Allgemein

European Democracy Shield Bolstering independent media at the core…

European Democracy Shield Bolstering independent media at the core of democratic resilience

In the face of rising digital manipulation, shrinking civic space and collapsing media business models, the European Democracy Shield offers an important opportunity to ensure safety of journalists and media viability, among other things, but only if turned into concrete action. This is what MFRR aims to follow.

18.11.2025

On 13 November 2025, the European Commission adopted its European Democracy Shield, the first comprehensive, flagship strategy for strengthening democratic resilience within the bloc, with a key focus on free and independent media, fighting disinformation and creating healthier information ecosystems to protect European values and security. 

 

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners welcome the fact that many priorities from our submission on media freedom and security of journalists, as well as EPD-led joint submission of 65 organisations, have been incorporated in the text. 

 

Strengthening the economic viability of media, and updating the EU Recommendation on the safety of journalists and to combat Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which have become a pervasive tool for silencing critical voices, are important priorities. Media and press freedom priorities are defined under the umbrella of the second focus of the European Democracy Shield, aimed at strengthening democratic institutions, free and fair elections and free and independent media. A comprehensive list of commitments has been developed to address economic viability, safety of journalists, influence of AI and disinformation. 

 

The MFRR calls for these protections to be retained and enforced. We also call for further protections of journalists from digital pressures and harmful legislation to be introduced. The MFRR also calls for the strict implementation and timeline for the implementation of these commitments, as well as for strengthening the European Democracy Shield enforcement in relation to the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and Digital Services Act (DSA).

 

Below we outline  how the EU Commission’s priorities reflected the MFRR submission on media freedom and protection of journalists. 

 

Economic viability

 

Tackling the changing business models for media and the advertising market, now increasingly dominated by online platforms that divert funding away from independent media, is one of the main issues that media is facing in terms of its viability. The commitment to reviewing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market is a positive step toward ensuring the economic viability of the media sector. However, the MFRR cautions that these measures must be implemented swiftly and effectively to prevent further erosion of media pluralism.

 

The Shield’s detailed section on funding for democracy support is particularly significant. The organisations note the Commission’s acknowledgment that additional financial resources are necessary to sustain independent media, especially in the EU neighbourhood and candidate countries. Prioritisation of core funding for independent media is vital for countering the economic pressures imposed by dominant online platforms. The creation of the Media Resilience Programme and the new MFF Global Europe could be important additions to ensure impartiality and core support in the media ecosystem. It is welcoming that media is recognised as a part of defence budgets, but we urge for the precise clarification of the timeline and understanding of the scope Media Resilience Programme and MFF will have.

 

Safety of journalists

 

One of the key priorities detailed in the document is ensuring the safety and protection of journalists, including in the EU external action, in line with the highlighted needs of our submission. To intensify its efforts to protect journalists against undue pressure, threats and attacks, the Commission commits to updating its Recommendation on the safety of journalists, which is very welcomed by our consortium.

 

Reinforcing and strengthening measures on the safety of journalists and combating abusive litigation (SLAPPs) by reviewing its anti-SLAPP Recommendation remains crucial to addressing pressures on journalists. We hope that a high-level event on combating SLAPPs will translate into concrete policies, as indicated by this document. We highlight again that the revisions should include measures that foster a sustainable support system for journalists and media targeted with SLAPPs, ensuring that they are compensated for the damages incurred; as well as to equip the judiciary and legal community with the knowledge to recognise and address SLAPPs while upholding public participation rights. 

 

That being said, our organisations stress the need for robust legal safeguards against the criminalisation of defamation and the use of foreign-agent laws, which continue to drive self-censorship and force journalists into exile.

 

The Shield also highlights that it will continue assisting the civil society actors and journalists under authoritarian regimes to ensure that “tools for digital censorship circumvention, antisurveillance and anti-shutdown solutions are available to citizens, by scaling up the rapid response work with trusted partners”. It would, nevertheless, be important to ensure that the protection from digital repression, surveillance and online pressures is strengthened both within the EU member states as well as candidate and potential candidate countries. As indicated in the MFRR submission, journalists and media professionals are increasingly targeted by spyware across Europe, with the most recent examples in Serbia and Italy. Further protections from the misuse of spyware are essential to ensure that journalists feel free to conduct their roles in protecting democracy.

 

Moreover, the Commissions’ commitment to continue funding mechanisms to monitor press freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries, such as MFRR, is an essential way of contributing to the overall goal of supporting media freedom and pluralism, as recognised in the document.

 

Finally, we are happy to see that the Commission commits to supporting quality independent media and journalism in the EU and candidates and potential candidate countries, with a specific emphasis on core funding for independent media. In addition, continued core support to exiled independent journalists and media outlets, who are working from within the EU and its neighbourhood is essential. We also hope that the support and protection will be ensured in specific cases of transnational repression of exiled journalists. These proposed funding streams should be established in the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework, and in line with the GFMD recommendations for media. 

 

AI and new technology 

 

As highlighted in the MFRR submission, the Democracy Shield recognises that AI poses significant threats to media viability and the integrity of the information ecosystem. These threats to media viability and information ecosystem are planned to be tackled through a welcomed review of the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market, with a focus on ensuring that the use of AI respects intellectual property rights and does not further destabilize media business models. Developing guidance to maintain fair competition in the digital environment is mentioned as well, particularly in light of the growing influence of AI-driven platforms that can distort media markets and advertising revenues.

 

The Commission also commits to investing in AI literacy and digital skills for both citizens and media professionals, aiming to strengthen societal resilience against AI-facilitated threats to democracy and media freedom. Though a large part of the document is focused on developing mechanisms for increased media literacy, such as the creation of European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which will host a multi-stakeholder platform, we welcome the fact that the document recognises the DSA as an important tool for media pluralism and media literacy. 

 

We therefore underscore the importance of the Digital Services Act’s provisions, which require very large online platforms and search engines to actively identify and mitigate systemic risks to media freedom and pluralism. Though the Commission commits to monitoring and enforcing these obligations, it falls short of providing actions for their implementation. We urge the Commission to formulate more concrete steps for ensuring the implementation of the DSA and to develop a risk-assessment that is reflective of the real needs of journalists on the ground. To ensure this, among other things, we call for inclusion of data from the protection mechanisms, such as MapMF, in the risk assessment process.

 

Final considerations

 

While the European Democracy Shield represents a strong initial commitment, these six organisations, alongside their partners on the ground, will remain actively engaged to ensure that the Shield not only meets but exceeds its stated goals, adapting to new challenges as they arise. The document’s success will ultimately be measured by its ability to translate promises into concrete actions that protect and sustain independent journalism in an increasingly hostile environment. 

 

We agree with Commissioner McGrath that the Shield will need to be adjusted and adapted, therefore we see the document as a strategy to enhance media viability, and safety of journalists, among many other things. In this context, we call for a development of a comprehensive action plan, that would provide clarity on how these commitments will be enforced, and in which timeline. We as MFRR commit to following the situation on the ground, and to alerting the Commission on the new developments, as well as to follow the implementation of all named commitments in the scope of our mandate.

 

An increased number of attacks against journalists and media professionals across Europe demonstrates the urgency of these commitments and recommendations. If action is not taken now, independent media risk collapse, democratic institutions will be further undermined, and the information space will remain dominated by hostile actors.

Signed by:

  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe

This statement was coordinated by 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.

Allgemein

EU Enlargement Package: Assessments must now translate into meaningful…

EU Enlargement Package: Assessments must now translate into meaningful media freedom action

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today welcomes the publication of the 2025 EU Enlargement Package and highlights key media freedom developments and concerns that should shape negotiations with candidate countries moving forward.

13.11.2025

Our organisations welcome the sharpening of criticism of certain countries engaging in egregious media freedom violations by the Commission in this year’s report, particularly Serbia and Georgia, and stress that assessments for all countries must now translate into effective progress on media freedom, media pluralism and freedom of expression.

