Freedom of information Archives - Page 4 of 5

Kosovo Lawmakers Play Politics with Personal Data

Posted on September 21, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

Personal data and the right of access to public information remain largely unprotected in Kosovo after parliament failed again to elect a Commissioner for the Information and Privacy Agency, IPA, leading critics to accuse lawmakers of playing politics with citizens’ rights.

The Information and Privacy Agency, IPA, had asked the parliament to give its director, Bujar Sadiku, the powers of the Commissioner of the Agency despite the failed recruitment process for the post.

The request was rejected by the parliamentary Committee on Security Affairs as illegal, however, and civil society groups on Thursday publicly asked the Presidency of the Assembly, especially the Speaker, Vjosa Osmani, to be vigilant and ignore such illegal requests.

On August 14, none of the three candidates for the post received the required 61 votes, the third time in two years that parliament failed to appoint a Commissioner, failure analysts attribute to narrow political interests. The British embassy, which has assisted in the recruitment process, said British experts had been withdrawn.

Flutura Kusari, a legal adviser at the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, who voluntarily monitored the recruitment process, said the British decision was a good one, but was “bad news” for Kosovo.

“It is not logical financially or politically for an ally to invest this much in a clearly politicised process,” Kusari told BIRN.

In its five years of existence, “the agency has failed from the beginning to protect our personal data,” she said. “If the Commissioner will be politicised, s/he can become a censor of public information, pleasing politicians.”

Starting ‘from zero’

The meeting of the Kosovo Committee on Security and Defence, where the annual report of the Information and Privacy Agency, IPA, for 2019 was reviewed, presented by IPA director Bujar Sadiku, June 16, 2020. Photo: Official Website of Kosovo Assembly.

Without a Commissioner, Kosovo has no institutional mechanism to implement the Law on Access to Public Documents and the Law on the Protection of the Personal Data.

The first two attempts to appoint a Commissioner failed in May and July last year due to the fall of the then government and the dissolution of parliament after the prime minister at the time, Ramush Haradinaj, resigned on being summoned for questioning by war crimes prosecutors in The Hague.

Without a Commissioner, citizens of Kosovo have no institutional means to complain and seek justice if a public or private body violates their rights to protection of their personal data or access to information. Civil society groups say that without an independent overseer, the agency could become biased in fining particular institutions or officials.

British-approved candidates

Twelve people applied for the position, cut down to five after a review of the applications. Each of the five candidates went through a two-day interview process, after which a commission selected three to be submitted to parliament.

They were Bujar Sadiku, Krenare Sogojeva-Dermaku and Muharrem Mustafa. Sadiku and Sogojeva-Dermaku had received the approval of the British Embassy as the best candidates.

The IPA is unable to impose fines on bodies that violate the law due to the absence of certain internal acts that should be signed and submitted to the government by the Commissioner, Jeton Arifi, head of the Access to Public Documents Pillar at the agency, told BIRN.

If a bank, for example, accidentally or intentionally revealed the account details of a customer, that customer would have to take the bank to court, a lengthy and potentially expensive process during which the bank could continue violating the law.

“The persistent failure to select the head of our authority is continuing to cause consequences in the prolongation of internal processes, which should have been concluded within six months from the entry into force of the relevant law,” Arifi told BIRN. The Law on Personal Data Protection entered into force on March 11, 2019.

Politicians can ‘hijack’ process

Without a Commissioner, the IPA is also unable to hire new staff and has had to halt a twinning project with Germany and Latvia.

“Now everything will start again from zero,” said Fatmire Mulhaxha Kollcaku, who heads parliament’s Committee on Security and Defence and led the interview panel for the Commissioner’s job.

“As long as we don’t have an independent institution with a competent Commission, we have two unenforceable laws,” said Mulhaxha Kollcaku, and questioned how the recruitment process would continue without the British involvement.

The British embassy said on August 17 that it would not spend British taxpayers’ money on repeating a process that had been conducted properly but which failed to end in the appointment of a Commissioner. Under the agreement with the embassy, parliament is obliged to endorse an approved candidate.

“The non-appointment of any of them calls into question the stated commitment of political parties to implement the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the British Embassy, but more importantly, it sends a negative signal to independent professionals in Kosovo and their hopes to contribute in Kosovo Institutions,” the embassy said.

“Any public appointment should take into account only the interests of the country and its citizens, and not the narrow party interest.”

Without the British involvement, politicians can “hijack the process and elect politically involved people with no actual skills for the position,” warned Kusari.

Taulant Hoxha, CEO of the NGO Kosovar Civil Society Foundation, which supports the development of civil society with a focus on EU integration, told BIRN:

“It is painful that the Kosovo Assembly has to sign security agreements with foreign embassies in order to be able to elect a Commissioner. It would make sense if only the human, technical, and methodological resources to be provided with funding from the British Embassy because the Assembly of Kosovo is a new institution.”

Rights Groups Urge Albania to ‘Rethink’ Disputed Media Law

Posted on September 16, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

Seven international rights organisations sent an open letter to the Albanian parliament on Wednesday, voicing concern over reports that the ruling Socialist Party is pressing on with legislation targeting the online media, despite fierce international criticism from the Venice Commission, among others.

The seven groups, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, ECPMF, Article 19, the European Federation of Journalists, EFJ, Free Press Unlimited, FPU, the International Press Institute, IPI, Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa, OBCT, and the South East Europe Media Organisation, SEEMO, urged the parliament to drop the current proposals and restart the whole process.

