Slapped down: Six journalists on the legal efforts to silence them

01 Dec 20

Introduction

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps) are a form of legal harassment used to intimidate and ultimately silence those that speak out in the public interest. Index on Censorship’s research and analysis focuses specifically on Slapps against journalists, but activists, academics, and civil society organisations are also among those affected.

Slapps take many forms, but the most common is civil defamation. According to George Pring and Penelope Canan, American academics who coined the term Slapp in the 1990s, “accusations are just the window dressing”. This is because Slapps tend to lack legal merit and usually end up being dismissed once the facts of the case have been presented in court. This would be good news – but a judge’s decision is not the issue. The amount of time, energy, and money involved in even getting before a judge is vast and can be prohibitive, especially in cases where an individual (as opposed to an organisation) has to foot the bill for their own legal defence.

This means that just the threat of a Slapp can be intimidating enough for a journalist to feel that they should discontinue their research or reporting, or to remove their report from circulation if it has already been published. This is true even though the information is in the public interest and the journalist can prove that it is accurate.

In order to make the Slapp as intimidating as possible, journalists may be told they could be liable to pay vast amounts of money if they publish their story or if they refuse to remove the story if it has already been published. Financial gain, however, is never the aim of a Slapp. Most Slapp plaintiffs (the individuals who start the lawsuit) tend to be wealthy or powerful businesspeople or political figures. Disparity of power and resources is a hallmark of a Slapp.

Journalists facing Slapps are also more likely to be sued individually, even if they are employed with news organisations. This is done in an attempt to isolate them and deprive them of being automatically entitled to the support of their organisations.

In order to make the process as punishing as possible, plaintiffs may try to drag out the legal action. This is done in order to drain journalists of as much time, money, and energy as possible in the hope that they will give up on their reporting. Plaintiffs may also try to file multiple lawsuits in an attempt to ‘bury’ the journalist in litigation. In early 2017, one businessman filed nineteen defamation lawsuits against Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia all at once.

In some cases, plaintiffs may seek to bring cases in jurisdictions that are seen as more plaintiff-friendly. The UK is widely seen as one such jurisdiction. According to research conducted by the Foreign Policy Centre, most of the legal letters received by Europe-based journalists were sent by law firms in the journalists’ own countries (80%), but 31% had been sent by law firms in the UK.

How common are Slapps? The same survey found that 73% of investigative journalists in Europe had received legal communication as a result of information they had published. Most of these (71%) had come from corporations or other business entities. Research carried out by Index on Censorship suggests that they are becoming increasingly common.

Yet, because Slapps are usually communicated to journalists through legal letters marked ‘private and confidential’, they are rarely brought to light. This report is an attempt to bring the practice into the open. Six journalists from Finland, Estonia, Italy and Cyprus recount their experience of facing lawsuits after having published public interest investigations. (Note that these case studies bear the hallmarks of  Slapp cases but we make no comment on the bona fides or legal merits of the cases themselves.)

A cross-border investigation in Estonia and Finland

Estonian journalists Mihkel Kärmas and Anna Pihl work on Pealtnägija (Eyewitness), an investigative programme on the Estonian national broadcaster, ERR. “We’re like the Estonian 60 minutes, meaning that we do investigative stories but human interest stories also. We’re on every Wednesday for 45 minutes,” explained Kärmas.

In 2018, after having been contacted by two journalists in Finland, Kärmas and Pihl began working on a new investigation. One part of their investigation focused on the alleged criminal activities of individuals linked to a Finnish non-profit agency in Estonia, particularly the transfer of hundreds of thousands of euro from an Estonian shell company. These individuals are the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation in Finland. The case was also briefly investigated in Estonia before the materials were turned over the Finnish authorities. Another part of their investigation centred on the sale of a Tallinn property that had been owned by the Estonian Centre Party. One of the businessmen linked to the Youth Foundation was involved in the sale.

On 7 November 2018, ERR’s investigation was published in online articles and aired on Pealtnägija.

What happened after the investigation was published?

On 21 December 2018, the Friday before Christmas, the businessman who was allegedly linked to both the Estonian shell company and the sale of the Tallinn property filed a lawsuit against Kärmas, Pihl, and ERR claiming that the investigation had caused ‘injurious action’ and ‘spread false information’.

“We got very extensive court material where they had written up some 18 counts […] whereby we caused significant economic loss,” Kärmas told Index. “They write in their paper that the loss is up to 1 billion euros”.

“A lot of the material that we ended up publishing had already been published in Finland. It’s public knowledge in Finland, and actually a lot of it had been published in print here in Estonia,” Kärmas said. “But regardless of that, we ended up being sued.”

The lawsuit didn’t only name ERR as the defendant, it also named Kärmas and Pihl specifically. It was the first time that any of ERR’s employees were individually sued as a result of their reporting. “At the beginning I was kind of stressed – I was upset I would say,” Pihl said. “First of all I don’t have that kind of money, second of all it would mean that we can’t work as investigative journalists anymore.”

On 7 January 2019, Harju County Court ordered ERR to remove the investigation from its platforms. “It has been taken down and nobody can read it or watch it – both the written and video version. I think it’s concerning because it would be in the public interest that the story is up,” Pihl explained. “This businessman is under criminal investigation – it’s connected with a political party that’s in power, meaning that obviously the public should be able to Google it and go back to it. And also other journalists – if they write new stories – there is useful information for them.”

Support

“Fortunately our TV station was very helpful – they said that they will protect us and that we don’t need to be personally responsible, whatever happens,” said Pihl. “I think that’s the main thing that helped me to be kind of alright with this case is that the public broadcaster said that they are going to pay our court fees and whatever other costs are connected with this case.”

What if she didn’t have that support? “I think I would be very, very stressed because then I would actually think that we might just lose because I wouldn’t have the money to hire a proper lawyer or I would have to use all my savings. That shouldn’t be the case for a journalist because then I would be afraid to publish new stories against businessmen – or anybody basically.”

“In a way, we’re in a lucky position that our media organisation, by Estonian standards, is quite a large one, actually the largest one in Estonia, at least by some standards. We feel quite secure in that respect,” Kärmas said.

“But if you’re a freelancer or working for a smaller media organisation then it’s definitely a headache for instance just to cover the running legal costs. But if this becomes a norm that different parties start bringing legal cases against journalists in Estonia, then we definitely need to think about some sort of security for the journalists involved,” Kärmas said. “I can easily see that this [legal strategy] will make journalists wonder what type of stories they want to take up.”

Dragging it out

Despite nearly two years having passed since the lawsuit was filed, little progress has been made. According to Kärmas and Pihl, one of the delays was due to a motion that was filed to the court in September 2019 requesting that a video file of the broadcast be submitted. “They obviously had the video to prepare this lawsuit,” Kärmas said. “Although they had it, we were fully prepared to give it to them. There’s no obstruction from our part, but for some reason we haggled over this for months and months”.

According to Kärmas and Pihl, efforts were also made to prevent their employer from covering their legal fees. “This resulted in a short, separate litigation,” they said, during which ERR was forced to provide details of the contract Pihl and Kärmas had with their defence lawyers. “We were wondering what [they] would do with this information and in the end of July 2020 they sent a letter to the Parliament’s Culture Commission, the Finance Ministry, the Estonian Broadcasting’s governing body, and the State Audit Office asking whether they regard it appropriate use of public funds if the public broadcaster pays for our individual attorneys,” they said.

“From a personal, emotional point of view, it’s very annoying and very difficult. Each step in this litigation takes like three months,” Kärmas said. “So you refresh your memory about all the details, then you answer something, two or three months nothing happens, then there’s another turn, another letter and you have to read up on this again.”

“I realise that it’s going to take… I don’t know how many more years and we haven’t even had any hearings in the court,” Pihl said. “If the other party is angry enough, funded well enough, then they can really make your life difficult,” Kärmas said.

While the litigation continues, their investigation remains unavailable to viewers and readers. “The story is down from online meaning that every day they manage to postpone the case they win a day without the story being up. Even if in the end there would be a decision that we can put it up again. It means they would still win, because for such a long time it wasn’t available,” Pihl explained. The lawsuit is ongoing, pending a final decision from the court.

Finland

Freelance journalist Jarno Liski and his colleague Jyri Hänninen, who works for the Finnish national broadcaster YLE, began reporting on the Youth Foundation in mid-2016. “[The story] is highly significant,” Hänninen replied when asked about the case. “It’s one of the biggest financial crimes investigations in Finland.”

It was their reporting that prompted Finnish authorities to start investigating the financial affairs of senior members of the Youth Foundation in 2018. “There’s almost 20 people who are suspected of crimes and the financial harm that these guys have caused is at least 100 million euro,” Hänninen explained.

Liski and Hänninen contacted Pihl and Kärmas, after it came to light that an Estonian shell company had been used in the money transfers. “And we’ve been exchanging information every now and then and trying to help each other out,” Liski said.

