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.

Library

Bulgaria: Media Capture Monitoring Report 2025

Bulgaria: Media Capture Monitoring Report 2025

The International Press Institute (IPI) and the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) today launch the second in a series of Media Capture Monitoring Reports for 2025, examining the state of play in Bulgaria.

14.11.2025

The report reviews developments regarding media capture in the country in 2025 and examines Bulgaria’s compliance with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) since the EU Commission’s regulation entered into full force in August.

It concludes that Bulgaria has made no tangible progress since EMFA came into force. Although a cross-ministerial and institutional working group was previously established and made some initial progress, its suspension stalled much needed reforms. While the Ministry of Culture has said a new working group has been formed to implement EMFA reforms to the Radio and Television Act, no information has been provided about plans for wider implementation of any other Articles of EMFA and the timeline for additional reforms remains unclear.

 

The report provides detailed recommendations on a variety of measures and policies necessary to address media capture in Bulgaria and create a free, pluralistic and democratic media ecosystem, in line with EMFA provisions.

This report is part of a broader series covering seven other EU countries: Finland, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. IPI and MJRC will also publish an overview report, summarising major developments across the EU in the past year. The next reports will be published over the following weeks.

These reports are intended as a vital resource for media rights organizations, civil society groups, policymakers, and advocates dedicated to monitoring and fostering media freedom across the EU.

EXPLORE THE METHODOLOGY

For more information or media inquiries, please contact:

This report was coordinated by IPI as part of 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

Croatia: EFJ condemns court convicting assaulted journalist Melita Vrsaljko…

Croatia: EFJ condemns court convicting assaulted journalist Melita Vrsaljko of ‘disturbing public order’

On 7 November 2025, Croatian journalist Melita Vrsaljko, a contributor to Faktograf and Klimatski portal, was found guilty by the Municipal Court in Zadar, of disturbing public order after defending herself from a physical attack that occurred in July 2024 while she was reporting on illegal waste dumping. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) joins its affiliates in Croatia — SNH and HND — and the SafeJournalists Network (SJN) in condemning this ruling, which sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom and Croatian journalists.

13.11.2025

The attack dated back to 15 July 2024, when Melita Vrsaljko was assaulted in the village of Nadin, along with her camera operator. The perpetrator, an elderly man who was reportedly drunk, admitted he intended to prevent them from filming on a public street. In response, the police issued an order for both to maintain a distance of at least 50 metres away from each other. Vrsaljko reportedly had no choice but to act in self-defence to get rid of her attacker and to call the police for assistance. The following day, the attacker’s daughter strangled Vrsaljko at her home, attempting to force her to delete footage recorded of the aggression committed by her father.

 

In an interview for the EFJ podcast PressTalks, which was recorded at the 2025 Voices Festival in Zagreb, Vrsaljko bravely recounted both attacks and her fight for justice. “Much more painful are the scars in my head”, and “feeling not safe in my own house,” the journalist told us. Vrsaljko is in the process of filing an appeal.

 

“By ruling Vrsaljko equally guilty of disturbing public order as her initial attacker, the Zadar Municipal Court judge Maria Stopfer Mišetić sends a deeply concerning message regarding journalists’ safety, particularly in local communities where journalists are more easily identifiable and consequently more vulnerable to violence,” stated EFJ President Maja Sever.

 

Earlier this year, Vrsaljko faced another instance of violence. She was assaulted and subjected to misogynistic insults at a local festival in Benkovac.

 

From the outset, the EFJ and its Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners have denounced flaws in the police response and the legal classification of offences in Vrsaljko’s case. As assessed during our fact-checking missions to Croatia, the authorities considerably failed to classify the two related incidents as criminal offences. As a result, the incidents were excluded from government safety protocols jointly signed by the Ministry of the Interior, HND, and SNH, and established to enhance journalists’ safety.

 

Furthermore, the Municipal State Attorney’s Office in Zadar has yet to issue a decision on the criminal complaint filed more than a year ago for the assault by the perpetrator’s daughter.

 

Discussions with the Croatian Ministry of Culture and Media, Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of the Interior have raised additional concerns, as officials questioned the link between the attacks and her journalistic work, despite clear evidence that she was targeted for her reporting.

 

Journalists, and in particular women journalists, in the Balkan region are working in an increasingly hostile environment, where gender-based harassment and attacks are on the rise.

 

The EFJ urges the judiciary to reconsider its ruling and requests that the authorities ensure the journalist’s professional activity is duly considered from the initial incident through to the court’s final ruling. We also call on the Zadar Municipal Court to rule without further delay on the criminal complaint filed for the second attack.

 

Listen to the story of Melita Vrsaljko in the EFJ podcast PressTalks available on Spotify and YouTube.

This statement was coordinated by EFJ as part of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.

Allgemein

EU Enlargement Package: Assessments must now translate into meaningful…

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

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

13.11.2025

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Backsliding on media freedom

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

No progress on media freedom

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Limited progress on media freedom

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Some progress on media freedom

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Good progress on media freedom

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

 

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

This analysis was coordinated by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), a Europe-wide mechanism which tracks, monitors and responds to violations of press and media freedom in EU Member States and Candidate Countries.

Allgemein

Hungary: Media Capture Monitoring Report 2025

Hungary: Media Capture Monitoring Report 2025

The International Press Institute (IPI) and the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) today jointly launch a new series of Media Capture Monitoring Reports for 2025, with Hungary the first country report to be published.

12.11.2025

The new report reviews developments regarding media capture in the country in 2025 and examines Hungary’s compliance with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) since the EU Commission’s regulation entered into full force in August.