“We are writing to express our grave concern about the apparent plans of the Parliament of Albania to ignore the issues raised in Venice Commission Opinion No. 980/2020 of 19 June 2020, further threatening press freedom and the right to freedom of expression and to information in Albania,” the letter published on the ECPMF website, reads.

“We urge you to rethink the current legislative procedure and instead put in place a transparent process that leads to appropriate legislation that addresses all the Venice Commission’s recommendations, and to include civil society and representatives of the media throughout this process,” the letter adds.

Their letter follows a statement by local media organisations, including BIRN Albania, published last week. In that statement, the signatory organisations observed that the parliament aims to use article 86 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, which says parliament should only reconsider issues introduced by the President of the Republic, to get the disputed law through. The organisations said they fear any changes conducted in this way would only be cosmetic, and would fail to address grave concerns expressed over the law.

The legislation, first proposed by Socialist Prime Minister Edi Rama as an “anti-defamation package”, aims to create an administrative body that will be empowered to order media to take down news reports over issues such as “infringing the dignity of individuals”, under the threat of heavy fines. Critics say the law could have a chilling effect on media freedom due to its broad terms.

Following parliamentary approval of the new law amid protests last December, it was blocked by President Ilir Meta, and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE, asked the Venice Commission for its opinion.

The Venice Commission criticised the law in entirety and, among other things, warned that it could be used by powerful people to protect themselves from media criticism.

Unbowed by the criticism, Prime Minister Rama called again this month for speedy approval of the law, claiming defamation on online media had reached an unacceptably high level.

Internet Governance Key to Media Freedom in Albania

Posted on September 10, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

The rapid spread of the internet and growing use of social media in Albania has significantly affected the behaviour of existing or traditional media as well as native digital media. The emergence of online media outlets has dramatically changed the media landscape.

BIRN Albania’s latest report, “Internet Governance in Albania and Its Role In Media Freedom”, explores a number of topics where Internet governance and regulation intersect with online media, market conditions, financial regulations, access to information and data protection, and copyright and cyber-security.

The report aims to provide a clear overview of the rights and responsibility of online publications in the Internet environment and the governance of this environment by public institutions, while encouraging a multi-stakeholder debate with the goal of supporting and strengthening freedom of expression and the professional practice of journalism on the Internet.

Freedom of expression and media freedom under threat

Photo: Raphael Nogueira

Although there is no specific law on online media in Albania, constitutional principles on freedom of expression and freedom of the press do extend their rights and restrictions to online outlets, while the regulatory environment on Internet governance, both domestic and foreign, influences how these outlets operate and do business.

Newly proposed regulations and amendments on the subject met strong resistance from the journalistic community and rights organisations in Albania and abroad. These moves were also contested by the European Commission and the Council of Europe.

In spite of the government’s attempts to shrink the space for professional journalism, freedom of expression and media are clearly defined in the Albanian constitution as well as in the international treaties and agreements that the country has ratified.

While Albania’s broadcast media and the press are controlled by a handful of powerful families, which have affiliated businesses in regulated markets, online media outlets are more diverse.

Many are start-ups owned by journalists, and allow more diverse viewpoints and reporting angles.

But, even though online media have become one of the main sources of information in Albania, Albanian legislation currently provides no definition of online media. Nor does the audio-visual media law or the e-commerce law.

Access to the internet is vital to free speech

Access to the Internet as a means of communication to exercise freedom of expression and information is guaranteed in Albania in the context of the domestic legal framework.

A survey conducted in 2019 on the use of information technology by families and individuals conducted by the Albanian National Institute of Statistics, INSTAT, showed that 82.2 per cent of all households now have access to the Internet, compared to 80.7 per cent a year earlier, and 66.4 per cent in 2016.

INSTAT found that 68.8 per cent of all individuals aged between 16 and 74 in Albania had used the Internet within three months of the survey being conducted, 87.1 per cent of whom used it daily.

Article 1, of the Law on Electronic Communications in Albania, no. 9918, of 19 May 2008, refers to net neutrality under the principles of the law – but it contains no specific provisions on how to enforce it.

Emerging from the same problematic principles that underpin net neutrality, The Electronic Communications law does not regulate zero rating; it is left to the companies to negotiate or offer such services.

One service previously excluded by data caps from ISPs in Albania has been Facebook Zero. The lack of clarity from the government regarding zero rating is concerning, as it is particularly relevant to journalism and media organisations.

Domain registration is linked to press freedom

Domain name management and administration is central to broader Internet governance, and directly affects press and media freedom within a country.

Domain registration in Albania for the ccTLD .al is regulated in the Electronic Communications law. It stipulates that domain names are registered “to serve the general interest of the public” and “to ensure especially the protection of intellectual property”. Web hosting companies are also mainly regulated by the the Electronic Communications law.

The main institution administering the .al ccTLD and its subdomains is AKEP. This maintains and updates a list of reserved and forbidden names and collects data and documents from the physical persons and legal entities that register.

The BIRN report states that blocking domain names is a key form of censorship imposed around the world, and is often used to prevent access to information and silence dissent.

Social media companies have unfair tax advantage

Online media in Albania operate on the same financial rules and tax regimes as other businesses registered in the country. No specific tax or financial rules, subsidies, or incentives are designed specifically for online media outlets.

Albania’s legal framework does not provide for any form of subsidies for journalism and the media, either for legacy or online media outlets.

Social media companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter, along with other online media not registered in Albania, should have a registered agent in the country and pay a tax rate similar to native online media outlets.

The BIRN report notes that the lack of taxation of their advertising products gives them de facto an unfair advantage to local online media outlets; these are taxed at the rate of 20 per cent.

