Introduction 

The piece gives an overview of the situation of media freedom and pluralism in the Republic of Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus has de jure sovereignty over the entirety of the island. In practice, however, its governance is confined to the southern region while the northern part of the island is administered by the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), an entity recognized solely by Turkey. In this light, the current piece focuses on media pluralism within the areas which the Republic of Cyprus has control over.

Cyprus’s constitution provides for the right to freedom of expression and in 1989 the Cyprus News Agency Law was adopted. As a Member State of the European Union, the Cypriot legal framework has been further shaped by laws such as the Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and the Digital Services Act (DSA). 

The Status Quo of the Media Landscape 

The 2023 Eurobarometer on Media and News showed that social media is, today, the prime source of information for the public (70%) compared to an EU average of 37%, followed by television at 62%, online press at 52%, radio 30% and printed press 10%. In 2024, Cyprus ranked 65th in Reporters without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, finding that ‘the government, the Orthodox Church and business interests have significant influence over the media.’ Moreover, two of the four major newspapers are closely connected to political parties. This stems from the founding of party newspapers after the 1974 war that encouraged a form of ‘party journalism’  that remains intact today. This confirms a level of political parallelism, whereby the political partisanship is reflected in the media, which is more common in Mediterranean countries such as Cyprus compared to Northern Europe (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). 

The diversification of political views  that accompanied the expansion of private media over successive decades was severely impacted by the 2008/09 economic crisis, which compelled print and broadcast channels to reduce their workforce and scale back their journalism. Economic adversity continues to make the private sector vulnerable to commercial influences exercised by advertisers. The pressure is exacerbated by state subsidies which are not ‘allocated in a transparent manner.’ Meanwhile political pressure can be exercised on public radio and television which depend on public funding. These financial factors all contribute to reduced independence and enhanced self-censorship. 

Independence, Ownership and Transparency 

The Cyprus Radiotelevision Authority (CRT) was created by The Radio and Television Broadcasters Law of 1998 and regulates the audiovisual sector for purposes of safeguarding free speech, access to information, transparency of ownership and ‘the mass media from undesirable persons.’ The CRT is also the Digital Services Coordinator under the DSA. The authority has its own budget, and its decisions can only be reviewed by the judiciary. With the transposition of the AVMS Directive, new provisions were incorporated into the 1998 law for purposes of enhancing its independence. Nevertheless, the CRT cannot be deemed to be free from State influence since appointments to the authority are made by the government’s Council of Ministers. The  2023 amendment to the Law on Radio and Television Organisations has impacted media ownership as the law now allows one person/entity to own any one ore more media outlets, with no threshold or limitation, thereby allowing for ‘unimpeded media control.’ 

The Cyprus Problem 

The Cyprus issue remains an exceedingly delicate matter, where journalists are expected to align steadfastly with the government’s position. Those who diverge from the sanctioned narrative often face accusations of being “traitors.” The media has faced criticism for deepening divisions and fostering intolerance between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities with outlets on both sides accused of disseminating nationalist propaganda. However, emerging technologies have provided journalists across the divide with opportunities to connect, exchange information, and influence audiences within both communities.

Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

There have been several incidents of vexatious legal action taken against journalists by State organs, including the former President. The country currently has no anti-SLAPP legislation and the EU’s anti-SLAPP Directive must be transposed into national law by 2026.  

Freelance journalists are especially susceptible to legal threats as means to intimidate journalists. Sara Farolfi, an Italian freelance journalist, collaborated with Cypriot journalist Stelios Orphanides to investigate allegations concerning a Libyan-owned company based in Limassol, Cyprus. Orphanides, at the time a journalist for the Cypriot English-language daily Cyprus Mail, was aware of the newspaper’s lack of appetite to report on this Libyan-owned company. Consequently, their report, titled “Cyprus Records Sheds Light on Libya’s Hidden Millions,” was only published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). Weeks after the July 2018 publication, a lawsuit was initiated against Orphanides and Farolfi by two affiliated law firms and three of their lawyers named in the OCCRP investigation. The suit accused Orphanides and Farolfi of defaming the plaintiffs, damaging their professional standing and reputations, and subjecting them to ridicule and disrepute. It further claimed that the investigation infringed upon the plaintiffs’ right to privacy and family life. The lawsuit sought compensation of up to 2 million euros from the journalists, either jointly or individually. The case is pending. 

