19 May 2021 | Croatia, Monaco, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Mr. Ivan Malenica
Minister of Justice
Ulica grada Vukovara 49
Maksimirska 63
10 000 Zagreb
Republic of Croatia
Tuesday 18 May 2021
Dear Minister,
Jonathan Taylor is a whistleblower; he is a witness to a crime who has cooperated with law enforcement bodies in seven different jurisdictions and should be protected as such. He has been in Croatia for nearly 10 months appealing against a request for extradition from Monaco. Now that the Supreme Court of Croatia has issued its judgment, the final decision on whether or not to extradite Mr. Taylor is up to you, the Minister of Justice.
The Supreme Court of Croatia fully recognises Mr. Taylor’s status as a whistleblower and for the reasons we set out below, we urge you, the Minister of Justice, to refuse Monaco’s abusive request to extradite Mr. Taylor to Monaco and to allow him to return home to the United Kingdom immediately.
Mr. Taylor is a British national who, during the course of his employment as a lawyer for the Dutch-listed oil industry firm SBM Offshore N.V., with its main office in the Principality of Monaco, uncovered one of the largest corruption and bribery scandals in the world that resulted in criminal investigations in the United Kingdom, United States of America, Netherlands, Switzerland and Brazil. His evidence contributed to the company paying fines amounting to over US$800 million and, to date, the imprisonment of three individuals directly involved in the scandal, including the former CEO of SBM Offshore N.V.
Monaco to date has failed to initiate a single criminal investigation into highly credible and well documented allegations of bribery and corruption on the part of SBM Offshore. Instead, it has targeted the one person who blew the whistle and brought public scrutiny to such widespread financial crimes.
On 30 July 2020, over eight years after blowing the whistle on corruption, Jonathan travelled to Dubrovnik, Republic of Croatia for a family holiday. He was arrested at the airport on the basis of a communication issued by Monaco on what was originally stated to be allegations of bribery and corruption. Not only do these allegations have no proper basis in law or fact and constitute an abuse of process but crucially, Mr. Taylor, his lawyers and the Croatian Courts have since been informed in writing that Mr. Taylor is wanted for questioning to determine whether or not to charge him.
At no stage did the law enforcement or judicial authorities in Monaco seek his extradition from the United Kingdom, where Mr. Taylor has lived since 2013, until he was apprehended in Dubrovnik, for the very reason that they knew it would not succeed.
Mr. Taylor has made it clear since 2017, when he first became aware that his former employer, the Dutch listed SBM Offshore N.V. had lodged a criminal complaint in Monaco three years earlier, that he would answer any questions the authorities had of him from the United Kingdom, either remotely or in person. And since his unlawful detention in Croatia, the offer to answer questions there has been repeated on the agreement that he is able to return home to the United Kingdom.
For Jonathan to be returned to Monaco to face questioning in order to determine whether charges should be laid amounts to a clear act of retaliation for his having disclosed the corrupt practices of a major offshore oil firm and one of the largest private sector employers in the small principality.
In March 2021, after the Supreme Court of Croatia partially upheld a second appeal against extradition, the Dubrovnik court was ordered to seek further clarification from the Monegasque authorities regarding the status of the criminal proceedings for which Mr. Taylor was allegedly charged. A letter from the Director of Judicial Services in Monaco sent on 1 March 2021 confirmed there Mr. Taylor is not charged with anything as there are no criminal proceedings, nor is there any execution of a judgement for which he is wanted – which are the only two valid legal bases for seeking extradition. In fact, Interpol confirmed yet again on the 23rd March 2021 that Mr. Taylor is no longer subject to Interpol Red Notice. This after Monaco withdrew the arrest warrant in December 2020.
Further, now that Mr. Taylor’s status as a whistleblower has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Croatia, even if the Minister accepts that conditions for extradition have been met, in light of Croatia’s duties and obligations under the EU Directive on the protection of whistleblowers and the clearly retaliatory nature of the Monegasque request to extradite Mr. Taylor for questioning, we humbly submit that the decision by the Minister should be to reject it.
