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.

Allgemein

IPI denounces fatal attack on journalist Hakan Tosun, urges…

IPI denounces fatal attack on journalist Hakan Tosun, urges swift and transparent investigation

The International Press Institute (IPI) strongly condemns the fatal attack on journalist and environmental activist Hakan Tosun and calls on authorities to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation to bring all perpetrators to justice.

14.10.2025

Hakan Tosun, an independent journalist and environmental activist known for his reporting on ecological destruction, was attacked on October 10 while returning home in Istanbul’s Esenyurt district. When his family and colleagues could not reach him for an extended period, they reported Tosun missing.

 

It was later revealed that he had been found severely injured and taken to Çam Sakura State Hospital as an unidentified patient. His family and loved ones learned about his hospitalization eight hours after the incident.

 

According to recently released security camera footage, two individuals on a motorcycle were seen approaching Hakan Tosun and attacking him. Footages show that the assailants struck him repeatedly on the head and neck. Tosun remained in intensive care with life-threatening injuries and later died on October 13.

 

According to Tosun’s lawyers, authorities notified them on October 12 that two suspects connected to the assault had been arrested. The exact details of their alleged roles remain unclear, and no public disclosure has yet been made regarding Tosun’s murder.

 

IPI is deeply concerned that the attack may be linked to Tosun’s journalism, particularly his reporting on environmental issues and local corruption. We urge authorities to thoroughly investigate all possible motives, including his journalistic work.

 

Attacks on journalists are attacks on the public’s right to know. The killing of Hakan Tosun is a grave reminder of the dangers faced by reporters and activists in Turkey, and of the urgent need to ensure their safety and protect press freedom.

 

IPI stands in solidarity with the family, colleagues, and community of Hakan Tosun, and with all journalists in Turkey who continue to pursue truth and accountability in the face of increasing hostility.

This statement 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

Georgia: As ruling party intensifies crackdown, media freedom groups…

Georgia: As ruling party intensifies crackdown, media freedom groups demand urgent action to safeguard independent journalism   

The undersigned media freedom, journalists’, and freedom of expression organisations strongly condemn the intensifying crackdown on Georgian journalists and press freedom defenders who continue to face institutional repression and physical attacks.

10.10.2025

As the Georgian Dream (GD) regime’s Prime Minister explicitly promises to stifle dissent, we reiterate our urgent call for the EU and the international community to respond forcefully to the ruling party’s clampdown on media and civil society.

 

Media freedom in Georgia remains dire and continues to deteriorate. At least 14 journalists from both independent and government-controlled media were targeted during the anti-government demonstration on October 4, which took place simultaneously with local municipal elections partially boycotted by the opposition. 

 

While the Prosecutor’s Office has reportedly opened an investigation into the obstruction of professional activities of journalists from the pro-government public broadcaster and the government-controlled outlet Imedi TV, investigations have not yet been launched into attacks targeting independent media. This selective approach to justice is highly alarming and deepens long-standing impunity for crimes against journalists in Georgia. 

 

In addition, the authorities have increased institutional pressure and tightened their grip on media and civil society, including groups supporting independent media. Georgian authorities have launched inquiries of independent online media outlets and media freedom organisations based on the law on grants, which, following amendments in April, prohibits receiving foreign grants without government approval.

 

Targeted media organisations include Project 64, an organisation which operates Mtis Ambebi (Mountain Stories), the Organized Crime Research Media Centre, which runs investigative newsroom iFact, and Governance Monitoring Center (GMC). The latter manages two media projects: Plangvis Detektori (Squander Detector), focusing on corruption and public governance issues, and Realpolitika, an online media outlet covering international politics.

 

According to reports, over 60 media and civil society groups were ordered to disclose donor and grant information. The Anti-Corruption Bureau demanded contracts, budgets, work plans, and implementation reports, giving only three business days to comply. The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics (GCJE), a media self-regulation body and a de-facto union of journalists, was also targeted.

 

In September, up to 30 organizations, including IDFI – Institute for Development of Freedom of Information, Media Center Kakheti, GYLA – Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association, Rights Georgia, Civic Idea, and the Human Rights Center, received similar letters. 

 

Despite objections over their legal basis, the Tbilisi City Court upheld the Bureau’s motions against nine organizations on 17 September.

 

These inspections follow earlier rounds in June and August 2025, when authorities used Georgia’s “foreign agents” law to demand sensitive data and freeze accounts of groups accused of supporting protests.

 

Our organisations welcome the statement by EU Vice President Kallas and EU Commissioner for Enlargement Kos condemning Georgian Dream’s crackdown on Georgia’s media and civil society and now urge words to be met with concrete actions.

 

While we expect the clampdown on media to intensify in the coming months, we reiterate our call for stronger pressure on the Georgian Dream regime, including additional targeted sanctions. Without external support and solidarity, Georgian media and civil society will not be able to survive.

Signed by:

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

Allgemein

Press Freedom at Risk: The Democratic Cost of the…

Press Freedom at Risk: The Democratic Cost of the EU’s “Chat Control” Proposal

The European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF) -on behalf of the MFRR- is alarmed by the draft of the EU Commission’s CSA Regulation, so-called “Chat Control”. We call on the Council to reject the new proposal. Furthermore, we urge Germany to remain committed to its previous stance of developing a human rights-based CSA Regulatory approach that would not infringe on the fundamental rights and freedoms, primarily right to privacy, and eventually press freedom. 

10.10.2025

While it is intended as a solution to improve online safety, particularly against the sexual exploitation of children, the mechanism it envisages would allow authorities to force messaging, email, and hosting providers to scan private communications, whether or not there is specific suspicion. This would effectively open the door to the mass surveillance of personal conversations and weaken the technical protections that ensure privacy and confidentiality. If passed, it would also constitute an infringement of press freedom. 

 

According to a recent open letter signed by more than 470 researchers from 34 countries, the proposal would create “unprecedented capabilities for surveillance, control, and censorship and has an inherent risk for function creep and abuse […].” The signatories argue that no filtering system can reliably distinguish illegal content from legitimate private messages at scale without generating false positives and yet the proposal would mandate just that. 

 

Fundamentally, the proposed regulation infringes on the right to privacy. They further warn that scanning devices or communications before encryption, as outlined in parts of the draft, inherently undermines end-to-end encryption and introduces a single point of failure in the system. If encryption loses its trustworthiness, all users, including journalists, face a higher risk of exposure, hacking, or misuse of their data. This view is supported by a wide range of civil society and media freedom organisations.

 

While the Danish presidency continues to push this problematic legislation, the new German government held a discussion on October 9, but has not yet reached an agreement on whether it will maintain its safeguarding role for the right to privacy. Even though Germany will imminently need to take a stand on the question, both the Justice Department and the so-called Digital Minister remain silent on the matter. The German vote can be crucial here, as the EDRi analysis points out, threatening to swing the vote in favour of this harmful legislation.

