MINUTES OF THE 6th ANNUAL AIPCE MEETING

The meeting place was the Journalists’ House, the newly build premises of the Cyprus Union of Journalists, an organization established in 1959. The meeting was actually an inaugural event for the premises, which has received an architectural competition prize.

A notable element of the meeting was the record number of participation, with close to 40 delegates from 20 countries, representing PCCs’ and organizations dealing in human or citizens’ rights.

Another notable element was the participation of delegates from former socialist countries which are in the early stages or in the process of establishing a PCC. Hence, a considerable part of the meeting was devoted to the discussion on the process, on their experiences and difficulties in establishing a PCC, and on ways AIPCE and other establishments could render help. Emphasis was given to the effort undertaken in Russia to establish regional Press Councils.

Still, on the matter of establishing PCCs’, the desirability of establishing independent PCCs’, or under law (or the law recognising the PCC’s existence, was given consideration.

The meeting was informed on the experiences of Luxembourg, where a Press Council existed but a process was under way at the time to reform the Press Law, an effort which was described as “a kind of bridge between the free expression of opinion and the protection of privacy”, on which “a good middle ground was found between both requirements”.

Other topics discussed were the self-regulatory mechanics on site and second-degree auditing of PCCs’ work.

Unavoidably, recent law cases, both by national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and European Directives which have a direct bearing on the work of PCCs, were given consideration.

The most notable of these law cases is the Princess Caroline Case, which was vividly presented by the German delegates.

The Market Abuse Directives of the European Union and the best way to transform them into national law was also, once again, discussed, the discussion having started at the 4^th AIPCE meeting in Malta, in October 2002.

Ways of action were decided both on the national and European levels and since then some important developments have taken place. Britain and Cyprus opted for self-regulation on the matter of financial reporting and the same effort is being made to have other countries follow suit.

The question of how to treat complaints against publications that are published in a language other than the indigenous language was taken up and a consensus was reached that the cultural background of the people involved should be taken into consideration.

An interesting case study dealing with treatment of people in grief was presented by the UK PCC.

Finally, the suggestion of AIPCE expanding and becoming AIPCW was raised.

A consensus was reached that AIPCE was formulated to take account of the European conditions and needs and should stay that way, but the matter was left open for future discussion.

The meting accepted unanimously the invitation of the Luxembourg to host the 2005 meeting and three offers were made for hosting the 2006 meeting, by Ireland, Bulgaria and Israel. Firm offers for this meeting will be made later and be decided upon in Luxembourg.

After the meeting, delegates were received by the House Chairman, Mr. Demetris Christofias, visited the Cyprus Museum and the old Nicosia town and were hosted at a reception by the Mayor o Nicosia, Mr. Michael Zambelas.

On the 9^th of October a full day excursion to Paphos was organised for delegates by the CMCC. They visited the ancient Roman Theatre at Curium, the legendary birthplace of Aphrodite at Petra-tou-Romiou and the Mosaics of the “Dionysos Villa” at Paphos, taking finally a dip into the sea.

THE AGENDA

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004

09:00 Welcome

Andreas Mavrommatis,

Chairman of the Cyprus Media Complaints Commission.

Andreas Kannaouros,

Chairman of Cyprus Journalists Union, hosting the meeting.

Opening Address,

His Excellency Mr. Andreas Christou, Minister of Interior.

09:45 Welcome reception by the Ministry of Interior- Journalists’ House

10:45 Minutes of the 5^th AIPCE meeting held in Stockholm, 19-20 September, 2003.

National reports (5 minutes each-total 1 hour, 30 minutes)

12:30 Self-regulatory mechanics-The activities of Readers’ editor (on-site Ombudsmen)

Ian Mayes, Readers’ editor-Guardian, President of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen

Guarding the Guardians-Second degree auditing of PCs activities, so as to counter criticism.

Prof. Jean-Claude Bertrand

Discussion

14:00 Lunch- Journalists’ House

15:45 European directives on Mass Media and European case law:

How do they affect the media-journalists-PCs’ work?

