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

Commissioner Virkkunen acknowledges crucial role of journalism in Europe’s…

Commissioner Virkkunen acknowledges crucial role of journalism in Europe’s Defense and Preparedness agenda

Partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) met with European Commission Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen, on 27 April 2025, to address increasing challenges concerning the economic viability, online safety of journalists, and the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the media landscape.

29 April 2025

Partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) met with European Commission Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, Henna Virkkunen, on 27 April 2025, to address increasing challenges concerning the economic viability, online safety of journalists, and the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the media landscape.

 

Stressing the link between security and media freedom, Vice-President Virkkunen acknowledged the critical role of journalism as part of the essential infrastructure for security and preparedness.

 

Highlighting main points for media safety, the MFRR partners emphasised the need for ensuring sustainability for media and addressing financing gaps caused both by decrease in government funding and platform capture of advertising revenue. Drawing on the Joint MFRR EU Democracy Shield submission, MFRR partners proposed concrete, innovative solutions on how to address this, opening discussion on the needs to develop sustainable revenues for journalists. 

 

The MFRR stressed the urgent need for Generative AI regulation due to its extensive and often unauthorised use of editorial content. The MFRR shared the significant concern that AI-generated content could displace editorial work, leading to revenue loss and decreased interest in journalism, and emphasised that AI regulation must include transparency, enforcement, fair remuneration, and meaningful consultation as part of the 3rd Code of Practice. Commissioner Virkkunen insisted on the need for balance between AI innovation and copyright regulation while affirming the importance of fair compensation. She expressed interest in receiving examples of effective strategies for supporting media viability including tax incentives to increase investment in media.

 

The MFRR also highlighted the crucial role of public service media and the absolute need for strong enforcement of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), with Commissioner Virkkunen agreeing that significant cuts to media, such as public broadcaster YLE in Finland, and the increasing prevalence of news deserts are concerning developments.

 

Further points of discussion included the necessity of supporting the sustainability of independent media and civil society, enhancing digital security within the framework of the Digital Services Act (DSA), emphasising the threat of spyware and increase of online attacks against journalists.

 

The MFRR delegation was comprised of representatives from the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), the International Press Institute (IPI), ARTICLE 19 Europe, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), and Free Press Unlimited (FPU).

This meeting 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 Rapid Response Input regarding the EU Democracy…

Media Freedom Rapid Response Input regarding the EU Democracy Shield

29.04.2025

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to establish a robust response to threats against democracy through the EU Democracy Shield. The MFRR, led by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) and supported by ARTICLE 19 Europe, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Free Press Unlimited (FPU), the International Press Institute (IPI), and the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT), has developed its official input for the EU Democracy Shield. This input emphasises the need for a rights-based approach, promoting media resilience and the safety of journalists as core requirements for preserving democracy in Europe. It focuses on critical areas such as the economic viability of independent media, the safety of journalists, legal protections, and the challenges posed by AI.

The MFRR highlights several pressing concerns, including the dominance of platforms that leads to losses in advertising revenue, reduced funding for media and media organizations, the growing threat of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), surging online attacks on media freedom, and the use of spyware against journalists, media workers, and outlets. The input calls for structural reforms to support public interest journalism, ensure fair negotiation conditions with Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), establish mechanisms to protect against surveillance targeting the media, and strengthen measures against foreign agent-style legislation that poses a significant threat. Furthermore, the input advocates for transparency and a rights-focused approach in AI governance to prevent further erosion of viability and trust in the media.

It is essential to emphasise the need for the EU Democracy Shield to serve as a practical mechanism providing robust support for press and media freedom in order to uphold democratic values. The MFRR partners urge the European Commission and Member States to incorporate these recommendations and act swiftly to safeguard the fundamental role of independent media in democratic societies.