 

The Enlargement Package recognises freedom of expression, media freedom, and pluralism as key pillars of a democratic society in the accession process. Although some improvements have been noted, the media sector in most candidate countries remains marked by persistent and systemic challenges, including political interference, lack of regulatory independence, and limited pluralism, as well as threats to the safety of journalists.

 

The report emphasises that the European Commission insists on the highest quality of reforms, especially regarding the rule of law, democratic institutions, and fundamental freedoms. However, some crucial media freedom issues deserve more attention in this report, which we highlight here.

 

The MFRR, which monitors national media landscapes and advocates for free media in all EU Candidate Countries as part of its mandate, seeks to spotlight the main concerns we want to be tackled in the enlargement process, as well welcome positive steps forward. 

 

Backsliding on media freedom

Georgia: The report accurately highlights severe backsliding, leading Georgia to decline to an early stage of preparation in the area of freedom of expression. This is the second consecutive year of backsliding, illustrating an escalating press freedom crisis driven by the ruling Georgian Dream party.  Since the protests were sparked by the government’s decision in November 2024 that Georgia would halt its EU membership negotiations until the end of 2028, the government’s crackdown on media and civil society intensified. Since the start of the protests in November, the MFRR’s Mapping Media Freedom (MapMF) platform documented 175 attacks affecting 288 media workers with the police and security forces as well as government officials being the major source of the attacks. Since MFRR started active monitoring of Georgia, in December 2023, MapMF has documented a total of 262 media freedom violations in the country affecting 433 media workers, which is the highest number of alerts recorded during the same period among EU candidate countries. 

 

Each day, Georgia moves closer to becoming a fully consolidated authoritarian regime, as the ruling Georgian Dream party intensifies its efforts to erode democracy and stifle dissent. Journalists have been viciously beaten, verbally assaulted, threatened, and detained. Their equipment has been confiscated and destroyed, and their work repeatedly obstructed. At the same time, government smear campaigns to discredit independent journalism have continued unabated. The Georgian Dream is adopting repressive legislation at an alarming rate, making it nearly impossible for independent media and civil society organisations to operate. As the report outlines, new legislation, including amendments to the Law on broadcasting, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the legislative package on family values and protection of minors, all negatively affect the right to freedom of expression and the ability of the media to operate freely. Additionally, the Georgian Dream Parliament adopted amendments to the Law on Freedom of Speech and Expression, and the Organic Law on Common Courts. 

 

The country report on Georgia adequately assesses the capture of the Georgian Public Broadcaster (GPB), noting that it “lacks independence, has biased editorial policy and contributed to the promotion of anti-EU rhetoric.” MFRR repeatedly  raised concerns about the GBP, which has long been an instrument of the Georgian Dream government, and suppressed efforts by journalists who try to report free of political control, including firing several journalists. It further acknowledges the deterioration of journalists’ safety, including the use of arbitrary arrests, fines, and SLAPPs against journalists, and mentions the unjust imprisonment of Mzia Amaglobeli, founder and director of the online media outlet Batumelebi. The report brings into focus the severe crackdown on journalistic freedoms by the government, which make Georgia one of the key flashpoints for media freedom in Europe in need of urgent international attention. At this stage, the EU considers Georgia a “candidate country in name only” and urges authorities to reverse course. In the face of rising authoritarianism, Georgian media demonstrate exemplary resilience and refuse to be silenced. MFRR reiterates our call on the Georgian Dream to stop the crackdown on independent media and repeal repressive legislation. We also renew our call on the European Union and its member states to step up pressure on Georgia and stem the rapid descent into authoritarianism.

 

Serbia: The report is explicit in its assessment of backsliding on freedom of expression in Serbia, emphasising the current crisis and polarisation of society following the student-led anti-corruption protests initiated in November 2024. Attacks against free media continue to take place effectively unaddressed by authorities. Since November 2024, MapMF has documented 190 attacks affecting 341 media professionals, media outlets and journalists’ representatives. Of these, 82 journalists were targeted during demonstrations, with 51 media actors assaulted. The report also notes the smear campaigns and verbal attacks from government officials targeting journalists and media, denigrating critical journalists as enemies of the state. The latest example of these attacks is the orchestrated smear campaign against the Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia (NUNS) from the newly established journalists’ association ANS and pro-government tabloids, who falsely accused NUNS of plotting violence during demonstrations by distributing protective equipment to journalists ahead of demonstrations.   

 

Amidst a perilous environment for independent reporting, the future of independent media outlets remains uncertain. A recent investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) suggested efforts by President Vučić to “weaken” the editorial autonomy of the two remaining critical privateTV stations, N1 and Nova TV. These same broadcasters were labelled by Vučić as “doing pure terrorism”, and were removed from the SBB network as of 16 April 2025, retaining only their online platforms. Political interference is also contaminating newsrooms. The MapMF platform has documented several cases of journalists being dismissed or forced to resign in direct retaliation for defending ethical journalism and/or resisting censorship. Journalists at the public broadcaster, RTS, which was criticised for its unbalanced coverage of the protests, have not been spared pressure

 

While media freedom has been in a state of crisis for decades in Serbia, the current escalation of events over the past year represents one of the deepest downturns in press freedom  in the country’s recent history. The lack of independence of regulatory bodies is particularly concerning and it is demonstrated inter alia by the repeatedly obscure process of appointment of the members of the Commission for Electronic Media (REM). SLAPPs and other forms of intimidation continue to represent a threat for journalists in Serbia. MFRR organisations, which conducted a solidarity mission to Belgrade and Novi Sad earlier this year, have repeatedly called for a tougher stance by the EU in response to clear Serbian backsliding on media freedom and freedom of expression. While we welcome the long overdue hardening of language in the current report, we now call for the EU to exert maximum effort into ensuring sustained and concrete democratic reforms as part of Serbia’s accession process.

 

Türkiye: Türkiye remains at an early stage of preparation in freedom of expression, with further backsliding observed in the overall state of democracy and media freedom, according to the 2025 report. Judicial actions against journalists and media intensified through politically motivated prosecutions and arrests, often relying on vague legal definitions and selective application of the law. The implementation of criminal laws related to national security, counterterrorism and defamation continued to hinder freedom of expression. The reporting period saw a further increase in arrests and detentions of journalists, underscoring the disproportionate use of legal measures to intimidate and silence media. For instance, Furkan Karabay, a journalist whose social media posts were deemed “insulting the president” was arrested. The 2022 Disinformation Law and the new Cybersecurity Law have also introduced vague provisions enabling censorship and surveillance.

 

Media ownership in Türkiye already remains highly concentrated among pro-government business groups. Türkiye’s broadcast regulator RTÜK maintained issuing discriminatory administrative and monetary fines against independent and opposition media outlets, further undermining media pluralism. Nearly 100 million liras in fines were imposed, along with 25 days of broadcast bans — including two full blackouts — and a government-appointed trustee took control of a TV channel. The selective allocation of public advertising and control over print distribution also damaged financial sustainability of independent and minority media outlets. Independent media outlets receiving foreign funding were frequently subjected to hostile rhetoric and smear campaigns by pro-government media. Online freedom is likewise restricted, as authorities frequently block access to critical websites, news articles, and social media accounts, and impose temporary shutdowns or throttling of platforms during protests or crises.

 

As the overall trend remains deeply concerning, marked by political interference and instrumentalisation of the judiciary, the MFRR reiterates the urgent need for Türkiye to overhaul its restrictive legislation and broadcasting frameworks. Reflecting the report’s assessment, we further echo the call for the release of detained journalists and human rights defenders, and urge the authorities to safeguard independent reporting as a cornerstone of media freedom and pluralism in Türkiye.