 

ECPMF wants to remind Germany, and other EU council members, that press freedom and democratic accountability depend on the ability of journalists and citizens to communicate securely and without fear of surveillance. The proposed “Chat Control Regulation” would endanger this foundation by creating an infrastructure that allows authorities or private companies to inspect private messages. Such a mechanism is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of press freedom and democracy.

 

The danger does not lie only in potential misuse by authoritarian regimes. Once such a system exists, it can be exploited by any government, regardless of its political character. Numerous examples have shown that broad surveillance powers, such as the use of spyware, can easily be expanded or reinterpreted over time. Unchecked and broad powers can make a tool intended to detect criminal activity to quickly be redirected toward monitoring political speech or journalistic investigations.

 

Protecting children from abuse and exploitation is an unquestionable moral duty. However, measures to achieve this goal must respect the fundamental rights enshrined in European law. The chat control proposal, as it currently stands, fails to meet that standard. It would introduce disproportionate surveillance, weaken encryption and create risks that far outweigh its intended benefits.

 

The ECPMF therefore calls on the European institutions and member states, Germany in particular, to reject the chat control proposal in its current form. Efforts to improve online safety must be effective, proportionate and compatible with fundamental rights. ECPMF stands with journalists, researchers and human rights defenders across Europe in urging lawmakers to defend encryption, protect source confidentiality and uphold the freedoms that define open societies.

This statement was coordinated by ECPMF 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

Bulgaria wants to criminalise alleged privacy violations

Bulgaria wants to criminalise alleged privacy violations

On 8 October 2025, Bulgaria’s parliamentary Legal Affairs Committee urgently approved, at first reading, amendments to the Criminal Code introduced by the “There Is Such a People” (ITN) party. The draft law proposes prison sentences and fines for the dissemination of information about a person’s “personal life” without their consent. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and its Bulgarian affiliate AEJ-Bulgaria condemn this disproportionate restriction on journalists’ right to cover private matters that are in the public interest. We demand the outright withdrawal of these provisions, which contravene European legal standards.

09.10.2025

The proposal defines “personal life” broadly, covering personal, family, intimate relations or health status, and criminalises their disclosure through any medium, including print and online publications. The penalties foreseen range from one to six years in prison and fines between 2,000 and 8,000 BGN (approximately 1,000 to 4,000 euros). The proposal also allows the use of special surveillance means, such as wiretaps, for investigating such offences, which are typically reserved for serious crimes.

 

The bill, submitted on 7 October, was approved by the committee the following day with support from members of the governing majority and opposition parties. Representatives of the Prosecutor’s Office and judiciary were not present due to the extraordinary and accelerated scheduling of the session. Only members of a centrist-liberal opposition bloc opposed the proposal, warning that it risks being used to restrict media freedom and could breach the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

Adela Katchaounova, co-Chair and Legal Programme Director at the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee commented that the proposal is “aimed at restricting journalists’ freedom of expression.”. According to her, its adoption would violate both the Bulgarian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, placing journalists in a situation that “guarantees comfort for those in power or represents the next stage of an authoritarian state.” She reiterated that “the right of people to learn details of someone’s personal, family, intimate relationships, or even health status can outweigh the right to privacy. (…) Public interest can prevail, and this is not because people like gossip, but because someone’s private life affects the entire society. Therefore, the public has the right to know, and journalists have the right to disseminate information about people who are in government, about politicians, about candidates for public office, etc.”.

 

“We are outraged by the proposed legal amendments which, if adopted, will open the doors for unprecedented censorship,” added Maria Cheresheva, President of AEJ-Bulgaria, an EFJ affiliate in Bulgaria. “No democratic country would send its journalists to prison for doing their fundamental job: revealing information of high public interest about politicians and other powerful figures. We call on all political parties to take a firm stance against this assault on freedom of expression that would brush off all the progress Bulgaria has made in the recent year in decriminalising defamation.”

 

“We fully support the interpretation of the Helsinki Committee and our Bulgarian affiliates. We consider this freedom-destroying proposal to be an act of betrayal, especially since we have just participated in a mission on press freedom in Bulgaria that showed signs of openness on the part of the Ministers of the Interior and Justice,” said Ricardo Gutiérrez, EFJ General Secretary. “This reform of the criminal code completely reverses our optimistic impression. We call on the European Union to respond firmly to this clear violation of the rule of law by the Bulgarian authorities.”

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

Bulgaria: Press Freedom Undermined by Political Polarisation and Delayed…

Bulgaria: Press Freedom Undermined by Political Polarisation and Delayed Reforms

Media freedom in Bulgaria faces entrenched challenges in a climate of political polarisation and legislative inertia, with urgent action needed by government and public authorities to push forward both domestic and EU-mandated reforms, a coalition of international press freedom organisations said today.

26.09.2025

Following a three-day mission to Sofia between 24-26 September, the delegation concluded that progress is needed to prevent and prosecute attacks on journalists, resolve the ongoing dispute over the leadership of the public broadcaster, guarantee the independence of the Council for Electronic Media (CEM) and pass anti-SLAPP legislation. Despite the important work of key journalist associations, there is a low level of solidarity within the journalistic profession.

 

The mission, organised by the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists Platform and the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) also found that Bulgaria is lagging behind in implementing the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), in force since August this year. A government working group has been suspended, with no indication of when discussions involving all relevant authorities and stakeholders will resume.

 

The mission did not have the opportunity to discuss the issue with the body in charge of media policies, the Ministry of Culture, since it was the only relevant public authority which refused to meet the delegation, despite repeated requests.

 

Following the mission, the partner organisations jointly call for greater political will and cross-party support to address deepening institutional paralysis and drive forward much needed reforms under the EMFA, which if properly implemented will help safeguard media freedom, pluralism and independence.

 

Safety of journalists

Though serious physical attacks on reporters and media workers in Bulgaria remain relatively uncommon, some media stakeholders told the mission that general hostility against the journalistic profession had increased in recent years. The mission called on the authorities to promptly investigate several assaults against media workers recorded on the Safety of Journalists Platform and bring those responsible to justice. Political pressures including intimidation and insults against journalists by politicians remain a cause of concern, even though direct political pressures on journalists have lessened compared to previous years.

 

The Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Journalists currently has 34 active alerts involving attacks on journalists or threats against media freedom. Physical attacks account for one third of the cases, although their number has also dropped compared to previous years. Threats, including death threats, against journalists remain a serious concern but are too rarely sanctioned by authorities.