It concludes that Hungary remains the EU Member State with the most sophisticated model of media capture ever developed within the bloc, and that rather than take any steps to implement the EMFA, the Hungarian government has framed it as a tool of foreign interference and legally challenged the regulation before the European Court of Justice seeking to have elements annulled.

 

Ahead of the April 2026 election, the report explores the opportunities and challenges posed by the EMFA for improving Hungary’s media environment, including strengthening regulatory independence and public service media governance, increasing ownership transparency, strengthening safeguards for media pluralism and guaranteeing the fair distribution of state funds.

 

It also provides detailed recommendations on a variety of measures and policies necessary to unwind entrenched media capture in Hungary and create a free, pluralistic and democratic media ecosystem, in line with EMFA provisions.

 

This report is part of a broader series covering seven other EU countries: Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. IPI and MJRC will also publish an overview report, summarising major developments across the EU in the past year. The next reports will be published over the following weeks.

 

These reports are intended as a vital resource for media rights organizations, civil society groups, policymakers, and advocates dedicated to monitoring and fostering media freedom across the EU.

EXPLORE THE METHODOLOGY

For more information or media inquiries, please contact:

This report was coordinated by IPI as part of 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

Open letter regarding the dismissal of journalist Gabriele Nunziati

Open letter regarding the dismissal of journalist Gabriele Nunziati

The undersigned organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) are writing to you to express our shared concern and dismay over the decision by Agenzia Nova to terminate its collaboration with journalist Gabriele Nunziati, following a question he addressed to the spokesperson of the European Commission on October 13, 2025.

12.11.2025

Da: redazione@balcanicaucaso.org 

A: redazione@agenzianova.com 

 

Direttore responsabile Riccardo Bormioli

Agenzia Nova. Agenzia di stampa quotidiana

Redazione Via Parigi 11, 00185 Roma

November 11, 2025

Subject: Concern over the dismissal of journalist Gabriele Nunziati

 

Dear Editor-in-Chief Bormioli,

 

The undersigned organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) are writing to you to express our shared concern and dismay over the decision by Agenzia Nova to terminate its collaboration with journalist Gabriele Nunziati, following a question he addressed to the spokesperson of the European Commission on October 13, 2025.

 

As organisations dedicated to defending press freedom across Europe, we share the opinion that the dismissal of a journalist for asking a question deemed “inappropriate” to a representative of a political body represents a violation of media freedom and of the journalistic profession, which should be immediately remedied.

 

It is our view that the justifications provided by Agenzia Nova regarding the dismissal are neither convincing nor sufficient to justify this decision. They also serve to undermine the management’s asserted neutrality and objectivity. 

 

Journalists have both the right and the duty to ask questions, including critical or difficult ones, to ensure the democratic accountability of political decision-makers. Any attempt to silence such voices constitutes an unjustifiable form of censorship.

 

Nunziati was doing his job, professionally posing a legitimate question that sought to clarify the position of the European Commission regarding what UN experts have determined is the ongoing genocide in Gaza, a position that remains subject to legitimate questioning and public debate.

 

With respect to your concern about possible reputational damage, we believe that such damage does not stem from the legitimate work of your collaborator, but rather from the decision to censor his work on flawed grounds.

 

The silencing of those who carry out their watchdog role by posing legitimate public interest questions regarding the situation in Gaza represents a serious blow to freedom of information and a worrying sign for democracy in Italy, which harms not only journalists’ right to work without fear of retaliation but also citizens’ right to free, independent, and impartial information.

 

We therefore join the many organisations and colleagues, domestically and internationally, who have condemned what we consider to be an unfair and unjustified dismissal, express our solidarity with Gabriele Nunziati, and call on Agenzia Nova to review its decision and proceed with his immediate reinstatement.

Signed by:

  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)

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.

Oggetto: Sconcerto per il licenziamento del giornalista Gabriele Nunziati

 

Gentile direttore Bormioli,

 

Le organizzazioni sottoscritte del consorzio europeo Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) le scrivono per esprimere il proprio sconcerto e la propria preoccupazione per la decisione dell’Agenzia Nova di terminare la collaborazione con il giornalista Gabriele Nunziati, a seguito di un quesito da lui rivolto alla portavoce della Commissione Europea lo scorso 13 ottobre 2025.

 

In quanto organizzazioni impegnate nella difesa della libertà di stampa in tutta Europa, condividiamo l’opinione che il licenziamento di un giornalista per aver posto una domanda ritenuta “fuori luogo” a una rappresentante di un organo politico rappresenti una chiara violazione della libertà dei media e della professione giornalistica, a cui andrebbe posto immediato rimedio. 

 

A nostro avviso, le giustificazioni fornite da Agenzia Nova in merito al licenziamento  non appaiono né condivisibili né sufficienti a giustificare la decisione. Tali spiegazioni contribuiscono inoltre a minare la presunta neutralità e obiettività della direzione. I giornalisti hanno il diritto e il dovere di porre domande, anche critiche o scomode, per garantire la responsabilità democratica dei decisori politici: qualsiasi tentativo di silenziare queste voci rappresenta una forma di censura ingiustificabile.

 

Nunziati ha esercitato il proprio lavoro, ponendo un quesito legittimo volto a chiarire la posizione della Commissione Europea riguardo alla situazione a Gaza che gli esperti delle Nazioni Unite hanno definito come genocidio, una posizione soggetta a legittimo scrutinio e dibattito pubblico. 

 

Rispetto alla vostra preoccupazione legata a un eventuale danno d’immagine, riteniamo che tale danno non derivi dal legittimo lavoro di un vostro collaboratore, quanto piuttosto dalla vostra stessa decisione di censurare tale lavoro su basi infondate.