Developments on MAD directives

Henry Manisty, Reuters

European case law- the Princess Caroline case

Lutz Tillmanns, Director, German Press Council

Discussion-resolution

18:00 End of session-transport to the Hotel

20:30 Dinner

22:30 Coach return to the Hotel

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2004

09:00 Establishing Press Councils- Prospects and problems

Learning from the experiences in Eastern Europe:

Danilo Leonardi, PCML-Programme in Comparative Media Law at the Centre of Sosio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford

Andrei Richter, Moscow Media Law and Policy Institute,

Angelica Sineok, Sergey Oulezko, Rostov Regional Centre of Mass Media and Law

Fedor Lavrikov Vasilievich

The Western Europe Experience:

The new press law of Luxembourg-regulation by law or Press Councils.

Luxembourg Press Council

The German Press Law

German Press Council

Discussion

Desirability (or not) to have PCs’ established by law or their existence recognized by law.

11:00 Coffee break- Journalists’ House

11:30 How to treat complaints against publications that are published in a language other than the indigenous language or languages.

Judge Johan Hirschfeldt, President of the Press Council of Sweden.

Case study

Anybody who has an interesting case.

12:30 AIPCE or AIPCW?

Discussion

AIPCE 2005-beyond

12.45 Closing remarks

13:00 END OF MEETING

13:00 Lunch- Journalists’ House

15.00 Visit to the President of the House of Representatives Mr Demitris Christofias

17.30 Walk around old Nicosia town with Mayor Mr. Michael Zampelas

19.30 Dinner-reception, Nicosia Town Hall, hosted by Mayor Mr Michael Zampelas

21.00 Return to the hotel.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2004

08:30 Departure for Paphos

10.00 Pass by Ancient Amathous

10:30 Stop at the 13^th century Colossi Castle built by the Crusaders

11.00 Stop at Curium Greco-Roman Theater

12:00 Petra tou Romiou (Aphrodite’s birthplace)-short coffee stop

12:30 Visit of Paphos Mosaics (Tombs of the Kings?)

13:30 Lunch- Stoll at promenade

16:00 Departure for Nicosia

18.30 Arrival at Hotel

FREE ACTIVITIES

MINUTES OF THE 6^th ANNUAL AIPCE MEETING

The 6^th annual AIPCE meeting was held at the Journalists’ House in Nicosia, Cyprus, on the 7^th and 8^th October, 2004

Delegates Attending

Remzi LANI	Albania
Boris NAVASARDIAN	Armenia
Flip VOETS	Belgium
Nermin Durmo	Bosnia-Herzegovina
Ognian ZLATEV	Bulgaria
Finn ROWOLD	Denmark
Henrik RIIS ANDREASEN	Denmark
Tiina KAALEP	Estonia
Juha HANNINEN	Finland
Claude-Jean BERTRAND	France
Levan RAMISHVILI	Georgia
LutzTILLMANNS	Germany
Ilka DESGRANGES	Germany
Frank CULLEN	Ireland
Yehiel LIMOR	Israel
Charles RUPPERT	Luxembourg
Fernand WEIDES	Luxembourg
Joseph LORENT	Luxembourg
Angelica SINEOK	Russia (Rostov)
Sergei OULEZKO,	Russia (Rostov)
Fedor Vasiliievich LAVRIKOV	Russia
Andrei RICHTER	Russia
Johan HIRSCHFELDT	Sweden
Peter STUDER	Switzerland
Taras KUZMOV	Ukraine
Tim TOULLMIN	UK
William GORE	UK
David CHIPP	UK
Robert PINKER	UKChairman of Press Council of Bosnia & Herzegovina
Ian MAYES	UK (Readers’ Editor-Guardian)
Stewart CHISHOLM	UK (Open Society Foundation)
Sara BUCHANAN (GAUNT)	UK (Article 19)
Danilo LEONARDI	UK (PCLMP - Programme in Comparative Media Law at the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford University
Henry MANISTY	UK (Reuters)
Andreas MAVROMMATIS	CYPRUS (CMCC) Chairman
Petros ZACHARIADES	CMCC Vice-chairman
Petros PETRIDES	CMCC Secretary
Alexandra GALANOU	CMCC member
Andreas KANNAOUROS	CMCC member
Antros MICHAELIDES	CMCC member
Eleni MARANGOU	CMCC member
George THEODOULOU	CMCC member
George PAVLIDES	CMCC member
Joseph JOSEPH	CMCC member
Kypros KOURTELLARIS	CMCC member
Maroula IAKOVIDOU	CMCC member
Masis der PARTOG	CMCC member