Croatia is part of the European Union and one of the 27 Member States which must transpose the EU Directive on the protection of whistleblowers into its national legal system by December 2021. The Directive seeks to harmonise protections for those who report wrongdoing and corruption across Europe. It is crucial that Croatia upholds both the spirit and obligations of the Directive to ensure that whistleblowers are protected by law and this includes ensuring they are immune from civil and criminal liability for having blown the whistle. In a case of such serious corruption like this one, it is essential that vital anti-corruption whistleblower protections do not fall down between borders. To do otherwise, allows those involved in corruption to send a chilling warning to whistleblowers and investigative journalists across the globe that undermines all the efforts of the European Union and the Croatian Government to prevent and root out the corruption that undermines the fabric of its societies and the well-being of its people.
For these very important reasons, and because of his protected status as a whistleblower, we, the undersigned, urge you, the Minister of Justice, to uphold the Rule of Law, reject the extradition order and allow Jonathan Taylor to return home immediately.
Yours sincerely,
Anna Myers, Executive Director, Whistleblowing International Network
on behalf of the Jonathan Taylor Support Committee
With support from:
Access Info Europe (Spain/Europe)
African Centre for Media & Information Literacy (Nigeria)
ARTICLE 19 (United Kingdom)
Blueprint for Free Speech (Australia)
Campax, Switzerland
Center for Whistleblowers Protection (Slovenia)
Centre for Free Expression (Canada)
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
FIND – Financial Investigations (UK)
Free Press Unlimited (Netherlands)
General Workers Union Portugal (UGT-P)
GlobaLeaks (Italy)
Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers (United Kingdom)
Human Rights House Zagreb (Croatia)
Le Réseau Panafricain de Lutte contre la Corruption (UNIS)
Maison des Lanceurs d’Alerte (France)
OBC Transeuropa
Parrhesia Inc (UK)
Pištaljka (Serbia)
Protect (United Kingdom)
South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO), (Austria)
SpeakOut SpeakUp Ltd (United Kingdom)
Terra Cypria-the Cyprus Conservation Foundation (Cyprus)
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation (Malta)
The Signals Network (USA/France)
Transparency International (Secretariat, Germany)
Transparency International Bulgaria
Transparency International EU
Transparency International Ireland
Transparency International Italia
Transparency International Slovenia
Vanja Jurić, Attorney at law (Croatia)
WBN – Whistleblower Netzwerk (Germany)
Whistleblowers UK
Baroness Kramer, Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Whistleblowing
Dr John O’Connor Physician and Whistleblower (Canada)
Martin Bright, Editor, Index on Censorship (United Kingdom)
Peter Matjašič, Senior Program Officer, Open Society Initiative for Europe (OSIFE)
Professor David Lewis, Middlesex University. (United Kingdom)
Professor Wim Vandekerckhove, University of Greenwich (United Kingdom)
Susan Hawley, Executive Director, Spotlight on Corruption (UK)
Thomas Devine, Legal Director, Government Accountability Project (USA)
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][three_column_post title=”You may also want to read” category_id=”256″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
8 Jun 2020 | Statements
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
The problem: gag lawsuits against public interest defenders
The EU must end gag lawsuits used to silence individuals and organisations that hold those in positions of power to account. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) are lawsuits brought forward by powerful actors (e.g. companies, public officials in their private capacity, high profile persons) to harass and silence those speaking out in the public interest. Typical victims are those with a watchdog role, for instance: journalists, activists, informal associations, academics, trade unions, media organisations and civil society organisations.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”3/4″][vc_column_text]Recent examples of SLAPPs include PayPal suing SumOfUs for a peaceful protest outside PayPal’s German headquarters; co-owners of Malta’s Satabank suing blogger Manuel Delia for a blog post denouncing money laundering at Satabank; and Bollore Group suing Sherpa and ReAct in France to stop them from reporting human rights abuses in Cameroon. In Italy more than 6,000 or two-thirds of defamation lawsuits filed against journalists and media outlets annually are dismissed as meritless by a judge. When Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was brutally killed, there were 47 SLAPPs pending against her.
(Index has recently published a comprehensive review of the laws being used to silence journalists – click on the report cover to the right to read it.)[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”113782″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” img_link_target=”_blank” link=”https://www.indexoncensorship.org/campaigns/the-laws-being-used-to-silence-media/”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]SLAPPs are a threat to the EU legal order, and, in particular:
● A threat to democracy and fundamental rights. The EU is founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights. SLAPPs impair the right to freedom of expression, to public participation and to assembly of those who speak out in the public interest, and have a chilling effect on the exercise of these rights by the community at large.