Both Liski and Hänninen were shocked when they heard that the reports by their Estonian colleagues had to be removed as a result of a lawsuit. “I was shocked and I was highly surprised that it’s even legally possible in Estonia,” Hänninen said. “I don’t know how the legal system works in Estonia but I was really surprised when I heard about the court decision to censor [the story],” Liski said.

But neither was surprised that a lawsuit had been filed. The same businessman who is suing Pihl and Kärmas filed in Finland a criminal complaint for defamation against Hänninen and Liski in late 2018 for their reporting. In January 2019, the police and the district prosecutor issued its decision not to bring charges against the journalists. “I never had to be officially interviewed or anything,” Liski said.

Another businessman linked to the same investigations repeatedly tried to threaten Liski with legal action. “There was this one businessman who three or four times over two or three years contacted my editors or other superiors and made threats usually about civil lawsuits, where he would demand really big compensation – one million euro. But he never went through with those threats”.

“He was threatening that he would sue me, not the company, but me as a freelance journalist for one million euro for these stories that I’ve written,” Liski explained. “We basically laughed but the threat is real theoretically…”

“His lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to me but that never went anywhere. I think I answered something like ‘the stories are correct and if they are not then I will of course correct them if you tell me what I got wrong’ but that was left there. It’s been like two or three years since I last heard from them,” Liski said. “I’ve hoped and so far I’ve been right, that they don’t want to sue me because they don’t want the publicity. But in Estonia they did what they did and it’s still a mystery to me.”

As a freelance journalist, Liski feels that investigating and reporting on the affairs of wealthy and powerful people puts him in an especially precarious position. Despite reporting on the Youth Foundation story alongside Liski, Hänninen was not subject to the same level of intimidation. Why?

“It’s easier to target a freelance journalist than it is someone who is working – as in my case – for the Finnish national broadcasting company, which is really big with 3,000 employees, and lawyers, and all the other people who can help me out,” said Hänninen.

Liski believes that the news organisations that contract him would support him if he were sued as a freelancer. “But that wouldn’t really solve the problem,” he said. “Because the case would still require me to do so much work: to tell the lawyer what the case is about and write all sorts of answers and go to my archives and find all the documents – the evidence for the stories. And even if all the legal costs were covered, no one would still pay for the hours [it takes] to do that.”

“That would pretty much destroy my career in journalism if for one year I couldn’t write anything that someone could pay me [for],” Liski said.

Investigating a Libyan-owned company in Cyprus

In 2017, Cypriot journalist Stelios Orphanides was contacted by a whistle-blower about a Libyan-owned company in Limassol, Cyprus. “[They were] offering me information but it was a little bit too convoluted to write a daily report at the Cyprus Mail, where I used to work at the time,” Orphanides explained.

Orphanides started to receive documents from the whistle-blower and began working on an investigation with Sara Farolfi, an Italian investigative journalist who was a freelancer at the time. “It was an amazing amount of documentation that we had to go through, analyse, and make sense of,” Farolfi said.

“In March 2018 we got the go-ahead from the OCCRP [Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project] to investigate and so we started looking into it with the help of this whistle-blower and an American investigator/journalist who was familiar with Libya and who was offering us guidance to make sense of the thousands of pages of material we were forwarded,” Orphanides said. “This is how we came to investigate the story and report it. It took us about six months to work on this story”.

“[O]f course, what we focused on was a piece of the story. We decided to look into Cyprus because that’s where most of the stuff was coming from,” Farolfi said.

On 25 July 2018, Orphanides and Farolfi’s investigation – “Cyprus Records Sheds Light on Libya’s Hidden Millions” – was published on OCCRP’s website.

What happened after the investigation was published?

In August 2018, a lawsuit was filed against Orphanides and Farolfi by a lawyer peripherally connected to the story. That lawyer is named as a plaintiff, alongside four other individual lawyers from his law firm. The lawsuit alleges that Orphanides and Farolfi’s investigation defamed the lawyers, interfered with their professional gravitas and reputation, and exposed them to humiliation and contempt. It also alleges that Orphanides and Farolfi violated their human rights to a private and family life. The lawsuit demands compensation “either together and/or separately” from the journalists.

“It came as a shock,” Farolfi said. “From one side I was certain that we had made no mistake. But when you receive a piece of paper that says ‘you may be asked to pay 2 million euro’, then even if you feel strongly about what you’ve done, it’s scary. I felt shocked to be honest.”

Orphanides said he was less surprised when the lawsuit arrived, but was surprised at the way that it was served to him. “[U]sually when you get sued the court clerks simply give you a call and they say ‘we have this lawsuit and we would like to serve it to you’,” Orphanides explained. “But they didn’t call, or go to the office, instead [the court clerk] came to my place.”

Farolfi said that she didn’t received any notice that she was being sued. “I never received anything. They say they sent me an email, which I never received, and this is quite weird because as an investigative journalist I’m used to checking my spam inbox as well as the normal inbox. And also they had my email address because the publication was a lengthy process and, like always, we sent a request for comment. We sent this request from my email address and from Stelios’ one,” she explained.

According to Farolfi and Orphanides the would-be plaintiff had responded to their request for comment before the investigation was published. “And we included – if not the entire response – a very large portion, and the most significant parts of his response. We haven’t omitted anything of interest to the reader,” Orphanides said.

“Anyway, we were sent the lawsuit and it was personal despite the fact that we had published the investigation with OCCRP,” Farolfi said.

“It’s possible that another purpose of the lawsuit was to know who the whistle-blower that leaked this vast amount of material to us was. This is another aspect of the problem because we, as journalists, will need to protect the identity of this whistle-blower – not to make it public,” Farolfi said.

Orphanides also raised concerns around the plaintiff’s decision to buy the Cyprus Mail in early 2019. The whistle-blower first contacted Orphanides while he was working for the Cyprus Mail and many of the materials used in the investigation were sent to his Cyprus Mail address.

How did the lawsuits affect you and your work? 

“I was scared mainly because I was freelance,” Farolfi said. “We were very lucky because OCCRP immediately stood by us.” Both she and Orphanides have since been hired by the organisation. “We were immediately reassured even before being hired by OCCRP. [It] is one of the few organisations, as far as I know, that stands by freelance journalists with a lawsuit like this.”

“You feel pretty alone when you get sued, because you are actually alone. I mean I was with Stelios and we had an organisation behind our shoulders, but still you feel a little bit alone. And even more so as freelancers at the time, I think. Especially me – Stelios was not freelance but maybe he felt alone too I don’t know,” Farolfi said.

“There are not many people that understand why you – as a journalist – are undertaking that risk. I remember even chats with friends, slightly looking at me like ‘are you serious you got sued for [up to] two million euro and you are still willing to do this job?’,” Farolfi said. “I remember perfectly that I couldn’t sleep that night and I was thinking ‘Well, that’s a good point. To what extent am I willing to take risks?’.

For Orphanides, the lawsuit was the last straw. “When I got sued for that [OCCRP story] then I realised that I was asphyxiated. It’s not unrelated that a couple of months later, together with my wife, we left Cyprus,” said Orphanides, who now lives in Sarajevo.

Did either of them consider quitting investigative journalism? “I mean the opposite, it convinced me that I had to double down my efforts,” Orphanides said. “I concluded that more investigations were needed and at the same time, doing some investigations in Cyprus was too risky because you would get sued all the time.”

But Orphanides said he feels that his decision to fully focus on investigative journalism means that he will never be able to return to work as a journalist at a Cypriot media outlet. “We have entered a one-way street professionally,” he said. “From the moment that you have done some investigative reporting, you are excluded from the mainstream media market [in Cyprus].”

Like Orphanides, Farolfi also said she never seriously considered changing career. “But I told myself, this is not a job that can be done as a freelancer: ‘this is teaching you that you need to move to a different set-up because this is what I’m going to have to face for any other investigation that I will work on’.”

“There is such a disproportion of forces that unless you have someone behind you – an organisation – and even for an organisation it’s a tough gig,” Farolfi said. “For them to file a lawsuit against two journalists, it just costs nothing. It just costs nothing. They are no downsides. They just need to do what they do every day. They don’t need to allocate any special resources to it. So there is this asymmetry – disproportion of forces.”

Both Farolfi and Orphanides expressed concern over the amount of time they expected the lawsuit to take. “I don’t expect this case will come to the courts before 2025 or so. Maybe longer,” Orphanides said. “Will it be easy for me to remember all the facts in five years?”

“We are lucky to have an organisation behind us. But it’s definitely time-consuming, resource-consuming and stressful,” Farolfi said. “You have this uncertainty like a sword of Damocles over your head,” Orphanides said.