This input 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

2024 Rule of Law Report: Media freedom organisations urge…

2024 Rule of Law report: Media freedom organisations urge the EU to enforce stronger safeguards

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition welcomes the publication of the 2024 European Commission’s rule of law report. Despite progress made in some areas, the report shows that press freedom remains under threat in Europe. We urge Member States and the European Union to intensify their efforts to uphold media freedom, and reinforce their roles in safeguarding this pillar of democracy.

The release of the fifth annual rule of law report, the last one during the Commission’s current term, provides a critical opportunity to evaluate press freedom and democratic governance across EU Member States. 

 

We warmly welcome the fact that the media situation in the candidate countries will progressively become part of the report. We hope that the inclusion of Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia – four countries that the MFRR is closely monitoring – in this year’s publication will support and hold these enlargement countries accountable in their democratic progress.

 

Alarmingly but not unexpectedly, the latest rule of law report testifies to the severe decline in press freedom and media pluralism that Europe is experiencing. MFRR partners continue to support the rule of law report as a valuable tool, recognizing its vital role of empowering Member State governments to promote and enforce international standards. But as media and journalists confront escalating threats, it is vital that the Commission’s assessment translates into concrete, bold and firm actions to protect media freedom and independent journalism. 

 

Our coalition therefore calls for a poignant response from the Commission in terms of accountability. The MFRR analysis of the report highlights the following action points:

 

A critical need for systematic enforcement

While some countries have taken steps to improve journalists’ safety and working environments, supported by recently-adopted initiatives like the European Media Freedom Act and the anti-SLAPP directive, the report takes into account the ongoing and, in some cases, worsening issues that the MFRR has been consistently denouncing and that demand immediate attention. In Slovakia, for instance, the return of Robert Fico to government was accompanied by increasing verbal attacks on the press, a pattern that has only escalated following the Prime Minister’s assassination attempt. At the same time, cyber attacks against independent media are becoming more and more prominent, particularly in Hungary, while Italy saw a notable increase in documented legal threats.

 

We regret that a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of these new laws and directives is missing in the recommendations, as this is essential for effectively turning policy into reality. The European Commission notes that 32% of its previous recommendations have not been acted upon by Member States, and in certain areas the situation for journalists even further deteriorated. Hungary, for instance, has regretfully made no progress in implementing any of the recommendations laid down by the Commission last year, while media freedom in both Slovakia and Italy is further eroding. Therefore, a systematic approach or dedicated unit within DG JUST for monitoring and enforcement appears as an urgent necessity. 

 

Shortcomings in actionable recommendations

The MFRR finds the report is still lacking actionable recommendations and concrete follow-up mechanisms. The inclusion of detailed country-specific assessments is a non-negligeable positive step, but we advocate for more intersectional analyses and in-depth human rights reviews. For instance, there is still no indication of a specific mechanism for reporting violations to the Commission, or supporting civil society actors facing restrictions in their work to uphold media freedom. 

 

Prioritise journalist safety

We are pleased that the MFRR’s monitoring results have been acknowledged and referenced in the report. However, we regret that the alarming trend of physical and digital harassment and assaults on journalists and media workers, which remains high, has not been given more prominence. 

 

Statements from affected individuals highlight the significant psychological impact of these incidents, creating a chilling effect on reporting crucial issues. While such cases are addressed in individual country chapters and the report notes a disturbing trend of distrust and hostility towards journalists, an overview of these trends at a transnational level is missing.

 

Our coalition is concerned that some conclusions appear somewhat complacent, such as the passing references to a drop in physical assaults on journalists following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions or the mention of national action plans intended to counter such assaults. We therefore recommend placing a stronger emphasis on journalists’ safety as a category of analysis in the 2025 rule of law report.

 

Political compromises risk eroding the report’s goals

Troublingly, some media reports have suggested that the rule of law’s initial drafts were more critical but that political considerations softened the final text. These reports, together with delays in publication, raise questions about the Commission’s credibility and commitment to transparency and urgency in addressing rule of law issues, and could undermine the report’s impact.