 

Silenziare la voce di chi svolge il proprio ruolo da “cane da guardia” ponendo domande di pubblico interesse sulla situazione a Gaza rappresenta un grave colpo alla libertà di informazione e un segnale preoccupante per la democrazia in Italia. Ciò danneggia non solo il diritto dei giornalisti di lavorare senza timore di ritorsioni, ma anche quello dei cittadini a un’informazione libera, indipendente e imparziale.

 

Ci uniamo quindi alle numerose organizzazioni e ai colleghi, in Italia e all’estero,  che hanno condannato quello che consideriamo un licenziamento ingiusto e immotivato, esprimiamo la nostra solidarietà a Gabriele Nunziati, e invitiamo l’Agenzia Nova a rivedere la propria decisione e a procedere con il suo immediato reintegro.

Firmato:

  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT) 
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
Library

Meloni’s Italy puts media freedom under pressure, regardless of…

Meloni’s Italy puts media freedom under pressure, regardless of EU rules

This article is part of a series published by IPI and written by expert guest contributors from across Europe on different threats facing media freedom and independent journalism. The views of the author do not necessarily reflect those of IPI.

29.10.2025

Francesca De Benedetti

Whether it is for the unaccounted use of spyware or a bomb exploding in front of an investigative journalist’s house, pressure against media freedom in Italy is growing in a disturbing trajectory.

 

Although an acceleration is underway, this alarming atmosphere has not come out of the blue. Since Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s far-right Brothers of Italy party entered government, over the past three years the deterioration of media freedom has become more and more visible.

 

Journalists have experienced a range of verbal and legal attacks, while ongoing efforts to erode the independence of and capture of the public broadcaster RAI have raised alarm from several organisations monitoring media pluralism.

 

This trend is consistent with the one seen in countries such as Hungary and Slovakia: wherever an illiberal playbook has been deployed, the capture of public media is often the first move.

 

In Meloni’s Italy, an unprecedented shift has taken place in recent months, drawing increasing concern at the European Union and beyond.

 

Hostile environment

 

On 16 October, a car bomb exploded outside the home of one of Italy’s top investigative journalists, Sigfrido Ranucci, host of in-depth reporting tv programme Report. The bomb went off 20 minutes after Ranucci’s daughter parked the car. No one was injured, but after long-time receiving intimidations, “this was a qualitative leap”, as Ranucci himself put it.

 

Although the authorities are investigating the incident and the entire political community in Italy has expressed its solidarity, the explosive attack comes amid ongoing verbal and legal attacks against Report and Ranucci himself by the governing majority.

 

Rai journalist Vittorio Di Trapani, President of the Italian National Press Federation (FNSI), told IPI that Ignazio La Russa, the co-founder of Brothers of Italy serving as Italy’s President of the Senate, had referred to Report as “serial slanderer” and governing party, Fratelli d’Italia, had sued Ranucci along with his colleague Giorgio Mottola.

 

Di Trapani added that “the political solidarity that has been expressed towards Ranucci was hypocritical, given all the attacks that have been launched against Report’s investigative journalism.” He indeed: “Four out of 28 episodes of the program were even removed from this year’s TV schedule”.

 

In 2023, Ranucci had even been summoned by the Parliamentary Committee for the general direction and supervision of radio and TV broadcasting, a move that the partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) had condemned as “another intimidation practice targeting an independent investigative TV programme whose reporting has been critical of a number of members of the current government”.

 

In the following year, after Report’s investigation concerning Albania, both the Italian and Albanian Prime Ministers jointly attacked the public broadcaster’s journalists verbally. Meloni’s playbook of verbal attacks on independent media and attempts to delegitimize investigative journalism includes accusations of acting against the national interest or even serving specific political interests.

 

This increase in attacks is reflected in the 2025 Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) report, published before the car bomb attacks, which stated that “there has been an increase in threats and intimidation against journalists, as well as several cases that reveal serious shortcomings in the protection of journalistic sources and of journalists themselves”.

 

Spyware attacks

 

In addition to physical attacks and continuous political pressure on RAI, Italy is also the EU member state which has seen the most recent cases of spyware attacks on journalists in the last year.

 

“Nine months have passed since Meta informed me that my mobile had been targeted with spyware made by Israel-based Paragon Solutions”, Francesco Cancellato, editor-in-chief of Fanpage, an Italian news outlet known for its investigative report The Meloni Youth, told IPI.

 

Over the past few months it has emerged that additional journalists, such as his colleague at Fanpage, Ciro Pellegrino, as well as stakeholders and representatives of civil society, have been spied on using surveillance tools.

 

Cancellato continued: “Paragon said that it can only provide answers if the Italian authorities ask it to do so. But Meloni’s government is burying its head in the sand. It has decided not to address any questions or concerns about what’s happened.

 

“Being asked about it in Parliament, the Prime Minister even dismissed the spyware affair as an unimportant, ‘election campaign issue’. I wasn’t even heard in an audition, neither at the Italian parliamentary committee on intelligence agencies nor at the LIBE Committee in the EU Parliament. My colleague Ciro wasn’t invited to speak either. Instead of being recognised by the institutions as journalists that are victims of spyware, we go through political isolation as if we were enemies”.

 

Until now, no one has been held accountable and the identity of those behind these illegal surveillance attacks remains unclear – mirroring a pattern of impunity for such spyware attacks elsewhere in Europe.

 

This case episode also evokes trends already seen elsewhere in Europe. In 2021, in Orbán’s Hungary, investigative journalists were on the list of those spied on with Pegasus; but the government dodged the issue without providing any accountability.

 

Illiberal trend vs EU law

 

In the face of growing threats against free and independent journalism across the bloc, the European Union has recently provided Europeans with new tools to protect media freedom.

 

The anti-SLAPP directive has been adopted and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) has been in full force since 8 August. But Italy is moving in the opposite direction.

