Lawsuit filed by Metropolitan Anthimos against Millet Newspaper heard in Alexandroupoli

The lawsuit filed by Metropolitan Anthimos of Alexandroupoli against Millet Newspaper and journalist Cengiz Ömer was heard at the Single-Judge Court of First Instance in Alexandroupoli on April 2, 2025. The case revolves around a news article written by Cengiz Ömer following Metropolitan Anthimos’ political remarks regarding the participation of the Turkish Minority’s political party, DEB, in the 2024 European Parliament elections.

Background of the Case
After the 2024 European Parliament elections, Metropolitan Anthimos released a video statement criticizing FEP Party’s participation and made controversial remarks about the Turkish minority, which drew widespread reactions from various segments of the community.

Millet Newspaper covered these remarks in a news article penned by Cengiz Ömer, where the journalist analyzed Anthimos’ statements and emphasized their problematic nature concerning minority rights. The article argued that such rhetoric could harm social peace.

Following the publication, Metropolitan Anthimos claimed that the article contained defamatory and slanderous content against him and subsequently filed a compensation lawsuit against Millet Media Company (co-owned by Bilal Budur and Cengiz Ömer) and editor-in-chief Cengiz Ömer.

Court Proceedings
During the hearing, each party presented a witness.

Metropolitan Anthimos did not personally attend the trial, instead, a priest from the Metropolitan’s office testified on his behalf. The priest claimed that the article was defamatory and intended to damage Anthimos’ reputation.

Millet Newspaper’s witness, Ozan Ahmetoğlu, President of the Iskeçe Turkish Union and Editorial Director of Gündem Newspaper, responded to the judge’s and lawyers’ questions. Ahmetoğlu defended Cengiz Ömer’s journalistic work, emphasizing that analyzing and criticizing public statements made by officials is a fundamental duty of journalism.

Ahmetoğlu further stated that Metropolitan Anthimos’ post-election video message was not simply an assessment of the election results, but rather contained nationalist undertones targeting FEP voters, causing concern and unrest within the Turkish minority.

Defense Arguments
Yannis Barkas: Press Freedom and Objective Journalism Were Upheld
Millet Newspaper’s lawyer Yannis Barkas defended the integrity of the article, stating:

“From the moment I began handling this case, it became clear to me that the journalist’s article and his critique of Metropolitan Anthimos’ political remarks fell within the framework of journalism, freedom of expression, and the duty to inform the public.”

Barkas further asserted:

“Both the Metropolitan’s statement and the journalist’s response are political in nature, constituting a legitimate exchange of views. Public figures must be open to scrutiny, and in this case, the journalist simply fulfilled his professional duty.”

Quoting Albert Camus, Barkas added:

"A free press can be good or bad, but without freedom, the press can only be bad.”

Ahmet Kara: This Case is an Attempt to Restrict Press Freedom
Another lawyer for Millet Newspaper, Ahmet Kara, argued that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence the press, stating:

"The role of journalists is to inform the public and express their opinions on relevant matters. Metropolitan Anthimos' post-election remarks were deeply troubling for the minority community. Although Millet Newspaper’s article remained within the bounds of fair criticism and even issued corrections where necessary, a lawsuit was still filed. This indicates that the plaintiff’s goal is not justice but intimidation.”

Cengiz Ömer: This Case is an Attempt to Intimidate the Press
Defendant Cengiz Ömer denounced the lawsuit as an attack on press freedom, stating:

"Metropolitan Anthimos’ political remarks are subject to public scrutiny. Our duty as journalists is to present these statements to the public and offer a critical perspective. No individual or institution should be immune to critique.”

He further added:

"This case is not just about me but about silencing journalism. However, history does not judge those who tell the truth; it judges those who try to suppress it.”

Awaiting the Court’s Decision
After hearing witness testimonies, legal arguments, and defenses, the court reserved its judgment and is expected to announce a written decision in the coming weeks.

Millet Newspaper will continue to follow developments in this case.