 

Key findings: media governance, ownership transparency, assaults and legal threats

On 15 January 2024, MFRR consortium partners Free Press Unlimited (FPU), International Press Institute (IPI) and the Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) filed detailed submissions to the rule of law report on the topic of media freedom and pluralism in Hungary, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and the Czech Republic. 

 

Regarding the 31 analysed countries’ situation, we appreciate the European Commission publication’s attention to our contributions and for acknowledging that:

 

Independent governance of public service media is at risk in many countries, where the broadcasters are not sufficiently protected against political interference. Including through its recent mission to Rome, the MFRR coalition has been raising awareness on how Italian public broadcaster RAI has become the latest protagonist of ongoing media capture by Meloni’s government. Slovakia is another blatant case of concern for both the MFRR and the Commission, in which no progress on enhancing the editorial independence of public media has been made.

 

Transparency of media ownership should also be enhanced across Europe to prevent conflicts of interest. It is worth noting the Commission’s concern regarding France about the lack of progress on this topic, which has also been linked to coordinated disinformation campaigns, particularly ahead of elections.

 

State advertising allocation is still not fair and transparent everywhere, prompting an additional risk of undue influence on media outlets. The MFRR has previously underscored how in Romania, some political parties have exponentially increased their financing of private media for political advertising. We have also brought to the Commission’s attention that the channelling of state resources to pro-government media continues to prevent a level playing field in Hungary.

 

Journalists’ protections from threats and violence, ensuring their ability to work freely, are not enough. Malta, Greece, Italy, and Slovakia in particular have made insufficient progress towards guaranteeing the safety of journalists, both physical and against abusive lawsuits. Concerning Greece, the report noted the increase in penalties for defamation despite its decriminalisation in the country’s new Penal Code, and our advocacy work on the lawsuit brought against journalists that reported on the spyware case. Generally, online abuse and online threats against journalists, specifically female journalists, remain a pressing issue.

 

Democratic backsliding is happening in Hungary and other countries, highlighting the pressing need for follow-up by the Commission with Member States in strengthening their commitment to the rule of law. About Italy, the EU Commission report speaks explicitly of a risk of a tangible restriction on the right of citizens to be informed and journalists to be able to do so. The Malta chapter media section mentions “no progress” has been made more often than “some progress”, making it clear that the country has not comprehensively improved the situation for journalists since Daphne Caruana Galizia’s assassination. Only two recommendations from the Public Inquiry Report have been implemented, with the white paper still not being published, and the government’s proposed media legislation currently frozen in the Maltese Parliament. 

 

The EU and its members must reinforce democracy by protecting media

The 2024 rule of law report shows how, even in countries with strong democratic traditions, press freedom is not an acquis and repeated violations risk escalating into a systemic crisis. At a time when media freedom principles are increasingly deteriorating across Europe, it is more necessary than ever for the rule of law report to be critical, specific, and linked to enforcement tools. 

 

Our coalition stresses the need for robust measures from the EU to uphold press freedom and pluralism. The members of the MFRR stress the following urgent needs:

  • Above all, journalist safety from physical and legal threats must be prioritized. To do so, we recommend to include safety and digital safety of journalists as a separate category in future rule of law reports. 
  • In light of widespread political influence on public service media, lack of transparency on media ownership and State advertising, we advocate for the development of a mechanism allowing the EU to challenge legislation not compliant with European standards.
  • We encourage the Commission to give more actionable recommendations to Member States, including a specific mechanism for reporting violations in future reports, as well as for supporting civil society stakeholders facing obstacles in their work to uphold media freedom across Europe.

It is imperative that both national governments and the EU take a proactive stance in monitoring violations and addressing the highlighted gaps urgently.

Signed by:

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

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

European Commission study on journalist safety lacks solutions while…

European Commission study on journalist safety lacks solutions while security deteriorates

Media freedom groups highlight disconnect between report findings and ground realities

 

The undersigned organisations welcome the recent study on the actions taken by Member States to implement the European Commission’s Recommendation on the protection and safety of journalists. However, our coalition finds that the report lacks a critical assessment of on-the-ground realities that reduce the effectiveness of initiatives that otherwise look good on paper. We stress therefore the need for more effective measures, and a deeper engagement with journalists and media freedom organisations, to build structures that can genuinely safeguard journalist safety in Europe.