Note: Vugar Rahimzada, of the Azerbaijan Press Council could not attend because he had to undergo urgent operation and Prof. Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, Chairman of the Maltese Ethics Commission could not arrive in time.

The meeting was chaired by Andreas Mavrommatis, Chairman of the Cyprus Media Complaints Commission.

Thuerday, 7^th October, 2004

Welcome ceremony

The Chairman of the Cyprus Media Complaints commission Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis welcomed the delegates at the meeting, hailing their presence as an “indication of your interest in the role that the media play in every day life and at the same time a source of encouragement to all of us un the AIPCE to continue trying to improve ethics, to respect deontology and raise standards but in such a way, mainly through self-regulation, as will in no way gag the media or adversely affect the freedom of the press in its widest sense”.

Mr Mavrommatis also thanked all donors who made possible the holding of the meeting and the presence of so many delegates.

Mr. Andreas Kannaouros, the Chairman of the Union of Cyprus Journalists, who hosted the meeting, also welcomed the delegates.

Mr. Andreas Christou, the Minister of the Interior was called to give a welcoming address.

The Minister praised the work Press Councils carry out in their respective country and the effort undertaken to set up Press Councils in of former socialist countries.

He said that the media, having full freedom of expression should not enjoy any form of impunity vis-à-vis the law and the society, but should display a form of responsibility, the Press Ethics Code playing the role of a contract between the Mass Media and Society.

He said that “self-regulation which aims at raising the quality of press work, the observance of press ethics an the provision of correct information to citizens serves the interest of all parties. The Minister added that “the government supports your effort, as the promotion of freedom of expression and the provision of truthful information to citizens in the final analysis promote democracy and peace”.

The Minister hosted a welcoming reception for delegates.

WORKING SESSIONS

Thursday, October 7, 2004

1^st Session, 10.45 a.m

The Chairman declared the meeting is session.

The minutes of the 5^th AIPCE meeting held in Stockholm, 11-12 September, 2003 were approved.

National Reports

Delegates presented their national reports, as follows:

1. Tim Toullmin, Director of the UK Press Complaints Commission, reported that the hurdles presented by a parliamentary select committee had been overcome in 2003 and that the previous twelve months has been concerned with putting in place a number of reforms.  In particular, he spoke of the introduction of a Charter Commissioner who had the power to investigate complaints about the way the Commission itself had handled   cases.  In addition, the Commission's majority of public members had been increased from nine out of sixteen to ten out of

seventeen.  The Code of Practice was revised in June in order to account of technological advances - although there were no radical changes. He explained that, with regard to rulings that the Commission had made, there had been few controversies.  However, a major threat over the last year had come from legal cases - for example those of Naomi Campbell and Princess Caroline - which had referred to questions of individuals' privacy.  While it was still unclear as to the long-term impact of those cases, the fact remained that many lawyers were using recent judgments to put pressure on the Commission.

2. Remzi Lani, Director of the Albanian Press Institute said the Institute is now moving in two directions, namely to improve the defamation law and the Press Law and also re-issue the Ethical Code. He said Albania is in need of a Press Council because the Media are now frequently taken to court.

3. Ognian Slatev, of the Bulgarian Media Development Centre is in the process of establishing a Press Council. An understanding exists between the journalists and publishers. There is an argument whether there should be a separate Press Council for the written media and one for electronic media. Newspapers are now frequently taken to court for libel.

