Lebanon’s new Media Law No. 69/2026 has entered into force, bringing a fundamental change in how liability arising from publication and expression is addressed. Whereas cases involving insult and defamation were previously subject to criminal prosecution, the law has shifted, in the cases falling within its scope, to civil liability, while retaining criminalisation for specific acts, most notably incitement to hatred and violence and false news that meets the legal requirements for criminalisation.

 

The implementation of this reform coincides with the enactment of General Amnesty Law No. 70/2026, which covers certain offences that remain punishable under the law, provided they were committed before 1 March 2026 and do not fall within the statutory exceptions.

This coincidence raises new questions about the fate of complaints, investigations and publication-related cases that remain pending before public prosecutors, investigating judges, the Publications Court and other criminal courts.

 

Can criminal proceedings continue for an act that is no longer considered a criminal offence under the law? What about offences that remain criminalised but are now covered by the general amnesty? How should the transitional provisions be applied to pending cases without prejudice to the rights of litigants, particularly the right to compensation?

 

The challenge today is to ensure the effective implementation of the shift to civil liability, while distinguishing between the decriminalisation of an act and the extinguishment of public criminal proceedings through amnesty, thereby safeguarding both freedom of expression and the rights of those who have suffered harm.

 

The Law Changed the Nature of Liability, Not Just the Court with Jurisdiction

The reform introduced by the new Media Law was not limited to reorganising judicial jurisdiction or abolishing the Publications Court. It also redefined the nature of legal liability for certain acts of publication.

 

Article 107 subjects insult and defamation, within the scope of the law, to the rules of civil liability under the Code of Obligations and Contracts, enabling injured parties to seek compensation before the competent court. Article 111 also provides for the establishment of a first-instance civil chamber in each governorate to hear cases involving offences relating to opinion and the media.

 

Accordingly, the purpose of holding a journalist or publisher accountable for these acts is no longer to impose a criminal penalty, but rather to enable the injured party, where the conditions for liability are met, to obtain compensation for the harm suffered.

 

However, this transition cannot be achieved simply by the enactment of the law. It requires criminal proceedings to cease in respect of acts that no longer constitute criminal offences, and the courts to apply the new legal framework to pending cases, regardless of when the complaint was filed.

 

The Interaction with the General Amnesty Law: Three Cases That Must Be Distinguished

The enactment of the General Amnesty Law has added a new dimension to the handling of pending publication cases. It is no longer sufficient to determine whether an act remains criminalised under the new Media Law; it is also necessary to verify when the act was committed and whether it falls within the scope of the amnesty.

Three cases must therefore be distinguished:

 

◉ Case 1: Acts That Have Been Decriminalised

This category includes acts of insult and defamation that the new Media Law subjects to civil liability, provided that the facts do not fall under any other applicable criminal offence. In such cases, criminal proceedings should be terminated in accordance with the stage reached by the proceedings, regardless of when the act was committed, pursuant to the principle of applying the more lenient criminal law.

 

◉ Case 2: Acts That Remain Criminalised but Are Covered by the General Amnesty

This category includes offences that the new Media Law continues to criminalise, such as incitement to hatred and certain cases involving the publication of false news, provided they were committed before 1 March 2026 and are not covered by any of the statutory exceptions. In such cases, the public criminal action is extinguished by the amnesty, even though the act remains criminalised.

 

◉ Case 3: Acts That Remain Criminalised and Are Not Covered by the General Amnesty

Where such acts were committed on or after 1 March 2026, they do not benefit from the general amnesty and remain subject to criminal prosecution under the applicable provisions, provided that all the legal elements of the offence are established.

This distinction is essential because decriminalisation under the Media Law is legally different from the extinguishment of the public criminal action through amnesty, particularly with regard to judicial jurisdiction and civil rights.

 

Article 117: How Are Pending Cases to Be Handled?

The legislator sought to address the status of pending cases through Article 117 of the Media Law, which distinguishes between two situations.

 

The first concerns complaints and prosecutions that were still before public prosecutors when the law entered into force. The article provides for their “administrative referral to the competent court” in accordance with the provisions of the new law.

The second concerns cases that were already pending before other judicial authorities, such as investigating judges and trial courts. The law provides for these authorities to continue hearing the cases while applying the new provisions.

 

The main difficulty, however, lies in the expression “administrative referral.”

 

Under Lebanese procedural law, transferring a case file from the public prosecutor's office to a civil court is not a standard procedural mechanism. Criminal proceedings are governed by rules that differ from those governing the institution of a claim for compensation before the civil courts.

This raises a practical question: how can the referral provided for by the law be implemented?

 

Reading Article 117 in light of the law’s reform objectives requires giving administrative referral practical effect wherever legally and procedurally possible, while respecting the rules governing civil proceedings and the rights of the parties.

 

However, the inability to carry out an administrative referral cannot justify the continuation of criminal proceedings for an act that the law no longer considers a criminal offence.

 

Uncertainty surrounding the mechanism for transferring a case file does not alter the legal nature of the act, nor does it restore the criminal courts’ authority to prosecute acts that have been brought within the scope of civil liability.

 

What Should Happen to Pending Cases Before the Different Judicial Authorities?

The handling of any pending case begins with determining whether the act subject to prosecution still constitutes a criminal offence under the new Media Law, and then establishing whether the public criminal action is covered by the amnesty.

The measures to be taken vary according to the stage reached by the proceedings.

 

Before public prosecutors, the facts must be reassessed in light of the new law. If the act has been decriminalised, the investigation or criminal prosecution may be discontinued, subject to the administrative referral provided for under Article 117 wherever legally possible. If the act remains criminalised but is covered by the amnesty, the measures arising from the extinguishment of the public criminal action must be taken.