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) coalition reviewed the recently published Study on putting in practice by Member States of the Recommendation on the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists, commissioned by the European Commission and executed by Intellera Consulting, Open Evidence, and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). 

 

We welcome the report and efforts to monitor the record of Member States, in view of the persisting challenges to journalist safety. Nevertheless, given that the study presents an ostensibly positive view on the implementation of the 2021 Commission’s Recommendation 2021/1534, our coalition finds the report insufficiently reflects the real challenges faced by journalists and the overall failure of governments to guarantee a safe environment for media.

 

There is a disconnect between the report’s findings and on-the-ground realities created, in part, by a lack of effective political action for journalist protection. 

 

Persistent hurdles to journalist safety: a reality check

According to the report, most EU Member states “show progress” in implementing the Recommendation, with 19 out of 27 Member States reportedly adopting dedicated action plans or structures. We welcome policy development and political steps taken around the recommendation. 

 

At the same time, we argue that the report fails to critically assess the effectiveness of these measures, focusing purely on quantitative aspects. 

 

To its credit, the study does highlight some critical gaps in journalists’ protection across Europe. It says, for instance, that there is a significant lack of dedicated training for police, judges, and prosecutors on journalist safety. About the pressing issue of impunity, it underscores the “lack of specific measures […] at national level to ensure investigation and prosecution of crimes specifically targeting journalists.” It further states that few Member States offer specific economic and social protections for journalists, and even fewer for freelancers. It admits that existing support mechanisms rarely address the growing threat of online harassment effectively. 

 

In several countries cited as an example of good practice for their governance structures, we have consistently monitored and published evidence that these are often toothless tigers, lacking real political backing. For instance, 

 

  • Greece: The report positively highlights formal mechanisms that, in their current design, are not responsive to ongoing issues for journalists. For example, while the  existence of the Task Force is a positive development, following its mission to Greece this coalition continues to express its concerns that the Task Force has not yet proposed or planned strategies for several crucial components of safety of journalists – including monitoring of violent attacks and impunity (our consortium recorded 24 episodes of physical assault, one resulting in the death of the journalist, in the last four years), as well as improved investigations and prosecution. Moreover, the report states that holding a press card is sufficient for journalists to access events, while reports from journalists and press freedom organizations show that journalists are regularly refused access to press conferences and asylum sites. Similar disparities are observed with regards to the description of Greece’s facilities for economic protection and facilitation of communication between police and journalists. 

 

  • France: The report’s positive description of French government measures, such as the National Law Enforcement Plan, which sets out the operational modalities for the maintenance of public order by all internal security forces, fails to take into account the continuing police violence against journalists, particularly during demonstrations. Revealingly, in all 32 cases of physical assaults against media workers recorded by our monitoring system since 2020, police forces were the source of the attack.

 

  • Italy: While the report commends Italy for establishing monitoring systems and a national coordination center, it overlooks  its lack of independence, as the fact that it is established under the Ministry of Interior may expose it to political interferences and pressures. The Centre also fails to provide a comprehensive reporting of all types of violations, threats, and attacks against journalists and media workers, as it only collects data based on police reports. The report also overlooks that there is a critical need for more comprehensive strategies to address online threats and harassment, and the delay by Italian authorities in fully implementing Articles 19 to 23, which guarantees that journalists and other media professionals are able to operate safely and without restrictions during public protests and demonstrations. In many recent cases, journalists in Italy continue to be fined, arrested or worse – assaulted for doing their job. Troublingly, MFRR recorded 53 cases of physical assault in the last 4 years, 19 of which resulted in an injury. Authorities should provide additional training for law enforcement agencies to improve their capacity to protect journalists and not inhibit their ability to report.