 

No progress on media freedom

Bosnia and Herzegovina: While the report  indicates that Bosnia and Herzegovina shows ‘some level of preparation’ in the area of freedom of expression, an ongoing political crisis at the entity level and a series of restrictive legislative changes have severely stalled paths for any meaningful improvement. The EU correctly reports ‘no progress’ achieved during the reporting period in guaranteeing freedom of expression, media freedom, and the protection of journalists. According to MFRR monitoring, the first half of 2025 instead saw a rise in attacks compared to the same period the previous year of threats including verbal attacks often perpetrated by politicians, physical assault, and interference with journalists’ work.The sudden closure of Sarajevo-based AlJazeera Balkans in July 2025, due to the cited financial issues, after 14 years of broadcasting further undermines media pluralism in Bosnia and Herzegovina and across the region. The closure has left over 200 media professionals in Sarajevo, and other cities in the region without a job. 

 

The situation remains particularly challenging in Republika Srpska. In March 2025, the region’s National Assembly adopted a foreign-agent style law which targets independent media and civil society organisations that receive foreign funding, subjecting them to onerous reporting requirements under the risk of sanctions if they fail to comply with the new rules. In addition, criminal defamation, reintroduced into the Penal Code in 2023, forms part of a disturbing trend of expanding liability for dissenting opinions and creates a chilling effect, undermining previous progress as it was decriminalised more than 20 years ago. Our organisations consistently oppose criminal defamation laws, as they constitute a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression and are incompatible with international human rights standards. While the continuing political standoff in Republika Srpska continues, progress on media freedom looks set to face sustained hurdles without considerable democratic reform.

 

Kosovo: The country has some level of preparation but made no progress in the past year. The MFRR believes that this evaluation is well justified, considering that the government passed a heavily criticised media law, titled Law on the Independent Media Commission (IMC). The Law was then annulled by the Constitutional Court demanding the prompt drafting of a new proposal. The boards of the public broadcaster and the media regulatory body remain dysfunctional due to a lack of quorum, as the parliament failed to elect new members. The public broadcaster faced turbulent times due to political interference, which culminated in the removal of six editors from its TV programs. This led the Ombudsperson to open an investigation into censorship. The situation further deteriorated in August when the staff of the public broadcaster received their salaries almost a month late – a situation that has been repeated in November.

 

Journalists continue to face difficulties in accessing information, as institutions remain largely closed to journalists and activists. The number of complaints filed with the Agency for Information and Data Protection over refusals of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests continues to rise on a yearly basis. Verbal and other forms of attacks and incidents also marked the year 2025, with government officials, including Prime Minister Albin Kurti, publicly attacking journalists and media outlets. Verbal and other forms of attacks and incidents also marked the year 2025, with government officials, including Prime Minister Albin Kurti, publicly attacking journalists and media outlets.

 

To improve the media situation, the MFRR urges the government and members of the ruling party Vetëvendosje to immediately stop their anti-journalist rhetoric. We further urge the incoming government to commit to preparing a comprehensive package of laws related to media freedom, ensuring that this package aligns with EU and Council of Europe standards and enjoys broad political support. We further call on the government to immediately release the funds owed to RTK so that salaries can be paid and the broadcaster can continue to operate, and for the Assembly of Kosovo to restore RTK’s legal governance structures and appoint the remaining board members to ensure the election of a permanent Director General without delay. Unless steps are taken to address converging crises, long term democratic media freedom reform in Kosovo risks heading into reverse.

 

Limited progress on media freedom

Albania: Although considered a frontrunner among candidate countries, when it comes to freedom of the media and freedom of expression, our organisations stress that Albania continues to suffer from numerous structural weaknesses and challenges to its still fragile media ecosystem. While the 2025 enlargement report assesses Albania as having some and a moderate level of preparation, the MFRR warns that recent legislative initiatives risk severely undermining recent tangible progress. In particular, draft amendments to the Penal Code on provisions related to defamation, insult and influencing judicial independence pose direct threats to media freedom and the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Our organisations have criticised these proposed changes and called for them to be amended. 

 

Further proposals by the parliamentary majority to significantly restrict journalists’ access to the Parliament of Albania, though not yet implemented, pose a threat to the public’s right to information. The non-execution of court decisions and the obstruction of journalistic activity at the Tirana premises of Focus Media Group also emerged as a key flashpoint for media freedom in 2025. Elsewhere, the country still faces serious challenges due to concentrated media ownership, strong ties of media owners to vested political and business interests, which undermines independence and public trust, as well as some instances involving the intimidation of journalists – all of which require sustained attention and action.

 

North Macedonia: The European Commission correctly observes a moderate level of preparation on freedom of expression in North Macedonia. The report accurately reflects the main challenges facing the media sector in the country, including the partial alignment of media legislation with European requirements, the need to strengthen the independence and capacity of the regulator (AAAMS), the ongoing reform of the public broadcaster (MRT), and the persistent risks to the safety of journalists (including physical attacks and online harassment). While the media environment in North Macedonia is generally stable, the difficult working and economic conditions faced by many journalists – especially in local and small media outlets struggling to remain viable – needs to be given more emphasis and considered as prerequisites for moving forward in the EU enlargement process. 

 

Of particular concern are also the lack of specific safeguards against abusive litigation (anti-SLAPP legislation) and the growing use of abusive lawsuits. Furthermore, the MFRR emphasises the need to undertake a comprehensive reform of the Media Law to address the evolving media landscape, particularly in the digital sphere. North Macedonia’s small and highly fragmented media market remains economically fragile, leaving media outlets exposed to political and financial pressures. State funding and advertising continue to reflect strong political influence over the media. Particularly concerning is the lack of transparency in the allocation of state budget funds for political advertising during election campaigns, a practice that distorts the market, increases media dependence on major political parties, and weakens editorial independence and media pluralism.

 

Some progress on media freedom

Ukraine: Overall, the media freedom situation in Ukraine remains positive, despite numerous and serious war-time pressures. Restrictions imposed within the scope of martial law regulations are “overall proportionate”, according to the Commission. While the most serious issues putting in danger the physical safety of journalists are caused by Russia’s war of aggression, the media also face a number of concerns created by domestic actors. Authorities typically react promptly to physical attacks, direct intimidation and harassment of journalists, by opening criminal cases to investigate the events. However, these criminal cases often fail to produce concrete results, and those responsible for the attacks are seldom identified and prosecuted.

 

Authorities must  ensure that restrictions imposed temporarily by martial law comply with key public rights and interests, such as access to information and media freedom. This is especially the case of Ukraine’s “United News” telethon: a government-funded project, the telethon pools Ukraine’s main TV channels into a common television broadcast, the content of which has been criticised domestically and abroad as unreliable and failing to meet objectivity standards. In its report, the Commission called upon Ukrainian authorities to reassess the format of the telethon “at latest by the time of the eventual suspension of martial law”. The independence of Ukraine’s national media regulator should be strengthened, and the transparency of media ownership increased, in line with the provisions of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Efforts already made to implement the European anti-SLAPP directive are commendable, however these are only at a first stage of development. Overall, despite significant war-time pressures and challenges, the domestic situation for media freedom in Ukraine remains broadly positive, yet fragile.

 

Montenegro: Montenegro demonstrates moderate preparedness in freedom of expression, yet significant concerns persist regarding media independence and pluralism. The MFRR welcomes the overall positive trend noted by the Commission regarding Montenegro but notes a troubling increase in attacks against journalists and media outlets, with 17 recorded incidents affecting 25 individuals and organizations since January 2025, a sharp rise from six incidents in 2024. While physical assaults are rare, verbal abuse, often perpetrated by private individuals, including serious death threats, both online and offline, is particularly alarming. Furthermore, public officials and politicians have been primarily responsible for discrediting journalists’ work, underscoring a lack of understanding of the media’s democratic role. Additionally, the absence of a signed sectoral collective agreement contributes to poor working conditions and a lack of social dialogue. 