 

In 2024, after monitoring 41 countries, the Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) reported that Italy is the country it monitors with the highest number of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

 

In recent years in Italy “we have witnessed an increasingly alarming resort to this form of legal harassment by high and very high-level public officials”, said Sielke Kelner, coordinator of CASE Italia and the advocacy officer at OBCT, adding it represented “a worrying sign of growing intolerance on the part of the ruling coalition towards any form of criticism.”

 

The Italian legislation still lacks a dedicated anti-SLAPP framework. A few weeks ago, the European delegation law 2025 – which allows transposition of EU directives into domestic law –  was presented in the Italian Parliament. However, the EU Directive 1069/2024, also known as “Daphne’s law”, was not included.

 

Meanwhile, EMFA is now in force and member states should act. In May 2024 the MFRR  organised an urgent mission to Italy. The subsequent report, Silencing the Fourth Estate: Italy’s Democratic Drift, confirmed that “since Giorgia Meloni took office as Prime Minister of Italy, the country’s public service broadcaster Rai has been facing an unprecedented level of political interference”.

 

According to Article 5 of EMFA, Italy must ensure that public service media providers are editorially and functionally independent and provide in an impartial manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences.

 

Despite these obligations, “the Italian authorities have done nothing” to implement the new EU obligations, said Di Trapani of FNSI. Instead, the government’s takeover of the public broadcaster keeps worsening, he added: “RAI has been without a president elected in accordance with the law for over a year now, and the term of office lasts three years.

 

“This is because the majority and the government want to impose a name but do not have enough votes to do so, and are therefore also blocking the work of the parliamentary committee that oversees RAI. So, essentially, the government is blocking parliament until it gets what it wants, and the Parliament cannot oversee RAI”.

 

Just when the European Union is becoming mature enough to recognise attacks on media freedom, there is a government in Rome that prefers to turn a blind eye.

Francesca De Benedetti is Senior Editor at the Italian daily Domani, where she covers European politics, as well as a fellow at IWM. De Benedetti writes columns for Vanity Fair and Jacobin (USA); her writing on Italian politics has been published by The Independent, Balkan Insight, Die Presse and other international outlets. De Benedetti previously worked as a reporter at la Repubblica and La7tv.

This guest article by IPI was commissioned part of 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, a prerequisite for EU enlargement

Media freedom, a prerequisite for EU enlargement

To advance in their European integration path, Western Balkan candidate countries must ensure media freedom and pluralism. For Montenegro and North Macedonia, this means moving beyond formal commitments and proving through concrete actions that democratic reforms are more than words on paper

28.10.2025 – Serena Epis

A couple of weeks ago, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen visited Western Balkan candidate countries ahead of the publication of the 2025 Enlargement Package and country reports, in which the Commission evaluates each state’s progress in aligning with EU norms and standards.

 

Among the different topics covered during her visit, von der Leyen emphasized that media freedom and pluralism  are key prerequisites for moving forward in the EU integration process.

 

On 20 October, partners from the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Balkans (ATLIB) project hosted a webinar to discuss recent developments in the region’s media sector, focusing on Montenegro and North Macedonia. Opening the event, Embassy Counselor Thomas Botzios from the Adriatic and Balkans Unit of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation underlined the importance of building transnational ties with Balkan partners to promote free and independent media and ensure that democratic standards are upheld by all candidate countries.

 

The situation of media freedom in the region remains complex and contradictory, noted Maja Sever, President of the European Federation of Journalists. While progress has been made — such as Montenegro’s new protocol to enhance journalist safety — serious concerns persist. Disinformation, foreign information manipulation, political pressure, economic fragility, the weakness of local media markets, and the under-regulation of online media all continue to pose major challenges.

 

Although these problems are common across the region, each country faces specific issues that require tailored responses adapted to local political contexts.

 

In Montenegro, structural weaknesses continue to undermine the independence and freedom of many media outlets, especially at the local level. Poor socio-economic conditions make journalism a fragile profession, increasingly exposed to smear campaigns — often online — and to abusive lawsuits designed to silence critical voices. This phenomenon, known as SLAPPs, is finally beginning to receive more attention in Montenegro’s media landscape.

 

Another pressing concern is the lack of independence of the public broadcaster, which remains entangled in clientelist relationships that severely limit its capacity to operate in the public interest, as highlighted by Olivera Nikolic from the Montenegro Media Institute.

 

In North Macedonia, the pace of reform remains slow. “We have made some progress, but the ultimate goals are still distant,” said Zoran Richliev from the Metamorphosis Foundation. The country’s media market is small and highly fragmented, making media outlets susceptible to external political and economic pressures. State financing and advertising continue to reflect strong political control over the media, fostering clientelism and corruption.

 

While there have been some positive steps — such as improving journalist safety and amending the criminal code to recognize attacks on journalists as attacks on public officials — alignment with European standards remains incomplete. One of the most troubling practices is state budget-paid political advertising during election campaigns, which distorts the media market and undermines editorial independence.

 

From a broader regional perspective, and in light of the EU accession process, there is still significant room for improvement. While candidate countries can look to EU member states for guidance in implementing European norms, the exchange should not be one-way. Member states, too, face threats to media freedom and challenges in applying newly adopted regulations. In this context, transnational advocacy represents a valuable tool.

 

Referring to the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act in Croatia, Maja Sever stressed the importance of joint efforts — sharing knowledge, strategies, and actions — to ensure proper enforcement of standards and full accountability from decision-makers.

 

Ultimately, as OBCT collaborator Massimo Moratti reminded participants, media freedom can only be guaranteed when the broader rule of law functions effectively, e.g. when an independent judiciary is able to enforce the law and hold political power accountable. Adopting new laws is not per se sufficient to enhance media freedom. Those laws need to be implemented as well.