 

  • Croatia: Despite commendation for cooperation agreements between the Croatian Ministry of the Interior, the Croatian Journalists’ Association (HND) and the Croatian Union of Journalists (SNH), recent violations on media and journalists perpetrated by public officials, ranging from legal harassment and editorial interference to verbal abuse, raise questions about the independence and effectiveness of these initiatives. Recent death threats against Nacional’s newsroom for alleged responsibility in the shooting of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, for instance, illustrate growing risks for journalists and tension in the country.

 

Advocating for change: a call for inclusive engagement

While we warmly welcome the participation of several civil society and journalistic stakeholders, including the use of statistics and alerts documented by the MFRR’s Mapping Media Freedom platform, we urge the European Commission and Member States to more thoroughly engage with journalists, media freedom groups and media stakeholders nationally and across Europe in future studies and actions to safeguard press freedom and protect journalists.

 

Furthermore, we call for more comprehensive and relevant measures to prioritise journalist safety, address economic and social vulnerabilities, and effectively tackle online threats.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT)

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 joins call for EU to prioritise rule of…

MFRR joins call for EU to prioritize rule of law

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) consortium joined other media freedom and civil society organisations on Wednesday in calling on the European Commission to strengthen its fifth annual rule of law report, which assesses media freedom in European Union member states.

With Europe due to vote from June 6 to 9, the 39 groups also called on the new European Commission to prioritize implementation of their recommendations.

 

“The multiple attacks on press freedom in the European Union highlighted in the latest MFRR report and in the annual report of the Council of Europe Platform must encourage European political decision-makers to put more pressure on national governments,” insists EFJ President Maja Sever. “The alarm signals are multiplying: the refusal of the French government majority to consolidate the independence of editorial offices from media owners, threats to public broadcasting in Italy and Slovakia, the multiplication of slapps without any reaction from governments, and so on. What are governments waiting for to react to these threats to democracy?”

 

Our main recommendations to the European Commission are:

  1. Strengthen the rule of law as a key priority in the next Commission programme
  2. A strong mandate for the new Commissioner for Justice
  3. Better self-assessment of the rule of law effectiveness
  4. Continue the annual rule of law reports and make them more contextual and detailed
  5. Address continuing concerns about civic space
  6. Take firm and systematic action against the non-implementation of court decisions
  7. Protect freedom of expression and information and media freedom
  8. Improve the visibility and awareness of the rule of law report

Signed by:

  1. ACAT Belgium
  2. ACAT France
  3. ALDA – European Association for Local Democracy
  4. ARTICLE 19
  5. Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
  6. Citizens Network Watchdog Poland
  7. Civil Liberties Union for Europe
  8. Committee to Protect Journalists
  9. Community Media Forum Europe
  10. Democracy Reporting International (DRI)
  11. DEMAS – Association for Democracy Assistance and Human Rights
  12. Demo Finland
  13. Europäischer Austausch / European Exchange
  14. European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  15. European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  16. European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
  17. European Partnership for Democracy (EPD)
  18. Fédération internationale des ACAT / International Federation of ACAT
  19. Fédération internationale pour les droits humains (FIDH)
  20. Free Press Unlimited
  21. Human Rights and Democracy Network Internal Working Group
  22. Human Rights House Foundation
  23. Human Rights House Zagreb
  24. Human Rights Watch
  25. Hungarian Helsinki Committee
  26. IFEX
  27. ILGA Europe – European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and
    Intersex Association
  28. Initiative for Freedom of Expression – Turkey (IFOX)
  29. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
  30. International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN)
  31. International Press Institute (IPI)
  32. International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT)
  33. Netherlands Helsinki Committee
  34. Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa
  35. Protection International
  36. Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  37. Society of Journalists
  38. South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  39. WACC 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. 

MFRR 3 consortium logos
Library

1,117 media freedom alerts in the past year –…

1,117 media freedom alerts in the past year – MFRR Monitoring Report 2023

 

The partners from the MFRR consortium today publish the latest edition of its Monitoring Report which documents press freedom violations from January to December 2023.