 

Public broadcasters, the Radio and Television of Montenegro and the Agency for Audiovisual Media Services (AMU) are particularly exposed to political pressure. The fact that AMU’s Council has been operating without its full composition since December 2024 due to the non-election of two members remains another serious issue. In parallel, ongoing court proceedings challenging the legality of the RTCG Director General’s appointment, and the recent conviction in first-instance proceedings against RTCG Council members for abuse of official position during the election, further raise concerns about transparency and adherence to legal procedures. However, at a time when national legislation requires further alignment with European media laws, the Ministry of Culture and Media’s newly formed working group to implement the European Media Freedom Act and the Digital Services Act into Montenegrin legislation is a positive step forward. Further action is needed to consolidate existing gains and push for further progress on media freedom and freedom of expression.

 

Good progress on media freedom

Moldova. Moldova is assessed as having between having some and a moderate level of preparation in freedom of expression and has made tangible progress, notably in adopting new legislation on access to information, implementing the law on the Media Subsidy Fund, amending the audiovisual media services code (AVMSC) and on advertising, as well as on the protection of journalists. Rules for selecting members of the public service broadcaster and the Audiovisual Council have been reviewed. While the overall climate for free and independent journalism remains relatively healthy compared to other EU candidate countries in the region, local divergences remain acute and all media face intense challenges to their financial viability.

 

In a landscape characterised by the division between pro-Western and pro-Russian politics, journalists face challenges in navigating polarised news environments and disinformation. The fragility of the media and public interest journalism due to the small advertising market is particularly concerning. While the media environment is overall healthy in most of the country, in Transnistria, a region occupied by pro-Russian military forces, no media are allowed to freely function. Issues also persist in the largely Russian-speaking regions of Gagauzia and Taraclia, where independent journalists report being regularly intimidated by local authorities and the population. The MFRR welcomes recent progress on freedom of expression and media freedom in Moldova and urges national authorities to continue on the trajectory as part of its EU aspirations.

This analysis was coordinated by 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.

Allgemein

Call on President von der Leyen to address media…

Call on President von der Leyen to address media freedom crisis in the Western Balkans

Against the backdrop of a rapidly worsening media freedom crisis across the region, most prominently in Serbia, a coalition of international media freedom, journalists’ and freedom of expression organisations calls on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to raise the threats to the protection of journalists and media pluralism with the respective authorities during her visit to the Western Balkans this week (13-16 October).

13.10.2025

Since October last year, our organisations have recorded  extraordinary pressures on media freedom across the region. The abrupt shutdown of Al Jazeera Balkans, the intensifying political pressure on the N1 and Nova TV channels and the launch of a TV channel by the Kremlin’s propaganda outlet RT Balkan, represent existential threats to independent and reliable journalism across the region. 

 

Furthermore, the recriminalisation of defamation and the adoption of a foreign agent law in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Republika Srpska, as well as widespread reductions in funding for independent media, paint a grim picture of the media landscape, and the one in which independent and small newsrooms may not be able to survive. 

 

Pressures on public broadcasters, private outlets and media authorities in Albania and Kosovo together with politicians’ attempts to restrict media access to them underscore the serious dangers posed to journalists’ right to inform and the citizens’ right to information.

 

Mapping Media Freedom (MapMF) has registered 381 alerts affecting 617 journalists and media workers in the six countries of the Western Balkans, with a stark 222 cases registered in Serbia alone. The current level of violence against journalists in Serbia is unique in any EU member state or candidate country. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has documented 34 physical attacks committed in less than two summer months against media professionals by political activists and law enforcement agents. To this day, the annual tally of physical violence in 2025 stands at 82 cases, according to RSF data – an unprecedented level judging by the records of the Independent Journalists’ Association (NUNS) kept since 2008. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has documented that as the government toughened its stance against the protests, Serbian journalists have increasingly reported being deliberately targeted by police, especially when covering police violence.

 

The cases documented in Serbia by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) confirm the severity, having documented physical, verbal and other attacks against 315 journalists, media outlets and journalists’ associations since 1 November 2024. These attacks are incited by the frequent unfounded accusations against the press by, among others, Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić himself. In September 2025 alone, the Slavko Curuvija Foundation registered 141 cases of verbal attacks on journalists and media by high-ranking state officials and members of the parliamentary majority.

 

Since the beginning of the anti-corruption protests, our organisations have repeatedly raised these issues and asked the Commission to send a clear signal to Belgrade about the consequences that attacks on the press, the support for Russian propaganda, and a systemic failure to protect journalists could have for the European Union enlargement process and disbursement of EU Funds. The MFRR mission to Belgrade in April 2025 explicitly raised alarm about the crisis for media freedom, and issued urgent recommendations to the Serbian authorities and the European Commission.

 

Since this call for action, pressure on independent reporting and media freedom has only worsened. In June, the process to appoint new members of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) council was again conducted in an opaque and discriminatory manner, making a mockery of EU-mandated reforms. In recent weeks, United Group media N1 and Nova TV have faced serious threats to their independence, sparking renewed concerns of direct political meddling in television news channels reporting on the protests. This pressure also increasingly puts journalists and outlets in financial difficulty, with several outlets at the brink of financial collapse.

 

Failure to effectively challenge the Serbian authorities sets a worrying precedent for other accession countries, especially those in the region. Both media and their audiences on the ground need to know that the European Union enlargement process will meaningfully contribute to building a safe environment for journalists and guarantee the public’s right to credible information in the Western Balkans, with Serbia as the most stark example. Press freedom remains a crucial requirement for building healthy democracies and the promotion of European values in the Western Balkans.  

 

The undersigned organisations therefore call on President von der Leyen to make clear demands to the authorities regarding the protection of media freedom and safety of journalists, in particular for Serbian President Vučić. The instruments available to the Commission, including the suspension of EU funds, should be enacted to send a clear message about the European Union’s commitment to independent journalism and media freedom in the region. 

Signed by:

  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • Index on Censorship
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)

This statement was coordinated by 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.

Allgemein

EU Rule of Law Report: A welcome but insufficient…

EU Rule of Law Report: A welcome but insufficient response to deteriorating media freedom

Following the publication of the European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law report, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today calls on the EU to act on the alarming findings to bolster its defence of media freedom and independent journalism across the bloc.

21.07.2025

As media freedom across the European Union and candidate countries continues its overall deterioration, the findings of the report must now act as the foundation for sustained action to safeguard EU values and push for strong implementation of the upcoming European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). 

 

General overview

 

Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) is pleased to see the ongoing recognition of media freedom and media pluralism as central to upholding the rule of law within the European Union and enlargement countries. The Rule of Law report rightly emphasises that independent media serve as a crucial check on power and a vehicle for the free flow of information, both increasingly under threat. We welcome the findings that reveal a worrying decline in media conditions across Europe, with journalists experiencing rising physical violence, online harassment, and politically motivated smear campaigns. The economic vulnerability of the media sector, combined with the dominance of a few digital platforms and concentrated ownership structures, further increases the risk of political interference.

 

The report highlights the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) as a vital tool for enhancing media freedom and pluralism across Europe, aiming to strengthen journalist protection, ensure fair state advertising, and reinforce public media independence. With the deadline for implementation of August 8 approaching, most Member States are in the process of aligning their legislation with the EMFA, but many will fall short to respect the implementation deadline. The Commission notes advances in increasing the capacity and independence of national media regulators, reforms to improve transparency in media ownership, and the introduction of safeguards to combat abusive legal actions such as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Positive steps are also reported in improving access to public information and journalist safety, although these efforts vary significantly across the EU, and are met with different challenges.