 

Building transnational partnerships between the EU and the Western Balkans is essential to keep attention focused on media freedom at a time when democracy across Europe faces mounting threats and backsliding. While legislative progress should be welcomed, it is time for change to become visible on the ground. Achieving this will require a coordinated, multi-level effort involving all relevant stakeholders, both in candidate countries and within the EU itself.

This publication is the result of activities carried out within the Media Freedom Rapid Response co-funded by the EU and within ATLIB – Transnational Advocacy for Freedom of Information in the Western Balkans, a project co-funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. All opinions expressed represent the views of their author and not those of the co-funding institutions.

Allgemein

Turkey: Journalists reporting LGBTQ+ issues risk criminalisation: Withdraw the…

Turkey: Journalists reporting LGBTQ+ issues risk criminalisation: Withdraw the proposed law!

As press and freedom of expression organisations undersigned below, we call for the removal of the reported anti-LGBTQ+ provision from the 11th Judicial Package which would restrict and possibly criminalise media reporting on the community.

22.10.2025

The draft of the 11th Judicial Package was shared with the members of the press last week and is expected to be submitted to Parliament in the coming days. Under the heading “Obscene acts,” the draft introduces a so-called “Turkish-style ban on homosexual propaganda.” It stipulates prison sentences of up to three years for any behaviour or attitude that is “contrary to one’s biological sex and public morality,” as well as for praising, promoting, or encouraging such behaviour. In its current form, the proposal is even broader and more vague than Russia’s 2013 “gay propaganda ban,” posing a grave threat to freedom of expression and press freedom in Turkey.

 

If enacted, this regulation would restrict LGBTQ+ people of their right to access and share information central to their lives.. Journalists reporting on  LGBTQ+ issues such as human rights violations, sexual health, Pride marches etc. risk criminal prosecution on the grounds of “promotion.”

 

Since 2025 was declared the “Year of the Family,” numerous violations have occurred targeting LGBTQ+ journalism in Turkey. In February, Yıldız Tar — Editor-in-Chief of KAOS GL, the country’s largest and oldest LGBTQ+ news platform, and a prominent LGBTQ+ rights advocate — was arrested.

 

In June, the KAOS GL news website and its social media accounts were blocked for allegedly “publicly inciting to commit crimes.” That same month, journalists covering the LGBTQ+ Pride March in Istanbul’s Beşiktaş district were detained and later prosecuted.

 

T24 correspondent Can Öztürk was questioned by prosecutors after publishing a story about sexual harassment allegations against an academic who claimed to offer “conversion therapy” to LGBTQ+ children. The Radio and Television Supreme Council (RTÜK) also fined streaming platforms such as Netflix for hosting LGBTQ+ content.

 

Following all these violations, the inclusion of the proposed provision in the 11th Judicial Package would escalate rights violations even further and criminalize the already difficult task of reporting on LGBTQ+ issues. Moreover, vague terms such as “contrary to one’s biological sex” or “contrary to public morality” would allow arbitrary interference with the press and civil society.

 

This proposal would not only target LGBTQ+ individuals but also place journalists reporting on LGBTQ+ issues and related rights violations under threat of criminal punishment.

 

For all these reasons, as the undersigned press and freedom of expression organizations, we urgently call for the immediate removal of this provision from the 11th Judicial Package.

Signed by:

  • Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
  • Dicle Fırat Journalism Association
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • DİSK Basın-İş
  • P24 Platform for Independent Journalism
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Progressive Journalists Association (ÇGD)
  • Journalists’ Union of Turkey (TGS)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • PEN International 
  • Foreign Media Association Turkey
  • PEN Norway
  • Media and Migration Association (MMA)
  • Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN)
  • Norwegian Helsinki Committee

LGBTİ+ haberciliği suç değildir, gazetecilik suç değildir: Tasarıyı geri çekin!

 

Aşağıda imzaları bulunan basın ve ifade özgürlüğü kuruluşları olarak, 11.Yargı Paketi’nde yer aldığı iddia edilen LGBTİ+ karşıtı düzenlemenin paketten çıkartılmasını talep ediyoruz. Türkiye’de özellikle LGBTİ+’ların ifade ve basın özgürlüklerini ortadan kaldıracak olan bu düzenleme, ifade ve basın özgürlüklerinin özünü ortadan kaldıracak, LGBTİ+’lar hakkında haber yapmayı suç haline getirecektir.

 

11. Yargı Paketi taslağı, geçtiğimiz hafta basınla paylaşıldı ve önümüzdeki günlerde Meclis’e sunulması bekleniyor. Düzenlemede ‘Hayasızca hareketler’ başlığı altında, Türk tipi bir eşcinsel propaganda yasağı düzenlemesi öngörülüyor. Düzenleme, doğuştan gelen cinsiyete ve genel ahlaka aykırı her türlü davranış ve tutumun yanı sıra bunları övmeyi, özendirmeyi ve teşvik etmeyi de üç yıla kadar hapis cezasıyla cezalandırıyor. Bu düzenleme, taslakta yer alan haliyle, Rusya’da 2013 yılında kabul edilen ‘Eşcinsel propaganda yasağı’ yasasından çok daha ağır ve muğlak ifadeler içererek, Türkiye’de basın ve ifade özgürlüğüne yönelik ciddi bir tehdit oluşturuyor. 

 

Yasalaşması halinde, LGBTİ+’ların haber alma ve haber verme haklarını ortadan kaldıracak olan bu düzenleme, LGBTİ+’lara yönelik hak ihlallerini, trans cinayetlerini, cinsel sağlıkla ilgili yayınları, Onur Yürüyüşlerini ve daha birçok LGBTİ+’ları ilgilendiren haber yapmayı ‘teşvik etmek’ gerekçesiyle suç unsuru haline getirecek.