Advice to journalists facing a potential Slapp case

We asked the journalists what advice they would give to fellow journalists who might be facing similar legal threats and actions. They had two main pieces of advice:

Think about the risks in advance and prepare accordingly

“The first piece of advice – a rule if you do investigative journalism – when you publish something it has to be bulletproof,” Sara Farolfi said. “You should make every effort to get all the proof that you need to make your piece more solid. You would be surprised if you knew how long it takes us to get a story published. And it’s all worth it. Totally all worth the time.”

At the same time, she acknowledged that a lot of courage is needed to publish an investigation that involves wealthy or powerful people and to stand by your story once it has been published. “You need to have a thick skin to do this job, certainly,” she said.

“There’s always a risk when you go after these kind of people who have money and influence. It will, of course, take some courage,” Jarno Liski said. “It’s unwise what we do personally when you think about your own situation – there’s not much to win and you could end up in trouble. But it’s important and I encourage people to have more courage.”

“Try to cover your back anyway. As a freelancer, especially, I should have agreed in writing with the media outlets that I write for that they will have my back if we go to court or something like that,” he said. Pihl also advised journalists to speak to their media companies about whether they will support them if they personally face a lawsuit. “I think every journalist has to ask their company if this kind of case happens, if they are going to pay for them,” she said.

“When you’re doing these kinds of investigations on financial crimes and corruption, usually they’re people with a lot of money and a lot of power and they’re using that money and power to intimidate you,” Jyri Hänninen said. “Never stop what you’re doing. It’s always important to bring these out for the general public.”

Speak about the legal threats or lawsuits you may be facing

“At the beginning it’s scary but a court case doesn’t mean that it leads to something,” said Anna Pihl.  “Raising this issue is a very good starting point. If we talk more about this – if we raise our concerns about these kinds of cases to a wider audience then hopefully this trend will stop or at least it won’t increase even more.”

“If a journalist has done a crappy job and they are sued because of that then obviously the story should be corrected. But everyone who is working to a high standard shouldn’t be afraid,” she said. “You don’t have to be worried that you can’t write your stories if you’ve done everything correctly. If your work is of a high standard, in the end the journalist will win.”

Pihl also stressed the need for journalists to work together and to have a support network. “This kind of network is very important because if journalists come together they are stronger,” she said. “I don’t have to think ‘maybe if something happens I’m alone’.”

Stelios Orphanides also urged journalists to speak out. “Reporters should perhaps join these efforts that you are making as an organisation and demand that every country – in Europe at least where the rule of law is supposed to be applied – to press for changes to the legislation that would make it more difficult for such lawsuits to be filed against journalists,” he said.

“We need legislation to help us,” Liski said, “legislation and the way it is used is really important. We also have to be careful that we have protections for journalists so that they can write things about powerful people”.

Conclusion

Any effort to silence a journalist poses a threat to the public’s right to information, to rule of law, and ultimately to our democracies. Whether or not an accurate and newsworthy investigation is published shouldn’t depend on a journalist’s courage or their determination to serve the public interest above their own. Concrete action is urgently needed to support journalists and protect them from falling victim to legal harassment.

Anti-Slapp statutes exist in several states, including in Canada and the United States. Similar anti-Slapp legislation, in the form of an EU directive, would offer the most comprehensive protection not only to journalists but to activists, academics, and civil society organisations. Such a directive should provide for Slapps to be dismissed at an early stage of proceedings, for Slapp litigants to face financial penalties for abusing the law, and for Slapp victims to be given the means and support to defend themselves.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Anna Pihl, Mihkel Kärmas, Jarno Liski, Jyri Hänninen, Sara Farolfi, and Stelios Orphanides. Photo credits: Anh Nguyen/Unsplash (main image), PDPics/Pixabay (newspapers)[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”113711″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://postkodstiftelsen.se/en/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]This report has been supported by the Swedish Postcode Foundation. The foundation is a beneficiary to the Swedish Postcode Lottery and provides support to projects that foster positive social impact or search for long-term solutions to global challenges. Since 2007, the foundation has distributed over 1.5 billion SEK in support of more than 600 projects in Sweden and internationally.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_hoverbox image=”115716″ primary_title=”Are you facing a Slapp? Find out here” hover_title=”Are you facing a Slapp? Find out here” hover_background_color=”black” hover_btn_title=”Use our tool” hover_btn_color=”danger” hover_add_button=”true” hover_btn_link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fam-i-facing-a-slapps-lawsuit%2F” el_class=”text_white”][/vc_hoverbox][vc_empty_space][vc_hoverbox image=”115715″ primary_title=”Read our report, Breaking the Silence” hover_title=”REPORT: Breaking the Silence” hover_background_color=”black” hover_btn_title=”Read the report” hover_btn_color=”danger” hover_add_button=”true” hover_btn_link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fcampaigns%2Fbreaking_the_silence_report_slapps%2F” el_class=”text_white”][/vc_hoverbox][vc_empty_space][vc_hoverbox image=”115717″ primary_title=”Read our report, A gathering storm” hover_title=”REPORT: A gathering storm” hover_background_color=”black” hover_btn_title=”Read the report” hover_btn_color=”danger” hover_add_button=”true” hover_btn_link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fcampaigns%2Fthe-laws-being-used-to-silence-media%2F” el_class=”text_white”][/vc_hoverbox][vc_empty_space][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_empty_space][vc_hoverbox image=”115716″ primary_title=”Are you facing a Slapp? Find out here” hover_title=”Are you facing a Slapp? Find out here” hover_background_color=”black” hover_btn_title=”Use our tool” hover_btn_color=”danger” hover_add_button=”true” hover_btn_link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fam-i-facing-a-slapps-lawsuit%2F” el_class=”text_white”][/vc_hoverbox][vc_empty_space][vc_hoverbox image=”115715″ primary_title=”Read our report, Breaking the Silence” hover_title=”REPORT: Breaking the Silence” hover_background_color=”black” hover_btn_title=”Read the report” hover_btn_color=”danger” hover_add_button=”true” hover_btn_link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fcampaigns%2Fbreaking_the_silence_report_slapps%2F” el_class=”text_white”][/vc_hoverbox][vc_empty_space][vc_hoverbox image=”115717″ primary_title=”Read our report, A gathering storm” hover_title=”REPORT: A gathering storm” hover_background_color=”black” hover_btn_title=”Read the report” hover_btn_color=”danger” hover_add_button=”true” hover_btn_link=”url:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.indexoncensorship.org%2Fcampaigns%2Fthe-laws-being-used-to-silence-media%2F” el_class=”text_white”][/vc_hoverbox][/vc_column][/vc_row]

A gathering storm: the laws being used to silence the media

01 Jun 20

[vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content_no_spaces” full_height=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1591025337019{padding-top: 55px !important;padding-bottom: 155px !important;background-image: url(https://www.indexoncensorship.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/trump-shadow-pic-for-slapps-credit-3-scaled.jpg?id=113748) !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: cover !important;}” el_class=”text_white” el_id=”Introduction”][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”A gathering storm:
the laws being used to silence the media” font_container=”tag:h1|text_align:center” use_theme_fonts=”yes” css=”.vc_custom_1590689449699{background-color: #000000 !important;background-position: center !important;background-repeat: no-repeat !important;background-size: contain !important;}”][vc_raw_html]JTNDZGl2JTIwc3R5bGUlM0QlMjJhbGlnbiUzQWNlbnRlciUzQm1hcmdpbiUzQWF1dG8lM0JiYWNrZ3JvdW5kLWNvbG9yJTNBcmdiYSUyODAlMkMwJTJDMCUyQzAuNSUyOSUzQiUyMiUzRSUzQ3AlMjBzdHlsZSUzRCUyMnRleHQtYWxpZ24lM0FjZW50ZXIlM0J3aWR0aCUzQTYwJTI1JTNCbWFyZ2luJTNBYXV0byUzQiUyMiUzRUElMjByZXZpZXclMjBvZiUyMGhvdyUyMGxhd3MlMjBhcmUlMjBiZWluZyUyMHVzZWQlMjBpbiUyMEV1cm9wZSUyMHRvJTIwYnJpbmclMjBhY3Rpb25zJTIwYWdhaW5zdCUyMGpvdXJuYWxpc3RzJTNDJTJGcCUzRSUzQyUyRmRpdiUzRQ==[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]

Introduction

“It’s crippling,” explained Stefan Candea, a journalist and co-founder of the Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism, when asked about the centre’s experience of being sued for its work. “It’s a major crippling of the workflow and of resources.”

Across Europe, laws are being used by powerful and wealthy individuals in the hope of intimidating and silencing journalists who are disclosing inconvenient truths that are in the public interest. These legal threats and actions are crippling not only for the media but for our democracies. Instead of being empowered to hold power to account, as is fundamental to all democratic societies, journalists face extortionate claims for damages, criminal convictions and, in some cases, prison sentences in the course of carrying out their work.

“For me it was a shock, maybe because it was the first time I was dealing with the penal code,” responded Polish investigative journalist Karolina Baca-Pogorzelska when asked about her experience of facing a criminal lawsuit. “I didn’t do anything wrong [but] at trial, I passed prisoners in handcuffs in the corridors. It broke me completely.”