 

However, the report stops short of directly calling out systemic failures, particularly in states where media capture and political interference are entrenched. The diplomatic language when discussing serious concerns may undermine the urgency of the issues. Moreover, the report provides recommendations, but it does not describe accountability mechanisms. Hence, there is no clear path for enforcement or consequences for non-compliance, particularly regarding EMFA implementation.

 

With an increased level of digital threats to media viability and safety, the report would benefit from a more in-depth analysis of digital threats. The current overview fails to adequately address the challenges posed by surveillance, disinformation, algorithmic influence, and emerging technologies such as AI.

 

The MFRR aims to use this analysis to identify countries where the report may not fully capture the severity of challenges faced by public interest journalism, and to offer insights into areas requiring further action.

 

Country Focus

 

While the Serbia report acknowledges “serious” and “increasing” concerns regarding the independence of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM) and the safety of journalists, it fails to give a realistic picture of the repression that has been underway since the fatal collapse of the railway station roof in the city of Novi Sad, that killed 16 people in November 2024 and prompted massive anti-corruption protests. In this unprecedented context, independent journalism is facing its greatest emergency, as the MFRR delegation found out during its mission in April 2025. Not only are journalists not protected by the public authorities, but they are directly confronted with attacks of all kinds coming from the highest level of government. Censorship of information, increasing pressure on media professionals, political stranglehold of the media landscape have become systemic and are not sufficiently highlighted as violations of the public’s right to know. With this report, the European Commission makes a weak assessment of the media freedom situation and misses an opportunity to warn the Serbian government of the consequences of such a deterioration of the rule of law, which must be urgently remedied.

 

Regarding Italy, the 2025 Rule of Law Report offers only a partial picture of the mounting challenges faced by media professionals in recent years. The European Commission rightly acknowledges the chilling effect of several legislative measures on judicial reporting.

 

The report stops short of addressing deeper concerns over the PBS funding system’s adequacy, sustainability, and predictability. The Commission praised RAI’s commitment to “accurate and pluralistic information”. Yet, the report overlooks significant challenges faced by RAI’s investigative teams, including a consistent pattern of legal harassment and recent internal pressure, evident in the reprimand of Sigrifo Ranucci, Report’s anchorman, and the announced reduction of the programme’s upcoming season. While acknowledging the unusual inactivity of the RAI Oversight Parliamentary Committee since Autumn 2024, the report omits the fact that this paralysis is due to a boycott by members of the ruling coalition, disabling parliamentary oversight for nearly a year.

 

The issue of conflicts of interest, addressed in the section on the justice system, is regrettably absent from the media section. Yet, conflicts of interest have long posed a structural challenge for the Italian media landscape. The persistent concentration of economic and political power in the hands of media owners continues to threaten editorial independence. This risk is exemplified by the Tosinvest group—led by Lega MP Antonio Angelucci—which owns major newspapers such as Libero, Il Tempo, and Il Giornale, and has been attempting to acquire one of Italy’s main news agencies, AGI.

 

Finally, as the report acknowledges the important work undertaken by the Specialised Coordination Centre dedicated to the safety of journalists in Italy, it fails to address the implications of the fragile findings of the Parliamentary Committee for the Security of the Republic (COPASIR) on the surveillance of Fanpage director Francesco Cancellato using spyware. The recommendation to bolster the protection of professional secrecy and journalistic sources shows that the Commission acknowledged the insufficient safeguards against the abusive surveillance of journalists and media workers. However, it failed to recognise the government’s active efforts to undermine transparency initiatives and to provide clarity on the case.

 

On Hungary, the report again adequately assesses the complete lack of progress in any element of media freedom or pluralism. It correctly concludes that pressure on journalists and other media professionals increased in the past year, specifically due to the actions of the Sovereignty Protection Office. However, yet again the full severity of the situation for media capture and media pluralism in Hungary is not sufficiently reflected in the language. Furthermore, while the government’s draft law ‘on transparency in public life’ is noted, it is included in the section on civil society and regrettably not again mentioned in the section of media, despite the potent threat the law would pose if ultimately passed. While the report sufficiently evaluates the situation for media freedom in Hungary, and the EU Commission has referred Hungary to the European Court of Justice over the Protection of National Sovereignty Law, overall the EU continues to fail to reply to these broadening attacks on democracy with the appropriately forceful response: the suspension of EU funds, which MFRR organisations have repeatedly called for.

 

Regarding Greece, the report correctly identifies a number of positive reforms developed by the Greek authorities in the last year, including on state advertising transparency and media registry bodies. However, MFRR organisations believe that the overall urgency of the situation in Greece, which still ranks among the lowest countries in the EU for media freedom, is not sufficiently reflected in the report. Language in the report suggests that reforms undertaken in recent years have already had a clear positive impact on the ground. However, it is the assessment of the MFRR in our monitoring that many of these changes have yet to have a marked impact on improving media freedom and the environment for independent journalism, and that Greece has a number of reforms to continue ahead of alignment with the EMFA. Meanwhile, the ongoing and complete lack of accountability over the direct and indirect involvement of state actors in the illegal surveillance of journalists in Greece in recent years in the ‘Predator Gate’ scandal is not sufficiently addressed and continues to represent a serious black mark over press freedom in the country. 

 

Of all countries in the EU, Slovakia has undergone the most severe decline in media freedom in the past year, as noted in the MFRR’s mission report of February 2025. However, the MFRR believes this alarming decline is not sufficiently reflected in the language of the report. Slovakia’s media landscape remains under intense pressure from a government determined to assert direct control over the public media and pressure the private media to curb its political output. While the report notes simply that there has been “no progress on the recommendation to enhance the autonomy of public service media”, the reality is that the government continues to actively tighten its control over the broadcaster after the merging of the TV and radio into a single entity, and recent appointment of a government ally to the post of director general of STVR. This serves as a test case for the EU’s commitment to safeguarding media freedom and democratic values from Hungary-style undemocratic attacks and provides a key case for the implementation of the EMFA. 

 

Describing the developments in Croatia, the Rule of Report acknowledges several positive initiatives undertaken by the Croatian government to safeguard media freedom, such as the adoption of protocols to investigate attacks on media professionals. The report also recognises that there were not enough steps taken to address media capture through media advertising, as well as that the protection of journalists and SLAPPs remain an issue. However, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) organisations contend that the report does not adequately convey the critical state of media freedom in Croatia. The language used in the report implies that recent reforms have already yielded tangible improvements. Yet, based on MFRR’s monitoring, many of these changes have not significantly enhanced media freedom or the conditions for independent journalism. Croatia still has made no evident progress to implement the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Additionally, inconsistent application of protective protocols, especially at the local level, exacerbates concerns for journalists’ safety. For instance, the case of Melita Vrsaljko, who was attacked twice for her reporting, underscores the failures in applying these protocols. Furthermore, current administrative procedures in courts risk exposing journalists’ personal information to alleged perpetrators, and defamation remains a criminal offence without plans for decriminalisation. The recent amendment to Article 307a of the Criminal Code, which criminalises the unauthorised disclosure of information about criminal investigations, further restricts whistleblowers from collaborating with journalists on matters of public interest.

 

Over the past nine months, Romania has undergone four rounds of elections, which have arguably deepened the political capture of the media. The Rule of Law report’s chapter on Romania correctly highlights the rise in opaque political advertising, affecting both national and local media, both heavily reliant on state advertising. We welcome the report’s recognition of ongoing online and offline harassment of journalists. However, it is important to emphasise that threats to journalists’ safety have been particularly driven by far-right politicians during the presidential campaigns. The report acknowledges that the presidential elections exposed a failure to enforce standards on unmarked political content on television and online news websites. However, it falls short of addressing the shortcomings of social media platforms, particularly regarding account verification and the spread of disinformation. Nonetheless, the MFRR welcomes the report’s acknowledgment that the National Audiovisual Council (CNA) lacks the staff and technological resources necessary to carry out its mandate, as well as the noted stagnation in efforts to improve the independent governance and editorial autonomy of public service media. As highlighted in the report, media ownership transparency remains insufficient, particularly regarding online outlets, some of which are funded through opaque sources. Finally, we appreciate the recognition of progress on advancing a draft law to transpose the anti-SLAPP Directive, which has included public consultations.