 

Before the Investigating Judge, the appropriate outcome is a decision to dismiss the case if the new law has decriminalised the act or if a legal ground for extinguishing the public prosecution exists, including a general amnesty. Such decisions remain subject to the remedies provided for by law. 

 

Before trial courts, the new law must be applied to pending cases, and proceedings whose criminal basis has ceased to exist must be terminated, while taking into account the provisions of the general amnesty for offences that remain criminalised.

 

The abolition of the Publications Court under Article 119 does not mean that it must immediately relinquish all cases pending before it. Under a legal interpretation of Article 117, the court continues to hear pending cases within a limited transitional jurisdiction, applying the new Media Law and the provisions of the general amnesty where appropriate, without accepting new cases.

 

Thus, it is not enough to determine which court has jurisdiction. It is also necessary to establish the nature of the act, the date on which it was committed, the stage of the proceedings and the applicable legal provisions.

 

When Can Criminal Prosecution Still Proceed?

The shift to civil liability does not mean that all acts committed through the media or by means of publication have been removed from the scope of criminal law.

Article 104 retains criminal liability for specific acts, including incitement to violence against individuals and groups under the conditions established by law, as well as the deliberate fabrication of falsehoods and the publication of false and harmful news.

 

However, retaining these offences requires the courts to verify carefully that their legal elements are met and to avoid interpreting them so broadly that acts the legislator intended to subject to civil liability are criminalised once again.

This issue is particularly relevant when proceedings were initially brought on charges of insult or defamation and, following the law’s entry into force, the possibility arises of reclassifying the publication as false news.

 

The mere fact that a publication is offensive to a person or harms their reputation does not automatically make it false news in the criminal-law sense. Any reclassification must also remain confined to the same facts that formed the basis of the prosecution, while safeguarding the right to a defence. It cannot be used to introduce new criminal facts into the pending proceedings.

 

Even where the elements of another criminal offence are established, it remains necessary to determine whether that offence is covered by the General Amnesty Law, taking into account the date on which it was committed and the statutory exceptions.

 

Accordingly, the classification of a publication as “false news” should not become an alternative route for continuing criminal proceedings in insult and defamation cases that the law has subjected to civil liability.

 

What About the Right of Injured Parties to Compensation?

The termination of criminal proceedings, whether as a result of decriminalisation or through general amnesty, does not extinguish the right to seek compensation.

However, determining which judicial authority has jurisdiction over civil claims depends on the legal grounds on which the criminal proceedings are terminated.

 

Article 4 of the General Amnesty Law preserved the jurisdiction of the criminal courts to rule on claims relating to personal rights arising from offences covered by the amnesty, provided that the public prosecution had been brought before, or referred to, those courts before the law entered into force.

 

By contrast, in the case of acts that have ceased to constitute criminal offences under the new Media Law, the civil courts would arguably have jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation, pursuant to Articles 111 and 117.

 

However, the question of civil claims that were already pending before the Publications Court when the law entered into force remains open to legal debate, in light of the transitional jurisdiction provided for under Article 117.

 

The provisions of the General Amnesty Law concerning personal rights cannot automatically be applied to all acts that have ceased to constitute criminal offences, given the different legal bases underlying the two situations. 

 

The priority is to ensure that the termination of criminal proceedings does not deprive injured parties of an effective judicial avenue through which to seek compensation.

 

From Text to Implementation: What Is Required of the Judiciary?

The challenge today is not to reopen the debate on the principle established by the law, but to develop a clear and consistent procedural approach to implementing it in pending cases, while taking into account the legal implications of the general amnesty.

 

This requires, in particular, clarifying how complaints pending before public prosecutors should be handled and identifying the mechanisms available to implement the administrative referral provided for under Article 117, in a manner that respects the independence of civil proceedings and the requirements for initiating them, while safeguarding the rights of litigants.

 

It also requires distinguishing, in each case, between decriminalisation and the extinguishment of the public criminal action through amnesty, and verifying that the conditions for legal reclassification are met, while safeguarding the rights of the defence, the right to appeal and the right of injured parties to seek compensation.

 

The importance of clarifying the procedures governing civil claims, as well as the avenues for appealing judgments delivered during the transitional period, must also be emphasised. These issues have not been expressly resolved by the new law in all circumstances.

 

The absence of explicit procedural detail should not result in the suspension of the reform’s implementation. Through the principles set out in Articles 4 and 6, the Code of Civil Procedure provides a basis for addressing procedural ambiguity and gaps under the general rules, in a manner that gives effect to the purpose of the legal provisions and safeguards rights.

 

This highlights the need for clear organisational and administrative measures, as well as coordination among the competent judicial authorities within the limits of their respective powers, to facilitate the implementation of the law without undermining judicial independence or each judicial authority’s power to interpret legal provisions and adjudicate the cases before it.

 

Genuine Reform Begins with Judicial Practice

The new Media Law presents an opportunity to move away from an approach based on criminalising expression towards one focused on establishing liability for harm, while retaining criminalisation in cases that meet the specifically defined legal requirements.

 

However, the effectiveness of this transition depends on how the judiciary handles pending cases and its ability to overcome procedural difficulties without depriving the reform of its substance.

 

Journalists and publishers must not remain subject to criminal prosecution for acts that the law no longer criminalises, nor should injured parties be left without an effective judicial avenue through which to seek compensation.

 

The challenge today is to ensure that the transition from criminal to civil liability is implemented effectively and consistently, turning legislative reform into a tangible safeguard for both freedom of expression and the right to seek compensation.

 

For a detailed legal analysis of the transitional provisions and the issues raised by pending cases, readers may consult the legal brief published by the Maharat Foundation and prepared by Dr Tony Mikhael.

This media alert was produced as part of the “Support to Media Reform in Lebanon to Enhance Freedom of Expression” project, with the support of the European Union.