Serious concerns, objections, and accusations of unconstitutional provisions were raised on Thursday before the Parliamentary Committee on Internal Affairs, during the debate on the harmonization bill presented by the Ministry of the Interior, regarding the establishment of a common framework for media services, as required by the European Regulation on Media Freedom.
The Cyprus Journalists’ Union and the Journalistic Ethics Committee pointed out that the bill does not transpose into national law the provisions of the European regulation on the protection of journalists’ workand ensuring media pluralism. Statements from media outlets and news organizations echoed this sentiment, with some even pointing to provisions that appear, at first glance, to be unconstitutional.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The Committee Chair and AKEL Member of Parliament, Aristos Damianou, called on the Ministry of the Interior to reconsider the bill’s form before it is submitted for article-by-article debate, with the Ministry responding that, in its current form, the bill meets the minimum requirements and serves as a sound basis for the immediate transposition of the regulation into national law.
In this context, it was decided to proceed with the article-by-article debate on the bill once the submission of written comments by all relevant stakeholders has been completed, for which a two-week deadline has been set.
Furthermore, the Committee’s discussion also addressed the assignment of responsibilities for implementing the bill to the Authority for Radio, Television, and Digital Services, as well as to the Press and Information Office (PIO), with representatives from both agencies expressing reservations about whether they would be able to cope if they did not receive additional support and if their staffing levels were not increased.
The Director of the Authority, Eirini Loizidou Nikolaidou, highlighted before the Committee the problems that will arise regarding the Authority’s ability to fulfill all the new duties it has been entrusted with, as a supervisory authority, and noted that memoranda have already been submitted to the Ministry of Finance, via the Ministry of the Interior, requesting further strengthening and staffing of the Authority, taking into account all relevant bills that assign supervisory responsibilities to it.
The Ministry of the Interior stated that there is an intention to further staff the Authority. The Committee Chair emphasized that it would be unacceptable to pass the bill and then, only afterward, proceed with staffing the Authority that is expected to oversee its implementation.
The President of the Journalists’ Union, George Fragos, expressed his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the bill was submitted to the Committee. He argued that the bill “lacks substance,” a remark that drew a reaction from Mr. Damianos, who countered by saying that there had been no delay on the part of the Parliament, since the bill was placed on the agenda as a priority after Parliament resumed its sessions.
Mr. Fragos referred to the bill as “ – Frankenstein,” while pointing out that, rather than the bill’s provisions addressing the protection of media independence, it primarily promotes a framework for controlling the media, noting that these provisions blatantly violate the principle of media self-regulation.
He added, moreover, that the powers granted by the bill to the Radio and Television Authority and the General Secretariat for Public Information to impose fines on the media are inconsistent with the principle of self-regulation. Referring also to the provisions regarding the lifting of communications secrecy, Mr. Fragos noted that the constitutional provisions on this matter are sufficient.
Finally, the President of the Journalists’ Union warned that if the bill is passed in its current form, will provoke an outcry at the European level as well, noting that the Union of Journalists has already informed the corresponding European federation.
At the same time, he noted that the press law remains incomplete, outdated, and ineffective on many issues, with the result that the journalistic profession remains unprotected, and lacking provisions for the operation of media outlets on radio and the internet.
For her part, the Chair of the Journalism Ethics Committee, Elli Kotziamani, emphasized that what is needed is not merely a punitive law that will be shelved or exploited to violate freedom of the press, but rather that the goal is to establish protective mechanisms—something which, as she pointed out, is not being pursued at all.
He explained that the European regulation specifically defines the role of the regulatory bodies established to implement its provisions, so that they serve as a bulwark against external interference in the media, noting that this is not reflected in the bill.
Ms. Kotziamani raised the issue of explicit guarantees that no authority or agency will be able to exercise control over journalistic content, and that the principle of self-regulation be clearly safeguarded.
The Ministry of Justice noted that regarding the confidentiality of communications—which applies to all individuals and not just the media— existing legislation more than adequately covers the provisions of the regulation, with the Committee Chair expressing satisfaction with this position, recalling the attempts that had been made to amend the Constitution in order to change the rules governing the lifting of confidentiality.