In undertaking research into the scope and scale of vexatious lawsuits – or strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapps) – against journalists and media outlets in Europe, Index hopes to help address the current dearth of information around the phenomenon. The purpose of this first report – which looks at EU states, the UK and Norway – is to provide a concise snapshot of the legal systems that are being abused in favour of the powerful, a worrying trend that we are seeing across the continent. The report is intended as a foundation for forthcoming research.[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/ijAAWRdkeV0″][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]Gill Phillips, director of editorial legal services at Guardian News and Media, said: “Against the background of the growing trend in Europe of threats to reporting by using litigation as a means of inhibiting, intimidating and silencing journalists and others working in the public interest, this timely report provides succinct and helpful jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction guidance into the main legal danger areas for journalists and others.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]The law is an essential component of understanding the extent to which journalists are vulnerable to legal threats and actions. But culture, which shapes the law but is also separate from it, should also be taken into account. Although it is more difficult to analyse, it determines the extent to which society sees the media as essential to democracy, and the extent of people’s readiness to resort to law to resolve disputes.

“A lot of public officials don’t understand the media as a watchdog. They still have this old communist kind of definition of the media. They think the media should be reporting what the government does for the nation,” said Beata Balogová, editor-in-chief of the newspaper SME, as she explained the impact of culture on the media in Slovakia.

“Very often they just use a lawsuit as a way of scaring journalists or trying to discourage them from pursuing some of the reports.”

Please note you can download this report as a PDF or view it as a flipbook.

Main report

[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113571″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Austria”][vc_column_text el_id=”austria”]

Austria

According to Georg Eckelsberger of the investigative media outlet Dossier, letters threatening legal action are often received by journalists in Austria.

Defamation, which is a criminal offence, is most often used. In the criminal code, it is defined as asserting or disseminating a fact that may defame or negatively affect public opinion of another person. It is punishable by a fine or one year in prison, although the latter has never been used against journalists.

The civil code and the media law also provide for significant damages to be awarded for loss of honour. The civil code is particularly open to abuse as the possible damages are uncapped and it does not provide the same weight as the media law to a public interest defence. In 2019, the civil code was used to sue Kyrgyzstani news outlet 24.kg in what was labelled by Article 19’s Barbora Bukovska as “a clear case of so-called libel tourism”.

Concerns have also been raised over the extent to which public interest is taken into consideration in other civil law cases against the media. In 2015, Dossier was ordered to pay nearly €2,000 to a plaintiff after being convicted of trespassing during an investigation, despite the findings of the investigation being uncontested.

Anyone who has been the subject of an incorrect statement in the press has the right to have a reply published, though the media has the right to refuse to publish a reply if the information was demonstrably true.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113577″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Belgium”][vc_column_text el_id=”belgium”]

Belgium

Although defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a fine or prison sentence, journalists are never brought to court on such charges. This is mostly due to the fact that criminal press offences can be heard only by jury-based tribunals, which are costly and time-consuming. According to a 2017 report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, “the media enjoy a de facto exemption from criminal defamation laws”. In practice, this does not completely stop plaintiffs from filing criminal lawsuits against journalists.

Civil defamation is addressed as a tort under the civil code. The claimant must demonstrate the fault, the damage and the causal link between the fault and the damage. There are no limits or precise guidelines on the amount of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages that may be awarded, but damages for civil defamation usually range between €1,000 and €10,000.

Concerns have been raised about Belgian courts’ propensity to grant pre-publication injunctions at the request of private companies that claim their rights have been violated. In 2015, a court in Namur blocked the launch issue of Belgian investigative magazine Médor following a request from a pharmaceutical company that claimed it had been wrongly accused in one of its articles. The ban was annulled two weeks later.

Anyone referred to in a newspaper, magazine or audio-visual broadcast has the right to reply. Although the right of reply does not apply to internet-based media, case law applies and there is a legal proposal in the pipeline.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113580″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Bulgaria”][vc_column_text]

Bulgaria

While lawsuits are not the only tool used to intimidate and discredit journalists in Bulgaria, they remain a serious threat to investigative journalism, which is already struggling in the country.

Criminal defamation is often used to bring legal actions against the media, including against individual journalists. Insult and slander remain criminal offences, punishable by fines but not imprisonment. Concerns have been raised around the ability of the courts to protect journalists from vexatious criminal charges, especially following the conviction of Rossen Bossev on defamation charges last year.

Compensation may be sought under the Obligations and Contracts Act, which allows for unlimited non-pecuniary damages to be awarded. The burden of proof is on the defendant. According to the Radio and Television Act, the media will not be liable for information that has been received through official channels, for quoting official documents, or for accurately reproducing public statements.

At least one effort has been made to vexatiously sue a journalist by claiming that constitutional rights, specifically the right to dignity and reputation, was violated. However, this was rejected by the court.

Anyone affected by radio or television broadcasting has a right to respond by making a request to do so in writing within seven days from the date of the broadcast. The response can be neither edited nor shortened and should be published in the next episode or within 24 hours of receipt. The Ethical Code of the Bulgarian Media provides for a right of reply in printed media, but not all print outlets have signed the code.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113612″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Croatia”][vc_column_text]

Croatia

According to a recent survey by the Croatian Journalists Association, there are currently at least 46 criminal lawsuits and 859 civil lawsuits filed against publishers, with claimants seeking the equivalent of approximately €9 million in damages.

Defamation and insult, punishable with fines but not imprisonment, are most often used as justification to bring legal action against the media. The offence of “heavy shaming” was abolished with changes to the criminal code, which took effect in January 2020. Although journalists are acquitted in most cases, a significant number of criminal lawsuits continue to be filed.

Civil lawsuits can be brought against publishers under the Media Act and against authors (journalists) under the Obligations Act. In a case against a journalist under the Obligations Act, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant intentionally caused the damage, but the burden of proof under the Media Act is on the publisher. According to media lawyer Vesna Alaburić, this is why journalists are rarely sued in civil proceedings. She says that when they are, lower courts often fail to strike a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy and reputation. Typical compensation for non-pecuniary damages is between the equivalent of €2,500 and €4,000.

The Croatian constitution guarantees the right for individuals to correct public information that has violated their constitutional and legal rights.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113641″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Cyprus”][vc_column_text]

Cyprus

Although the attorney general has the authority to allow for criminal prosecution in some specific cases, defamation is no longer a criminal offence and is instead addressed under the Civil Wrongs Law. The plaintiff must prove that the publication is defamatory or that there has been malice. If it is defamatory then journalists or media outlets must prove that either the information is accurate or that it is in the public interest. European Court of Human Rights principles are generally applied.

Legal actions for violation of privacy can be brought under the constitution, which protects the right to privacy and the right to private correspondence. According to Prof Achilles Emilianides, of the University of Nicosia, compensation generally ranges from €3,000 to €20,000.

Journalists have expressed frustration over the slow pace of the judicial process, with some cases continuing for up to a decade. According to research from the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), first-instance proceedings in Cyprus are among the slowest in the EU.

Gagging orders and injunctions can be used for both privacy and defamation, and although they are rarely granted, serious concern has been raised over their use in the past.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113644″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Czech_Republic”][vc_column_text]

Czech Republic

Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a maximum sentence of between two and three years in prison (depending on the nature of the alleged defamation) or a prohibition from practising a certain profession. Charges can be brought only if the published information is alleged to be false. In practice, accusations of criminal defamation are quite rare.

The civil code provides that if a person is to be held liable for the violation of the right to dignity, esteem, honour or privacy, all three of the following conditions must be met: an unjustified infringement capable of causing moral damage, moral damage having been suffered, and a causal connection between the infringement and the damage. Financial compensation must be provided if someone’s rights have been violated (unless other remedies are sufficiently effective). While the civil code does contain a “principle of decency”, questions have been raised about its capacity to prevent vexatious claims. Under the Press Act, the publisher is legally responsible for the published content.

The right to dignity, honour, reputation and private life are protected by the constitution. A right of reply is provided for under the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act and the Press Act and stipulates that it should be limited to a factual assertion rectifying, completing, or making more accurate the assertion in the initial broadcast. The publisher is obliged to publish the reply.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113650″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Denmark”][vc_column_text]

Denmark

Denmark has comparatively few laws to regulate the press, with the main media law principle being to balance conflicting rights. Honour, privacy and personality rights are protected by the criminal code, the Marketing Regulation and case-law principles that have been adopted from the ECtHR.

Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a fine or imprisonment for up to one year – increasing to two years if the statement is found to have been made in bad faith. Although factual allegations may also be considered defamatory, there is an exemption from criminal liability if the statement was made where there was reasonable cause for it, in good faith, in the public interest or in the interest of the alleged offender or others.