 

Conclusion

 

With media freedoms rapidly declining across the EU member states and candidate countries, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) welcomes the fact that the report addresses most of the issues facing media today in Europe and offers insights into how the situation can be improved. For many member states and candidate countries, the report makes a strong effort to recognise rising challenges to media freedom and rule of law. With few exceptions, the report captures declining freedoms and safety of journalists across Europe.

 

However, the MFRR review has noted that for certain member states, such as Italy, Croatia and Serbia, the report does not touch upon all concerns posed by media freedom groups and civil society in the countries. Besides lacking a deeper understanding of how digital threats affect media freedom in member states and candidate countries, the report also does not provide clear paths for lack of action to implement EU documents, most notably EMFA and the Anti-SLAPP Directive. 

 

The situation described in the EU Rule of Law report, as well as MFRR reports and initiatives, calls for a strong reaction to both prevent further decline in countries like Romania, Serbia, Czechia, Croatia, and to reverse the adverse effects of harmful policies in the obvious offenders like Hungary and Slovakia. These times call for concrete actions and measures. Hence, we invite the Commission to specify the repercussions for those who fail to implement these measures in order to really prevent attacks to media freedom, rule of law and EU democracy.

This rule of law analysis was coordinated by 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.

Library

Media Freedom Groups troubled with the CULT report on…

Media Freedom Groups troubled with the CULT report on the EMFA proposal

Apr 28, 2023

Dear Sabine Verheyen,

 

We, the undersigned journalists, press freedom, civil society, trade unions, and digital rights groups, are writing to you with regard to the proposed amendments to the draft  European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) you have written as the Rapporteur on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). 

 

We thank the rapporteur for the timely drafting and appreciate several amendments in the report, such as the strengthening of the independence of the European Board for Media Services. 

 

However, we are very concerned about many changes that dilute the impact of the proposal , as well as the harmonization effort that drives the EMFA.  Moreover, the removal of the explicit reference and guarantee of journalists and editors’ editorial independence throughout the proposal, and the changing of the media pluralism test from mandatory to optional in national rules raise our concern regarding the EMFA’s capacity to adequately protect media pluralism and media freedom in the EU.

 

Our main critical points are the following:  

  • The removal of almost all references to editorial independence in the proposal and the insertion of media owners’ right to assume a leading editorial role (Art 6.2);
  • The insertion of VLOPs into the media plurality assessment and the exchange of a mandatory nature for a voluntary one (Art 21); and
  • The failure to strengthen media ownership transparency rules (Art 6.1).

 

Editorial independence is an essential pillar of media freedom that helps guarantee the integrity of a media’s journalism and protection against the undue influence of vested interests from political or business groups. The latest scandal surrounding Mathias Döpfner, the CEO of Axel Springer, seeking to interfere in editorial policy of Germany’s largest newspaper underlines the vulnerability of our media to vested interests and the necessity to maintain protections on editorial independence across Europe.

 

The inclusion of Very Large Online Platforms under the media plurality test under Art 21 should also be removed as it prejudges the methodology to be developed for protecting news media pluralism in Europe. News media plurality cannot be looked at in isolation and VLOPs as with other actors such as advertising companies have a significant impact on the media economy and this is recognised already in the Digital Markets Act (Regulation 2022/1925). However, to insert VLOPs into the EMFA which is primarily focused on a public interest test for news media is premature and ties the hands of the policy experts assigned to develop the media plurality test.

 

We kindly remind you that the media ownership transparency obligations on media under Article 6.1 should be strengthened as it is only through clear publicly available and verifiable information that the public can make informed decisions about the integrity of the media. This is also a request in the recently published independent research for the CULT Committee on the EMFA. Only this way will we achieve meaningful transparency.

 

We call on you, dear Sabine Verheyen, and on all CULT members as the lead committee, which has been a reliable and vocal campaigner for media freedoms across the European Union, to stick to your principles and help to improve this act as a regulation so much needed in the EU and beyond.

 

With kind regards,

Signed by:

  • Association of European Journalists (AEJ Belgium)
  • Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties)
  • Eurocadres
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Ossigeno.info
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Society of Journalists, Warsaw
  • The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation

This statement was coordinated by 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. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Detail of the national flag of Slovakia waving in the wind with blurred european union flag in the background on a clear day. Democracy and politics. European country. Library

Slovakia: Government pushes ahead with ambitious media reform program

Slovakia: Government pushes ahead with ambitious media reform program

New laws on source protection and media ownership transparency provide model for neighbouring countries

By IPI contributor Miroslava Kernová, Omediach.com

In recent months Slovakia has passed important legislative changes which will ensure a better media environment and move the country closer to standards outlined by the recently published European Media Freedom Act (EMFA).

Moreover, in addition to the laws already passed, others are in preparation. If the full package is achieved, Slovakia can become a leading example of press freedom for other EU countries, such as Hungary or Poland, where press freedom continues to face major challenges from media capture.

In its program statement (2020-24), the current government promised a complex reform which would reflect modern changes in the media environment. The changes this reform introduces and proposes are revolutionary by Slovak standards.

The problem with previous Slovak media legislation was that it did not reflect the online environment, titled the scales in favour of political forces, and allowed ways for these forces to influence public media.

The motivation for the change is also public pressure for better protection of journalists after the brutal murder of journalist Ján Kuciak and his girlfriend Martina Kušnírová in 2018.

 

Reforms passed already

In August, the parliament passed a new Act on Media and the Act on Publications, replacing two outdated laws, the Press Act and the Compulsory Copies Act.

These new laws strengthen the protection of journalists, extend source protection to online media, and bring greater transparency to media ownership and funding, which strengthens their credibility against media disseminating disinformation.

Firstly, under the new Act on Media and Act on Publications, the right to protect the confidentiality of sources – which was in the past only guaranteed for broadcast and print media journalists – has been extended to include journalists from online media.

Secondly, media outlets must also declare any investor or donor who invests more than €2,000 per year. This change should make the media environment in Slovakia more transparent. A number of anonymous sources of disinformation, pro-Russian or politically motivated websites operating in Slovakia would have to declare their real “final beneficiaries” in a public register, which will allow anyone to verify whose is behind these outlets. For non-compliance with this obligation, media may receive a warning or a fine of up to €20,000.

Thirdly, the new law also strengthens the protection of minors, improves access to audio-visual content for the disabled by increasing quotas for multimodal access, and specifically promotes broadcasting for national minorities and ethnic groups in public service broadcasting.

It also regulates the conditions for television and radio, regardless of whether they broadcast standardly or online, and introduces several rights and obligations for television and radio. Every viewer will now be able to find out who owns a given medium and there will be a register where all the information will be available. This will be administered by the Ministry of Culture, which is to establish the register within 30 months of the adoption of the law.

In addition, the law redefines general rules for advertising in both public and private media and, in line with European requirements, introduces the notion of community periodicals into the Slovak legislation and allows for the application of self-regulatory mechanisms.

 

Last minute amendments from politicians

The downside of the new media laws, however, is that MPs in the last steps of finalising the legislation process introduced a “right to expression” for public officials into it, thus securing for themselves more media space than ordinary citizens. The right to expression for public officials was only included in the bill at the end of the second reading in parliament – as amendments by MPs from Sme rodina and OĽaNO.

“Politicians have their channels of communication. The most followed profiles on social networks belong to politicians, they express themselves in press conferences that are broadcast. So there is no reason for a politician to exercise his right to express himself in the exercise of his public office,” media lawyer Tomáš Kamenec told the daily SME.

