Blog

Library

IPI condemns increasing use of arbitrary court orders to…

IPI condemns increasing use of arbitrary court orders to censor independent journalism

Turkish authorities must end the use of arbitrary court orders citing bogus “national security” and “public order” concerns to censor journalistic social media accounts and news content, the International Press Institute (IPI) said today.

15.06.2026

In a recent case, Turkish courts issued three successive blocking orders in three days. The first censored news articles relating to an investigative case; the second order then banned reporting about the court order; while the third then finally blocked even basic coverage of the previous censorship measures.

 

IPI said the triple access-blocking orders were a glaring example of the high levels of the judicial censorship of independent journalism in Turkey, which has continued to worsen in recent years. With little transparency and inadequate justification, court orders rely on alleged violations of “national security” or “public order” to suppress critical reporting on matters of clear public interest.

 

The three blocking orders concerned an investigative series titled “Visa Empire”, published by Kısa Dalga journalist Canan Coşkun earlier this month. Part of a collaborative investigation with the international outlet Lighthouse Reports, the series scrutinized visa application practices in Turkey.

 

Delays in applications, fees charged, and the difficulties in visa processes had long been on the public agenda in Turkey. “Our research clearly revealed the irregularities committed, the arbitrary practices involved and the connections between visa companies and public figures,” Kemal Göktaş, editor-in-chief of Kısa Dalga, told IPI.

 

Despite clear public interest, the articles were blocked by the 9th Istanbul Criminal Court of Peace on June 1. But that was not the only measure taken. The following day, Istanbul’s 5th Criminal Court of Peace issued a second order blocking news coverage and social media posts about the series and its censorship. And on June 3, a third court, the 7th Istanbul Criminal Court of Peace, issued yet another order, this time blocking coverage of the two preceding blocking orders. All three decisions cited Article 8/A of the law on Publications on the Internet (No. 5651) and grounded their decision on “national security” and “public order” violations.

 

Göktaş said Kısa Dalga anticipated that their well-documented investigation would generate a strong public reaction — and that this would bring pressure from the Turkish government. “The pressure we are facing is not new,” he continued, “but the reaction against the blocking orders has been more visible than ever before, and this will be important for the fight for press freedom.”

 

Commenting on the response to the articles, Şebnem Arsu, one of the journalists who contributed to Lighthouse Reports’ investigation and a member of the IPI Turkey National Committee, said: “The attention this investigation has received — as have the restrictions imposed on it — is evidence of how timely and relevant this work is.”

 

This is not Kısa Dalga’s first encounter with censorship. In January 2026, courts blocked a significant number of the outlet’s articles on corruption allegations and political commentary. Turkey’s Information Technologies and Communication Authority (BTK) — the public authority responsible for regulating and supervising internet and telecommunications — notified the outlet of the orders without providing the full court decisions, making any meaningful legal challenge impossible.

 

The escalating trend of media blockades

 

Kısa Dalga is not the only outlet to have been targeted recently. In late April 2026, the Elazığ 2nd Criminal Court of Peace issued an order to block Cumhuriyet Newspaper’s official X account — a decision that went unreported until early June, when it was published by EngelliWeb and picked up by the outlet itself. Founded in 1924, Cumhuriyet is Turkey’s oldest continuously published newspaper. Nevertheless, the court justified the decision on national security and public order grounds. Following the announcement of the order, Cumhuriyet’s X account, which had over 3.5 million followers, was renamed in an attempt to remain accessible to its audience. A separate account that registered Cumhuriyet’s previous username was swiftly suspended by X.

 

Kurdish media outlets have also faced the same pattern of targeting by Turkish authorities. In late May 2026, BTK blocked access to the X accounts of Mezopotamya Ajansı and JINNEWS — the latest in a series of restrictions imposed on both outlets. As Yaman Akdeniz, co-founder of the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD), noted in a recent interview, the targeting of Kurdish journalists and outlets has been among the most consistent features of Turkey’s internet censorship infrastructure, predating and outlasting individual news cycles.