The latest Monitoring Report – produced by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), the International Press Institute (IPI), and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) as part of the MFRR – gathers and analyses all media freedom violations recorded on Mapping Media Freedom throughout the year 2023. 

 

War in Ukraine

The 2023 report opens with a thematic chapter on the ongoing war in Ukraine and its repercussions for press freedom. The MFRR recorded a total of 149 alerts throughout 2023 affecting 220 different media entities.

 

DDoS Attacks

Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks became prominent in Hungary and other countries in Europe. Unfortunately, the number of such cases doubled compared to the previous year, with 61 alerts targeting 112 persons or entities related to the media.

 

Incidents by public authorities/politicians

A third thematic chapter was dedicated to populist attacks on media freedom in Europe, ranging from verbal harassment and censorship, to legal attacks and ‘foreign agent’ laws. 

 

Abusive lawsuits and SLAPPs

A final thematic chapter focuses on civil and criminal lawsuits against journalists and media outlets. In 2023, 20 legal cases containing hallmarks of SLAPPs were recorded by MFRR partners.

 

The report also includes country reports offering a summary of the most relevant threats in the following EU countries: France, the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Spain, Finland, and Slovakia; and in the following candidate countries: Serbia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Turkey.

 

Key Figures

  • 1,117 media freedom violations were recorded in EU Member States and candidate countries, involving 1,620 individuals or media outlets.
  • 602 alerts were recorded in the EU, while 515 were registered in candidate countries.
  • In the EU, the main source of attacks remained private individuals (almost 33% of cases), worryingly followed by public officials (17.9%) and police and state security (12.6%).
  • 3 media workers were murdered – two in Ukraine and one in Albania.
  • 149 media freedom violations were recorded in Ukraine, a slight increase on last year’s 147 alerts. The MFRR started monitoring Ukraine immediately after the full-scale invasion in 2022.
  • 20.6% of all incidents in the EU involved some kind of physical attack. A considerable number of incidents included cases involving attacks to property (17.4%) and censorship (15.9%).
  • Within Member States of the EU, verbal attacks (35.9%) represented the largest amount of alerts, followed by legal incidents (24.9%) and physical attacks, accounting for 20.6% of the total incidents. In EU candidate countries, legal incidents were at the forefront of alerts (29.7%), followed by verbal attacks such as harassment second with 27.2%.

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
Library

Action needed: The European Commission Safety of Journalists Recommendation

Action needed: The European Commission Safety of Journalists Recommendation

Today, 16 March 2023, marks 18 months since the adoption by the European Commission of its Recommendation to the Member States on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union. The European Commission is due to perform an evaluation based on key performance indicators, to take stock of the progress achieved by the Member States. In this context, the partners in the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) call on the European Commission and the Member States to develop comprehensive and regular reporting mechanisms that involve all key stakeholders to effectively measure and continually follow up on the Recommendation’s implementation.

We urge the Member States to take action for the safety of journalists without further delay and implement the provisions of the Recommendation.

 

The European Commission’s Recommendation came at a critical time. As documented by the MFRR on our Mapping Media Freedom platform and analysed in the Monitoring Reports, as well as the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists, the safety of journalists in Europe is in deep crisis. Reporters across the Union face many forms of pressure and attacks. In 2022, the MFRR recorded 415 alerts in EU Member States. Verbal attacks such as intimidation and threats or insults constituted the main type of incident, involving 42% of all alerts, while physical attacks were involved in 20% of cases and attacks to property in 17%. The latest Annual Report by the Council of Europe Platform partners meanwhile characterises the situation as a “context of a continued degradation of press freedom across the continent”.

 

At the time of its publication, the MFRR partners underlined that the key to the Recommendation’s success will lie in following up on its outcomes and holding the Member States to account. Despite clear international laws and standards for improving journalists’ safety, they did too little to turn the tide on the rising number of attacks on journalists. The Recommendation in this regard explicitly aims to support the implementation of the Council of Europe’s standards, particularly its Recommendation 2016(4).

