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.