Makarios Drousiotis is a journalist, author, politician and recipient of several awards who has published a plethora of writings on Cyprus which have been widely translated. He became active in politics in 2013 when Nicos Anastasiades was elected President, but later became a vocal critic of corruption in the country. His 2024 book Mafia State led to criminal proceedings against Anastasiades, and in April 2024, Anastasiades sued Drousiotis for over 2 million EUR of damages for defamation.  Drousiotis’ lawyer has accused Anastasiades of initiating a SLAPP against him for purposes of silencing him. 

The current proposal: Electronic Communications 

The government has sparked a great controversy with proposals to criminalize certain activities using electronic communications that may be used to restrict critical journalism.  The proposed law amends the Cypriot Criminal Code by incorporating three provisions. Two involve the dissemination of insulting, abusive, obscene or threatening content through public networks, telephone communication and/or messaging. The other involves the dissemination of fake news with the aim of causing disturbance or concern in another person. 

The third provision on fake news carries with it a prison sentence of one year and/or a financial penalty of up to EUR 3,000 and would provide a tool for governments to censor news they disagree with, potentially setting back press freedom in Cyprus by decades.

The provisions regarding insulting, abusive, obscene or threatening content are also deeply troubling for freedom of expression and journalism. While due diligence must be paid to issues pertaining to the audiovisual sector and, for example, children’s rights when it comes to, for example shocking or disturbing content, the element criminalizing offence could constitute an additional chokehold to the freedom journalists need to conduct their work freely. The criminalization of speech which is deemed ‘offensive’ is deeply problematic given the abstract nature of the term and the low threshold of severity associated with mere offence. The truth can often be upsetting, and for some ‘offensive’ but that should not deter journalists from the pursuit of the truth, nor the criminalization of reporting it. 

The protection of the right offend is also well established under human rights law with the European Court of Human Rights reiterating its principle that freedom of expression must extend to speech that may ‘offend shock or disturb’ as in the case of the Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (1979), 

The law was proposed by a former Minister of Justice in 2021 and was scheduled for discussion at the Cypriot parliament in September of this year. However, following a backlash from national, international and European organisations, the current Minister of Justice paused the process and will be convening meetings with relevant experts and stakeholders to discuss free speech concerns. Local civil society organisations such as the Union of Cyprus Journalists, the Committee of Media Ethics Cyprus and the Institute for Mass Media have all reacted against the proposal, arguing that it poses a serious threat to press freedom and the freedom of expression. 

Interestingly, the research centre of the Cypriot parliament conducted a study following a request by the legal committee on legislation in other member states of the European Union, the UK, Canada and the USA. The report offered no in-depth analysis of core issues such as the meaning of the contested concept of fake news, free speech issues, the social impact of such legislation and the impact on media pluralism nor does it offer a substantiated extrapolation of what benefits criminalizing fake news could bring. The report is also undermined by alluding to Greece as a country with a law on fake news without clarifying that the Greek version was eventually revoked after public outcry. 

Conclusion

The Cypriot media landscape is vulnerable as reflected in its placing on the 2024 World Press Freedom Index.  Media freedom and pluralism in Cyprus is marked by structural problems that are deeply connected to the island’s political history and identity such as political parallelism. Media freedom is threatened by vexatious lawsuits and the continued absence of anti-SLAPP legislation. Furthermore, new challenges that emanate from the digital sphere have resulted in the current law proposal on electronic communications which aims at regulating highly contested areas of speech such as fake news and offence. As has been argued elsewhere and particularly taking into account the already vulnerable media landscape of the country, this proposal is ‘absolutely horrifying for free speech, for media pluralism and for democracy.’ It has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech and will, most probably, contribute to further self-censorship by journalists and thus further tainting of media freedom and pluralism.

This article was produced as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors, and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries. The project is co-funded by the European Commission.