Online media in Albania have often been the target of verbal abuse by politicians at the highest levels of power. Research conducted by BIRN also indicates that the biggest factors influencing the Albanian media’s editorial line are the political and economic interests of media owners, which in turn place pressure on many journalists to self-censor.

Thus, media outlet ownership transparency is important for the public to identify any political and economic bias that might influence the coverage of a certain topic or issue, as well as recognise conflicts of interest.

However, Albanian legislation does not provide any specific provision for the public disclosure of the ownership of media outlets.

Restrictions on freedom of expression online

Although the Albanian constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights recognise fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the media, they also provide for proportional restrictions.

Defamation in Albania remains a criminal misdemeanour, punished by fines, while the main legal instrument against hate speech is the provision of several anti-hate crimes and misdemeanours in the criminal code. Hate speech is also addressed, albeit indirectly, in Albania’s anti-discrimination law.

In the context of the infringements, copyright violations are considered one of the biggest problems facing the online media, followed by the lack of quality information and financial difficulties.

Criteria and conditions for copyright protection are listed in the report. Despite the legal protection granted to audio and visual products via copyright, the country’s copyright law (Article 12.1) does not protect news and press information, both offline and online, which are simply informative in nature.

Journalists safeguard the public’s right to know

The growing number and influence of online media have certainly given journalists more space and freedom to express their views and report on different issues in ways that might not always be welcome in traditional media.

Journalists have the right to inform about news of public interest, preserving the essence of information, but they are also obliged to avoid references to personal data when possible. All actions taken by journalists should be shaped by the public interest.

The report lists two sets of special instructions and considerations (Protection of minors and court and crime reporting) for journalists on how to protect personal and sensitive data.

The most recent Code of Ethics for Journalists was drafted in 2018. This was done by the Albanian Media Institute, AMI, with the support of the project Reinforcing Judicial Expertise on Freedom of Expression and the Media in SouthEast Europe, JUFREX – a joint initiative led by the European Union and the Council of Europe.

According to a set of Ethical Guidelines for Online Journalism , online journalism must respect all professional code of ethics and the core values of journalism, irrespective of the forum or format it uses.

No clear rules for content removal

Recognising that content moderation and removal policies are widely debated – and divisive – on the global level, the report provides a non limited list of potential solutions that may contribute to a healthier online environment.

In Albania, no specific law explicitly regulates the filtering and blocking of illegal Internet content. However, the provisions of several laws regulate illegal Internet content. The Electronic Communications law empowers the AKEP to enforce its requirements.

There is no official or published list of what is considered illegal and/or harmful content, or of the competent authorities that can ask the ISPs to remove illegal content. For this reason, the key institutions mandated by law to order the removal of illegal content are listed below, based on the caseload developed by AKEP.

Judicial and law enforcement agencies can request the removal of illegal content based on the relevant articles in the criminal code. One of the most problematic requests from law enforcement agencies, passed on to ISPs through AKEP, was the blocking of the domain of the popular online media Jeta Osh Qef (Joq.al) following the deadly 26 November 2019 earthquake in Albania.

The report also mentions other relevant agencies and bodies dealing with content removal, such as the Audio-visual Media Authority, AMA, and the Commissioner for Personal Data Protection.

Progress in cybersecurity legislation

Albania has made significant progress in recent years in developing the ICT sector and the use of information technology, IT.

Albania ratified the Convention on Cybercrime – known as the Budapest Convention – on 25 April 2002, with Law no. 8888. Its criminal code is mainly in line with this important international instrument, containing several specific articles dedicated to fighting cybercrime.

Although not directly related to cybersecurity, the criminal code also details the consequences of engaging in various anti-social electronic and/or online activities.

Another important law governing cybersecurity is Law no. 2/2017, “On Cybersecurity”; the entity responsible for applying this law is the NAECCES.

The law’s main aim is to achieve a high level of cybersecurity within Albania by defining security measures, rights, and obligations, as well as mutual cooperation between entities operating in the field of cybersecurity.

Serbia Keeps COVID-19 Medical Procurement Data Under Wraps

Posted on August 31, 2020January 26, 2023 by Ivana Jeremic

Serbia’s National Insurance Health Fund, RFZO, the public institution responsible for medical supplies procurement in Serbia, has declined to answer an FOIA request from BIRN about the amount of medical equipment purchased during the epidemic, the names of suppliers and how much money was spent on it, saying the government had classified such data “top secret” at the outset of the pandemic.

“Data on medical devices, medical equipment, personal and protective equipment, sanitary and medical consumables procured in Serbia during the state of emergency caused by COVID-19, as well as documentation on it, are marked with the security classification ‘top secret,’” RFZO said in a written answer to BIRN.

Under the government’s decision from March 15, which RFZO quoted, information about public procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic will not be made available to the public until the pandemic ends.

In its request sent on August 12, BIRN asked about the quantity of purchased protective masks, protective suits, gloves, hats and tests for COVID-19 and the total amount of money spent on them.

BIRN also asked about the prices at which this equipment was sold to pharmacies, as well as about the registration of medical equipment at the Medicines and Medical Devices Agency of Serbia, which is necessary for the import and placement of those goods on the Serbian market.

Besides that, BIRN requested information about the total amount spent out of 9.5 billion dinars, which the Serbian government transferred to RFZO on March 31, 2020, “in order to mitigate the consequences of COVID-19 disease”. That point was left unanswered, too.

Serbia reported the first cases of COVID-19 in the beginning of March and declared a state of emergency on March 15 that lasted until May 6.

During that time, Serbia was criticised for deciding to lengthen the time state bodies have to answer FOIA requests. It left many journalists having to wait until the state of emergency was lifted before their requests could be answered.