 

The mission notes the low levels of trust by journalists in the law enforcement authorities and prosecutors to secure justice in cases of attacks. Previous cases involving attacks on journalists by police have suffered from delayed justice. Certain stakeholders raised ongoing concerns about politicised investigations by prosecutorial authorities against the media. The mission welcomes the support of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office and the President for proposals to monitor and record serious cases and strengthen provisions within the criminal code to introduce higher sanctions for those convicted of attacking journalists.

 

Council for Electronic Media and public broadcaster

The mission concludes that the ongoing dispute between the Director General of the Bulgarian National Television and the CEM risks undermining public trust in the public broadcaster and the regulator’s appointment process. Two elections by the CEM have failed to reach a majority on appointing a new Director General, with the incumbent continuing in the role three years past his original mandate, as pointed out by the European Commission’s 2025 Rule of Law Report.

 

A judicial review into the process is ongoing and a new attempt to appoint a Director General is scheduled to take place on 16 October. The mission organisations call for the process to appoint a new Director General of BNT to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner and for parties involved to act in accordance with the law.

 

The mission also heard criticism from some stakeholders about the editorial independence of BNT, reflecting concerns raised in the EU Rule of Law Report and the Media Pluralism Monitor. It is essential that EMFA-mandated reforms are implemented to strengthen the broadcaster’s editorial independence, which must be also guaranteed by adequate, sustainable and predictable financial resources.

 

The delegation concludes that reforms are required to both insulate the Council for Electronic Media from political influence and bolster its operational resources. Multiple stakeholders noted perceived political affiliations of certain council members. The mission supports legislative proposals for reforms to strengthen the independence of all future candidates, in line with the provisions of the EMFA.

 

However, changes to the makeup or election process for the CEM must be conducted under the principles of independence, legality and pluralism. The healthy functioning of the CEM is vital for the effective regulation of the media ecosystem in Bulgaria. The regulator also requires greater operational resources to carry out its expanded mandate. Proposals to merge the CEM with other regulatory bodies risks disrupting its mandate and weakening its regulatory powers.

 

Legal threats, SLAPPs and defamation

The legal environment in Bulgaria creates persistent risks for journalists. According to journalists the mission met, there are dozens of active Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) targeted at media and journalists. Investigative journalists and those probing crime and corruption are among the most targeted by SLAPPs, with major businesses and insurance companies, politicians, and judges among the most common plaintiffs. Many of these cases involve extortionate demands for financial compensation.

 

The mission welcomes the preparations by the Ministry of Justice for the transposition of the 2024 Anti-SLAPP Directive. However, the organisations also express concern that the focus appears to be solely on the implementation of the EU Directive without equal attention to the Council of Europe Recommendation on SLAPPs. A key concern is that criminal defamation remains a legal tool in Bulgaria and politicians missed the opportunity to fully decriminalise defamation during recent criminal code changes.

 

Recent amendments lowered the minimum fines for insult and defamation and eliminated the automatic aggravated qualification when the person concerned is a civil servant. The reforms also introduced the possibility of waiving criminal liability and replacing it with administrative sanctions in cases concerning insult or defamation of state officials acting in their official capacity. Nevertheless, the continued criminalisation of defamation remains inconsistent with international freedom of expression standards and continues to allow the strategic use of criminal law against the media and journalists.

 

Legislation, pluralism and media capture

Repeated cycles of elections and the subsequent disruption of government working groups has resulted in delays to reforms that are badly needed to bring about a healthy media ecosystem in Bulgaria. Though initial work was done to prepare for the implementation of the EMFA, which came into full force in August 2025, the mission learnt that the Ministry of Culture has suspended the process.

 

Implementation of the EMFA is vital for addressing many of the systemic challenges facing media freedom and pluralism in Bulgaria. The mission concluded that the country suffers from some levels of media capture, with the non-transparency of media ownership, particularly anonymous online media, and the non-transparency of state advertising among most acute concerns. At the local and regional level, the economic dependence of media on advertising from local authorities has exposed them to financial pressures and in many cases weakened editorial independence.

 

Media pluralism in Bulgaria remains limited and independent journalism faces pressures from many sides, including ownership interference, self-censorship, threats to economic viability of watchdog journalism, and lingering concerns over the independence of major television broadcasters. Though Bulgaria has professional investigative journalists probing crime and corruption, they work in a climate of pressure, including death threats, harassment and vexatious lawsuits.

 

The legislative climate for access to information is inadequate and continues to face challenges, with journalists facing obstructions stemming from a general culture of opacity from state bodies. Requests for interviews with political leaders are routinely rejected and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are often either ignored or partially answered. Parliamentary reporters continue to face disproportionate limits on their movement within the new parliament building, limiting scrutiny.

 

The precarious working conditions of many journalists in Bulgaria, including low pay and weak labour protections, pose further challenges for the profession, undermining the ability of media workers to oppose threats to editorial independence in their newsrooms.

 

Institutional and regulatory dysfunction, problematic media ownership and political influence have combined to weaken public trust in journalism in Bulgaria, with the country ranking among the lowest in Europe for trust in news, and among the highest levels of news avoidance.

 

This has created a vacuum in which disinformation can more easily spread, particularly on social media. Despite this clear threat, the government has failed to create a national disinformation strategy, with the work of the multi-stakeholder Bulgarian Coalition Against Disinformation remaining frozen since 2023. It is vital that Bulgaria swiftly designate and empower a national Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) and establish rules for penalties under the Digital Services Act (DSA).

 

Following the mission, the partner organisation call on the European Commission to closely observe the implementation of the EMFA in Bulgaria, provide concrete and measurable recommendations within the Rule of Law Report, deepen conditionality on EU funds, and to use all tools available to ensure compliance with the EMFA, the anti-SLAPP directive and other European standards, such as the Digital Services Act.

 

 

Recommendations

The mission outlines the following recommendations to improve the situation for media freedom in Bulgaria. More detailed recommendations will be provided in the full report to follow.

 

Safety of journalists

  • Government and political authorities should refrain from and condemn all cases of denigration, vilification, intimidation and threats against journalists, including online attacks
  • The Bulgarian government should join the Safety of Journalists Campaign, establish contact points for journalists in law enforcement and ministerial bodies, and improve horizontal collaboration between ministries on the safety of journalists.
  • Review and improve legislation to strengthen the criminal code with stronger sanctions for those convicted of attacking journalists and create a system for specifically recognising and categorising cases of attacks on the press and media workers.
  • The Bulgarian government should encourage the establishment of, and support the operation of, early-warning and rapid-response mechanisms, such as hotlines, online platforms or 24-hour emergency contact points, by journalists’ organisations or civil society, to ensure that journalists and other media actors have immediate access to protective measures when they are threatened.

