Government Plan to Strongly Reduce Funding for Public Service Broadcasting

Update: 18 Dec 2017 State replied
Year 20 Sep 2017 Country Ukraine Category Other acts having chilling effects on media freedom Source of threat State Partner EFJ/IFJ , AEJ , EBU Alert level Level 2
20 Sep 2017 Ukraine Other acts having chilling effects on media freedom State EFJ/IFJ , AEJ , EBU Level 2

The 2018 state budget, soon under discussion at Ukrainian Parliament, envisages for the public broadcaster around half of the budget defined in the Law on Public Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine. The provisional budget of the public broadcaster, UA:PBC, for 2018 will be around 1,5 billion UAH (around 45-49 million EUR), which is one of the smallest budgets in Europe in comparison with other broadcasters, such as Poland, Romania, Croatia, having few times higher budgets, but covering smaller areas and communities. The Management Board of UA:PBC published on 18 September 2017 an official statement expressing its concern about possible under-funding of UA:PBC which could affect not only broadcaster's ability to fulfill its remit, but moreover could affect its independence, especially in the eve of the election campaign. Several professional organisations, including the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) called on Ukrainian Government to ensure appropriate funding for the public broadcaster in line with the Ukrainian Law and with European standards, as provided in Council of Europe Recommendation 1878 (2009) on Funding of public service broadcasting and EBU's principles for stable, accountable, fair and independent funding.

State replies

18 Dec 2017 : Reply from the Government of Ukraine

Follow-ups

20 Sep 2017 : The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights details the prerequisites for well-funded and strong public service media.

Relevant CoE instruments Disclaimer

20 Sep 2017 : Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on public service media governance (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 February 2012 at the 1134th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

CONTACT US

Follow us   

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”.
Twitter feed Twitter feed
Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets



Partners Partners

CONTACT US

Follow us