Serbia’s government faces many questions about its general response to the pandemic, amid claims that there was a lack of necessary medical equipment, among other things.

At the end of June, BIRN revealed that Serbia had under-reported COVID-19 deaths and infections. Data from the state’s COVID-19 information system showed that the number of infected patients who had died was twice as large as the number that the authorities announced. Hundreds more people had tested positive for the virus in June than was admitted.

SEE Digital Rights Network Established

Posted on August 14, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

Nineteen organisations from Southeast Europe have joined forces in a newly-established network that aims to advance the protection of digital rights and address the growing challenges posed by the widespread use of advanced technologies in society.

Initiated by Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN, and SHARE Foundation, the SEE Digital Rights Network is the first network of its kind focused on the digital environment and challenges to digital rights in Southeast Europe.

The network brings together 19 member organisations – from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia – dedicated to the protection and promotion of human rights, both online and offline.

Each is committed to advancing their work on issues of digital rights abuses, lack of transparency, expanded use of invasive tech solutions and breaches of privacy.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Central and Southeast Europe has seen a dramatic rise in the rate of digital rights violations, in countries where democratic values are already imperiled.

“This endeavour comes at a moment when we are seeing greater interference by state and commercial actors that contribute to the already shrinking space for debate while the exercise of basic human rights is continuously being limited,” said BIRN regional director Marija Ristic.

“The Internet has strong potential to serve the needs of the people and internet access has proved to be indispensable in times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Our societies are becoming more digital, which presents a powerful incentive to increase the capacity of organisations dealing with digital developments and regulations in our region.”

During a first joint meeting, the members of the network agreed that the challenges posed by the fast-evolving tech solutions used by states have led to infringements of basic rights and freedoms, while false and unverified information is flourishing online and shaping the lives of people around the region.

The online sphere has already become a hostile environment for outspoken individuals and especially marginalised groups such as minorities, LGBTIQ+ community, refugees and women.

“Digital technology is profoundly changing our societies as it becomes an important part of all spheres of our lives, so we see the diversity of organisations that joined this network as one of its biggest strengths,” said Danilo Krivokapic, director of the SHARE Foundation.

“We can learn so much from each other’s experience, as we have similar problems with governments using technology to exert control over society, especially in times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said. “It is also important that we act together when we are trying to restore the balance between our citizens and big companies (Facebook, Google etc) that hold enormous amounts of our personal data and through this exert significant power over us.”

The network’s aim is to build on the skills, knowledge and experience of its members to achieve common goals such as strengthening democracy in the region and protecting individuals in the digital environment.

While cherishing the values of safety, equality and freedom, the work of the SEE Digital Rights Network will be directed at achieving the following goals: to protect digital rights and internet freedoms, enable people to access accurate information, make the internet a safer place, detect and report hate speech and verbal violence online, especially against women and other vulnerable groups, identify online recruitment, which can lead to exploitation, take control of personal data, work to prevent the implementation of intrusive surveillance systems, hold governments accountable for the use and abuse of technology and improve digital literacy in order to prevent violence and exploitation.

The network will aim to increase the level of understanding of complex and worrying trends and practices, trying to bring them closer to the general public in a language it can understand. By creating a common space for discussion and exchange, organisations and the media will be able to increase the impact of their individual efforts directed towards legislative, political and social changes.

For more information about the network please contact: sofija.todorovic@birn.eu or/and nevena@sharedefense.org.

Here you can find the full text of the SEE Digital Right Network Declaration. The Declaration is also available in BCS, Macedonian and Albanian.

The organisations that have joined the network are as follows:

A 11 – Initiative for Economic and Social Rights – Serbia
Balkan Investigative Regional Reporting Network (BIRN) – Bosnia and Herzegovina
Centre for Civic Education – Montenegro
Center for Internet, Development and Good Governance (IMPETUS) – North Macedonia
Civic Alliance (CA) – Montenegro
Civil Rights Defenders (CRD)
Da se zna – Serbia
Gong – Croatia
Homo Digitalis– Greece
Open Data Kosovo (ODK) – Kosovo
Media Development Centre (MDC) – North Macedonia
Metamorphosis Foundation – North Macedonia
Montenegro Media Institute (MMI) – Montenegro
NGO Atina – Serbia
Partners Serbia – Serbia
Sarajevo Open Centre – Bosnia and Herzegovina
Share Foundation – Serbia
Vasa prava BiH – Bosnia and Herzegovina
Zašto ne? – Bosnia and Herzegovina

Montenegro Activist Grilled for Facebook Post on Serbian Protests

Posted on July 10, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

Montenegrin police on Thursday questioned the civic activist and member of the “Odupri se (Resist)” movement, Omer Sarkic, for a Facebook post about the recent protests in Serbia.

In an ironic post, Sarkic called on the opposition Democratic front to stage protests in front of the Serbian embassy in Podgorica over police brutality against protesters in Belgrade. He stated a fictional press release in which the DF warned that it will resist police brutality in Serbia as it does in Montenegro.

“I explained to the police officer that my post was ironic, as I wanted to show that part of the opposition and Montenegrin media are silent about the protests in Belgrade. It’s sad that some police officer who was reading my Facebook posts didn’t understand what my nine-year-old son understood,” Sarkic said.

Serbian police this week have clashed with thousands of angry protesters in Belgrade and other cities against the official handling of the coronavirus crisis and the announced re-imposition of restrictive measures, including a curfew this weekend.