 

CEM and public broadcasters

  • The process by CEM to appoint a new Director General of BNT must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner and all parties involved must act in accordance with the law.
  • The government should implement reforms in line with the EMFA which strengthen the safeguards for editorial and institutional independence of BNT and BNR while also guaranteeing adequate, sustainable and predictable financial resources to both broadcasters.
  • The government should implement reforms in line with the EMFA which insulate the Council for Electronic Media from political influence and interference and strengthen its functional independence, while also providing it with sufficient resources for operational stability.

 

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

  • The Ministry of Justice should transpose and implement both the EU Directive and the Council of Europe (CoE) Recommendation against SLAPPs, to ensure that both cross-border and domestic SLAPPs are effectively addressed.
  • The government should ensure that the indicators for identifying SLAPPs, as foreseen in the CoE Recommendation, are incorporated into national law to assist judges in recognizing such cases. During the drafting process, the Ministry of Justice should make use of the expertise available from the CoE.
  • Authorities should continue to train judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and police officers on European standards related to media freedom, including defamation, SLAPPs, hate speech, access to information, and the protection of whistleblowers and journalistic sources. This is essential to ensure that court rulings and practices align with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights.
  • The government and the parliament of Bulgaria should fully decriminalise defamation.

 

Media legislation and EMFA

  • The government should swiftly implement and align domestic legislation with the European Media Freedom Act under a transparent and inclusive process.
  • In addition to reforms to the public service media and media regulators outlined above, the government should implement reforms mandated under the EMFA which require the establishment of a media ownership registry, which must be transparent, functional, up-to-date and easily accessible for journalists and citizens.
  • The government should implement reforms outlined in the EMFA for fair and transparent distribution of public funds and state advertising to the media. Only media companies which have registered in the ownership database and provided up-to-date information about their direct and beneficial ownership should be eligible to receive state advertising.
  • In addition, the government should consider establishing conditions that only media outlets which abide by the Ethical Code of Journalists should be eligible for receiving state advertising, as a means of defunding disinformation.
  • The government should swiftly designate and empower a national Digital Services Coordinator (DSC) and establish rules for penalties under the Digital Services Act (DSA).
  • Media professionals should unite with journalistic associations and other bodies to strengthen solidarity and cooperation within the journalistic profession.

 

More detailed recommendations will follow in the full report from the mission.

The mission to Sofia was coordinated as part of the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists Platform and the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR). The delegation was composed of representatives from ARTICLE 19, Association of European Journalists (AEJ), European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), European Broadcasting Union (EBU), European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Index on Censorship, International Press Institute (IPI), Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT).

The delegation met with a range of stakeholders, including leading journalists and editors from print, online and investigative media, as well as media associations and unions, media experts and civil society. Separate meetings were held with the Bulgarian National Radio and the Bulgarian National Television. Meetings were also held with the Bulgarian President; Ministry of Justice; Ministry of Interior; Council of Electronic Media (CEM); Office of General Prosecutor; Commission for Personal Data Protection; Central Election Commission and representatives of embassies.

The mission held a press conference on 26 September in Sofia. A full report is due to be published after the mission and will be shared with all domestic political stakeholders, the Council of Europe, the European Union and international organisations.

Allgemein

Open Letter on Improving Journalists’ Access to the Albanian…

Open Letter on Improving Journalists’ Access to the Albanian Parliament

Thirty media freedom and civil society organisations – including the SafeJournalists Network, MFRR partners, RSF and leading Albanian groups – have urged the Albanian Parliament to drop proposals that would severely restrict journalists’ access. The letter warns that limiting independent filming and confining interactions with MPs would undermine transparency, accountability, and Albania’s EU commitments.

19.09.2025

Shqip me poshte

To: 

Mr. Niko Peleshi, Speaker of the Parliament of Albania

Cc:

Head of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Means of Public Information 

Mr. Taulant Balla, Head of the Parliamentary Group of the Socialist Party
Mr. Gazment Bardhi, Head of the Parliamentary Group of the Democratic Party 

Mr. Tedi Blushi, Head of the Parliamentary Group of the Freedom Party 

 

Subject: Concerns over proposals to restrict journalists’ access to Parliament

 

Dear Mr. Peleshi, 

 

We, the SafeJournalists Network, the partners of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and media freedom organisations in Albania, express our deep concern regarding recent proposals by the parliamentary majority to significantly restrict journalists’ access to the Parliament of Albania. These proposals, as reported by journalists, foresee abolishing independent filming in the plenary chamber and replacing it entirely with a single official feed, as well as confining all interactions between MPs and the media to a single designated “doorstep” space. If implemented, this would effectively eliminate direct and spontaneous contact between journalists and elected representatives and make accountability voluntary.

 

Such restrictions would deprive the public of one of the few remaining avenues for holding MPs and ministers accountable. While the protection of MPs’ private communications is a legitimate concern, it cannot serve as a pretext for removing independent cameras from the plenary chamber or for barring journalists from approaching MPs in parliamentary spaces. We have previously raised concerns about the media accreditation rules introduced by the Parliament in 2021, which already curtailed journalists’ freedom of movement inside Parliament and increased reliance on official feeds. Since then we have documented repeated cases of obstruction and a broader pattern of limited access.

 

In Albania, the broader media environment makes these proposed restrictions even more concerning. Government representatives and majority MPs rarely hold press conferences or appear on independent debate shows, relying instead on curated communication through social media or pre-prepared audiovisual materials produced and distributed by the Media and Information Agency. Delays, refusals, and centralisation already hinder access to public information. Parliament has therefore been the last institutional space where journalists could directly and spontaneously question political representatives. To remove this space would amount to a serious setback for media freedom and democratic accountability.

 

We therefore urge you, Mr. Speaker, to take the following steps:

  • Convene an open dialogue with journalists, media freedom organisations, and stakeholders to revise the parliamentary accreditation system so that it balances privacy with transparency and ensures meaningful access.
  • Align accreditation with existing commitments, including the Parliament’s Strategic Plan 2025–2030 pledges on transparency, accountability, and constructive relations with the media.
  • Ensure clear protocols for the Guard of the Republic to prevent arbitrary obstruction of journalists, as observed in 2024, particularly during moments of political tension.
  • Preserve multiple points of access. A doorstep can complement, but must not replace, corridors, lobbies, and courtyard interactions that enable spontaneous questioning.
  • Guarantee institutional openness by maintaining independent filming in addition to official feeds, publishing schedules and all relevant parliamentary information in a timely and accessible manner, strengthening the Parliament’s press service, and committing to future consultation with journalists and media freedom organisations before any further changes are made.
  • Strengthen transparency in public communication by instituting regular, journalist-driven media conferences with Parliament, MPs, and ministers, held several times per month.
  • Introduce an independent appeals mechanism so that accreditation or access decisions can be challenged quickly and fairly, ensuring equal treatment of all accredited outlets, including smaller, regional, and online media and new formats of journalistic profession. 
  • Reaffirm Albania’s EU commitments. Parliamentary openness and media freedom are core elements of Cluster 1 in the EU accession negotiations. Upholding these standards will demonstrate Parliament’s commitment to transparency and accountability, while restrictive measures would undermine democratic credibility at home and abroad.