 

2025 yılının Aile Yılı ilan edilmesiyle, Türkiye’de LGBTİ+ haberciliğine yönelik birçok hak ihlali meydana geldi. Şubat ayında, Türkiye’nin en büyük ve en eski LGBTİ+ haber platformu KAOS GL’nin Genel Yayın Yönetmeni ve LGBTİ+ hakları savunucusu Yıldız Tar tutuklandı

 

Haziran ayında, Kaos GL’nin internet haber sitesi ve sosyal medya hesapları ise ‘suç işlemeye alenen teşvik’ iddiasıyla erişime engellendi. Yine Haziran ayında, İstanbul Beşiktaş’ta LGBTİ+ Onur Yürüyüşü’nü takip eden basın mensupları gözaltına alındı, haklarında dava açıldı. 

 

T24 muhabiri Can Öztürk, LGBTİ+ çocuklara ‘dönüşüm terapisi’ adı altında terapi yaptığını iddia eden bir akademisyen hakkındaki cinsel taciz iddialarını haber yaptığı için şikayet üzerine soruşturmaya uğradı, ifade verdi. Radyo ve Televizyon Üst Kurulu (RTÜK) ise Netflix gibi platformlarda yayınlanan LGBTİ+ içerikler hakkında platformlara ceza verdi.

 

Bütün bu hak ihlallerinin ardından 11. Yargı Paketi’nde yer alacağı iddia edilen düzenleme, hak ihlallerini farklı bir boyuta taşıyacak, zaten zor olan LGBTİ+’lar hakkında haber yapmayı suç haline getirecektir. Öte yandan ‘doğuştan gelen biyolojik cinsiyete aykırı’ veya ‘genel ahlaka aykırı’ gibi muğlak ifadeler, basına ve sivil topluma yönelik keyfi müdahaleleri arttıracaktır.

 

Teklif yalnızca LGBTİ+’ları değil, onları ilgilendiren konuları, onlara yönelik hak ihlallerini haber yapan basın mensuplarını da ceza tehdidi altına sokacak, haber yapılmasını kriminalize edecektir.

 

Bu gerekçelerle, biz aşağıda imzaları bulunan basın ve ifade özgürlüğü kurumları olarak, 11. Yargı Paketi’nde yer alacağı iddia edilen bu düzenlemenin derhal tekliften çıkartılmasını talep ediyoruz. 

İmzalayanlar:

  • Medya ve Hukuk Çalışmaları Derneği (MLSA)
  • Dicle Fırat Gazeteciler Derneği  (DFG)
  • Avrupa Basın ve Medya Özgürlüğü Merkezi (ECPMF)
  • Punto24 Bağımsız Gazetecilik Derneği (P24)
  • Çağdaş Gazeteciler Derneği (ÇGD)
  • Uluslararası Basın Enstitüsü (IPI)
  • Avrupa Gazeteciler Federasyonu (EFJ)
  • Uluslararası Gazeteciler Federasyonu (IFJ)
  • Türkiye Gazeteciler Sendikası (TGS)
  • Balkanlar, Kafkasya ve Transavrupa Gözlemevi (OBCT)
  • Gazetecileri Koruma Komitesi (CPJ)
  • Yabancı Medya Derneği
  • Uluslararası PEN
  • PEN Norveç
  • Medya ve Göç Derneği (MGD) 
  • Balkan Araştırmacı Gazetecilik Ağı (BIRN)
  • DİSK Basın-İş
  • Norveç Helsinki Komitesi

This statement was coordinated by Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) and signed by members of 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.

Flowers and light candles are put in memory of murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia at a makeshift memorial outside the law courts in Valletta, Malta on November 25, 2019. (Photo by Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto) Allgemein

In Memory of Daphne: Media reform public consultations must…

In Memory of Daphne: Media reform public consultations must lead to National Action Plan

On the eve of the anniversary of the murder of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, press freedom and journalists’ groups are calling on the national authorities to set up a National Action Plan on Media Freedom and Journalist Safety.

15.10.2025

Our groups reiterate our calls for all perpetrators of the murder to be brought to justice and we continue to monitor the progress of ongoing legal proceedings.

 

  1. Overview:

 

Press freedom and journalist organizations welcome the call by the Maltese authorities for public consultations on media freedom and are, in this paper, submitting a set of recommendations for consideration.

 

The implementation of such recommendations would be an appropriate and meaningful way to continue to mark the life and legacy of Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in a car bomb attack on 16 October 2017.

 

The move to open up public consultations follows an ongoing exchange on institutional and rule of law reforms in Malta, whose record has been the subject of international scrutiny since the journalist’s murder eight years ago.

 

Such reforms present a historic opportunity for press freedom in both Malta and Europe. Press freedom and journalists’ groups call for draft legislation related to reforms to be considered for consultation, including by national and international civil society, journalists’ organizations, media freedom experts, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), prior to being enacted by parliament or published by legal notice.

 

Our organizations are tracking the reform proposal put forward by the Maltese authorities in

response to the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Some recommendations below identify areas of concern that continue to require a more effective state response than outlined in the August 2025 legal notice.

 

This statement seeks to provide an overview of key international standards or texts that would provide a basis for shaping the planning and implementation of future legislative and non-legislative measures to protect journalists. It also provides a list of recommendations, in consideration of Malta’s press freedom context.

 

Such reforms should be brought together in a National Action Plan on Media Freedom and Journalist Safety. Such an initiative should seek to concretely address the complex set of challenges facing all Maltese journalists, and guarantee an ambitious vision for Malta’s compliance with its European Union, Council of Europe and OSCE obligations.