 

As the examples above illustrate, the legal basis most frequently invoked in these decisions is Article 8/A of Law No. 5651, which allows for swift content removal and access blocking on national security grounds. But in practice, courts applying it rarely assess the context or public interest value of the content at issue, relying on vaguely-worded justifications instead.

 

Turkey’s Constitutional Court has previously annulled Article 9 of the same law, which had allowed courts to order the removal of content and block access to websites on the grounds of personal rights violations. Yet the pattern continues through other provisions.

 

According to lawyer Gökhan Tekşen, the vague concepts used to justify access blocking, combined with the absence of effective judicial review over criminal courts of peace, constitute a clear violation of the principles of legal certainty and the rule of law. “Many courts effectively apply a dual legal standard, deciding based on the perceived sensitivity of the case,” Tekşen told IPI. Tekşen said this selective compliance is part of a broader trend: the de-constitutionalisation of Turkey’s legal order, in which Constitutional Court rulings are increasingly disregarded in practice.

 

This legal ambiguity also has a cost in public trust. Arsu further noted that “bans introduced on vague grounds are perceived by the public as attempts to prevent access to information,” adding that “given the current state of technology and cross-border journalism, such a barrier is simply not possible.”

 

IPI stands in solidarity with all journalists and media organisations in Turkey that continue to pursue independent journalism in the face of systematic pressure.

 

We call on Turkish authorities to:

  • Immediately lift the access-blocking orders against news articles of public interest, and to halt the use of court orders against independent journalism,
  • Make all access-blocking decisions publicly available in full to allow affected parties to mount an effective legal defence,
  • Reform Law No. 5651, particularly Article 8/A, to eliminate vague and overbroad formulations that allow courts to suppress journalism.

The public interest value of independent journalism, including investigative reporting that touches on politically sensitive matters and holds government officials accountable, must be recognised and protected, instead of being treated as grounds for censorship.

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

Albania: Elected officials must refrain from public targeting and…

Albania: Elected officials must refrain from public targeting and delegitimisation of media organisations

The undersigned organisations express concern over the public targeting and ethnic delegitimisation of Kristina Voko, the Executive Director of Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Albania (BIRN Albania), by Ardit Bino, a member of Parliament for the Socialist Party, currently in government.

15.06.2026

Shqipëri

The case follows a parliamentary hearing held on 8 June in the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Public Information Media, where civil society organisations discussed the annual reports of independent institutions, including the Audiovisual Media Authority and the public broadcaster RTSH. During the hearing, Kristina Voko raised a legitimate and legally grounded concern regarding the obligation of the public broadcaster to provide inclusive information and content, including for national minorities and persons with disabilities.

 

This intervention was later distorted in a public post by MP Bido, who targeted Voko through her ethnic background and portrayed a lawful civil society contribution in Parliament as suspicious, anti-national or linked to foreign interests. Such rhetoric is unacceptable from an elected representative. It risks turning participation in a parliamentary process into grounds for public intimidation and delegitimisation.

 

We are further concerned that, following the joint reaction of Albanian civil society organisations, MP Bido published another post in which he did not de-escalate the situation, but instead broadened the attack against BIRN Albania and civil society organisations more generally. In that post, he portrayed civil society organisations as foreign-funded actors seeking financial gain through “victimisation” and accused BIRN Albania of producing “fake news”. This rhetoric further contributes to the delegitimisation of independent watchdog organisations, media accountability actors and civil society voices.

 

Public officials may criticise media reporting or civil society positions. However, criticism must be based on facts and must not rely on ethnic framing, insinuations of foreign loyalty, smear narratives about civil society funding, or language that portrays critical voices as enemies.

 

This case is particularly concerning in the current context of heightened civic mobilisation around Zvërnec and the Vjosa-Narta protected area, known publicly as the “Flamingo Revolution”. Citizens, activists, journalists, media organisations and civil society groups have been raising concerns about environmental protection, transparency, public consultation, accountability and respect for the rule of law. In such a context, rhetoric portraying critical voices as “foreign”, “enemies” or ethnically motivated can create a chilling effect on public participation, peaceful protest, media freedom and civic space.