 

We reiterate our commitment to supporting Albanian institutions in improving media freedom and freedom of expression, emphasizing that robust protections for journalism and free speech are fundamental to Albania’s democratic development and EU integration path.

Signed by:

SafeJournalists Network 

  • Association of Journalists of Kosovo
  • Association of Journalists of Macedonia
  • BH Journalists Association
  • Croatian Journalists’ Association
  • Independent Journalists Association of Serbia
  • Trade Union of Media of Montenegro

Media Freedom Rapid Response 

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

Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

 

Civil society organisations in Albania 

  • Center Science and Innovation for Development (SCiDEV)
  • Association of Journalists of Albania (AJA)
  • Albanian Helsinki Committee (AHC)
    Albanian Media Council (KSHM)
  • Albanian Woman in Audiovisual (AWA)
  • Union of Journalists and Media Workers (SGMP)
  • Res Publica
  • Association of Professional Journalists of Albania (APJA)
  • Amfora
  • Faktoje
  • Union of Albanian Journalists (UGSH)
  • Albanian Center for Quality Journalism (ACQJ)
  • Civil Rights Defender, Albania
  • Citizens.al 

Reporting Diversity Network 

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.

Letër e Hapur mbi Përmirësimin e Qasjes së Gazetarëve në Kuvendin e Shqipërisë

 

Drejtuar:
 Z. Niko Peleshi, Kryetar i Kuvendit të Shqipërisë

 

Për dijeni:
Kryetari i Komisionit Parlamentar për të Drejtat e Njeriut dhe Mjetet e Informimit Publik
 Z. Taulant Balla, Kryetar i Grupit Parlamentar të Partisë Socialiste
 Z. Gazment Bardhi, Kryetar i Grupit Parlamentar të Partisë Demokratike
 Z. Tedi Blushi, Kryetar i Grupit Parlamentar të Partisë së Lirisë

 

Lënda: Shqetësime mbi propozimet për kufizimin e qasjes së gazetarëve në Kuvend

 

I nderuar z. Peleshi,

 

Ne, Rrjeti SafeJournalists, partnerët e Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), Reporterët pa Kufij (RSF), dhe organizatat e lirisë së medias në Shqipëri, shprehim shqetësimin tonë të thellë lidhur me propozimet e fundit nga shumica parlamentare për të kufizuar ndjeshëm qasjen e gazetarëve në Kuvendin e Shqipërisë. Këto propozime, sipas raportimeve të gazetarëve, parashikojnë heqjen e filmimeve të pavarura në sallën plenare dhe zëvendësimin e tyre plotësisht me një transmetim zyrtar të vetëm, si dhe kufizimin e të gjitha ndërveprimeve midis deputetëve dhe medias në një hapësirë të vetme të përcaktuar si “doorstep”. Nëse zbatohen, një gjë e tillë do të eliminonte praktikisht kontaktin e drejtpërdrejtë dhe spontan mes gazetarëve dhe përfaqësuesve të zgjedhur dhe do ta bënte llogaridhënien vullnetare.

 

Kufizime të tilla do t’ia hiqnin publikut një nga hapësirat e fundit për të mbajtur përgjegjës deputetët dhe ministrat. Ndërkohë që mbrojtja e komunikimeve private të deputetëve është një shqetësim legjitim, ajo nuk mund të shërbejë si pretekst për heqjen e kamerave të pavarura nga salla plenare apo për ndalimin e gazetarëve që t’u afrohen deputetëve në hapësirat e Kuvendit. Ne kemi ngritur më parë shqetësime për rregullat e reja të akreditimit mediatik të miratuara nga Kuvendi në vitin 2021, të cilat tashmë kufizuan lirinë e lëvizjes së gazetarëve brenda Kuvendit dhe rritën varësinë nga transmetimet zyrtare. Që prej asaj kohe kemi dokumentuar raste të përsëritura pengesash dhe një model më të gjerë të kufizimit të aksesit.

 

Në Shqipëri, konteksti i përgjithshëm mediatik e bën edhe më shqetësues këtë propozim. Përfaqësuesit e qeverisë dhe deputetët e shumicës rrallë mbajnë konferenca për shtyp apo marrin pjesë në debate televizive të pavarura, duke u mbështetur më shumë te komunikimi i kuruar përmes rrjeteve sociale apo materialeve audiovizive të parapërgatitura nga Agjencia për Media dhe Informim. Vonesat, refuzimet dhe centralizimi tashmë pengojnë qasjen në informacionin publik. Kuvendi ka qenë për këtë arsye hapësira e fundit institucionale ku gazetarët mund të pyesnin drejtpërdrejt dhe spontanisht përfaqësuesit politikë. Heqja e kësaj hapësire do të ishte një hap i rëndë mbrapa për lirinë e medias dhe llogaridhënien demokratike.

 

Ne ju bëjmë thirrje, z. Kryetar, të ndërmerrni këto hapa:

  • Të zhvilloni një dialog të hapur me gazetarët, organizatat e lirisë së medias dhe palët e tjera të interesuara për të rishikuar sistemin e akreditimit parlamentar në mënyrë që të balancojë privatësinë me transparencën dhe të garantojë akses domethënës.
  • Të përafroni akreditimin me angazhimet ekzistuese, përfshirë Strategjinë e Kuvendit 2025–2030 dhe zotimet e Nismës “Parlamenti i Hapur” mbi transparencën, llogaridhënien dhe marrëdhëniet konstruktive me median.
  • Të vendosni protokolle të qarta për Gardën e Republikës për të parandaluar pengesat arbitrare ndaj gazetarëve, siç është vënë re në vitin 2024, veçanërisht gjatë momenteve të tensionit politik.
  • Të ruani pika të shumta aksesi. “Doorstep”-i mund ta plotësojë qasjen, por nuk duhet të zëvendësojë korridoret, lobet dhe oborret që mundësojnë pyetje spontane.
  • Të garantoni hapjen institucionale duke lejuar filmimet e pavarura krahas transmetimeve zyrtare, duke publikuar në kohë oraret dhe gjithë informacionin parlamentar përkatës, duke forcuar shërbimin e shtypit të Kuvendit, dhe duke u angazhuar për konsultime të ardhshme me gazetarët dhe organizatat e lirisë së medias përpara çdo ndryshimi tjetër.
  • Të forconi transparencën e komunikimit publik duke vendosur konferenca të rregullta për shtyp, të udhëhequra nga gazetarët, me pjesëmarrjen e Kuvendit, deputetëve dhe ministrave, të mbajtura disa herë në muaj.
  • Të krijoni një mekanizëm të pavarur apelimi në mënyrë që vendimet për akreditim ose qasje të mund të kundërshtohen shpejt dhe në mënyrë të drejtë, duke garantuar trajtim të barabartë për të gjitha mediat e akredituara, përfshirë ato lokale, rajonale, online dhe formatet e reja të gazetarisë.
  • Të riafirmoni angazhimet e Shqipërisë ndaj BE-së. Hapja parlamentare dhe liria e medias janë elemente themelore të Klasterit 1 në negociatat e anëtarësimit. Zbatimi i këtyre standardeve do të tregojë angazhimin e Kuvendit ndaj transparencës dhe llogaridhënies, ndërsa masat kufizuese do të dëmtonin besueshmërinë demokratike brenda dhe jashtë vendit.