 

 

  1. Relevant international standards and expert sources:

 

The following international standards and texts provide guidance on the questions raised in the consultation, including safeguarding an enabling environment for journalists to operate, preserving full and independent access to information, and aligning all measures with international standards on the protection of the reputation or rights of others.

 

United Nations

 

– Civil and Political Rights, including the Question of Freedom of Expression, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ambeyi Ligabo, 30 December 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/55)

 

– General Comment No. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, United Nations, Human Rights Committee, 11-29 July 2011 (CCPR/C/GC/34)

 

– General Assembly, Resolution 68/163, The Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, 18 December 2013 (A/RES/68/163)

 

– General Assembly, Resolution 39/6, The Safety of Journalists, Human Rights Council

27 September 2018 (39th Session) (A/HRC/RES/39/6)

 

UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

 

– UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity (2012)

 

Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly

 

– Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1506 (2001), Freedom of expression and information in the media in Europe, Council of Europe, 24 April 2001

 

– Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 1589 (2003), Freedom of expression in the

media in Europe, Council of Europe, 28 January 2003

 

– Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1535 (2007), Threats to the lives and freedom of expression of journalists, 25 January 2007

 

– Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2035 (2015), Protection of the safety of journalists and of media freedom in Europe, 29 January 2015

 

– Parliamentary Assembly, Recommendation 2062 (2015), Protection of the safety of journalists and of media freedom in Europe, Council of Europe, 29 January 2015

 

– Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 2317 (2020), Threats to media freedom and journalists’ security in Europe, Council of Europe, 28 January 2020

 

Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers

 

– CM/Rec(2024)2 – Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 April 2024

 

– CM/Rec(2022)16 – Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on combating hate speech, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 May 2022

 

– CM/Rec(2016)4 – Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 13 April 2016

 

European Court of Human Rights case-law on state interference or restriction on freedom of expression:

 

Stoll v. Switzerland, App No 69698/01, (ECtHR [GC] 10 December 2007)

Morice v. France, App. No. 29369/10, (ECtHR [GC] 23 April 2015)

Pentikäinen v. Finland, App No 11882/10, (ECtHR [GC] 20 October 2015)

Khadja Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, App Nos 65286/13 and 57270/14, (ECtHR 10 January 2019)

Yılmaz and Kılıç v. Turkey, App No 68514/01, (ECtHR 17 July 2008)

Bahçeci and Turan v. Turkey, App. No. 33340/03, (ECtHR 16 June 2009) para 26.

 

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE

 

Legal analysis on the draft law of Malta to implement various measures for the protection of the media and of journalists, October 2021

 

Legal analysis on the draft law of Malta to implement various measures for the protection of the media and of journalists, February 2022

 

 

European Commission

 

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/1534 of 16 September 2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and empowerment of journalists and other media professionals in the European Union

 

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (“Strategic lawsuits against public participation”)

 

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/1634 of 16 September 2022 on internal safeguards for editorial independence and ownership transparency in the media sector

 

 

  • Recommendations

 

  1. Establish a National Action Plan

– In line with the Council of Europe’s “Journalists Matter” campaign, develop and adopt a National Action Plan on Media Freedom and Journalist Safety to provide a strategic framework to coordinate action across all state institutions. Such an action plan should integrate the recommendations listed below (to the fullest extent possible), and should follow further broad, public and transparent consultations, timeframes, clear and measurable benchmarks for progress, and effective and independent evaluation processes. It would have full political backing; would be led by a person or persons with experience and knowledge of the media (and the threats to the media); and would have the full trust of the journalist community and their representative organizations.

 

  1. Set up an institutional response structure

– Establish an interministerial, cross-institutional structure for the protection of journalists and journalism, with a view to implementing the National Action Plan, setting up rapid response protocols and early warning mechanisms, regular communication and dialogue on press freedom concerns affecting Malta’s journalists, and building state accountability for protecting journalists. Such a structure should ensure effective engagement with civil society and media organizations, and have, as its purpose, the full implementation of the 2016 Committee of Ministers Recommendation on journalism safety and the European Commission’s 2021 Journalist Safety Recommendation. This requires that the current mechanism be transformed to meet international standards including by taking into consideration the OSCE legal analysis of the draft law setting up this mechanism.

 

  1. Undertake Constitutional reform

– Undertake Constitutional reform to enshrine journalism as one of the pillars of a democratic society, with an explicit requirement of the State to guarantee it and protect it.

– Recognize the right to access information held by the State and public administration and the obligation of public authorities to provide such information.

– Provide all relevant state officials with training and support to promote and protect the spirit of such constitutional reforms.

 

  1. Foster an enabling environment for journalists

– High level officials should regularly communicate publicly, with a view to reaching a wide audience, that verbal attacks, threats, and hostility against the press should never in any way be tolerated; underscore the important role that journalists play in society and call for their full protection. Such statements could coincide with the celebration of international days, including World Press Freedom Day, as well as parliamentary debates, or public and official events.

– State officials and public figures should refrain from undermining or attacking the integrity of journalists and other media actors, or coercing or pressuring journalists.

– Provide journalists and other media actors who are victims of crime with quick access to preventive measures of protection, including court-issued protection orders and other personal protection measures taken by the police.

– Provide training for judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and police officers on relevant Council of Europe (and other relevant international) standards on freedom of expression and media freedom.

 

  1. Support female journalists

– Monitor and prioritize measures to protect female journalists against all forms of psychological pressure, intimidation, harassment, or physical threats, including as a result of online harassment, in line with the European Commission’s 2021 Journalist Safety Recommendation and the OSCE’s 2023 Guidelines for monitoring online violence against female journalists.

