Back

Representatives of the Platform for the Safety of Journalists attend the Global Conference for Media Freedom

London 08/07/2019
  • Diminuer la taille du texte
  • Augmenter la taille du texte
  • Imprimer la page
  • Imprimer en PDF
Representatives of the Platform for the Safety of Journalists attend the Global Conference for Media Freedom

The Global Conference for Media Freedom will take place 10 to 11 July 2019 in London, as a part of an international campaign launched by the UK Foreign Office, to shine a global spotlight on media freedom. Global leaders, representatives from the media industry, journalists, civil society and academia will gather to attend interactive panel discussions, around 4 themes:

  • protection and prosecution, including impunity
  • national frameworks and legislation
  • building trust in media and countering disinformation
  • media sustainability

The Council of Europe workshop “Keeping journalists safe – what international organisations can do” will take place on 10 July, from 11 am to 12.20 pm, to showcase the Organisation’s action to protect media freedom and journalists. Matjaz Gruden, Director of Democratic Participation, will present the functioning of the Platform for the Safety of Journalists and discuss how it could be made a model for other regions.

On 11 July, the Sub-committee on Media and Information Society of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will hold an exchange of views with the partners of the Platform, in the framework of the preparation of the report “Threats to media freedom and journalist security in Europe”. The discussion will focus on how to strengthen the platform and its effectiveness as a soft monitoring tool.

More information about the Global Conference for Media Freedom


CONTACT US

Follow us   

Thematic Factsheets Thematic Factsheets



Follow-ups to alerts Follow-ups to alerts

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.