 

To help kickstart the conversation on the Recommendation’s implementation, the MFRR is currently surveying EU-based affiliates of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), which are journalists’ unions and professional associations, on the actions and progress achieved so far. Their active involvement, and that of journalists and media workers more broadly, by the Member States and the European Commission in putting the Recommendation into practice is central to ensuring that the measures taken by Member States are effective. The survey focuses, in particular, on those specific recommendations that explicitly call for the involvement of journalists’ representatives. While the MFRR will publish the full results of the survey later this Spring, three key preliminary findings are worth highlighting now:

 

  • After 18 months, the implementation of the Recommendation is very uneven, with pronounced differences between the Member States and from one recommendation to another.
  • Evaluating the implementation status is a nuanced undertaking, with our research indicating many instances of partial implementation.
  • Obtaining a clear picture of any progress achieved becomes even more challenging when considering the impact. For one, some of the implemented measures and actions may need time to yield results, and it may simply be too early to draw either positive or negative conclusions about their effectiveness. In some other cases, even partial implementation of a recommendation has had a positive impact already, which can provide helpful insight on how to proceed with structuring further reforms for the Member State involved or for others who are lagging behind even further.

 

Although merely preliminary, these findings are nevertheless instructive as to the task ahead for the Member States and the Commission. It is clear that they must develop reporting and evaluation tools and procedures at national and regional levels that result in a meaningful assessment of the measures and actions that have been undertaken to implement the Recommendation. Measuring performance will require a nuanced approach to collecting data and developing indicators to capture the complexity of the challenge at hand. Only then will the Recommendation be able to deliver on its aim of strengthening media freedom and pluralism by promoting joint and coordinated efforts by the Member States. Moreover, given the uneven implementation, the process focusing on the Recommendation’s implementation evidently cannot be a one-off. Sustained engagement will be needed going forward and must involve all relevant stakeholders, including journalists and media workers, their associations and unions, civil society and media owners.

 

As concerns the design of this process, we believe useful lessons can be drawn from the experience with the Rule of Law reports to ensure its credibility, inclusiveness and impact. The MFRR partners call on the European Commission and Member States to develop a transparent process for collecting and evaluating pertinent data. Core information about all main aspects should be communicated well ahead of time. This should include clear timelines, criteria for selecting stakeholders based on protocols established jointly with non-State actors, and a transparent methodology for processing their input. To ensure the process generates action, it should result in specific recommendations and follow-up questions, guiding governments on the actions needed to address identified shortcomings, enabling civil society to monitor follow-up action and seek accountability, and promoting a transparent and participatory dialogue between all stakeholders.

Signed by:

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

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
Library

MFRR Monitoring Report 2022 – 813 media freedom violations…

MFRR Monitoring Report 2022

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) has published the latest edition of its annual Monitoring Report, outlining the state of press freedom throughout Europe in 2022. This year, the MFRR recorded 813 media freedom violations in EU Member States and candidate countries. 

The Monitoring Report – produced by the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), and the International Press Institute (IPI) as part of the MFRR – gathers and analyses all media freedom violations recorded on Mapping Media Freedom throughout the year 2022.

 

The report is divided into the following chapters: an overview offering data and graphics about the press freedom situation in the EU and candidate countries in 2022, four thematic sections with quantitative and qualitative analysis regarding the aforementioned topics, and country reports offering a summary of the most relevant threats in the following EU countries: Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Sweden; and in the following candidate countries: Albania, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Turkey.

 

You can download the report in full using the button below or keep reading for an overview of the 2022 edition.

Throughout 2022, 813 media freedom violations were recorded in EU Member States and candidate countries, involving 1,339 individuals or media outlets. This marks an increase from 654 in 2021, although it must be noted that Ukraine and Moldova were not included in the previous year’s analysis.

