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.

EU flags outside the European Commission Allgemein

Media freedom groups welcome Google fine, call on EU…

Media freedom groups welcome Google fine, call on EU to break up the tech giant’s digital advertising monopoly  

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today calls on the European Union to step up its action against Google following the European Commission’s decision to impose a 2.95 billion euro fine on the company for anti-competitive practices through its dominance of the online advertising and advertising technology (adtech) services.  

10.09.2025

The Commission found that Google breached EU antitrust rules by distorting competition in the adtech industry to favour its own digital advertising services, which disadvantaged other adtech services, advertisers, and online publishers – which includes news media outlets. 

 

In addition to the fine, the Commission also ordered Google to resolve its conflict of interests in the adtech supply chain where Google dominates buyer and seller apps (Google Ads and Double Click) and the main ad exchange, AdX.

 

The Commission also restated its preliminary conclusion that “only the mandatory divestment by Google of part of its services would address the situation of inherent conflicts of interest.” It added that the failure to remedy this situation internally would lead the Commission to impose its own “strong remedies” through legal and regulatory means. Google has 60 days to explain how it will respond.

 

The MFRR welcomes the long overdue action taken against Google, and urges the European Commission to go the extra step and insist on the full break up of the company’s advertising services. 

 

Ending Google’s unfair monopoly over digital advertising revenue is a critical step in rebalancing the market and redirecting essential ad revenue to the media and publishers.

 

The three billion euro fine is a modest punishment for a company that posted a global advertising revenue of 248 billion U.S. Dollars in 2024 and generated net profits from advertising in the EU of around 15 billion euros in 2023. The only way to end the abuse of the dominant position in the market is to end the dominant position in the market and to insist that Google breaks up its digital advertising empire.

 

In 2024, European publishers sued Google for 2.1 billion euros for loss of profits as a result of Google’s abuse of the Adtech market. A recent report on the US market estimated that the combined anti-competitive practices of Google and Meta cost U.S publishers 14 billion dollars a year.  

 

Meanwhile, on September 22,  a U.S. Court will start proceedings on whether to force Google to divest its adtech assets following a guilty ruling against the company for maintaining an illegal monopoly in online advertising. 

 

The European Commission has prioritised fighting disinformation and preserving Europe’s stumbling democracies under the Democracy Shield initiative. The most effective way to combat disinformation is to ensure a healthy, pluralistic media sector.

 

Enforcement of anti-trust laws that ensure Europe’s market for news, information and advertising is free and fair and not compromised by big tech’s anti-competitive practices is the surest way to guarantee the future of journalism and combat disinformation in the EU. This must be at the heart of the Democracy Shield.

 

If the EU Commission is serious about fighting disinformation and preserving Europe’s media sector,  then it must order the breakup of Google’s ad businesses.

Signed by:

  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • 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.

EU flags outside the European Commission Allgemein

EU: After entry into force, political will now crucial…

EU: After entry into force, political will now crucial for European Media Freedom Act success

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners today welcome the historic entry into force of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which represents a landmark achievement in ongoing efforts to safeguard media pluralism and independence across the European Union. Today, 8 August 2025, marks a new era for media freedom in the EU and comes at a crucial time for the defence of democratic values within the bloc.

8 August 2025

However, while some limited steps have been taken by national governments, overall progress is seriously lacking and many Member States have either yet to begin or are lagging behind in their obligation to align domestic legislation with the rules outlined by the EMFA, despite having had more than one year to do so.

 

As we mark the long-awaited entry into force of the Act today, our organisations jointly urge all Member States to promptly and fully implement the EMFA’s legally-binding regulations, and call on the European Commission to use all tools at its disposal to enforce them, most urgently in countries where media freedom has already been significantly eroded.

 

The entry into force of the EMFA follows its adoption in early 2024 and is the product of years of advocacy efforts and detailed negotiations, underpinned by the efforts of press and media freedom organisations, journalists and policymakers with a shared understanding of the fundamental importance of free media for democratic societies.

 

Key provisions now in force include Article 4 on surveillance, which is essential for protecting journalists from spyware and surveillance, Article 5, which ensures independence of public broadcaster financing, Article 3, which establishes the right to access a plurality of editorially independent media content, and Article 18, which aims to enhance transparency and accountability in the digital space. These and other key articles will be applicable even in the absence of national legislation, and local journalists, media workers and other actors can contest failures to implement them before national and European courts.

 

The success of the EMFA now hangs in the balance and will be dependent on political will within Member States. Moving forward, it is crucial therefore that national governments commit to significant reforms of their media legislation necessary to align with the EMFA’s standards, to ensure that the regulation does not become a dead letter but a living guarantee of press freedom that has immediate impact for journalists and media workers.

 

Regrettably, we are deeply concerned that many national governments are neither prepared nor politically willing to make the required legislative changes. This lack of commitment poses a serious risk to the EMFA’s effectiveness. To ensure its full potential, it is essential therefore that the European Commission and the European Board for Media Services rigorously monitor the EMFA implementation and use all legal tools available to act decisively to enforce its provisions whenever they are breached.

 

In the years ahead, MFRR partners – which have jointly helped drive forward this process from its inception – aim to play a key role in scrutinising this process. Through our future media freedom missions and reports, we will continue to assess the progress of national transposition and advocate for strong implementation by national governments. We commit to both holding authorities accountable and pushing the EU to enforce its rules.

 

With robust transposition across the EU, the EMFA’s unique regulatory framework can act as a vital tool for preventing and combating media capture, safeguarding independent public service broadcasting and protecting journalists from spyware and surveillance. Its full and effective implementation must now be a shared priority across Europe.

Signed by:

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

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