Greece: Press Freedom and Defamation Laws in a Time of Crisis
35
V Recommendations With respect to constitutional provisions: •
The provisions in the Greek Constitution allowing the seizure of newspapers on certain grounds (i.e., insults against religion; insults against the President; disclosure of information about the State military; obscenity and offenses to public morality) should be reconsidered during the next round of constitutional amendments, as they unduly restrict freedom of expression.
With respect to civil and criminal laws: •
A list of all legal injunctions, actions and lawsuits against journalists should be compiled, examined and publicised.
•
The Press Law should be immediately amended. The minimum amount of compensation should be revised or entirely suppressed. The grounds for legal actions on the basis of this law should be limited according to specifically designed criteria.
•
Deontology codes for journalists, reporters and TV presenters should be enforced by the relevant journalistic, reporters’ and media unions and Committees (e.g., the NCRTV, the EFE or the ESIEA). In order to guarantee the independence of the journalistic profession, courts should not apply deontology codes and other requirements of journalistic ethics as legal texts in order to define the amount of compensation in a civil defamation case. The Greek Deontology Law (Presidential Decree) should be amended accordingly.
•
Greece should immediately reform its criminal defamation laws in order to bring its legislation more closely in line with international standards on freedom of expression. In particular, •
Art. 363 should be completely repealed. Greece would conform here to PACE Recommendation 1589 (2003) on freedom of expression in the media in Europe, and also, in particular, with Recommendation 1814 (2007) and Resolution 1577 (2007) entitled “Towards decriminalisation of defamation”, as well to the comments of the U.N. Human Rights Committee related to criminal defamation and to those of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.
•
Other criminal defamation provisions should at least be reformed according to the following standards: • • • • • •
Imprisonment should no longer be a possible punishment. Cases should never be pursued ex officio by a public prosecutor. The burden of proof should be placed on the plaintiff. Existing defences, such as truth, should be applied in an effective and functional manner. Additional defences, such as reasonable publication and public interest, should be introduced, especially in cases involving the press. Legal costs incurred by the respondent should be reimbursed in the case that the court does not find a violation.
•
In both criminal and civil cases, steps should be taken to reduce vexatious litigation based on a “serious harm” principle.
•
Judges should receive training on European and international standards on freedom of expression and personality rights. They should be made aware in particular of the extensive case-law of the ECtHR on the matter, as well as of its elaborate methodology in dealing with conflicts of rights.