 

Ne ritheksojmë angazhimin tonë për të mbështetur institucionet shqiptare në përmirësimin e lirisë së medias dhe të shprehjes, duke theksuar se mbrojtja e fortë e gazetarisë dhe e fjalës së lirë janë themelore për zhvillimin demokratik të Shqipërisë dhe rrugën e saj drejt integrimit në BE.

Nënshkrues:

Rrjeti SafeJournalists

  • Asociacioni i Gazetarëve të Kosovës
  • Shoqata e Gazetarëve të Maqedonisë
  • Shoqata e Gazetarëve të Bosnjë-Hercegovinës
  • Shoqata e Gazetarëve Kroatë
  • Shoqata e Pavarur e Gazetarëve të Serbisë
  • Sindikata e Mediave e Malit të Zi

Reagimi i Shpejtë për Lirinë e Medias (Media Freedom Rapid Response)

  • Federata Evropiane e Gazetarëve (EFJ)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • Instituti Ndërkombëtar i Shtypit (IPI)
  • Osservatorio Ballkani Kaukazi Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Qendra Evropiane për Lirinë e Shtypit dhe Medias (ECPMF)

Reporterët pa Kufij (RSF)

Organizatat e shoqërisë civile në Shqipëri

  • Qendra për Shkencë dhe Inovacion për Zhvillim (SCiDEV)
  • Asociacioni i Gazetarëve të Shqipërisë (AJA)
  • Komiteti Shqiptar i Helsinkit (KSHH)
  • Këshilli Shqiptar i Medias (KSHM)
  • Gratë Shqiptare në Audiovizual (AWA)
  • Sindikata e Gazetarëve dhe Punonjësve të Medias (SGMP)
  • Res Publica
  • Shoqata e Gazetarëve Profesionistë të Shqipërisë (APJA)
  • Amfora
  • Faktoje
  • Unioni i Gazetarëve Shqiptarë (UGSH)
  • Qendra Shqiptare për Gazetari Cilësore (ACQJ)
  • Civil Rights Defender, Shqipëri
  • Citizens.al

Rrjeti i Raportimit të Diversitetit

Kjo deklaratë u koordinua nga Reagimi i Shpejtë për Lirinë e Medias (MFRR), një mekanizëm mbarëevropian që gjurmon, monitoron dhe reagon ndaj shkeljeve të lirisë së shtypit dhe medias në shtetet anëtare të BE-së dhe vendet kandidate.

Library

Ukraine: Demand for justice from Russia one year after…

Ukraine: Demand for justice from Russia one year after death of Victoria Roshchyna

September 19 marks one year since the death of Victoria Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist who had been held for over a year in Russian captivity. On this day, MFRR partners remember Victoria and demand justice for her death from Russian authorities.

19.09.2025

Roshchyna’s body was repatriated to Ukraine and buried in Kyiv only on 8 August 2025, almost one year after the official date of her death recorded by Russian authorities.

 

According to Ukrainian forensic investigators, Roshchyna’s body showed numerous signs of torture, including burn marks from electric shocks, cuts on the body, neck injuries, and a broken rib. Ukrainian authorities and independent investigations indicated that she had been subjected to regular beatings, threats, humiliation and deprivation of medical care, water and food.

 

Later reporting by Forbidden Stories also indicated that multiple organs had been removed from her body before it was returned to Ukraine, in a potential effort to conceal evidence of torture. While the precise circumstances of her death remain unknown, it is certain that Victoria lost her life while under the supervision of Russian prison authorities.

 

Roshchyna departed for her last reporting trip in July 2023 to investigate rumours of torture in Russian prisons in the occupied Zaporizhia region. The 26-year-old freelance journalist had previously worked for major Ukrainian news outlets such as Ukrainska Pravda and Hromadske. She attempted to reach territories of eastern Ukraine occupied by Russia after its full-scale invasion but went missing soon after crossing the border into Russia.

 

Her family and journalists who had been in contact with Roshchyna soon sounded the alarm on her disappearance. Over the next year, Russian authorities provided no information on her whereabouts. Security forces finally confirmed in May 2024 that she had been arrested on undisclosed charges and allowed only a single phone call with her father.

 

Russian authorities never confirmed where Roshchyna was arrested or where she was being held. Her last confirmed location was the infamous Taganrog prison in Russia, according to investigations.

 

Subjected to regular torture, Roshchyna died while in Russian captivity, possibly while being transported from Taganrog prison in southwestern Russia to Moscow in preparation for an upcoming exchange. Her family was informed by Russian authorities only a month later.

 

Following the announcement of her death, Russian captives have consistently refused to explain the circumstances in which she lost her life, or comment on allegations that Victoria was subjected to torture.

 

One year after Victoria’s tragic death, MFRR partners reiterate our demand for full justice for her family. Russian authorities must be held accountable for the death of the journalist who was posthumously granted the Order of Freedom award by Ukraine.

 

Our organisations welcome the Ukrainian criminal investigation into Roshchyna’s death. We call on the Russian authorities to cooperate with the investigation and come clean over the full circumstances of her imprisonment, torture and death. Only when all those responsible have been held accountable for their crimes will justice have been served. We offer our solidarity with her family and colleagues and support to all those fighting for justice.

Signed by:

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

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

Library

Moldova: fears for press freedom in case of pro-Russian…

Moldova: fears for press freedom in case of pro-Russian victory

Journalists warn significant backsliding possible after elections on September 28.

On June 23 to 27, the International Press Institute (IPI), representing the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) consortium, conducted a press freedom mission to the Republic of Moldova, to assess the situation of press freedom in the country ahead of crucial parliamentary elections scheduled for September 28.

17.09.2025

Multiple interviews with journalists, press freedom activists and self-regulatory bodies painted a picture of a media sector concerned about the future of independent journalism in the country ahead of the closely watched election.

 

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.

 

Moldova – still a safe haven for independent journalism?