Konstantinos Daltas spoke on the aspects of the bill pertaining to advertising issues, on behalf of the Association of Advertising Services and Communications Agencies and the Advertising Control Authority, emphasizing the need to ensure a level playing field in the allocation of advertising funds from state coffers. He said that the terms of the tenders for advertising packages should be clearly defined, using objective criteria and taking into account the quality-price ratio rather than just the lowest price. He added that mandatory scrutiny of the lowest bids should be required.
For their part, representatives of news organizations unanimously expressed concern about safeguarding pluralism and the independence of the media.
On behalf of the Cyprus Internet Publishers Association, Dimitris Dimitriou took a positive stance on the principle of the bill, to the extent that it would promote media independence, transparency, and pluralism.
At the same time, he highlighted the need for clear and objective criteria for the allocation of government advertising, for a clear delineation of the regulatory authority’s powers with guarantees of independence, for editorial freedom and the protection of journalistic sources, as well as for transparency and the independence of the media.
On behalf of the Publishers’ Association, Christos Lottidis spoke of violations of the Constitution that are glaringly obvious at first glance in the bill’s provisions, which, as he said, the journalistic profession, with the Committee Chair agreeing with the observation regarding unconstitutionality.
Concerns were also raised by representatives of the organizations Sigma, Alpha, Antenna, and Omega. It was pointed out that there is a contradiction in the fact that a harmonization bill concerning the media is being discussed, while the revision of the Press Law—which defines the subject matter covered by the bill in question—has not moved forward. Concerns were also raised regarding the protection of journalistic sources, due to provisions for lifting the confidentiality of communications.
Furthermore, Nicolas Karydis, speaking on behalf of the Cyprus Media Institute, noted that the intent of European regulations is to establish a minimum framework and protect journalists, while expressing concern that the bill might be viewed by the government as a substitute for the need to update the Press Law.
In the same vein, Christoforos Christoforou, Head of the Media Pluralism Monitor Project, pointed out that the bill lacks a framework for protecting media independence and ensuring pluralism. He added that it is unclear which entities the law in question will protect in the Republic of Cyprus.
He identified as a particularly negative development the fact that the media and journalists are, under the law, subject to criminal prosecution, while also noting that Cyprus ranks third from the bottom in the European Commission’s pluralism assessments this year.
Furthermore, the Director of the Cyprus News Agency, Dinos Foinikarides, recalled that “we had participated in the initial consultation and had expressed reservations about two points.”
One of these points, he said, concerns Article 4. This specific article pertains to the lifting of telephone confidentiality, “about which we still have reservations,” he told the Committee. The other point, he added, concerns the article on criminal liability for the boards of directors and officials of quasi-governmental organizations.
“We were pleased to see that criminal liability was removed and that Article 6 includes a provision regarding the independence of the boards of directors of public-law organizations,” Mr. Foinikaridis further noted.
He also said that they requested an extension of a few days so that the Organization could resubmit a written memorandum to the Committee.
For its part, the Bar Association emphasized that protecting the independence of the media and journalists is a priority, as well as the need to ensure that the supervisory authorities proposed by the bill are capable of carrying out their duties.
In remarks following the meeting, the Committee Chair and AKEL Member of Parliament, Aristos Damianou, expressed regret that the government’s proposal “does not fairly address the issues it is intended to address,” but also “tends to violate constitutionally guaranteed rights—not only those of journalists but also of the media more broadly. And, therefore, of society as well.” She also stated the Committee’s intention to review all the briefs it has received in order to present to the Plenary, “if possible, a proposal that reflects democracy in our country and nothing else.”
DISY MP Nikoletta Konstantinou stated in her remarks that “emphasis cannot be placed on regulatory powers and sanctions without a corresponding emphasis on guarantees for the independence of the media and journalists.” She also expressed concern about the Radio and Television Authority’s ability to fulfill the new responsibilities assigned to it and added that it should be strengthened in terms of personnel, resources, and technical support. “We want a legislative framework that effectively protects freedom of the press and can be implemented effectively,” he concluded.
ELAM MP Andreas Papacharalambous pointed out that the European regulation on media freedom should not be a mere formal legal obligation, but a substantive achievement of the rule of law. He referred to the blatant violations of the Constitution, as well as the gaps and shortcomings that, at first glance, appear to exist in the proposed bill. Finally, he said that the goal is to ensure transparency in the ownership structure of private broadcast media, the fair and transparent allocation of government advertising, and the substantive independence of public broadcasting.
Source: CNA