 

  1. End vexatious lawsuits, including SLAPPs

– Undertake further legislative reforms to address SLAPPs, in addition to the government’s recent transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP Directive, to extend judicial protection to domestic SLAPPs cases.

– Implement in full the European Commission’s Recommendation on SLAPPs as well as the Committee of Ministers Recommendation on SLAPPs; and, in doing so, extend Malta’s actions to both judicial reform and nonjudicial measures, such as victim support, judicial training, and public awareness.

– Reform the Media and Defamation Act to bring it in line with the recommendations included in the Legal Analysis of the OSCE Office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media of November 2017.

 

  1. Strengthen access to information

– Take immediate steps to improve the swift delivery of information held by public authorities, and grant greater transparency with regards to the publication of official information in the public interest. Such improvements should be user friendly, efficient and embedded in a culture of accountability and openness.

– Disclose, in full, the legal advice received by the Government on the Freedom of Information Act, and undertake a full, transparent, and effective consultation for its reform.

 

  1. Build accountability by implementing the public inquiry recommendations

Ensure the full implementation of all the recommendations from the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry, including those recommendations that relate to economic wrongdoing and financial crime, in their intersection of addressing the work of Maltese investigative journalists regarding state accountability, including:

  1. Amendments to criminal laws;
  2. Administrative practices which regulate relationships between public administration and business people;
  3. The fight against financial crime;
  4. Public officials who interfere with or attempt to interfere with the police;
  5. The introduction in the Criminal Code of the new criminal offence of “abuse of office” committed by a public official;
  6. The introduction into the Criminal Code of the criminal offence of obstruction of justice;
  7. The introduction of legal provisions in the Code of Ethics to counter inappropriate behavior by public officials.

 

  1. Ensure self-regulation contributes to safeguarding international standards

– Ensure that any changes to the regulatory ecosystem for media in Malta do not risk being misused for increased state interference. Self-regulation should be promoted and enabled by the authorities and all relevant stakeholders. Effective and independent systems of self-regulation must have the trust and confidence of the Maltese journalist community, and to the fullest extent possible, apply the European standards defined by the European Press Councils as part of the research and best practice developed by the European Union’s PressCouncils.eu project.

 

  1. Safeguard source confidentiality

– Develop protocols for law enforcement to embed the legal protection of legitimate and journalistic sources, including as part of investigations or operations. Such protocols should ensure that if investigative or intelligence collecting work by the Malta Security Service and or the police involves or touches upon the relationship of journalists and sources or whistleblowers, that the identity of that source or whistleblower will not be disclosed.

– The Protection of the Whistleblower Act must be reformed to provide whistleblowers with avenues for safe reporting, independent from government.

 

  1. Guarantee independent public service media

– In line with Article 5 of the EMFA, undertake reform of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) to develop stronger institutional safeguards which protect it from all forms of political pressure and influence and increase its editorial independence, thus building public trust.

– Include transparent and democratic procedures for the election of all management staff and members to its oversight boards, to reduce potential political interference. Heads of public service media should in particular be required to adhere to transparent and impartial criteria in their appointment procedures, with a view to preventing undue political influence.

– Provide adequate, predictable and sustainable funding to the public broadcaster in order to create additional institutional barriers to prevent pressure from the government. Multiyear budgeting should be adopted to facilitate long-term strategic planning and enhance predictability.

 

  1. Ensure full transparency over the allocation of state advertising to media and establish an independent body to oversee this system

– In line with Article 25 of the EMFA, establish a registry for oversight of state advertising, which must be transparent, functional, and provide up-to-date and easily accessible data for journalists and citizens.

– Ensure this body is independent and issues annual reports on the distribution of funds, identifying any instances of preferential treatment or political influence.

– Award state advertising in accordance with transparent, objective, proportionate, and nondiscriminatory criteria. This should apply to allocation of advertising via public tenders, directly or indirectly, and via advertising agencies.

– Government agencies and state-run or -controlled companies should provide full transparency on advertising expenditure, while all media should disclose the total amount they receive from public funds.

 

  1. Increase transparency over media ownership

– In line with Article 6 of the EMFA, establish a national media ownership database which is public, transparent, up-to-date and easily accessible online. This centralized online registry should require data regarding the ownership structure, including both direct and nondirect ownership, as well as the identity of any beneficial owners.

– Document swiftly all acquisitions and mergers of media in the database. Noncompliance with requests for information on all aspects of ownership should be addressed through administrative measures or penalties.

 

  1. Prevent a high degree of concentration of ownership in the media sector

– In line with Article 22 of the EMFA, establish a coordinated system for the assessment of all new market developments that could lead to concentrations and have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence.

– Adopt procedural rules to assess the impact of new acquisitions or mergers on media pluralism, as the Maltese media legislation does not contain specific thresholds or other limitations in order to prevent a high degree of horizontal and cross-media concentration of ownership in the media sector.

– Introduce measures that guarantee transparency and provide clear thresholds to prevent market concentration, including in the online environment.

– Designate an appropriate authority to monitor and measure media pluralism and to advise the competition authority in order to stop ownership changes that damage media pluralism and threaten editorial independence.

– Provide proper statistics on market shares and media revenues.

– Codify protections to journalists from political interference. Cooperate with the Institute of Maltese Journalists and other stakeholders to make sure protections are adequate.

Signed by:

  • Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
  • Civil Liberties Union for Europe
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • Global Forum for Media Development
  • IFEX
  • Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (IRFS)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Media Diversity Institute
  • Ossigeno per l’Informazione
  • PEN International
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • Society of Journalists (Warsaw)
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Spanish Federation of Journalists (FAPE)

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.