A permit may not even have been available for Makarios Drousiotis’ online funding campaign had he applied for one, according to his lawyer, Maria Theristi. She told CNA that the money is being raised for his personal court expenses, a purpose she argues is not among the social needs covered by Cyprus’ fundraising legislation.
Why a permit may not have been available
Asked about the campaign, Theristi suggested considering the question from the opposite direction: what would have happened if Drousiotis had applied for permission, purely as a precaution?
She said the competent authority would first have had to establish which purpose under the law the application concerned, what charitable or benevolent aim it served and which social need it addressed.
In her view, the application would most likely have been rejected because the campaign does not appear to serve the type of purpose required under the legal framework governing fundraisers.
What the money will cover
The funds are intended to meet the costs of a specific court process. These include legal fees, expert reports and the expenses associated with experts and witnesses appearing and giving evidence in court.
“We are therefore talking about the costs of a specific court process and his personal defence,” Theristi said.
What constitutes a social need
Theristi said the term “social need” must be interpreted within the wider legal framework and according to the legislature’s intention.
She explained that such a need must have a social dimension, affecting individuals or a broader section of society. As an example, she referred to people affected by the wildfires in mountainous Limassol.
“Not every personal financial need is automatically a social need,” she added.
Transparency and the purpose of the law
Theristi also referred to the purpose behind the legislation, saying it seeks to ensure oversight, transparency and accountability, while preventing unlawful or misleading fundraising activities.
In Drousiotis’ case, she said, the purpose of the appeal was disclosed from the outset. It has been publicly stated that the money will be used for a specific court process, while a commitment has also been made to provide information about how the funds are spent.
She added that social solidarity is not automatically equivalent to the legal definition of a charitable or benevolent purpose. A citizen may choose to support someone facing a personal financial need without that support necessarily becoming a charitable activity.
The wider financial cost
Theristi also highlighted the personal financial and professional cost Drousiotis faces because of his journalistic work.
Beyond direct court expenses, she said there may be a loss of income because of the time required for journalistic research, writing and attending court proceedings.
“Such court proceedings create not only direct legal expenses, but also a wider financial cost for a professional who earns a living through journalism,” she said.
Freedom of expression concerns
Theristi referred to European Court of Human Rights case law describing the press as a “public watchdog” and giving particular weight to freedom of expression in matters of public interest.
She noted that financial penalties and legal costs can, in certain circumstances, have a “chilling effect”, discouraging the exercise of that freedom.
Concluding her initial legal assessment, Theristi said the balance appeared to favour the position that the campaign does not constitute a fundraiser within the meaning of Cyprus’ 2014 fundraising law.
Source: CNA