EU Member States

In the EU Member States, verbal attacks were the main type of incident (involving 42.4% of all alerts) – such as intimidation and threats (24.6%) or insults (13.3%) – followed by legal attacks (27.2%). After legal incidents, physical attacks were the third most common type of attack against journalists and media workers in the EU (20.5%), followed by attacks to property (15.7%), and censorship incidents, which rose from 8.6% of the total attacks in 2021 to 14.5% in 2022.

Monitoring Report types of attacks EU MS

Private individuals remained the main perpetrators of attacks against journalists in the EU (37.8% of cases), representing a decrease from 50% of cases in 2021. Government and public officials were the second most common source of attacks (17.1%), followed by police and state security (11.3%).

In terms of contexts in which the violations occurred, attacks taking place online rose from 14.1% in 2021 to 20.7% in 2022. Attacks at protests (the most frequent context in 2021) fell from 39.8% to 21% of the total.

EU Candidate Countries 

The Monitoring Report also covers the media freedom situation in candidate countries, where the MFRR registered the most severe violations of media freedom: 10 deaths of journalists. Nine of them took place in Ukraine and affected media workers covering the war, and another one in Turkey, where Güngör Arslan, managing editor of the Turkish newspaper Ses Kocaeli was murdered.

 

Out of the 813 alerts recorded in 2022, 398 took place in candidate countries. Legal attacks were the most common type, making up 38.3% of the total, followed by verbal attacks (35.5%), physical (19.8%), censorship (11.3%), and damage to property (8.9%).

Monitoring report - types of attacks in candidate courts

Private individuals were the most frequent perpetrator of media freedom violations in candidate countries (37.8%), followed by public officials (17.1%), and police or state security (11.3%).

Reflecting the high number of legal violations, 25% of attacks in candidate countries took place at court. This is followed by attacks occurring online (18.5%), at demonstrations (16.5%), and in public or on the street (11.7%).

Click the button below to download the full 2022 Monitoring Report, including the thematic analyses and country-specific breakdowns.

This report 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
EU flags outside the European Commission Library

Joint Statement on the Proposal for the European Media…

Joint Statement on the Proposal for the European Media Freedom Act

The undersigned journalists’, media freedom, and human rights organisations welcome the European Commission’s initiative to strengthen the free and pluralistic media system and the commitment to protect journalists and editorial independence within the European Union.

These values directly link to fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, the right to access to information, the formation of opinion, and making informed choices in elections, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

Matters relating to the media have traditionally been the competence of member states, however such is the threat posed to media freedom that an EU wide action has become necessary to protect Europe’s democratic values.

 

Therefore we support the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) which breaks significant new ground in our efforts to protect media freedom in Europe. The EMFA has identified many of the key issues where the EU and member states must urgently act in order to protect media freedoms. This statement of intent, alone, is very welcome.

 

However, if the EMFA is to become effective in the struggle to guarantee media pluralism, to protect journalists’ rights and ensure editorial independence from the impact of vested commercial and political interests, it should strengthen efforts to increase the transparency in media ownership; introduce rules governing all financial relations between the state and media (in addition to advertising); guarantee the independence of national regulators as well as the independence of the European Board for Media Services; and fully protect journalists from all forms of surveillance (in addition to spyware).

 

The undersigned organisations look forward to continuing to engage with the institutions of the European Union to ensure that the text of the European Media Freedom Act is as robust and effective as possible and helps provide a foundation for generations of journalists to come.

Signed by:

  • Association of European Journalists (AEJ) 
  • Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties) 
  • Coalition for Creativity (C4C) 
  • Committee to Protect Journalists 
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU) 
  • Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) 
  • Index on Censorship 
  • International Press Institute (IPI) 
  • Media Diversity Institute, Belgium (MDI) 
  • OBC Transeuropa (OBCT) 
  • Ossigeno.info 
  • Reporters WIthout Borders (RSF) 
  • Society of Journalists, Warsaw 
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) 
  • The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation 
  • Transparency International EU 
  • World Association Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC Europe)
MFRR 3 consortium logos