 

Public officials and political actors have a heightened responsibility to avoid language that may fuel hostility against journalists, media accountability organisations, civil society representatives, activists and citizens. This responsibility is even greater when the public debate concerns human rights, minority rights, public broadcasting obligations and participation in parliamentary oversight processes.

 

We call on MP Ardit Bido to withdraw the posts, stop the public targeting of Kristina Voko and BIRN Albania, and issue a public apology.

 

We call on the Parliament of Albania, the Speaker of Parliament, the Socialist Party parliamentary group, and the bodies responsible for parliamentary ethics to clearly distance themselves from this rhetoric and review the case in line with the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly and the standards expected from Members of Parliament.

 

We also call on Prime Minister Edi Rama, as leader of the governing majority, to send an unequivocal public message that targeting civil society, media actors, journalists, activists or citizens on the basis of ethnicity, origin, language or critical opinion is unacceptable. 

 

Civil society participation in parliamentary hearings, media accountability work and peaceful civic mobilisation are not threats to democracy. They are essential elements of it.

Signed by:

  • Media Freedom Rapid Response partners: 
    • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
    • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
    • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
    • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • SafeJournalists Network 
    • Croatian Journalists’ Association
    • Association of Journalists of Kosovo
    • Association of Journalists of Macedonia
    • BH Journalists Association
    • Independent Journalists’ Association of Serbia
    • Trade Union of Media of Montenegro
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Balkan Free Media Initiative (BFMI)
  • 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.

Shqipëri: Zyrtarët e zgjedhur duhet të përmbahen nga shënjestrimi publik dhe delegjitimimi i organizatave mediatike

 

Organizatat nënshkruese të kësaj deklarate shprehin shqetësim për shënjestrimin publik dhe delegjitimimin mbi baza etnike të Kristina Vokos, Drejtoreshë Ekzekutive e Rrjetit Ballkanik të Gazetarisë Hetuese  në Shqipëri (BIRN Albania), nga Ardit Bino, deputet i Partisë Socialiste, aktualisht në qeveri.

 

Rasti pason një seancë dëgjimore parlamentare të mbajtur më 8 qershor në Komisionin Parlamentar për të Drejtat e Njeriut dhe Mjetet e Informimit Publik, ku organizatat e shoqërisë civile diskutuan raportet vjetore të institucioneve të pavarura, përfshirë Autoritetin e Mediave Audiovizive dhe transmetuesin publik RTSH. Gjatë dëgjesës, Kristina Voko ngriti një shqetësim legjitim dhe të bazuar në ligj lidhur me detyrimin e transmetuesit publik për të ofruar informacion dhe përmbajtje gjithëpërfshirëse, duke përfshirë pakicat kombëtare dhe personat me aftësi të kufizuara.

 

Kjo ndërhyrje më pas u shtrembërua në një postim publik nga deputeti Bido, i cili e shënjestroi Vokon përmes prejardhjes së saj etnike dhe paraqiti atë që ishte një kontribut i ligjshëm i shoqërisë civile në Parlament, si të dyshimtë, antikombëtar ose të lidhur me interesa të huaja. Një retorikë e tillë është e papranueshme nga një përfaqësues i zgjedhur. Ajo rrezikon ta kthejë pjesëmarrjen në një proces parlamentar në mundësi për intimidim publik dhe delegjitimim.

 

Ne jemi gjithashtu të shqetësuar që, pas reagimit të përbashkët të organizatave të shoqërisë civile shqiptare, deputeti Bido publikoi një tjetër postim ku nuk e uli tensionin e situatës, por përkundrazi e zgjeroi sulmin ndaj BIRN Albania dhe organizatave të shoqërisë civile në përgjithësi. Në atë postim, ai i paraqiti organizatat e shoqërisë civile si aktorë të financuar nga jashtë që kërkojnë përfitime financiare përmes “viktimizimit” dhe akuzoi BIRN Albania për prodhim të “lajmeve të rreme”. Kjo retorikë kontribuon më tej në delegjitimimin e organizatave të pavarura monitoruese, aktorëve mediatik të llogaridhënies dhe zërave të shoqërisë civile.