In the original draft law, the right to expression could only be used to deny, supplement, clarify or explain factual allegations. Parliament eventually approved amendments that extended the right to expression to value judgments based (columns or opinion pieces) on disputed claims.

Alexej Fulmek from the Association of Print and Digital Media (ATDM) and CEO of the Petit Press publishing house considers the adoption of the “right to expression” as a step backwards. “Unfortunately, politicians in Slovakia are mostly under the impression that the media are causing harm to this country and that they are the ones who have to fight them. They don’t understand that the role of the media is to be critical, especially towards politicians. In this atmosphere the idea prevailed that politicians need some ‘stick’ against the media. This probably seemed to them as an adequate solution,” Fulmek told Strategie magazine.

 

Increasing protection for journalists

Additional planned changes deal with the protection of journalists. Draft amendments to the Criminal Code would remove the long-criticised prison sentence for defamation, which has been a major threat to journalists in Slovakia for years. Under the current law, defamation carries a prison sentence of two to eight years. Under the new legislation, defamation would not carry a prison sentence.

The planned amendment to the criminal code also introduces so-called “special motives” for crimes, which will include a crime committed against someone for exercising of their job, profession or function. This may contribute to better protection of journalists and other professions (doctors, teachers, security forces…) who face many threats and can face attacks in their work. A crime committed with a specific motive will carry higher penalty.

For now, the draft of this law remains parked at the ministry of culture. Questions remain over whether the government will find the political will to pass such legislation.

 

Further changes planned

The Ministry of Justice has also proposed amendments to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. The amendment expands both the scope of information to be provided and the persons obliged to provide it. For example, the draft also extends the list of companies that are obliged to provide information to state-owned companies and second- and third-tier subsidiaries of state-owned companies, which are not covered by the current law.

The proposal also extends the mandatory disclosure of information to persons seeking public office as well as to public officials themselves. It also introduces an obligation to publish all amendments to contracts subject to mandatory publication.

The Ministry of Culture wants to implement the PersVeilig (Press Safe) platform for greater protection of journalists in Slovakia, following the example of the Netherlands.

In 2019, the PersVeilig platform was launched in the Netherlands to improve the safety of journalists. The platform was also created because although journalists faced threats, they often did not report them because they felt they were not sufficiently dealt with by the police. PersVeilig improves cooperation between journalists, their employers, the police and prosecutors.

The Slovak Ministry of Culture wants to work with the Netherlands to improve the protection of journalists domestically. “We are not talking about whether it should be an organisation, a platform, a technical or procedural solution. What we want is to reach a concrete result that can be implemented and traced,” said Radoslav Kutaš, the ministry’s state secretary, told Denník N.

If all these plans are indeed implemented, Slovakia will meet many of the requirements of the European Media Freedom Act regarding of the protection of media pluralism and independence, and in some respects may even go beyond them, such as the ambition to create a special platform to protect journalists.

 

Challenges remain

Despite many positive ambitions, the media environment in Slovakia continues to face problems. Journalists, especially those from the opinion-making media, are constantly targets of verbal attacks from politicians, mainly from former Prime Minister Igor Matovic, but also from the opposition.

For example, the deputy chairman of the opposition Smer party, Ľuboš Blaha, regularly dehumanises journalists. Matovič, who leads the biggest party in parliament, also regularly attacks journalists on his Facebook page and recently accused unspecified media of corruption, “spreading lies” and compared the work of Slovak journalists to Nazi propaganda.

In Slovakia, the problematic environment for independent public service media also remains a major issue. The main problem is that both the director and the supervisory boards of Slovak Radio and Television (RTVS) are elected in parliament after political agreements are made. Politicians still have influence over the funding of public service media. Changes need to be made to guarantee that public service media management and funding are more independent and more resistant to political pressures.

Even if the political will is there, the road ahead contains multiple pitfalls. The forthcoming changes may be stalled by the current unstable political situation that brings about the possibility of the fall of the current government and of early national parliamentary elections, which may result in a government of such parties that do not favour the idea of a free media.

However, if the planned changes are passed, Slovakia would take major steps forward in strengthening the legal frameworks for media freedom and provide a positive example to follow for other EU Members States in Central and Eastern Europe in the years to come.

This article is part of IPI’s reporting series “Media freedom in Europe in the shadow of Covid”, which comprises news and analysis from IPI’s network of correspondents throughout the EU. Articles do not necessarily reflect the views of IPI. This reporting series is supported by funding from the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom and by the European Commisson (DG Connect) as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response coalition.

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

EU: Amidst war in Ukraine, EU must provide emergency…

EU: Amidst war in Ukraine, EU must provide emergency visas for Russian & Belarusian journalists fleeing repression

The undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today call on the Member States of the European Union to set a global example of support for media freedom in crisis by extending emergency shelter and visa waivers to Russian journalists fleeing the country, as well as Belarusian journalists seeking refuge from war and repression.

Independent journalists and media in Russia are currently experiencing the most severe and wide-ranging crackdown in the last thirty years. Leading broadcasters have been silenced or shuttered; dozens of news websites have been blocked; use of the word “invasion” or “war” have been banned; and a new law criminalizing what authorities deem to be “fake” news or information about the armed forces could see journalists jailed for up to 15 years.

More than 150 Russian journalists have since fled the country fearing for their safety and their liberty. With the crackdown showing no signs of abating, more are likely to follow. So far, most journalists have travelled to neighbouring countries with visa-free entry for Russian citizens: Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan. Some have been arbitrarily turned away, transferred on and, in the case of Dozhd TV’s Mikhail Fishman, detained. Those that do get in are faced with working in exile in states with repressive environments for independent media.

Action is urgently needed to ensure Russia’s independent media is not destroyed altogether. Our organisations call on all EU Member States to provide safe havens for dissident Russian journalists to re-establish their bases of operations and continue reporting. Exemptions must be made by EU states to provide emergency visas to journalists and their families. In addition to financial support to Ukrainian media, EU governments should provide funding to help Russian newsrooms relocate to safety.

Visa exemptions should also be extended to independent Belarusian journalists, who over the past year and a half have undergone a similarly repressive crackdown under President Alexander Lukashenko. Mass arrests and the threat of criminal prosecution led to an exodus of Belarusian journalists, including into neighbouring Ukraine. While Ukrainian journalists fleeing the war currently enjoy visa waivers, their Belarusian colleagues are trapped and are unable to seek safety within the EU’s borders.

The European Union has already shown remarkable unity in its response to the bloody invasion of Ukraine. Though much more needs to be done, the support from Member States to help relocate Ukrainian journalists fleeing the bloodshed has been commendable. A similar show of European unity in helping independent Russian and Belarusian journalists is now needed. If allowed to relocate inside the democratic legal framework of the European Union and rebuild their newsrooms in exile, these independent media may stand a chance of survival.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa

This statement was coordinated by 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.

Library

MFRR partners welcome European Commission’s Recommendation on protection, safety…

MFRR partners welcome European Commission’s Recommendation on protection, safety and empowerment of journalists

The partner organisations in the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) welcome the European Commission’s Recommendation on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and media professionals in the European Union, presented today. The document is a testament to the Commission’s much-needed engagement in the defence of press freedom and media pluralism as critical elements of the Union’s foundational values in the face of increased attacks and threats to journalists and media workers across the region in recent years. At the same time, it serves as an indictment of the lack of meaningful action by a number of member states and candidate countries who, despite the existence of clear laws and standards to improve the safety of journalists and media workers such as those set out in Council of Europe Recommendation 2016(4) among others, have done too little to turn the tide on this worrisome trend.