In Belgrade, they used tear gas to disperse the crowds. In Kragujevac, protesters smashed the windows of the local police building. Protesters in Novi Sad threw rocks and rubbish bins at the windows of the ruling Progressive Party facilities, at Radio Television of Vojvodina and at city hall.

Cameras caught numerous examples of the Serbian police using excessive force, with several attacks on journalists also reported.

But the violence in Serbia has thrown the mainly pro-Serbian opposition parties in Montenegro off balance. On July 8, Democratic Front MP Marina Jocic insisted that the police in Belgrade had been abused by the protesters, claiming there was no police brutality.

The Front has strong political ties with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic and his Serbian Progressive Party, SNS.

On June 25, Sakic was arrested with two opposition Democratic Front MPs and dozens of opposition supporters after violent protests rocked several towns in Montenegro.

Hundreds of people joined protests in Podgorica, Niksic, Bijelo Polje, Berane, Pljevlja, and Bar after an opposition mayor in the resort of Budva was arrested for refusing to hand over power despite losing control of the local assembly.

Activists and opposition politicians accused the police of breaching their powers during the arrests in Budva, after videos were published showing officers beating people in the streets even when they were not resisting arrest. Videos showed police kicking a man lying on the ground in Budva while another showed them kicking a young man even though he did not resist arrest.

Since January, there were several cases of arrests in Montenegro linked to posts on social networks. In separate cases, two Montenegrins and one Russian citizen were arrested for spreading fake news about the COVID-19 pandemic on social networks.

On April 9, police arrested an opposition Democratic Front activist for posting fake news about the health of President Milo Djukanovic, claiming he had the coronavirus. Radovan Rakocevic, from the town of Bijelo Polje, was put in custody for 72 hours for the offence of spreading panic.

Even before the COVID-19 outbreak became more serious in Montenegro, there were arrests for spreading panic about it. On March 13, the Basic Court ordered 30 days in custody for Milivoje Brkovic for posting a message on Facebook that said state officials were hiding the real number of people suffering from the coronavirus. The country confirmed its first two cases on March 17.

Pandemic Worsens Crisis for Media in Central, Eastern Europe

Posted on July 3, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

The COVID-19 pandemic in nine countries of Central and Eastern Europe has caused major difficulties to the media in continuing their work, especially the print media, and has further undermined press freedom, a report published on Friday by the Berlin-based media NGO n-ost said.

The report looks at the situation facing the media in Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia.

Its main conclusions are that the pandemic has accelerated the transition from print to online media, but that “recent surges in online readership have not translated into more financial stability”.

It said that the “lockdowns have caused print media sales and advertising revenue to collapse” and that “various emergency laws and provisions allowed governments increased control over public information”.

While the economic situation differs from country to country, the situation in each with regards to media freedom tends to be similar.

The majority of governments in the region, it said, have used the health situation to tighten control over the information flow, limiting access to COVID-19-related data beyond those officially announced, for example.

Some countries, like Serbia or Hungary, passed laws or regulations penalizing reporting on unauthorized information.

Some media outlets in Bulgaria either cut pay for journalists during the crisis, or fired staff, or shut down entire newsrooms.

The situation is especially hard for Bulgarian regional publications, “which have been struggling to stay afloat for years, [and] are expected to bear the brunt of the coronavirus-related crisis”, the report said.

According to the same report, the COVID-19 pandemic has also hit freelance journalists in Croatia hard.

“According to a survey conducted by the Trade Union of Croatian Journalists in April, 28.7 per cent of 164 freelance journalists surveyed had had all their assignments (and 26 per cent most of their assignments) cancelled since the beginning of the crisis,” the report said.

Journalists watch on TV the broadcast of the program convention of President Andrzej Duda presented in the village of Szeligi, Poland on May 1, 2020. Due to the outbreak of the coronavirus, the event takes place without the participation of the public. Photo: EPA-EFE/RADEK PIETRUSZKA POLAND OUT

In the Czech Republic, Respekt, one of the country’s most important print weeklies, “reported a 60-70 per cent drop in advertising revenues compared to pre-pandemic levels”, it noted. Similar falls happened in other print media.

“In contrast to print media, online news platforms recorded surging visitor numbers in March and April, in some cases increases of more than 100 per cent … However, figures from mid-May suggest that visitor numbers are returning to pre-crisis levels,” the report said.

The situation is similar in Poland and Hungary. Some two-thirds of Hungary’s media outlets told the Hungarian Publishers’ Association that the situation caused by the pandemic had caused major disruption to operations. One of the most affected areas is the advertising market.

“The stagnation of the advertising market played a significant role in the loss of revenue, which according to the advertising companies, may reduce the overall size of the market by 38 per cent, or HUF 75 billion [some 213,4 million EUR] in 2020 on a year-to-year basis,” the report said.

In North Macedonia, some media had to form their own internal solidarity fund in order to help colleagues that risk losing their jobs.

In Romania, businesses affected by the lockdown have stopped advertising, depriving the local media of one of their most important sources of income.

“Interviews with local media managers indicate that they have lost 70 to 80 per cent of their advertising budgets since the pandemic began, pushing them to the verge of collapse,” the report noted.

Serbia also noted a decrease in newspaper circulation during the crisis. Unofficial data that the report quotes say that “daily newspapers, with the exception of Danas, have seen a drop of between 35-50 per cent in circulation during the crisis”.

According to the report in Slovenia “the media’s advertising revenues have been slashed by a third after private companies went out of business”.

“Confronted by the crisis, media outlets have laid off staff, forcing journalists into the government’s special COVID-19 job retention scheme or cutting their salaries by 10 to 20 per cent,” the report said.

