Media wary as MEPs boost defamation law

By Aoife White

Date: 23/06/05

European publishers claim that a parliamentary committee vote on defamation law has created a "charter for the rich and famous to go forum shopping" to win a better payout.

"The whole point of Rome II is to provide regulation for instances where there is a conflict of law," said Angela Mills-Wade, director of the European Publishers' Council.

She said MEPs in the legal affairs committee had voted on 20 June for an amendment which created uncertainty in defamation cases by leaving the choice of national law to the judge. The report by British Liberal MEP Diana Wallis goes before the plenary session on 7 July.

Speaking before the vote, Wallis said she had tried hard to find a fair balance between the freedom of the press and the rights of defamation victims. "Victims should also be able to bring an action under the law which is appropriate to them," she said.

The Commission wants to apply the law of the land where damage occurs or is likely to occur, which in another scenario covered by the law, would see Slovenian law used for a car accident in Slovenia between two Dutch tourists.

Wallis said it would be more appropriate for Dutch law to be applied as the people affected would be more familiar with it.

The explosive growth of online media and the wider distribution of printed newspapers and magazines opens up new possibilities for people to sue if they believe a media report has damaged their reputation.

Two recent cases show British and French media facing libel actions in foreign courts. British newspaper proprietors David and Frederick Barclay started a French criminal libel case against the editor and media editor of The Times in April 2005. The Saudi ambassador to the UK, Prince Turki al-Faisal, won libel damages against Paris Match in a London court in December 2004.

Mills-Wade said the Wallis amendment could allow people to claim connections to a legal system with different rules from the country where the media was originally published. She said editors and journalists may censor themselves if they are not sure they are on safe legal ground with a controversial story. "It will cost the media if they have to defend more and more expensive legal cases brought by celebrities. But I think the real cost to society in general is if information flow is restricted and if the press is loath to pursue traditional forms of investigative journalism."

Wallis took the unusual step of putting forward two amendments - her own and one suggested by media lobbyists - to give the committee a chance to debate which country's law should apply for individuals or companies who sue when they believe a media report has damaged their reputation.

MEPs on the European Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee voted on 20 June 2005 for an amendment on a proposed law concerning defamation. The Director of the European Publishers' Council says the vote created uncertainty in defamation cases by leaving the choice of national law to the judge.