4. Fernand Weides, Vice-chairman of the Conseil de presse du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg, said the Council is the official discussion media-partner to discuss press and media affairs with the government. In the last 12 months it distributed new journalist cards, organised training seminars and had discussions with the Luxembourg Medical council on ethics in the field of medical journalism, organised the operation of “press in school”, had several representative jobs to do and discussed with the government media service about the new “data protection” law and the “new press law” (to replace the one of 1869), known as the “Law of the 8^th of June, 2004, to ensure the freedom to express opinion in the media”.

5. Henrik Riis Andreasen, Legal secretary of the Danish Press Council, said 163 complaints were received last year, the second highest number ever, and up to now this year 105 complaints were received. The Chairman scrutinises the complaints and decides whether to examine or reject any one of them. The Council seeks unanimous decisions and members dissented in only 5 cases. The Council was convened 73 days last year and its aim is to have a case decided within 3 months. A complaint has to be made by a person or organisation having a legal interest, but a case can be taken up either after a proposal by the public, or on the Council’s own initiative, which has happened only once, in 1997. The Council is lately criticised from various sides for its reluctance to take up cases on its own initiative and for taking too long to consider cases.

6. Ilka Desgranges, Chairman of the German Press Council said the main complaints received in 2004 had to do with bugging operations, financial market reporting, improper photos, the freedom of information act on access to "STASI" files and the Caroline Judgement.

The German Press Council believes that the freedom of the press in Germany is being increasingly restricted through various bills and European judgements.

Another topic dealt with in 2004 was the German Press Council itself. Critics suggest that the German Press Council widens its scope so as to bring under its jurisdiction all media.

Some important changes regarding the German Press Council was the increase of the members of the Plenum from 20 to 28 members. The complaints panel works in two chambers of six members each, three publishers and three journalists, so as to speed up work due to the large number o complaints. A third chamber deals with data protection.

Last year there a total of 682 complaints were lodged. The number of cases checked via the press code of conduct was 542. The complaints panel dealt with a total of 235 complaints and 8 were checked by the editorial data protection panel.

There were 20 public and six non-public retractions, 49 disapprovals and 55 warnings. Except in two cases, all public retractions were printed by the offending publication.

Newsletters with the decisions of the Council was published and distributed to 550 editorial departments. It is also available to the public free of charge.

The yearbook published in August focused on editorial independence and in September a public hearing on cruel and violent photos and in November a symposium will be held in Berlin on the Freedom of the Press and Data Protection.

7. Peter Studer, President of the Swiss Press Council, spoke on the Fairness Principle as a necessary component of ethics in the media, giving a detailed account of what various media regard as fairness. He stated that the fairness principle should not be confused with “objectivity”. Fairness means to give the other side the right and opportunity for a considered response. The Swiss Press Council has never recognised a duty to be “objective”-as long as the public can separate facts from opinion. With this in mind the Swiss Press Council has added a new directive to its Code of Practice requiring journalists to give to people the chance to express their views on serious allegations against them.

8. Yehiel Limor, Public's representative on the Israeli Press Council, said the Council panel, consisting of representatives of the publishers, (30%), the journalists (30%) and the public (40%) receives an average of 70-100 complaints every year. The PC helps to protect the media against law regulation. The Israeli PC faces at the moment a crisis because for more than a year it has been left without a chairman, who has to come from the public. There is confrontation, because the publishers want to impose their candidate, while the public's representatives support their own candidate.

9. Levan Ramishvili, from Georgia, said efforts are being made to set up a Press Council, which are however hampered by rivalries between the media. Journalists are working on promoting media legislation relating both to the written and electronic media and reform of the law on libel and slander.

10. Tiina Kaalep, Chairman of the Estonian Press Council said the panel, comprising of 16 members (8 from the media, 4 from the journalists and 4 from experts and law people) consider an average of 100 cases a year. Most common complaints relate to the right of privacy, photographs and headlines.