Lawsuits against the media are uncommon in Denmark, with most complaints being brought through the press council, which will require its decision to be published in the event of a code breach.

Requests for replies must be allowed concerning factual information if the complainant might suffer from “significant financial or other damage” and if the accuracy of the information is not entirely indisputable.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113653″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Estonia”][vc_column_text]

Estonia

The Estonian Association of Journalists expressed concern that efforts to intimidate or threaten journalists may be rising. Legal threats and actions have mainly come from private individuals and companies, but there has been an increase in legal threats from politicians in recent years. Although threats from politicians have become more direct, intense and frequent, they have not gone beyond threats for now.

Criminal defamation charges can be brought only by a judge, a representative of a state authority or a foreign head of state, and are punishable with fines but not prison sentences.

Legal action is brought mostly under the civil code, which stipulates that rights must be exercised in good faith and not with the objective of causing damage to another person. It provides for compensation to be awarded in case of damage. Lawsuits targeting individual journalists were, until recently, very rare. In November 2019, Harju County Court decided that two journalists were held liable for the content they created. A similar proceeding is currently pending in the courts.

The constitution protects individuals’ right to not have their honour or good name defamed and provides for the right to free speech to be curtailed in order to protect it. Anyone who believes his or her reputation to have been damaged by a broadcast or publication may submit a right to reply. The publication can reject a request if it is unjustified or defies generally accepted moral standards, but it would put the outlet at risk of a lawsuit.

Both press councils – Pressinõukogu and Avaliku Sõna Nõukogu – have roles in holding the media to account, but the decisions of only the Pressinõukogu are published by the media.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113655″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Finland”][vc_column_text]

Finland

Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with a fine. Aggravated defamation, punishable with up to two years imprisonment, can be used for acts that cause “considerable suffering or particularly significant damage”. The law requires that only false information can lead to criminal liability. One journalist who was sued for criminal defamation last year credited the prosecutor with deciding quickly that no crime had been committed. Private claims for damages resulting from defamation can be brought only in conjunction with criminal charges, and any compensation awarded is dependent upon the outcome of the criminal case.

The Tort Liability Act provides for compensation to be awarded if the plaintiff’s liberty, peace, honour or private life have been violated. Compensation rarely exceeds €10,000. Privacy, honour and the sanctity of the home are also protected under the constitution.

Although the Finnish Council for Mass Media can only sanction code breaches by ordering the media to publish its decision, the council may still have a role in creating a less litigious media culture. The council does not handle a complaint if a corresponding court case is being brought. Anyone who can demonstrate that published material is incorrect or offensive has the right to demand equal space for a correction.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113657″ img_size=”full” el_id=”France”][vc_column_text]

France

France is known as a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction and fears have been raised about it becoming a libel tourism hotspot. According to media lawyer Emmanuel Tordjman, legal threats and actions have been increasing against the media in recent years. He says that most actions are taken under the 1881 Media Law, but they are increasingly being taken under the criminal code in an effort to bypass the safeguards that exist under the media law.

The 1881 law guarantees freedom of expression for the press, but also criminalises defamation and insult and makes them punishable with fines of up to €12,000. When defamation is committed against public officials – including the president, ministers and legislators – the maximum fine increases to €45,000. In practice, this fine is usually much lower. Individuals claiming defamation must bring legal action within three months of publication.

A plaintiff may also choose to take a civil case against the media, but the procedure will still be subject to the 1881 law; the only difference is that civil remedies will be awarded and the defendant cannot be fined. In both civil and criminal cases, the media must prove either that the published information was true or, if it fails to meet that standard, that it was published in good faith.

Generally, the rights of journalists are well protected, as French case law is strongly influenced by ECtHR case law. In March 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered Bolloré SA to pay France Télévisions €10,000 in damages for frivolous proceedings after the company sued the media organisation in commercial court for €50 million in damages over a report scrutinising the company’s activities in Africa.

The 1881 media law stipulates that anyone who has been named or depicted in the media has the right to reply. It must be published within three days of receipt, otherwise a fine of €3,750 fine is issued.

Although it does not fall neatly under the umbrella of a Slapp, the use of national security legislation to punish journalists for publishing information that is in the public interest is also a matter of significant concern. National security legislation provides no exceptions for journalists and there is no public interest defence. It carries a prison sentence of up to five years and a €75,000 fine.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113659″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Germany”][vc_column_text]

Germany

According to research carried out by Greenpeace, although there has been a discernible rise in the number of legal threats against journalists and activists, vexatious lawsuits rarely appear in courts due to a rigorous pre-litigation mechanism.

There are three defamation-related offences under the criminal code: insult, defamation and slander. All are punishable by either a fine or imprisonment. Action may also be brought under the civil code, although the fact that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff may disincentivise such suits from being brought. There is a provision for a responsible journalism defence, but not a wider public interest defence. In 2010, two journalists received criminal fines of €2,500 each for defaming two public prosecutors, after criticising their investigations as flawed. The appeals court overturned the sentence in 2012.

In January 2019, the Federal Civil Court issued a judgment that so-called “media law warning letters” (presserechtliche Informationsschreiben), used to intimidate and threaten media outlets from republishing coverage from other media, were justified only when they had concrete information on why publication would be illegal. According to Buzzfeed Germany’s editor-in-chief Daniel Drepper, because these letters mainly targeted celebrity news the judgment has changed little for investigative journalism. In the summer of 2019, Buzzfeed received nearly a dozen threatening letters after it published their undercover work exposing an “Alpha Mentoring” programme.

A plaintiff’s capacity to choose which court a case is heard in can also be a source of intimidation for journalists, as it results in cases being brought to cities that are perceived to be more plaintiff-friendly (such as Berlin, Cologne and Hamburg). The right of reply is regulated by the press law of each German state.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113661″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Greece”][vc_column_text]

Greece

Both criminal and civil defamation are used to intimidate and silence journalists, with public officials being among those having brought legal action against the media. There are five separate defamation-related offences in the criminal code, all of which are punishable with fines, imprisonment or both. Journalists have been sentenced on defamation-related offences, despite the ECtHR’s ruling that the imposition of prison sentences for defamation constitutes a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In 2015, a report from the International Press Institute described Greece’s civil law framework as being “disproportionately hostile to the press”. Compensation, which usually ranges between €10,000 and €30,000, may be requested under either the civil code or the Press Law.

Serious concerns have also been expressed for the judicial system’s capacity to protect journalists from vexatious lawsuits, especially in light of a case against The Athens Review of Books. That case is now pending at the ECtHR.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113663″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Hungary”][vc_column_text]

Hungary

According to the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, despite the decline of independent media in the country, legal threats and actions continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists.

Defamation, along with libel, is a criminal offence and punishable with a prison sentence. In practice, sentences tend to be converted to fines. The law favours public officials, who can count on the state’s legal counsel (free of charge) and the fact that the police will carry out the investigation. In both civil and criminal cases, proceedings are slow, sometimes taking several years to have a first-instance decision.

In 2018, the authorities brought criminal charges against the investigative journalist András Dezső for “misuse of personal data”, after he used publicly available Swedish records to challenge the claims made by activist Natalie Contessa af Sandeberg on Hungarian state television. At the time, the state prosecutor proposed to convict Dezső without a hearing.

Most lawsuits against the media are brought under the civil code. Claimants may be awarded restitution if court finds their rights to have been violated. They do not need to prove that the violation was harmful. According to investigative journalist Peter Erdelyi of 444.hu, the burden of proof weighs heavily on the media; proving that information was published in good faith is not sufficient.

There has been at least one instance of GDPR having been used to vexatiously target the media: in February 2020, a Hungarian court granted a preliminary injunction forcing Forbes Hungary to recall the latest issue of its magazine, which featured a list of the richest Hungarians. The injunction followed a complaint from the owners of Hell Energy, a Hungarian drinks manufacturer, who argued that the list was in breach of their privacy.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113665″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Ireland”][vc_column_text]

Ireland

Although Ireland ranks highly in press freedom indexes, its legal system is among the most vulnerable in Europe to abuse by vexatious litigators. In recent years, there have been some indications to suggest it is becoming a hub for libel tourism.

The fact that defamation is no longer a criminal offence offers little comfort to journalists and media outlets due to the lengthy legal process and significant costs associated with a defence. In some cases, the burden of a lawsuit could be high enough to close a media outlet for good. Few media outlets decide to take the risk of going to court, often opting to settle instead.

Most defamation cases are heard in the High Court, where juries decide the outcome and the amount of compensation that should be awarded. According to media lawyer Michael Kealey, four days defending a case in the High Court could cost between €200,000 and €250,000 in legal fees alone. There is no maximum limit on compensation and millions of euros have been awarded in the past. Because of the time and costs associated with exhausting domestic measures, the ECtHR provides little practical protection to most Irish journalists and media outlets. Limited protection is provided by Isaac Wunder orders, which requires plaintiffs to have consent from the court to file additional lawsuits against the same party against which they’ve already filed at least one. According to Kealey, Isaac Wunder orders have been used “somewhat sparingly in civil litigation”. He said he was unaware of a successful application for such an order in a media defamation action.

