REPORTS
The ban on broadcasting trials as a restriction on freedom of the press and the right to information
On 5 July 2024, the government majority voted in favour of the law. 5119/2024 (Government Gazette Α’ 103/6.7.2024), which, having been submitted as a bill by the Minister of Justice George Florides, amended article 8 paragraph 1 of law 3090/2002 (Government Gazette Α’ 329/24.12.2002) concerning the conditions for the broadcasting of trials.
Article 8 paragraph 1 of Law No. 3090/2002 had provided that the total or partial broadcasting by television or radio, as well as the filming and recording of the proceedings before a criminal, civil or administrative court was prohibited. By way of exception, the court may allow such actions if the prosecutor and the parties consent and if there is an essential public interest.
The new provisions of Article 8 paragraph 1 of Law no. 3090/2002 establish that the total or partial transmission by any means, in particular by television, radio, internet and any other technological means, as well as the filming, taping, and recording of the proceedings in written form by means of special software that converts oral speech into written form, before a criminal, civil or administrative court, is prohibited. By way of exception, the court may authorise broadcast if the prosecutor and the parties consent and if there is an essential public interest.
Therefore, the new legislative provision establishes a general, universal ban on any type of broadcasting of trials, whereas the older legislation restricted specific forms of broadcasting or recording of the trial (television, radio, filming and taping).
This legislative change has been criticised by legal experts, journalists’ associations and media outlets as an unjustified restriction of the freedom of the press, as guaranteed by Article 14 paragraph 2 of the Constitution, (“The press is free. Censorship and all other preventive measures are prohibited.”) as well as the right to information, guaranteed by Article 5A of the Constitution, :which reads“1. All persons have the right to information,as specified by law. Restrictions to this right may be imposed by law only insofar as they are absolutely necessary and justified for reasons of national security, of combating crime or of protecting rights and interests of third parties. 2. All persons have the right to participate in the Information Society. Facilitation of access to electronically transmitted information, as well as of the production, exchange and diffusion thereof, constitutes an obligation of the State, always in observance of the guarantees of articles 9, 9A and 19.”
This new provision also has bearing on Article 93 of the Constitution, the first paragraph of which guarantees the separation of powers (“Courts are distinguished into administrative and civil and criminal courts, and they are organized by special statutes.”) and the second paragraph, which reads: “The sittings of all courts shall be public, except when the court decides that publicity would be detrimental to the good usages or that special reasons call for the protection of the private or family life of the litigants.”
As Professor of Public Law at the Department of Public Administration of Panteion University Xenophon Contiades points out, the legislator has reversed this constitutional rule on the publicity of trials, making the exception the rule, damaging the fundamental right to information.
The new legislative provision limits the possibility of broadcasting the trial even by simply recording the exact text of what is said in it, to the detriment of the freedom of the press, the right to information and trial watchdogs, which in recent years have covered court cases of significant and reasonable public interest (such as Golden Dawn Watch, Lignadis Trial Watch, ZackieOh Justice Watch, Kivotos Trial Watch).
In fact, the new regulation has already been used. On 8 July 2024, the president of the court, citing the new provision, banned the omniatv media outlet from providing written media coverage of the trial of the April 2018 racist attack against refugees in Mytilene’s Sapphous Square.
The Panhellenic Federation of Journalists’ Unions (Posey) issued a statement on the issue, asking the government and Justice Minister George Florides to withdraw the relevant provision.
The Union of Judges and Prosecutors also expressed its opposition to the Florides provision during a meeting with the Minister of Justice. The Union also issued a statement, disagreeing with the restriction of the principle of publicity of the trial in any way, on the basis that the judicial function derives its legitimacy from the reasoning of decisions and the publicity of the proceedings.
It should be noted that following these reactions, the government argued that its new regulation is not intended to ban reporting on trials of great public interest. In a letter to the Reporters United journalist team, government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis specified that the government had not legislated a ban on broadcasting trials, but rather had merely added a restriction on internet broadcasting.
However, a comparison of the old and the new provision shows that, while the old provision provided for certain methods of prohibiting the transmission of a trial (by television, radio, filming and taping), the new law prohibits ‘any total or partial transmission’ of a trial and this ‘by any means’. Therefore, the new provision did not simply add a restriction on internet broadcasting, as the Greek government claims.
This is also evident from the fact that, apart from the aforementioned ban on omniatv coverage of the trial, during the continuing Golden Dawn trial, on July 17, the lawyers of Nikos Michaloliakos and Artemis Matthaiopoulos (Dimitris Papadellis and Nikos Roussopoulos) requested, according to a report by Efsyn, the expulsion of a member of the Observatory for the Golden Dawn Trial who was in the courtroom, with Mr. Roussopoulos invoking the new Florides provision.
The court agreed with the proposal of the prosecutor Kyriaki Stefanatou to record the request in the minutes and send it to the prosecutor’s office, so that the competent prosecutor can decide whether to proceed with a preliminary investigation for a possible violation of the new provision by the members of the Observatory. Therefore, contrary to what the government claims, the new Florides provision has already been applied or invoked on two occasions, limiting the coverage of major trials.
On the above development, the Golden Dawn Trial Observatory have commented that their early concerns about the legislation had been borne out. They urge that the general ban on reporting trial coverage should be lifted as soon as possible.
A state governed by the rule of law must formulate a set of legal provisions which, while protecting the rights and interests of third parties, will ensure that freedom of the press, the right to information and the publicity of the trial are guaranteed and respected.
However, the new provision of the government which, by Law no. 5119/2024 (Government Gazette A’ 103/6.7.2024) amended Article 8(1) of Law no. 3090/2002 (Government Gazette A’ 329/24.12.2002) concerning the conditions for the broadcasting of trials is contrary to the freedom of the press, the right to information and the publicity of the trial, raising a question of compatibility with Articles 14(2), 5A and 93(2) of the Constitution.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