● A threat to access to justice and judicial cooperation. Cross-border judicial cooperation relies on the principles of effective access to justice across the Union and mutual trust between legal systems. That trust must be based on the legally enforceable upholding of common values and minimum standards. To the extent that they distort and abuse the system of civil law remedies, SLAPPs undermine the mutual trust between EU legal systems: member states must be confident that rulings issued by other member states’ courts are not the result of abusive legal strategies and are adopted as the outcome of genuine proceedings.
● A threat to the enforcement of EU law, including in connection to the internal market and the protection of the EU budget. The effective enforcement of EU law, including the proper
functioning of the internal market, depends on the scrutiny of the behaviour of individual entities by the EU, member states and – crucially – informed individuals. Watchdogs, be it media or civil society actors, play a key enforcement role. Therefore, the absence of a system which safeguards public scrutiny is a threat to the enforcement of EU law. The same reasoning applies to the management of EU programmes and budget, which cannot be monitored through the sole vigilance of the European Commission.
● A threat to freedom of movement. The absence of rules to protect watchdogs from SLAPP has an impact on the exercise of the Treaty’s fundamental freedoms, since it affects the ability of media, civil society organisations and information services providers to confidently operate in jurisdictions where the risk of SLAPPs is higher, and discourages people from working for organisations where they can be the target of SLAPPs.
The solution: an EU set of anti-SLAPP measures
The EU can and must end SLAPPs by adopting the following complementary measures to protect all
those affected by SLAPPs:
1. An anti-SLAPP directive
An anti-SLAPP directive is needed to establish a Union-wide minimum standard of protection against SLAPPs, by introducing exemplary sanctions to be applied to claimants bringing abusive lawsuits, procedural safeguards for SLAPP victims, including special motions to contest the admissibility of certain claims and/or rules making the burden shifting to the plaintiff to demonstrate a reasonable probability of succeeding in such claims, as well as other types of preventive measures. The Whistle-Blower Directive sets an important precedent protecting those who report a breach of Union law in a work-related context. Now the EU must ensure a high standard of protection against gag lawsuits for everyone who speaks out – irrespective of the form and the context – in the public interest.
The legal basis for an anti-SLAPP directive is to be found in multiple provisions of the Treaty; for example, Article 114 TFEU on the proper functioning of the internal market, Article 81 TFEU on judicial cooperation and effective access to justice and Article 325 TFEU on combating fraudrelated to EU programmes and budgets.
2. The reform of Brussels I and Rome II Regulations
Brussels I Regulation (recast) contains rules which grant claimants the ability to choose where to make a claim. This must be amended to end forum shopping in defamation cases, which forces defendants to hire and pay for defence in countries whose legal systems are unknown to them and where they are not based. This is beyond the means of most and falls foul of the principles of fair trial and equality of arms.
Rome II Regulation does not regulate which national law will apply to a defamation case. This allows claimants to select the most favourable substantive law and therefore leads to a race to the bottom. Today, victims may be subject to the lowest standard of freedom of expression applicable to their case.
3. Support all victims of SLAPPs
Funds are needed to morally and financially support all victims of SLAPPs, especially with legal defence. Justice Programme funds should be used to train judges and practitioners, and a system to publicly name and shame the companies that engage in SLAPPs, for example in an EU register, should be created.
Finally, the EU must ensure that the scope of anti-SLAPP measures include everybody affected by SLAPPs, including journalists, activists, trade unionists, academics, digital security researchers, human rights defenders, media and civil society organisations, among others.
This paper was signed by the following 116 organisations
Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse
Access Info Europe
Access Now
ActionAid International
Adéquations
Amigas de la Tierra
Amis de la Terre France
ANTICOR
ARTICLE 19
Association Justice and Environment, z.s.
