often work under the same conditions as full-time employees. This category of journalist should also be included in the dialogue with their “employers”.
Amendment F (to the draft resolution)
This amendment is aimed at adding a new paragraph to put emphasis on journalists’ right to association, as enshrined in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any attempt to try to define the status of this profession should take into account the existence of this right and the report by Drobinski-Weiss rightly focuses on the role of trade unions and/or professional organisations.
Amendment G (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims at recalling the existence of the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, launched in April 2015. The Assembly should call on member States to further support the Platform by providing financial contributions and co-operating with respect to its functioning, in particular by responding to alerts and by engaging in follow-up initiated by the Secretary General.
Amendment H (to the draft resolution)
This amendment aims at condemning the recent assassination
of Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, Ján Kuciak in the Slovak Republic
and Maxim Borodin in the Russian Federation and at calling on the
competent national authorities to conduct effective investigations
into their deaths. Recently, the Committee of Ministers has replied
to a written question by our colleague Mr Pieter Omtzigt (Netherlands,
EPP/CD) concerning the assassination of Ms Caruana Galizia. The
Committee of Ministers had twice received information on the ongoing
judicial investigations in Malta and it did not see “any reason
for taking additional measures”. It is “confident that the Maltese
authorities will continue to make appropriate use of all the means
and mechanisms in place both in the Council of Europe and at domestic
level and in full respect of the fundamental values and standards
of the Council of Europe”. In the meantime,
a large number of members of the Assembly, including myself, lodged
a motion for a resolution calling for the elucidation of the assassination
of Ms Caruana Galizia
and the Bureau decided to seize
our committee for report.
As the drafting of this
report might take some time, it is important to call again on the
Maltese authorities to ensure an effective investigation into the
journalist’s death. Moreover, it is also necessary to condemn the
assassination of Ján Kuciak, which took place on 21 February 2018,
and the recent assassination of Maxim Borodin and to call on the
authorities to conduct an effective investigation into these tragic
events.