Anyone who has been personally affected by information disseminated by the media can bring a complaint to the Press Council. The main sanction is publication of the Press Council’s decision.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113667″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Italy”][vc_column_text]

Italy

Criminal defamation is commonly used and provides for sentences of up to three years. The criminal code provides for higher penalties to be applied if a political, administrative or judicial body has been defamed. Criminal cases can be brought up to three months after publication. In the past, journalists have been sentenced to up to two years in prison. Shorter sentences have been accompanied by fines of up to €15,000.

Civil lawsuits can be filed on their own or in addition to criminal lawsuits, and there is no limit on the amount of compensation that may be awarded. In the past, this has led to requests for millions of euros in damages. Civil lawsuits can be filed up to five years after publication. The time, money and resolve required to fight a lawsuit are also hugely burdensome; it can take up to eight years – and sometimes longer – to be either acquitted or convicted in a defamation case.

Right to replies are frequently requested and oblige print outlets to publish them within two days of the request if the information they originally published was either inaccurate or damaging to someone’s dignity. Despite efforts to introduce it, there is currently no legislation in place that obliges online news outlets to publish corrections.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113669″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Latvia”][vc_column_text]

Latvia

Defamation remains a criminal offence punishable with deprivation of liberty, community service or a fine. Criminal liability applies only in cases where information that was known to be fictitious and defamatory was publicly distributed. The criminal code has also been used to charge journalists with violating the confidentiality of correspondence.

Most legal action against the media is under civil law, which allows for anyone behind the publication or broadcast to be sued. A plaintiff can request an unlimited amount for non-pecuniary damages, but compensation rarely exceeds a few thousand euros for individuals. Media outlets may face higher damages. Cases usually take four or five years but have taken up to 10 in the past. Courts almost always take ECtHR case law into account and usually rule in favour of journalists.

According to media lawyer Linda Birina, GDPR is starting to be used in place of defamation as a basis to take legal action against journalists. She expressed concern over how the court would look at GDPR cases given that there is as yet no court praxis.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113671″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Lithuania”][vc_column_text]

Lithuania

Libel remains a criminal offence, punishable with a fine, arrest or imprisonment of up to one year. However, in practice criminal law is rarely used to bring legal action against the media.

According to a 2017 OSCE report, the Supreme Court of Lithuania often takes into account, cites and applies the standards developed in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the European Court of Justice.

Anyone who wishes to bring a civil claim for damages against a media outlet must first request a denial of information. A complaint can be filed with the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics (out of court) without fulfilling this condition. According to the Lithuanian National Broadcaster, the right to request a denial of information is frequently used – particularly by businesspeople – who are dissatisfied with their investigations.

The civil code protects the right to privacy, honour and dignity and provides for the court to investigate requests for damages. The media is exempt from civil liability, even if the published information was untrue, as long as they can prove they acted in good faith to meet the public interest about a public person and his or her activities. According to CEPEJ’s research, Lithuania is among the fastest countries in the EU at resolving litigious civil cases, measured by the time taken by the courts to reach a decision at first instance: it typically takes less than 100 days.

The Law on the Provision of Information to the Public provides for the protection of honour and dignity as well as the protection of private life. According to the Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics, which investigates complaints relating to these protections, the law is rarely subject to abuse.

By law, anyone who is criticised in the media has the opportunity to justify, explain or refute false information within 14 days of publication. The outlet may refuse to publish the correction if its content “contradicts good morals”.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113673″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Luxembourg”][vc_column_text]

Luxembourg

Defamation and slander remain criminal offences, punishable with imprisonment of between eight days and one year, along with a fine of up to €2,000. Under the criminal code, journalists and media outlets may be exempt from criminal liability, even if the published information was untrue, as long as they can prove that they acted in good faith and in the public interest, that the allegedly defamatory statement was made live, or that it is an accurate quote from a third party. In practice, criminal defamation prosecutions against the media are rare. When they do occur, courts tend to follow the case law of the ECtHR.

The Luxleaks case saw a journalist and two whistleblowers charged with domestic theft, violating professional confidentiality, violating business secrets and fraudulently accessing a database. While journalist Edouard Perrin was acquitted, the whistleblowers were convicted and received fines and suspended jail sentences.

According to Luxembourg’s Union of Journalists, legal threats against journalists are rarely followed by legal actions. Most action comes from international rather than domestic plaintiffs, with defamation and privacy laws most commonly used. The right to privacy is protected by the constitution, as is the right to the secrecy of correspondence.

Right of reply works through a registered letter that has to be sent in an “appropriate” timeframe to the media. The media has the right to comment on the reply text. It has recently been extended to online media.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113675″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Malta”][vc_column_text]

Malta

Despite the decriminalisation of defamation in 2018, legal threats and actions remain a persistent and aggressive threat to journalists in Malta. What the European Parliament has called “serious shortcomings” in Malta’s rule of law intensify the climate of fear and intimidation facing the media.

Civil suits can be filed under the Media and Defamation Act in response to the publication of information that “seriously harms a person’s reputation”. Action may be brought against the individual journalist, the editor or the publisher. The act provides for certain defences, including a public interest defence. Up to €11,640 may be awarded in moral damages, in addition to actual damages. If the defendant published an “unreserved” correction or a reply from the plaintiff with the same importance as the original publication then the moral damages are capped at €5,000. In 2019, unpublished research by the Amsterdam International Law Clinic found that filing a separate claim for every sentence of an article (instead of grouping them into a single case) is a common tactic used to amplify the impact of a lawsuit.

Maltese journalists and media outlets have repeatedly received legal threats and lawsuits from abroad, especially from the UK and the USA, in apparent cases of libel tourism. Several public officials have been implicated in such cases. Efforts to prevent international lawsuits from being brought to bear on the media have so far been unsuccessful.

The Media and Defamation Act provides for anyone who has been misrepresented, been a victim of defamation or had his or her private life interrupted to submit a right to reply to contradict or explain the initial information. The media outlet must publish it within 48 hours of receiving it if it meets certain standards.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113677″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Netherlands”][vc_column_text]

Netherlands

Defamation remains a criminal offence, punishable with fines, imprisonment and, in extreme cases, loss of civil rights. Higher penalties are applicable if defamation is committed against a public official or foreign head of state. In practice, journalists are rarely charged, much less convicted of criminal defamation.

According to research carried out by Tess van der Linden of Radboud University, although Dutch procedural law contains provisions that can limit access to legal proceedings if the law is being abused to damage another person, it is quite rare that cases are dismissed based on these grounds, since courts tend to examine the merits of the case nonetheless.

Action is usually brought as a tort under the civil code. Case law, including ECtHR case law, is instrumental in its application. In principle, the burden of proof is on the claimant, but in practice the defendant will also have to provide evidence that they acted in good faith. Public interest is not an absolute defence but, along with the factual underpinning of the published information, it is essential to the outcome.

Media lawyer Jens van den Brink says he has noticed an increase in data protection laws being used to try to prevent journalists from publishing their stories, but he says that the courts are resilient against the abuse of these laws.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113679″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Norway”][vc_column_text]

Norway

Lawsuits against media outlets, editors and/or journalists in Norway usually relate to defamation, but sometimes also violation of privacy. Defamation is no longer a criminal offence and although violation of privacy continues to be criminalised, it is never used against the media.

Most claims are brought under the Compensation Act, which provides for compensation to be awarded in cases where an individual’s privacy, honour or reputation have been violated. In determining the liability of the journalist or media outlet, the veracity of the impugned statement is considered, as well as whether the statement was made in good faith. The Norwegian Union of Journalists has called for the act to protect journalists from being individually targeted, but its efforts have so far been unsuccessful. The balancing test between press freedom and the rights of the plaintiff, as developed in ECtHR case law, is fully adopted by Norwegian courts.

The Compensation Act provides for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to be awarded. Compensation varies significantly but, according to media lawyers, journalists may expect to pay the equivalent of between €2,200 and €6,600 for non-pecuniary damages. Damages are set higher for media outlets – typically between €10,000 and €50,000. Media outlets usually cover their editors’ and journalists’ costs, including any damages they are ordered to pay.

Most people who have concerns about how they have been treated by the media tend to complain to the Norwegian Press Complaints Commission, the Norwegian Press Association’s self-regulatory commission. The commission has no power to award damages or impose fines: it reviews complaints and issues statements on whether or not there has been a breach the Norwegian Press Association’s code of ethics.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113681″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Poland”][vc_column_text]

Poland

Investigative journalist Wojciech Cieśla believes that there’s been an increase in lawsuits against the media in the wake of the Law and Justice Party’s (PiS) rise to power in 2015. Jarosław Kurski, deputy editor-in-chief of Poland’s largest daily newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, told the Committee to Protect Journalists last year that the PiS has been “flooding us with lawsuits”. The fact that these lawsuits have been mostly unsuccessful demonstrates that despite the challenges facing the judiciary, Polish courts have so far protected the media from such lawsuits.