Bruno Manser Fonds
Terre Solidaire (CCFD)
CEE Bankwatch Network
Centre for Free Expression
Citizens Network Watchdog Poland
Civil Liberties Union for Europe
Civil Rights Defenders
Civil Society Europe
Clean Air Action Group (Hungary)
Committee to Protect Journalists
Common Weal
Consumer Association the Quality of Life
(EKPIZO)
Corporate Europe Observatory
Defend Democracy
European Digital Rights (EDRi)
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Environmental Partnership Association
ePaństwo Foundation
Environmental Paper Network International
(EPN)
Estonian Forest Aid / Eesti Metsa Abiks
ETC Group
Eurocadres / Council of European Professional
and Managerial Staff
European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
European Centre for Press and Media Freedom
European Civic Forum
European Coalition for Corporate Justice
European Coordination Via Campesina
European Environmental Bureau (EEB)
European Federation of Journalists
European Federation of Public Service Unions
(EPSU)
European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC)
Fern
Fitug
Forest Initiatives and Communities
Forum Ökologie & Papier
FOUR PAWS International
Free Press Unlimited
Friends of the Earth Europe
Friends of the Earth Nuclear Network
Friends of the Siberian Forests
Fundacja Otwarty Plan
Fundacja Strefa Zieleni
Global Justice Ecology Project
GM Watch
Gong
Government Accountability Project
Green Light Foundation
Greenpeace EU Unit
Homo Digitalis
IFEX
Index on Censorship
Institute for Sustainable Development
Institute of Water Policy
International Corporate Accountability
Roundtable (ICAR)
International Press Institute (IPI)
Iraqi Journalists Right Defence Association
JEF Europe
Jordens Vänner
Journalismfund.eu
Justice Pesticides
Legal Human Academy
Maison des Lanceurs d’Alerte
Mighty Earth
Milieudefensie / Friends of the Earth
Netherlands
MultiWatch
NGO Neuer Weg
NGO Shipbreaking Platform
Nuclear Consulting Group
Ending Gag Lawsuits in Europe – Protecting Democracy and Fundamental Rights 4
Nuclear Transparency Watch
OGM dangers
On ne se taira pas (We will not remain silent)
Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa
PEN International
Polish Ecological Club Mazovian Branch
Polish Ecological Club Pomeranian Branch
Polish Institute for Human Rights and Business
Protection International
RECLAIM
Reporters Without Borders
Rettet den Regenwald e.V.
Salva la Selva
Sciences Citoyennes
Sherpa
Society for Threatened Peoples Switzerland
SOLIDAR
SOMO
Stowarzyszenie Ekologiczno-Kulturalne
Wspólna Ziemia / Common Earth
SumOfUs
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation
The Ethicos Group
The Good Lobby
The Signals Network
Transnational Institute
Transparency International EU
Umweltinstitut München e.V.
Vouliwatch
Vrijschrift
vzw Climaxi
Chceme zdravú krajinu / We want a healthy
country
WeMove Europe
Whistleblower Network Germany
Whistleblowing International Network (WIN)
WildLeaks / Earth League International
Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF)
XNet
Zielone Wiadomości[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
29 Apr 2020 | News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Attacks on press freedom in Europe are at serious risk of becoming a new normal, 14 international press freedom groups and journalists’ organisations including Index on Censorship warn today as they launch the 2020 annual report of the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and the Safety of Journalists. The fresh assault on media freedom amid the Covid-19 pandemic has worsened an already gloomy outlook.
The report analyses alerts submitted to the platform in 2019 and shows a growing pattern of intimidation to silence journalists in Europe. The past weeks have accelerated this trend, with the pandemic producing a new wave of serious threats and attacks on press freedom in several Council of Europe member states. In response to the health crisis, governments have detained journalists for critical reporting, vastly expanded surveillance and passed new laws to punish “fake news” even as they decide themselves what is allowable and what is false without the oversight of appropriate independent bodies.
These threats risk a tipping point in the fight to preserve a free media in Europe. They underscore the report’s urgent wake-up call on Council of Europe member states to act quickly and resolutely to end the assault against press freedom, so that journalists and other media actors can report without fear.
Although the overall response rate by member states to the platform rose slightly to 60 % in 2019, Russia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan – three of the biggest media freedom violators – continue to ignore alerts, together with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2019 was already an intense and often dangerous battleground for press freedom and freedom of expression in Europe. The platform recorded 142 serious threats to media freedom, including 33 physical attacks against journalists, 17 new cases of detention and imprisonment and 43 cases of harassment and intimidation.