Freedom of Information Curbs Alarm Rights Activists in Hungary

Posted on May 13, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

The Hungarian government’s decision to limit the application of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR, is fueling fear among the opposition and civil society organisations that human rights face further curbs in the country.

Justified by the need to stop the spread of the coronavirus, the authorities can now use the personal data of citizens without clear regulations about when they can use it, and for what purpose.

Viktor Orban’s government has also additionally limited information access by extending the deadline for public institutions to provide requested data through FOI regulations from 15 to 45 days. The deadline can be prolonged for another 45 days meaning one could have to wait up to 90 days for answers – another step backwards in terms of media freedom.

The government says both decisions will be revoked once the state of the emergency, imposed on March 11, is lifted.

But rights groups and the opposition now fear a repeat of events in 2015. In that year, the Orban government introduced controversial “crisis” measures to stop an influx of migrants that are still in force today – despite the dramatic decline in the number of migrants and refugees coming to Hungary since then.

‘Crisis’ measures that risk becoming permanent

Attila Peterfalvi. Photo: Wikimedia commons/BudayLilla

The government restricted data protection rights as stipulated by the GDPR and the Act on Freedom of information on May 4.

It imposed a state of emergency on 11 March and extended it indefinitely on March 31.

Under the state of emergency, the government has the authority to govern through decrees, while parliament is suspended.

The latest changes come after several international reports highlighted serious declines in the quality of Hungarian democracy and press freedom.

The Nations in Transit report, issued in May by the watchdog organisation Freedom House, notably ranked Hungary as the only non-democracy in the whole of the EU.

“Hungary’s decline has been the most precipitous ever tracked in Nations in Transit; it was one of the three democratic frontrunners as of 2005, but in 2020 it became the first country to descend by two regime categories and leave the group of democracies entirely,” the report said.

The Press Freedom Index released by the watchdog organisation Reporters Without Borders ranked Hungary in the lowest place for press freedom in the EU.

It said access to information was becoming ever more difficult for independent journalists, who are now banned from freely putting questions to politicians or from attending many events.

Now, not only do Hungarian institutions have 90 days instead of 30 to answer an FOI request, – triple the previous length – but requests related to privacy will remain unanswered until the state of emergency is lifted.

This may mean journalists waiting three months to get access to vital information. And, with so many things happening fast during the state of emergency, the risk is that the information will become irrelevant or outdated.

The government justified the much longer deadline to answer FOI requests by claiming that keeping to the 15-day deadline could “endanger the fulfilment of the [relevant institution’s] public tasks in relation to the emergency”, so the decree says.

When it comes to the suspended GDPR articles, they include: the right of access by the data subject; the right to erasure (the “right to be forgotten”); the right to restriction of processing; for information to be provided when personal data are collected from the data subject, or information to be provided when personal data have not been obtained from the data subject.

Important information on the way the authorities obtain personal data, its purpose, and how it is processed, protected, or shared with other authorities, will now only become available when the state of emergency ends.

The authorities insist concern about these changes is needless. In response to a query from BIRN, Attila Peterfalvi, chair of the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, said the decree applies only to requests for data in relation to the battle against the coronavirus, and that the data controller will also have to prove why they wish to apply the special regulation.

Peterfalvi noted also that GDPR gives participating states the right to restrict its provisions. The decree doesn’t actually take away any rights, or the right to remedy, but only delays their execution until the end of the state of emergency, he stressed.

Officials also point out that they will lift the state of emergency when it is no longer needed.

But opposition politicians and rights groups are not persuaded. They recall that the “crisis” measures imposed to stop illegal migration in 2015 were prolonged again and again – and still remain effective – long after the number of migrants attempting to cross Hungary decreased drastically.

Worryingly broad legislation

Illustration. Photo : EPA-EFE/Zoltan Balogh

The 30-day GDPR deadline to answer COVID-19-related data subject requests will resume once the state of emergency ends. This means that, until then, if someone submits a request related to COVID-19, or lodges an objection against the processing of his personal data related to COVID-19, the data controller is not required to take any steps to erase the data, rectify the data, or restrict its processing.

Furthermore, the legislation does not define the exact categories of personal data or the type of data controllers that fall under it.

As a result, any data controller taking part in the fight against COVID-19, or processing COVID-19-related personal data, can interpret the new legal provisions widely and broaden its restrictions to apply to as much personal data as possible.

Ádam Remport, data protection expert at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, an NGO, told BIRN that he believes the decree suspends fundamental rights, which the GDPR does not allow for.

The wording of the decree is too general and its reasoning too weak, he adds.

Remport said the GDPR is very strict about when member countries can suspend its application.

He notes that the GDPR says a restriction may only be imposed if it “respects the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms”, and if this restriction “is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society”.

Remport says the total suspension of certain rights does not fit into this category. He adds that while the decree indicates the purpose of the legislation, all the other reasoning is missing.

“The decree should list explicitly to which data and data controller it applies. It should at least justify why there is no such list,” he said.

In its current form, he added, the decree is too wide-ranging and can be applied to anything, from healthcare to the economy.

The GDPR also demands the right to an effective remedy, a right which cannot be suspended, he said. “According to the European Convention on Human Rights, and the GDPR, a remedy is real if it provides an effective judicial remedy.

“The wording of the decree doesn’t contradict this directly, as in theory one can still appeal. But until the state of emergency ends, nobody can go to court,” he pointed out.

“Nobody knows when the emergency will end, so we can’t call this an effective remedy; it is not a real remedy,” he concluded.

FOI rights undermined for years

Illustration. Photo: Pxfuel

As state communication become more centralized in Hungary – and effectively censored during the COVID-19 emergency, according to one NGO report, FOI requests have become ever more important as tools for journalists to extract relevant information about state operations.