IPI’s interviews with stakeholders in Moldova overall confirmed data documented on the MFRR’s Mapping Media Freedom (MapMF) platform. These alerts have shown that since regular monitoring started in June 2022, when Moldova became a candidate for entry into the European Union, the country enjoys a relatively healthy media freedom climate.

 

As of September 2025, the MapMF platform has recorded 81 press freedom violations in Moldova. The majority of these incidents were insults or harassment of journalists by politicians, either in person or online, as well as intimidation of journalists at protests.

 

Serious cases of physical violence against media workers were not recorded and the overall legal framework of Moldova ensures appropriate conditions for the exercise of independent journalism.

 

This includes media access to publicly available information, the right to freely report from protests and other events of public interest, as well as, overall, open media access to politicians and government officials.

 

Large-scale cyber attacks against media, which have become increasingly frequent in Europe, and especially in neighbouring Ukraine, have not been identified as a major risk in Moldova.

 

However, 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.

 

These issues are deepened by acute regional differences within Moldova. 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.

 

Attacks on the rise as geopolitical situation becomes more tense

The number of media freedom violations in Moldova has gradually increased since monitoring began in June 2022: 10 cases were recorded by the MapMF platform between April and December 2022, in comparison to 19 in 2023, 24 in 2024, and 25 in just the first eight months of 2025.

 

Journalists and press freedom organizations expressed particular concern about waves of attacks which have, over the past year, coincided with periods of high political tensions. The first months of 2025, for instance, saw a heavy backlash against journalists and media following the decision by the Trump administration to significantly cut U.S. foreign aid, including programmes which supported independent media.

 

In response, a number of actors, including pro-Russian politicians and private individuals, the latter especially in the online space, engaged in discrediting and intimidating behavior targeting media who previously received grant support from the United States.

 

While the drastic drop in U.S. funding greatly impacted Moldovan media, newsrooms have been able to adapt, with media representatives reporting that mass closures of media outlets have not been observed over the past year. Some journalists, however, expressed the fear that should the current level of support from European sources not continue, the risks of closure would become especially high for regional media.

 

Government approach to media freedom

While both MapMF data and interviews with Moldovan journalists have pointed to a relatively healthy level of media freedom in the country, concerns remain with regards to recent legal and regulatory decisions targeting media houses owned by pro-Russian oligarchs.

 

Central here is the mandate of Moldova’s strategic investment council (Council for the Examination of Investments of Importance to State Security). The government body was set up to help protect national security in the context of Russia’s invasion of neighbouring Ukraine and has over the past year made decisions on suspending the broadcasting of TV channels accused of distributing Russian propaganda.

 

While interviewees did not question in principle the legitimacy of the suspension of media outlets for the dissemination of pro-Russian propaganda, worries were expressed about a lack of sufficient due process in the adoption of these decisions, and the lack of transparency in the official justification for broadcast license suspensions. In fact, it was unclear whether there was any procedure in place at all for such situations, or what criteria were used to issue decisions on broadcast suspension.

 

Certain media representatives also expressed worries about the level of self-censorship in outlets which closely align editorially with the current government’s policies on pursuing European integration and denouncing Russia’s war in Ukraine. Some interviewees said that “a sort of symbiosis” exists between some pro-European media and the current government, which has led to negative perceptions about the editorial independence of these media which, in turn, leads to lower levels of public trust.

 

As a result, Moldovans have increasingly turned to social media in search of alternative voices or watchdog reporting. However, this has also increased exposure to pro-Russian disinformation and other forms of biased or unreliable news sources.

 

Efforts by the current government to counter these tendencies by building a national strategic communications (stratcom) office aiming to combat Russian disinformation, were assessed by many media stakeholders as largely ineffective.

 

Efforts to counter falling levels of trust in media, as well as Russian disinformation operations particularly during elections, are also undermined by low levels of media literacy in Moldova, leaving Moldova’s citizens particularly exposed.

 

All media stakeholders interviewed highlighted the serious risks created by Russian disinformation, arguing that Russian sources which attempt to discredit democratic, human rights and pro-EU values are able to mobilise significant financial resources, making the task of reaching local populations even more difficult for independent media.

 

Worries surrounding the outcome of the parliamentary election

The campaign preceding Moldova’s upcoming parliamentary elections in September 2025 included numerous instances in which journalists were dragged into the political contest between pro-European and pro-Russian forces, with politicians and protesters especially intimidating journalists who were carrying out reporting work.

 

Civil society organizations, self-regulatory bodies and journalists interviewed by IPI in Moldova also stressed the potential risks linked to the possible emergence of a pro-Russian government following the elections.

 

A proposal to introduce a “foreign agent” law in Moldova, similar to the one adopted in Russia, and more recently in Georgia, was even filed in parliament in April 2025, with the support of the Block of Communists and Socialists (BCS).

 

While this political group currently does not have a parliamentary majority, many journalists fear that pro-Russian parties could eventually approve such legislation and threaten the future of media which receive foreign funding.

 

Some journalists even discussed plans to relocate outside the country in the event of the victory of pro-Russian parties, noting that plans to work in exile were already explored following the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

 

Other interlocutors, however, expressed doubts that a pro-Russian government would introduce restrictive “foreign agent” legislation. They pointed out that a foreign agent law would also affect many pro-Russian media, who rely on funding from Russia or other foreign sources.

 

Other fears of journalists surrounding a possible victory of pro-Russian groups include restricted access to information of public interest, limited access to press conferences for critical and independent media, as well as the possible misuse of spyware and other surveillance tools against journalists.

 

Transnistria and Gagauzia

While the media freedom situation in Moldova remains stable overall, this situation is very different in the region of Transnistria, which remains outside the control of the government in Chișinău. Inside Transnistria, independent reporting critical of the pro-Russian authorities does not exist. Journalists from other parts of Moldova cannot freely travel to the region to report. The arrest of TV8 correspondent Viorica Tataru, as well as more recent cases, testify to the risks of exercising independent journalism in Transnistria.

 

As reported by journalists who cover Transnistria and the bordering regions, reporting trips to the territory are complex operations conducted undercover, which at times leads to detention by the authorities. While to date all journalists detained in such circumstances were promptly released following the intervention of the Moldovan government or foreign embassies in Chișinău, this situation still creates high-risk conditions for journalists seeking to report from Transnistria.

 

Issues also persist in Moldova’s southern region of Gagauzia, which is under the control of the central government but enjoys a wide degree of autonomy. In Gagauzia, according to data published on the MapMF platform, journalists are regularly intimidated and harassed for their work, to a greater degree than in other regions of the country. While Gagauzia only comprises approximately five percent of Moldova’s population of around two million, close to one-third of all MapMF alerts registered in Moldova are directly linked to Gagauzia.