Both civil and criminal law are used, by public officials as well as private companies and individuals, to target the media. Defamation is a criminal offence, punishable with fines, restriction of liberty and up to one year in prison. Higher penalties are applicable under certain conditions, including defamation of a head of state or the Polish nation. Defamation hearings are closed to the public unless the plaintiff requests otherwise. According to media lawyer Konrad Orlik, courts usually fine journalists convicted of defamation between €1,000 and €3,000. However, last year journalist Anna Wilk was given a three-year ban on working as a journalist. Although the ban was lifted in February 2020, she remains criminally convicted and had to the equivalent of about €1,600 in fines and to charity.

Legal action may also be filed under the civil code, which protects individuals’ personal interests – including dignity, image and privacy of correspondence. By law, anyone whose personal interests are threatened may demand that the actions be ceased and that compensation be paid. According to Orlik, although common courts take ECtHR decisions into consideration, Polish jurisprudence is considered superior in most cases.

The practice of “autoryzacja” – seeking the authorisation of interviewees’ quotes before publication – is widely practiced and provided for under the Press Law, although journalists may publish unauthorised quotes if the interviewee takes too long to reply or seeks to change the answers or add new information. The Press Law also provides for a right of reply to be sent to the editor-in-chief within 21 days and to be published free of charge.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113683″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Portugal”][vc_column_text]

Portugal

Defamation, insult and false accusation are criminal offences, punishable with hefty fines and up to two years in prison. Stricter sanctions are applicable for defaming individuals in certain professions, including public officials, diplomats, the president or foreign heads of state. However, according to media lawyer Francisco Teixieira da Mota, due to the ECtHR’s repeated condemnation of Portugal for violating the right to freedom of expression through its use of criminal defamation, courts are not as receptive to criminal complaints as they once were, and convictions have greatly reduced.

Most lawsuits against the media are brought under the civil code, which provides broad protection to individual rights – particularly the right to a good name. A journalist who publishes factual information that is capable of damaging a legal or natural entity’s good name may be ordered to pay damages.

In their decisions, some courts have raised questions about the extent to which accepting ECtHR case law is constitutional in Portugal, given that the Portuguese constitution provides equal protection to freedom of expression and individuals’ right to a good name, reputation, and privacy. The constitution also protects an individual’s right to make corrections to publicly available information.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113685″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Romania”][vc_column_text]

Romania

Although there have been proposals to recriminalise the act of insulting the state and its leaders, defamation is not currently a criminal offence. The criminal code may be used to bring legal action for violation of privacy, but the law provides for a number of circumstances, including public interest, in which disclosures do not constitute offences.

Lawsuits are brought against the media under the civil code, which protects the right to privacy, dignity and one’s image. The constitution stipulates that the civil responsibility of the published information rests with the publisher or director, the author and the owner. According to Active Watch Romania, some but not all court judgments take ECtHR’s jurisprudence into account. It has raised concerns that judgments in civil matters are inconsistent and unpredictable. Under the civil code, there is no limit on the moral damages that may be awarded, but under the audio-visual law, the maximum fine the media can be subject to is the equivalent of about €40,000.

Emergency gag orders – known as “presidential ordinances” – are also being used to silence journalists, with claimants seeking to force the removal of information and to prevent further information from being published. Significant financial penalties can begin to accumulate if the information is not promptly removed. A gag order against the Romanian Centre for Investigative Journalism in December 2018 came into effect in January 2019, and since 30 July 2019 it has been accruing fines at a rate of about €200 per day for not removing certain Football Leaks’ stories. The gag order was filed in parallel with a civil suit, which is still pending.

Meanwhile, data protection law has also been abused to intimidate journalists and to force them to reveal their sources. In 2018, the investigative news site RISE Project received a letter from the Data Protection Agency, threatening to fine it €20 million if it failed to reveal its sources for the personal data contained in a series of articles.

The constitution states that freedom of expression may not prejudice individuals’ dignity, honour, privacy or the right to their own image. It also protects the secrecy of correspondence.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113687″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Slovakia”][vc_column_text]

Slovakia

Criminal defamation is punishable with up to two years imprisonment or, in extreme cases, up to eight years. Although complaints of criminal defamation were quite rare until recently, media lawyer Tomáš Langer says that they seem to be becoming increasingly common.

Most actions are taken under the civil code, which protects the individual’s personal rights, including honour, human dignity, privacy, name and expressions of a personal nature. The law provides for an individual to demand compensation, which is decided by the court while taking into account the seriousness of the harm and any unlawful interferences with the individual’s rights. Research published by the IPI in 2017 found that the compensation awarded in the majority of cases was €10,000 or less, although it may reach up to €20,000.

The time and costs associated with defending a lawsuit are a significant drain on media outlets, as it can take up to 10 years for a legal action to be concluded. Most lawsuits are filed against publications (rather than individual authors), but there are exceptions. Concerns have been raised in the past over the litigiousness of the Slovak judiciary, as well as the objectivity of their fellow judges given their frequent successes.

Data protection law has also been used to try to intimidate journalists, with the Slovak data protection authority sending a letter to the Czech Centre for Investigative Journalism threatening to impose a fine of up to €10 million if it did not disclose its sources.

The Slovak press code was amended last year to grant politicians the right to reply to media content when they allege their dignity, honour, or privacy to have been violated by false statements of facts. If a media outlet fails to publish a reply, it can be fined up to nearly €5,000. The code requires that a request for reply must be sent to the publisher before an action on publication of reply can be filed to the court. However, politicians often decide to immediately file a civil lawsuit on protection of personal rights without applying for a reply.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113689″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Slovenia”][vc_column_text]

Slovenia

Insult, defamation, slander, calumny and malicious false accusation of crime are all criminal offences, punishable with a fine of up to two years in prison. In practice, journalists are usually subject to suspended sentences or fines. Misuse of personal information, publication of private documents (diaries, letters or other private writings), unwarranted audio recording and unjustified image recording are punishable with a fine or up to a year in prison.

Civil action is more commonly used against the media, however, with action usually being taken under the civil code. Compensation may be awarded in cases where there has been an infringement of a personal right. It provides for monetary compensation for defamation of reputation even if there has been no material damage. Future immaterial damage may also be taken into account. Damages awarded usually range from €5,000 to €20,000, but may be more in extreme cases. According to media lawyer Jasna Zakonjšek, almost every decision in the area of media law is based on ECtHR case law.

The right to reply, privacy of correspondence and the protection of personal data are all guaranteed under the Slovenian constitution. Under the Mass Media Act, the right to reply allows not only for the correction of factual errors but also for “other or contradictory facts and circumstances” to be published. The media must publish or broadcast the unamended response either within 48 hours of receipt or in the next issue or episode.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113691″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Spain”][vc_column_text]

Spain

Both civil and criminal law are used to make legal threats and bring legal action against journalists in Spain. Criminal charges are filed against journalists for defamation and revelation of secrets, punishable with imprisonment of up to two and five years respectively. No journalists have been imprisoned on these charges in recent years, however. According to the IPI, vexatious criminal charges do reach the courts, but the majority of them are dismissed.

Civil defamation claims are brought under the 1982 Protection of Honour, Privacy and Right to a Respectful Image Law. There is no limit to the non-pecuniary damages that may be awarded. The 1982 law and the 1966 Press and Printing Law are referred to in a 2014 report by the Open Society Foundations as being “designed to protect any person who may feel offended by the truth”. Although the 1966 law has not been formally repealed, it has not been used since Spain’s transition to democracy in 1978.

According to media expert Joan Barata, the Constitutional and Supreme Courts’ case law – the most important reference for domestic courts – tends to align itself with that of the ECtHR, although there are exceptions, particularly regarding criminal cases. He says that case law from both courts has been becoming more closely aligned to ECtHR jurisprudence in recent years.

The right-of-reply process stipulates that anyone directly affected by publication of incorrect or damaging information may require the media outlet to publish a corrected version, without comment and with the same prominence as the original. Failure to comply can invoke court action to determine what sort of correction is appropriate. The right to honour, personal and family privacy and self-image are guaranteed by the constitution.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113693″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Sweden”][vc_column_text]

Sweden

The Freedom of the Press Act, one of four fundamental laws that makes up the Swedish constitution, states that no one may be prosecuted, held liable under criminal law or held liable for damages on account of an offence other than as prescribed in the cases specified in that act. The offences listed in the act include carelessness with secret information, treason and defamation.

Defamation, aggravated defamation and insult are criminal offences, punishable with fines or up to two years in prison. If the defamatory statement is found to be true or justifiable, the defendant is not held responsible. Liability for an offence lies with the responsible editor at the time of publication. The Freedom of the Press Act also provides for private claims for damages to be pursued on the basis of those offences.