Miklos Ligeti, legal director of Transparency International Hungary, told BIRN that the government in Budapest has been undermining this right for years.

“The Hungarian government has continuously restricted access to public data since 2013. From this point of view, the new decree is not a novelty,” he said.

The only guaranteed way to gain access to public data was via the courts, Ligeti added. “Now the time one has to wait before going to court has been prolonged,” he continued.

According to Transparency International, the decree goes against the constitution, as the right to freedom of information it refers to implies fast and timely access – while waiting months for an answer is anything but.

Since 2013, according to the government, FOI requests can be rejected if they are too “comprehensive”, as over-detailed questions are deemed a “misuse” of FIOA rights.

To decide what question is too detailed is, again, up to the data owner. The next restriction, which followed in 2015, allowed data owners to bill the information requester for “reimbursement of expenses”, if replying to the request involves “a disproportionate amount of work” for the relevant institution.

Tamas Bodoky, founder and editor-in-chief of Átlátszó, an investigative portal, told BIRN that the new moves were yet another attempt to restrict the FOI law.

“This is the third time the Orbán government is restricting FOI. This tendency, and the suspension of the GDPR Articles are the real concern – not that we might have to wait longer to get information,” Bodoky said.

Bodoky notes that if institutions demand reimbursement for work, “it is usually around 5,000 to -20,000 forints [14 to 60 euros]. To pay this money is not a problem for a lawyer or an editorial. But the intention behind this is to prevent citizens from using this tool to control power”.

His investigative portal has developed a tool through which users can send FOI requests to any public body.

According to him, data owners rarely demand “unreasonable” sums of money for reimbursement. If they do, or the info request is denied, “one can go to court. But that takes time and costs money, and people cannot afford it”.

Fortunately, he adds, judges usually favour making data public. But sometimes, despite a court judgment, data owners still withhold the data. “In that case, we remain without means, as public prosecutors will do nothing to enforce the verdict,” Bodoky warned.

Átlátszó uses FOI requests a lot for its investigations, and has faced various other methods by which state institutions hide information.

“Once the cabinet office of the Prime Minister sent us documents that were photocopied so many times – or maybe digitally blurred – that they were barely readable,” Bodoky recalled. “This shows clearly what the Hungarian government thinks about freedom of information,” he adds.

Miklós Ligeti says the broad implications of the latest moves are more concerning than their exact detail.

“If we look at the big picture, we see that the lack of reliable data makes rational public conversation impossible,” he warned. “Once there is no information, citizens cannot make responsible political decisions,” he concluded.

North Macedonia’s State of Emergency Weakens Institutions’ Transparency

Posted on April 24, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

Citing health crises and states of emergency, some Balkan countries have used the situation to restrict the right to information and media freedom.

While authorities in North Macedonia have imposed no such curbs, some restrictions in access to information have still appeared by themselves.

This is mainly because many public-sector workers now work at home, while those who remain in offices cannot always respond to information requests in the timeframe prescribed by law.

Some public institutions also say that, owing to staff shortages, they simply cannot obtain the information that citizens, journalists, NGOs and others want.

Both the institutions and those requesting information say that for now, problems are often solved in mutual agreements that allow for a delay of a few days, enabling institutions to cope.

North Macedonia’s law on freedom of access to public information does not envisage what should happen to such rights in extraordinary situations like this one.

Some of those seeking information are worried that some institutions may say that the deadlines to respond to FOIA requests should be frozen in the pandemic, and should only start to expire after the state of emergency is over. So far, no testimonies suggest that this has actually happened, however.

Delays instead of rejections

North Macedonia’s central bank. Photo: BIRN

North Macedonia passed a new FOIA act in 2019, which cut the deadlines for institutions to provide access to information from 30 to 20 days.

The law came into full force at the start of this year, once the team at the Agency for Protection of the Right of Information, which is responsible for complaints when institutions fail to do their duties, was fully formed.

The government insists that although it has a right under the state of emergency to pass decrees with the force of a law, it has no plan to restrict access to information.

“We won’t make changes. Transparency and access to public information are particularly important in this state of emergency,” Justice Minister Renata Deskoska told BIRN.

Despite that, institutions offer plentiful reasons why they can’t provide anwers on time.

These range from claims that the staff responsible for the information are working from home, are at home parenting a small child or are taking days off.

The Center for Civil Communication, CCC, an NGO, is preparing its index on transparency of institutions at the zenith of the pandemic.

CCA head German Filkov told BIRN that although it sent FOIA requests to all ministries and municipalities asking them to provide the number of their employees, just before the deadline to answer expired, it received such data from only 29 per cent of them. All the others said they would be late.

“They told us that that the people who should provide the info are not at work because of the pandemic,” he said.

“Not the people in charge of access to information but those from the appropriate sector, in our case, the sectors for human resources. They did not say that they won’t respond but that they cannot meet the deadline,” Filkov added.

Justice Minister Deskoska said such excuses are unacceptable and the law should be respected despite the state of emergency. “Institutions must organize themselves and deliver the data via mail or in other ways,” she said.

No official change in practice

Skopje’s health emergency centre. Photo: BIRN

Some NGO’s are worried that a government provision on the Law on Public and Administrative Procedures, passed on March 23, might also delay the deadlines for providing information.

This provision says that that all deadlines for administrative procedures are frozen during the state of emergency, and will only resume once normality is restored – for the same amount of days that they have been frozen.

This provision refers to services that the government, ministries, agencies, directorates and other institutions provide to citizens, companies and other subjects, such as issuing permits and delivering decisions.