 

Equally important, independent journalists carry out their duties in a climate of hostility from a majority of the local population, which has traditionally elected pro-Russian parties.

 

Similar issues also persist in Taraclia, a region populated mainly by representatives of Moldova’s Bulgarian ethnic minority. In Taraclia, journalists face a situation similar to Gagauzia. Moreover, local journalists, reporting on their communities, can be exposed to greater risks of threats and intimidation as they are easier to identify and locate.

 

Conclusion

Overall, IPI’s mission to Moldova confirmed the situation depicted in data collected by the MFRR consortium since 2022, which showed a relatively healthy level of press freedom in the country despite its numerous challenges. While the situation remains overall positive, fears over the upcoming election have revealed the fragility of media freedoms in Moldova.

 

Serious issues remain with regards to Moldova’s vulnerability in the face of Russian propaganda and disinformation campaigns. The fear expressed by some interviewees regarding the possible need to relocate independent media outside of Moldova, if pro-Russian parties obtain a majority in parliament in upcoming elections, is worrying in the context of the overall satisfactory situation of press freedom in the country today.

 

While the risk of Russian interference in Moldova was the greatest concern of interviewees, other long-present issues remain, such as the continued lack of even basic media freedom in Transnistria, and the continued intimidation of journalists in regions such as Gagauzia and Taraclia.

 

All in all, Moldova’s vulnerable position shows the need for additional support for the country’s vital independent media sector, the situation of which has become particularly unstable as a result of the Trump administration’s decision to terminate development aid programmes worldwide.

 

While the climate for media freedom in Moldova is positive overall, the situation remains fragile and the future of journalism could hinge dramatically on the outcome of the upcoming elections.

This statement 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

Backroom deals to silence independent media in Serbia?

Backroom deals to silence independent media in Serbia?

As the political situation in Serbia remains explosive, the publication of a controversial private conversation highlights an attempt to muzzle the few media outlets in the country that continue to take a critical line towards the government.

12.09.2025

By Massimo Moratti

Original publication on OBCT, also available in Italian.

In Serbia’s media landscape, characterized by a rapidly and progressive deterioration in freedom information    , N1 and Nova S are the only major media outlets looking critically at the actions of the Serbian government and authorities.

 

Over the last summer, marked by frequent protests and violence in many Serbian cities, the two broadcasters regularly reported live from protest sites. Journalists from both stations, often wearing protective helmets, were frequently exposed to scenes of urban warfare and occasionally harassed, insulted, and beaten     by government supporters and sometimes even by law enforcement    . No other media outlet in Serbia has been covering the protests live.

The recording

For these reasons, the publication of a recording of a conversation between Telekom Serbia’s executive director, Vladimir Lučić, and United Group’s general manager, Stan Miller, has caused a huge stir.

 

Telekom Serbia is largely state-owned, while United Group holds a majority stake in United Media, the company that owns N1. The recording was released by OCCRP     (Organized Crime Corruption Reporting Project) and KRIK     (Crime and Corruption Investigation Network), two organizations at the forefront of reporting crime and corruption in the region.

 

The recording is from a meeting between the two CEOs of their respective organizations, which took place in early August. At the beginning of the conversation, Miller commented on the situation, saying that “Serbia is exploding under our asses.” The conversation then focused on Aleksandra Subotić, executive director of United Media.

 

During the recording, Miller tells Lučić that he can’t immediately fire Subotić, as agreed, and that he must first downsize the company and divide it into several parts. Miller says he understands the president is very angry.

 

Lučić responds that President Vučić has already discussed the matter with Nikos Stathopoulos, the president of the British group that holds a majority stake in United Group. Lučić says that President Vučić only asked for the removal of Subotić, not the directors of N1 and Nova S, because he knows it’s difficult to remove the director at the moment. Miller himself says he’s very annoyed by Subotić.

Reactions

The publication of the recordings immediately sparked protests from the independent press, which gave wide coverage to the story and denounced what appeared to be an attempt to silence     N1 and Nova S.

 

President Vučić’s office, contacted for comment by the two portals, reiterated that “[President] Vučić does not interfere in the editorial policy of the media, nor does he have any interest in it.” Telekom Serbia initially declined to respond, but immediately after the recording was published, it announced it would file lawsuits against all those involved, not because the content was inauthentic, but because the two portals had not sent the recording to Telekom for verification. Lučić categorically denied     President Vučić’s involvement.

 

However, United Group’s position confirmed the conversation and its contents. United Group, which had previously reiterated that “in all the countries in which it operates, it has never been influenced, and will never be influenced, by political pressure,” confirmed that the conversation took place and reiterated its content, but firmly rejected any insinuation that the company was attempting to undermine the independence of its media outlets. However, it emphasized that recording private conversations is illegal.

 

While N1, Nova S, and other independent portals     gave the incident considerable coverage, closely following the developments, government-affiliated media outlets and press reported it only indirectly two days later, when Lučić explained      the content of the conversation to RTS and announced     he would file a lawsuit for publishing the recording.

 

The tabloid Informer    , one of the government’s most ardent supporters, followed the same line and focused on Lučić’s comments, openly criticizing Subotić for mismanaging United Media and for causing damage to both United Group and Telekom, thus deserving to be replaced.

 

While the reactions in Serbia reflect the polarization of Serbian society, outside Serbia condemnation of the attempts to limit the independence of N1 and Nova S was unanimous. The organizations participating in the Media Freedom Rapid Response project issued a press release on the matter, condemning attempts to limit media independence and calling for     intervention by European institutions to curb such attempts.

 

A few days later, this intervention arrived: when asked about the matter, European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos explicitly stated     that pressure on the media, whether political or economic, does not benefit democracy.

Concerning signs

The concerns of industry insiders and those closely following media freedom in Serbia do not appear to be unfounded. Already in February, United Group had sold     SBB, the cable television provider (including N1 and Nova S), to Telekom Serbia. The news had raised considerable concern regarding the negative impact on media freedom.

 

These concerns were heightened a few weeks later when United Group sold its satellite component to Total TV, and shortly thereafter, Total TV sold it to Telekom Srbija    . Shortly after this sale, N1 and Nova S were excluded from Telekom Srbija’s satellite programs.

 

These transactions further alarmed industry experts, who saw a coordinated effort to reduce the visibility of independent television stations. Moreover, President Vučić’s discontent with N1 and Nova S is a fact: already in June, he had described the activities of these two television stations as “pure terrorism    ,” expecting prosecutors to take action against them. This expectation was reiterated after the recent incidents     in Novi Sad.

 

More recently, the weekly Vreme     reported that Vučić’s goal is to shut down the two television stations by November 2025. The timing of this closure would be strategic given that many are speculating that new elections     will be held by December 2025.

This article was published by OBCT 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.