The Commission’s Recommendation includes a host of measures that, taken together, should drive member states to improve journalists’ safety and put a halt to an emerging climate of impunity, if they are duly implemented. We welcome the repeated call on the member states’ authorities to engage with the media community and seek the views of journalists, media workers and civil society on ways to prevent and address threats and attacks. Furthermore, as partner organisations in a Europe-wide response mechanism, we particularly appreciate the recommendation to set up national independent response and support mechanisms to provide legal advice, psychological support and shelter for journalists and media workers who face threats and attacks. It is evident that the needs in this regard far outstrip capacity, and local action is needed to close this gap: with the MFRR, we have documented no less than 482 incidents in the EU between January 2020 and June 2021, affecting 1256 persons or media entities in 24 member states. Considering moreover that nearly one out of every three incidents occurred during demonstrations, the particular attention paid to this context in the Recommendation is appropriate. Equally welcome is the call for better social protection for journalists and the specific focus on the distinct protection needs of women journalists and those belonging to minority groups or reporting on equality, and those working in non-standard forms of employment, all of whom are particularly at risk.

The key to the Recommendation’s success will lie in effectively following up on its outcomes and holding the member states to account if their implementation is lacking. We call on the Commission to closely involve journalists and media workers, their unions and associations, and civil society in developing the key performance indicators and in the subsequent monitoring of the implementation. In the meantime, we call on the EU’s member states and candidate countries to heed the Commission’s recommendations and step up their action to ensure the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and media workers.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
Library

EU action needed to tackle spyware abuses after Pegasus…

EU action needed to tackle spyware abuses after Pegasus revelations

As the European Parliament today debates the Pegasus spyware scandal, the undersigned partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) call for an immediate investigation into the alleged use of the spyware against journalists by Hungarian authorities and urge the strong implementation of new EU rules on the export of cyber-surveillance technology around the world.

 

Revelations by the Pegasus Project that at least 180 journalists in 20 countries had their phones infected by the NSO Group’s spyware underscored the need for urgent action by the international community to tackle the unregulated spread of such technology and to create safeguards for the protection of human rights, including the freedom of the press.

Within the European Union, credible allegations indicate that Pegasus was illegally deployed by Hungarian intelligence or national security services in 2018 and 2019 against at least five journalists, including András Szabó and Szabolcs Panyi from Direkt36, one of Hungary’s last remaining independent media outlets. Fresh revelations surfaced last week when Hungarian media reported that Zoltán Páva, the publisher of the news portal Ezalenyeg.hu and former Member of the European Parliament, had been surveilled using Pegasus as recently as May this year.

Last week it was also revealed that the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) secretly purchased the technology from NSO in 2019. In France, prosecutors are probing allegations that journalists from media outlets including Le Monde, Agence France-Presse and FRANCE 24 were surveilled by Moroccan intelligence services using Pegasus.

The failure to control the acquisition, trade and use of such intrusive technology inside the bloc means that the number of EU member states to have bought Pegasus or other similar cyber-surveillance technology remains unknown. Current estimations may represent the tip of the iceberg. This opacity poses significant threats to journalistic sources, privacy and safety, undermines media freedom and constitutes a clear failure by the EU to close the gaps in its regulatory framework.

As Parliament debates the matter, our organisations again urge the European Commission to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into alleged abuses by the Hungarian authorities against journalists and others. The Commission must establish the extent of Hungary’s use of Pegasus, identify what safeguards have been implemented and react to any abuses. Until such an investigation is carried out, the Pegasus revelations will continue to undermine journalists’ safety and have a chilling effect on what remains of independent media within the country. Robust and effective legal protection must be guaranteed within EU member states against unlawful surveillance by domestic intelligence, national security and law enforcement agencies to guard against human rights violations, including the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy as protected under domestic, European and international law.

At the same time, the EU needs to protect journalists from illegal surveillance outside as well as inside its borders. Reports by NSO that suggest that EU member states Cyprus and Bulgaria granted export licenses for its technology are also deeply disturbing. While Cypriot authorities have denied to the Commission that it has any export links with NSO, the assurances remain unsatisfying. Meanwhile, the response from the Bulgarian authorities has yet to be disclosed. The Commission must renew its engagement with the relevant authorities in Sofia to seek immediate clarity. If confirmed, immediate action must be taken to revoke the export license and establish how and when it was granted.

EU member states themselves have a role to play. On September 9, after a decade of negotiation, new EU export controls came into force with the Recast Dual-Use Regulation, which among other things aims to strengthen controls on the international trade of so-called “dual-use” cyber-surveillance tools. The MFRR urges all 27 member states to swiftly implement this landmark regulation and to collaborate in a transparent manner with the Commission on the sharing of information involving the export of such surveillance tools from the customs union.

The subsequent annual report prepared by the Commission under this regulation should act as a much-needed tool for holding the national authorities authorising the sale of this technology to account. It will also lift the veil on the potential sale of spyware tools by commercial actors based in EU member states to authoritarian regimes around the world. For too long the industry has been able to escape proper oversight and regulation. The Commission should closely monitor and enforce states’ adherence to the new rules. Moving forward, more frequent compilation of information and updates about the buying and selling of advanced surveillance tools may be required to address a fast-changing market.

Despite the modest advances in rights protection in relation to the licensing of these technologies for export from the EU subsequent to the entry into force of the recast dual-use regulation, there evidently remains the need for an internationally applicable regulatory framework that can prevent, mitigate and redress the negative human rights impact of surveillance technology. Until this is in place, we continue to call for a global moratorium on the sale and transfer of spyware technology. The European Union should lead the way on pushing for international agreements on the freeze of sales of these cyberweapons around the world.

Signed by:

  • ARTICLE 19
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)
EU flags outside the European Commission Library

EU Rule of Law report: Little bark, no bite

EU Rule of Law report: Little bark, no bite

On 20 July, the European Commission published the 2021 Rule of Law Report. The document, which is the outcome of months of painstaking work, can be a valuable tool that empowers civil society, the EU institutions and Member State governments who care about the rule of law in the Union. The Report, comprised of a Communication that covers EU-wide developments and country chapters for each Member State, is designed “as a yearly cycle to promote the rule of law and to prevent problems from emerging or deepening and to address them … It seeks to strengthen the rule of law in full respect for national traditions and specificities, stimulating a constructive debate and encouraging all Member States to examine how challenges can be addressed and to learn from each other’s experiences.” 

In its current form, the Report represents a significant descriptive documentation effort. However, for it to live up to the high expectations and truly become a critical tool that can contribute to the promotion and safeguarding of EU values, we believe several fundamental changes are needed in future iterations of the report.

Firstly, we believe that more transparency from the Commission on the methodology and selection process of stakeholders invited to consultation meetings, as well as closer consultation and collaboration with civil society to design a more straightforward and more easily accessible process, would greatly benefit its credibility. We appreciate that the Commission has “further deepened our assessment, which benefited from even more outreach than last year,” as Commissioner Reynders said at the press conference presenting the Report. However, given the current lack of openness concerning the methodology, it is difficult to assess how inclusive the process really is and to what extent shortcomings in this regard are systematically addressed.

Secondly, looking at the Communication and country reports as a whole, it appears that the process of “looking at all Member States equally” has resulted in depoliticised analyses in anodyne language that present the situation in all Member States as roughly equal, allowing for measured praise and criticism of each. Subsequently, we believe that the Report as a whole does not reflect the reality of the depth of the rule of law crisis in Poland and Hungary or how starkly the intentional violation of core EU values in these Member States contrasts with the situation in the rest of the Union. It also undermines the Report’s ability to prevent problems from emerging, as is currently the case in certain other Member States including Slovenia, or to stimulate debate and mutual learning.

Lastly, to strengthen the process’ capacity to bring about substantial change, we continue to call for country-specific recommendations. These should be framed in the context of Member States’ obligations under EU law and international human rights law and standards, which would allow for tracking and evaluating progress and regression against an agreed, binding framework.

Signed by:

  • Article 19
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)