The physical attacks tragically included two killings of journalists: Lyra McKee in Northern Ireland and Vadym Komarov in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the platform officially declared the murders of Daphne Caruana Galizia (2017) in Malta and Martin O’Hagan (2001) in Northern Ireland as impunity cases, highlighting authorities’ failure to bring those responsible to justice. Only Slovakia showed concrete progress in the fight against impunity, indicting the alleged mastermind and four others accused of murdering journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kušnírová.
At the end of 2019, the platform recorded 105 cases of journalists behind bars in the Council of Europe region, including 91 in Turkey alone. The situation has not improved in 2020. Despite the acute health threat, Turkey excluded journalists from a mass release of inmates in April 2020, and second-biggest jailer Azerbaijan has made new arrests over critical coverage of the country’s coronavirus response.
2019 saw a clear increase in judicial or administrative harassment against journalists, including meritless SLAPP cases, and spurious and politically motivated legal threats. Prominent examples were the false drug charges filed against Russian investigative journalist Ivan Golunov and the continued imprisonment of journalists in Ukraine’s Russia-controlled Crimea. The Covid-19 crisis has strengthened officials’ tools to harass journalists, with dangerous new “fake news” laws in countries such as Hungary and Russia that threaten journalists with jail for contravening the official line.
Other serious issues identified by 2019 alerts included expanded surveillance measures threatening journalists’ ability to protect their sources, including in France, Poland and Switzerland, as well political attempts to “capture” media through ownership and market manipulation, most conspicuously of all in Hungary. These threats, too, are exacerbated by the actions taken by several governments under the health crisis, which further include arbitrary limitations on independent reporting and on journalists’ access to official information about the pandemic.
Jessica Ní Mhainín, Index’s policy research and advocacy officer, says, “There is a growing pattern of intimidation aimed at silencing journalists in Europe. The situation in Eastern Europe – especially in Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria – is particularly concerning. But the killing of Lyra McKee shows that we cannot take the safety of journalists for granted anywhere – not even in countries that are seen to be safe for journalists. This report provides an opportunity for us all to come to grips with the serious situation that is facing European media and to remind ourselves of the vital role that the media play in holding power to account.”
Index and the other platform partners call for urgent scrutiny of action taken by governments to claim extraordinary powers related to freedom of expression and media freedom under emergency legislation that are not strictly necessary and proportionate in response to the pandemic. Uncontrolled and unlimited state of emergency laws are open to abuse and have already had a severe chilling effect on the ability of the media to report and scrutinise the actions of state authorities.
While the platform welcomes an increased focus on press freedom by European institutions, including both the Council of Europe and European Union institutions, the ongoing crisis demands more urgent and stringent responses to protect media freedom and freedom of expression and information, and to support the financial sustainability of independent professional journalism. In the age of emergency rule, protecting the press as the watchdog of democracy cannot wait.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 Apr 2020 | Awards, Fellowship, Fellowship 2020
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/-cB0SsziqKk”][vc_column_text]Veysel Ok is a prominent Kurdish lawyer specialising in free speech and press freedom.
He provides pro-bono legal support to journalists, activists and academics who have been subjected to intimidation, surveillance, smear campaigns and harassment. His work has been instrumental in the release of several unlawfully detained journalists and writers.
Ok is one of the first to challenge the Turkish laws of accreditation which determine whether a journalist meets official requirements to do their job.
Ok has received a five month suspended sentence for ‘insulting the Turkish judiciary’. Asserting his right to freedom of speech; Ok commented on the ‘loyalties’ of judges. This has landed him in a position of surveillance and harassment.
Nevertheless, he stands strong in his fight for justice and freedom of expression for journalists in Turkey.
“In reality, the fight for human rights is crucial for everyone. In Turkey [all lives] are at risk for defending human rights; not just the work I do.
For the past twelve years, I have been fighting for the right to free expression for journalists and writers. For the past three years, we have continued this fight through at the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA), where I am co-director. We provide legal support to journalists and activists who are in prison with no access to legal services. We stand by them and fight for their freedoms, we fight for access to information [and?] in Turkey. This is the wider work I do, and why MLSA is so important.
This award is a win for the fight for free speech in Turkey. It shows that our work has found support from the international community, and that there is a greater international advance. This gives me incredible hope and pride. I would like to thank you one more time for this award.”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