11. Flip Voets, of the Press Council for the Flemish speaking part of Belgium, said the Council, set up in 2002, comprises of 6 representatives from the publishers, 6 from journalists and 6 from outside the press industry. Last year it received 45 complaints, mostly having to do with the right of privacy and with lack of accuracy. Of these complaints, 20 were settled and 10 decided upon. The French speaking part of Belgium has not yet set up a Press Council. The Flemish Council is in close contact with the French speaking media industry. The Belgian judiciary has been under criticism for not offering protection for the sources of journalists and Parliament is discussing a draft bill aimed at protecting the sources of journalists.

12. Taras Kusmov, of the Journalistic Ethics Commission of Ukraine said that it is close to impossible to set up a commission and formulate an ethics code, because the media in the country are being manipulated and controlled by politicians. The government tells the Media what will not be news and which topics will be news and how to be reported. The credibility of the Media is at its very lowest. Despite this situation, an effort has been undertaken this year to set up a Journalistic Ethics Commission and it has already started receiving complaints from the public, which is an encouraging sign.

13. Nermin Durmo, Director of the Press Council of Bosnia & Herzegovina said the Council, established in 2000, had become operational in 2001. It consists of 12 members, 6 coming from the Press and 6 from the public, with an Independent Chairman, Robert Pinker, International Adviser of the UK Press Council.

Most complaints received concern breaches of the right of privacy and unfair reporting. A serious problem for the Council is funding is activities, which has lead to a decision to allocate 4 seats on the panel to newspapers, which in return will pay a contribution to the Council.

14. Frank Cullen, of the National Newspaper of Ireland announced that good, although slow progress is being made towards establishing an Office of Press Ombudsman and a Press Council, encompassing both national and regional papers, as well as UK titles with Irish editions. The Steering Committee is almost ready to present a final proposal to the government as to the type and structure of the Press Council, while a code Committee is finilising a Code of Practice. An appointments committee will undertake the task of appointing the independent chairman of the Council, its members and Press Ombudsman, and an administrative committee will be responsible for matters of funding. The government has promised to proceed with law reform concerning libel. The Council will not be a statutory one, as was originally proposed, but it will be recognised by Law. A Bill will be tabled within the first six months of next year and hopefully the Council will be established in 12 months time.

15. Andrei Richter, of the Moscow Media Law and Policy Institute talked on the tasks of the Grand Jury, established in 1998. The main problem of the Jury is the refusal of the papers concerned to publish its decisions. They are published, though, by a trade paper, which however does not enjoy a high circulation.

16. Boris Navasardian, President of Yerevan Press Club said journalists are working on establishing an institute of media self regulation. There was resistance to this effort because of the political polarization in the country and fears that journalists would be deprived of their freedom of expression. Now this has changed because journalists are taken to court on defamation charges. A campaign for self-regulation started last year with the aim of finding a balance between self-regulation and a more liberal media law and a revised law of libel and defamation.

17. Johan Hirschfeldt, Chairman of the Swedish Press Council explained the workings of the country’s dual system of Press Ombudsman and Press Council. The Council has in 2003 found for the complainant in about 40 cases of in total about 100 cases. A notable case was the publication of close up pictures by Expressen, showing Foreign Minister Anna Lind after being shot. The pictures showed her on a stretcher very weak and with blood stains. The paper gave an explanation that the pictures were part of the history of the country, but both the Ombudsman and the Press Council criticized the paper for publishing the close-up pictures. This case was followed by a related one, when a man known for criminal activities was arrested on suspicion for the murder of the Minister, put in custody and released on the same day, when a second man was arrested and subsequently found guilty of the murder. There were many reports about these two men at the very early stages of the arrests. The first man did not complain, but the sentenced man lodged a complain. The Ombudsman decided not to criticize in this case (the Council has later on decided to follow the Ombudsman).

David CHIPP

Stewart CHISHOLM