In practice, due to the extensive constitutional protections afforded to the media, it is rare for legal action to be brought against a news outlet, much less for the complaint to result in a conviction. Complaints are usually made to the Media Ombudsman or the Swedish Press and Broadcasting Authority.

There is no statutory right of reply, but it exists de facto as a result of established practice under the Freedom of the Press Act and the operation of the Media Ombudsman and the Swedish Council for Media Ethics. In case of a code breach, the council requires the media outlet to publish (or broadcast) its decision and to pay an administrative fee.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113695″ img_size=”full” el_id=”United Kingdom”][vc_column_text]

United Kingdom

Legal threats and actions remain a serious threat to journalism throughout the UK, but the nature of the threats and actions differ significantly depending on the jurisdiction. Defamation is most commonly used; although it has been decriminalised throughout the UK, the law is not the same in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

England and Wales

In England and Wales, the Defamation Act 2013 has helped stem the flow of lawsuits by introducing a “serious harm” threshold and placing restrictions upon the types of cases that can be brought to court there. Although the act provides for truth and public interest defences, the burden of proof that is required from the publisher places an enormous, often impossible, burden on the media. The act provides that the author, editor or publisher may be liable for the offence.

A 2009 Reuters Institute report noted that “privacy actions have become the new libel”. Efforts are often made – sometimes successfully – to seek pre-publication injunctions under the Human Rights Act.

Although data protection provides certain protections for the media, it does not prevent individuals from filing subject access requests to news outlets, sometimes in an effort to intimidate journalists and prevent them from investigating the individual. Subject access requests can put a drain on small news outlets in particular. According to Pia Sarma, editorial legal director for Times Newspapers, data protection laws are now being used to protect reputation rather than personal data.

Scotland

In Scotland, defamation remains the most common route by which the media is legally challenged. According to the Scottish office of the National Union of Journalists, threats of legal action are far in excess of the actions being brought.

Defamation law is currently based mainly on common law, with some statutory provisions. A shortage of modern Scottish case law has resulted in Scottish courts and practitioners tending to follow decisions of the English courts and the ECtHR. A reform bill was introduced to the Scottish parliament in December 2019.

Northern Ireland

Defamation law, which is most commonly used to bring legal action against journalists in Northern Ireland, is determined by the Defamation Act 1955 and the Defamation Act 1996, alongside common law. Privacy law is also used, albeit less frequently. Northern Ireland judges have in the past cited public interest as a defence for the curtailment of the right to privacy.

According to media lawyer Olivia O’Kane, alleged terrorists have used libel and privacy actions in an effort to silence investigative journalists. Although their efforts have been unsuccessful, the battles have been “extremely costly and time-consuming”. In 2013, the then editor of the Belfast Telegraph was quoted in the House of Lords as having said that “I have edited newspapers in every country of the United Kingdom and the time and money now needed to fight off vexatious legal claims against us here is the highest I have ever experienced”.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”113700″ img_size=”full” el_id=”Annexes”][vc_column_text]

Annexes

Further reading

Defamation and Insult Laws in the OSCE Region: A Comparative Study: www.osce.org/fom/303181?download=true

Media Laws Database: http://legaldb.freemedia.at/

Freedom of Expression, Media Law and Defamation: www.mediadefence.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/MLDI.IPI%20defamation%20manual.English.pdf

Media Pluralism Monitor: https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/ 

Glossary

CEPEJ European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

IPI International Press Institute

OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe

SLAPP Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Right to reply (right to correction) The right to reply to or to defend oneself against public criticism in the same way in which the original criticism was published or broadcast. In some countries it is a legal or constitutional right, in other countries it is practised but not codified. In theory, the provision of a right to reply should help to prevent lawsuits from being brought against journalists and media outlets

Non-pecuniary Not consisting of money

Pecuniary Consisting of money

Tort A civil wrong (other than a breach of contract) causing harm for which compensation may be obtained in the form of damages or an injunction

Acknowledgements 

Index on Censorship would like to thank the following lawyers, media experts and association representatives for their contributions and feedback:

Vesna Alaburić, Croatian lawyer; Joan Barata, media law expert; Paško Bilić, Institute for Development and International Relations (Croatia); Linda Bīriņa, Latvian lawyer; Seweryn Blumsztajn and Krzysztof Bobinski, Society of Journalists (Poland); Justin Borg Barthet, University of Aberdeen; Bea Bodrogi, Hungarian lawyer; Vibeke Borberg, Danish lawyer; Linde Bryk, Amsterdam Law Clinics; Tove Carlen, Swedish Union of Journalists; Helena Chaloupková, Czech lawyer; Maria Cheresheva, AEJ-Bulgaria; Luc Caregari, Luxembourg Union of Journalists; Pol Deltour and Charlotte Michils, Flemish/Belgian Association of Journalists; Danka Derifaj and Hrvoje Zovko, Croatian Association of Journalists; Zsuzsa Detrekői, Hungarian lawyer; Palatics Edit, Hungarian lawyer; Achilles Emilianides, University of Nicosia; Kristine Foss, Norwegian Press Association; Liana Ganea, ActiveWatch Romania; Kalia Georgiou, Cypriot lawyer; Ralph Oliver Graef, German lawyer; Jan Hegemann, German lawyer; Charlie Holt, Greenpeace International; William Horsley, Centre for Freedom of the Media (UK); Theo Jordahl, Norwegian lawyer; Michael Kealey, Irish lawyer; Sarah Kieran, Irish Lawyer; Michal Klima, Czech branch of the IPI; Päivi Korpisaari, University of Helsinki; Yannis Kotsifos, ESIEMTH (Greece); Tomáš Langer, Slovak lawyer; Ann-Marie Lenihan, NewsBrands Ireland; Andrea Martin, Irish lawyer; Estelle Massé, Access Now; Roger Mann, German lawyer; Stratis Mavraganis, Greek lawyer; Tarlach McGonagle, Leiden Law School; Nick McGowan-Lowe, NUJ Scotland; Ingrida Milkaitė, Ghent University; Daniel Moßbrucker, University of Hamburg; Nicola Namdjou, Global Witness; Antonella Napoli, Articolo 21; Tomáš Němeček, Czech lawyer; Ants Nomper, Estonian lawyer; Nelly Ognyanova, Sofia University; Olivia O’Kane, Northern Ireland lawyer; Konrad Orlik, Polish lawyer; Gill Phillips, The Guardian News and Media; George Pleios, University of Athens; Pia Sarma, Times Newspapers; Konrad Siemaszko, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland); Andrej Školkay, The School of Communication and Media; Alberto Spampinato, Ossigeno per l’Informazione; Ivana Stigleitner Gotovac, Croatian lawyer; Francisco Teixieira da Mota, Portuguese lawyer; Helle Tiikmaa, Estonian Association of Journalists; Emmanuel Tordjman, French lawyer; Karmen Turk, Estonian lawyer; Paola Rosà, OBCT (Italy); Dori Ralli, ESIEA (Greece); Jens van den Brink, Dutch lawyer; Tess van der Linden, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Caro Van Wichelen, Belgian lawyer; Giulio Vasaturo, Sapienza University of Rome; Dirk Voorhoof, media law expert; Jon Wessel-Aas, Norwegian lawyer; Jasna Zakonjšek, Slovenian lawyer.

Photo credits

Chip Somodevilla/Getty (main image), fcangia (Austria), Reine-Marie Grard (Belgium), Jim Black (Bulgaria), Ivan Ivankovic (Croatia), Dimitris Vetsikas (Cyprus), Markéta Machová (Czech Republic), Thomas Wolter (Denmark), NolensVolens (Estonia), Tapio Haaja (Finland), Walkerssk (France), Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke (Germany), Panagiotis Lianos (Greece), Alexey Mikhaylov (Hungary), Larahcv (Ireland), Nikolaus Bader (Latvia), Evgeni Tcherkasski (Lithuania), Pit Karges (Luxembourg), Sofia Arkestål (Malta), Николай Начев (Netherlands), André Neufeld (Norway), Rudy and Peter Skitterians (Poland), Granito (Portugal), Arvid Olson (Romania), Momentmal (Slovakia), Vilva Roosioks (Slovenia), cerqueiraricardo (Spain), Ioannis Ioannidis (Sweden), luxstorm (UK)[/vc_column_text][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”113711″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https://postkodstiftelsen.se/en/”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]This report has been supported by the Swedish Postcode Foundation. The foundation is a beneficiary to the Swedish Postcode Lottery and provides support to projects that foster positive social impact or search for long-term solutions to global challenges. Since 2007, the foundation has distributed over 1.5 billion SEK in support of more than 600 projects in Sweden and internationally.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][vc_widget_sidebar sidebar_id=”smartslider_area_1″][/vc_column][/vc_row]