However, during the debates at different institutions on how to interpret this provision, some proposed restricting the right to access to public information as well. The Interior Ministry has considered this, though not put it into practice.

“We talked to colleagues, and despite some opinions that deadlines could be postponed in accordance with the government’s provision … we decided not to stop answering FOIA requests,” Interior Ministry spokesperson Toni Angelovski told BIRN.

“The conditions are harder because the persons with certain information are not always present at work, but, despite that, we manage to reply on requests on time,” he added.

Although other institutions have also had divided opinions on this, no ministry or lower ranking institution has yet said on its web page that it is changing its practice of answering FOIA requests.

Everything remains the same as before the crisis, and the institutions still display the public info they hold, the legal provisions on how to get it and the contacts of the persons in charge.

Mirce Kotevski, who handles these procedures in the state electricity producing company, ESM, said they never reject information requests. “Some requests are complicated and demand the coordination of several sectors,” he said.

“It all takes time in normal conditions, and even more in these conditions,” he added.

“People are not always here to provide the info. We try to respect the deadlines, but in some cases, if that is objectively impossible, we ask for, and get, understanding from those who file requests for a few days’ postponement. But we never reject requests.”

Deadlines in courts are postponed

North Macedonia’s Parliament. Photo: BIRN

But if something goes wrong and an institution refuses to answer a FOIA request, and again rejects the complaint, there will be a problem. This is because the deadlines in courts have been put on hold.

In normal circumstances, the person or body that requested the information could submit a complaint to the administrative court.

Now, however, courts, including the administrative court, won’t start procedures until the state of emergency ends. Under the government provision, they are instructed to act only on high priority cases.

In reality, this tool has not been particularly useful to complainants, even in normal times, as the procedures in these cases often lasted years.

For the media and journalists, the work of the Agency for Protection of the Right of Information is more crucial, and this agency says that it is still working without delays, and has not seen any increase in the volume of complaints.

“There is no significant difference. The law envisages that institutions can request postponement of deadlines from 20 to 30 days if they need to provide more cumbersome information that takes time to collect. But the law does not envisage how to act in a state of emergency,” the head of the Agency, Plamenka Bojceva, said.

Little evidence of “active” transparency

While most institutions are trying to answer requests and maintain at least so-called “passive” transparency, some give an impression of not engaging equally in so-called “active” transparency, which means publishing information requested by law on their own, without being asked.

Some of the most important items of information of this kind are public procurement contracts.

The crisis has imposed the need of swift procurements, especially for medical institutions. Institutions don’t need an opinion from the State Public Procurements Bureau on these, but they are still obliged by law to disclose all the data on their own once they finish the procurements.

This is not the case, however. The CCC, in a recent analysis, said that by April 5, institutions had published only 17 announcements for public procurement contracts, and had notified the public that they had chosen the best bidder in only 12 instances.

According to the NGO, this raises questions about whether institutions are truly respecting their obligation to publish such information.

Even those contracts that have been published are often missing crucial details. For example, the contracts for the procurement of masks and gloves were published without detailed information about anything else, making it impossible to determine whether the price paid was justifiable.

In its second analysis on this subject, published on April 22, covering the period from the beginning of March to April 20, the NGO said things hadn’t changed much. All five contracts were missing quantity details.

CCC warns that the state of emergency, and the general shortage of needed products, are increasing the risks of corruption, because if public procurements procedures are not transparent, suppliers may use this situation to increase their prices.

Its analyses conclude that, in this time of crisis, because it is practically the only source of info, in the absence of the usual calls and tendering documentation the publication of all the data on contracts is even more important.

Montenegro Detains Opposition Activist Over Fake News About President

Posted on April 10, 2020January 26, 2023 by BIRD

Civic society groups in Montenegro have criticized the arrest on Thursday of an opposition Democratic Front activist for posting fake news about the President’s health.

On Thursday, authorities put Radovan Rakocevic from the town of Bijelo Polje in custody for 72 hours for the offence of spreading panic. Rakocevic had shared an article on Facebook from a Belgrade tabloid, Alo, which claimed that Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic had been infected with the coronavirus.

“The prosecutor believes that Rakocevic would be able to repeat the criminal offence if he was released and would continue to publish statements that would cause panic among citizens. So he was ordered into detention,” the prosecutor’s decision said.

While the Democratic Front called on the authorities to release Rakocevic, the head of the Civic Alliance, Boris Raonic, warned that the government cannot fight fake news with arrests. He said the authorities should be more transparent and inform the public about everything related to COVID-19.

He said a guest on the national public broadcaster had also “presented a conspiracy theory that could cause panic, but there was no reaction either from the prosecution or the [broadcasting] management. That gives us a new element to this story – selective justice,” Raonic told the daily newspaper Vijesti.

He was referring to a guest speaker on the public service prime time show “Corona stay home” who presented a theory that COVID-19 was a biological weapon. Economic analyst Predrag Drecun, considered to be close to ruling DPS party, has claimed the coronavirus was produced in the US by the Defense Ministry.

Even before the COVID-19 outbreak became more severe in Montenegro, there had been arrests for spreading panic about it. On March 13, the Basic Court ordered 30 days in custody for Milivoje Brkovic for posting a message on Facebook that said state officials were hiding the real number of people suffering from the coronavirus in Montenegro. The country confirmed its first two cases on March 17.

On March 23, a Russian citizen was put in custody for posting on Instagram that more than a thousand people had caught COVID-19 in Montenegro. To date, Montenegro has confirmed 252 coronavirus infections, two of whom have died.

BIRD Community