 

Zyrtarët publikë mund të kritikojnë raportimin mediatik ose qëndrimet e shoqërisë civile. Megjithatë, kritika duhet të bazohet në fakte dhe nuk duhet të mbështetet në kornizime etnike, insinuata për besnikëri ndaj interesave të huaja, narrativa shpifëse për financimin e shoqërisë civile, apo gjuhë që paraqet zërat kritikë si armiq.

 

Ky rast është veçanërisht shqetësues në kontekstin aktual të mobilizimit të shtuar qytetar rreth Zvërnecit dhe pejsazhit të mbrojtur Vjosa-Nartë, e njohur publikisht si “Revolucioni i Flamingove”. Qytetarë, aktivistë, gazetarë, organizata mediatike dhe grupe të shoqërisë civile kanë ngritur shqetësime për mbrojtjen e mjedisit, transparencën, konsultimin publik, llogaridhënien dhe respektimin e shtetit të së drejtës. Në një kontekst të tillë, retorika që paraqet zërat kritikë si “të huaj”, “armiq” ose të motivuar etnikisht mund të krijojë efekt indimidimi mbi pjesëmarrjen publike, protestën paqësore, lirinë e medias dhe hapësirën qytetare.

 

Zyrtarët publikë dhe aktorët politikë kanë një përgjegjësi të shtuar për të shmangur gjuhën që mund të nxisë armiqësi ndaj gazetarëve, organizatave të llogaridhënies mediatike, përfaqësuesve të shoqërisë civile, aktivistëve dhe qytetarëve. Kjo përgjegjësi është edhe më e madhe kur debati publik lidhet me të drejtat e njeriut, të drejtat e pakicave, detyrimet e transmetuesit publik dhe pjesëmarrjen në proceset parlamentare të mbikëqyrjes.

 

Ne i bëjmë thirrje deputetit Ardit Bido të tërheqë postimet, të ndalojë shënjestrimin publik të Kristina Vokos dhe BIRN Albania, dhe të kërkojë falje publike.

 

Ne i bëjmë thirrje Parlamentit të Shqipërisë, Kryetares së Kuvendit, grupit parlamentar të Partisë Socialiste dhe organeve përgjegjëse për etikën parlamentare që të distancohen qartë nga kjo retorikë dhe ta shqyrtojnë rastin në përputhje me Rregulloren e Kuvendit dhe standardet që priten nga deputetët.

 

Gjithashtu, i bëjmë thirrje Kryeministrit Edi Rama, si drejtues i shumicës qeverisëse, të japë një mesazh publik të qartë dhe pa ekuivoke se shënjestrimi i shoqërisë civile, aktorëve mediatikë, gazetarëve, aktivistëve apo qytetarëve mbi bazën e etnisë, origjinës, gjuhës ose opinionit kritik është i papranueshëm.

 

Pjesëmarrja e shoqërisë civile në seancat dëgjimore parlamentare, puna e medias për llogaridhënien dhe mobilizimi paqësor qytetar nuk janë kërcënime për demokracinë. Janë elementë thelbësorë të saj.

Nënshkruesit:

  • Partnerët e Media Freedom Rapid Response:
    • Federata Evropiane e Gazetarëve (EFJ)
    • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
    • Qendra Evropiane për Lirinë e Shtypit dhe Medias (ECPMF)
  • Reporterët pa Kufij (RSF)
  • Rrjeti SafeJournalists
    • Shoqata Kroate e Gazetarëve
    • Asociacioni i Gazetarëve të Kosovës
    • Asociacioni i Gazetarëve të Maqedonisë
    • Shoqata e Gazetarëve të Bosnjë-Hercegovinës
    • Shoqata e Pavarur e Gazetarëve të Serbisë
    • Sindikata e Mediave të Malit të Zi
  • Organizata Mediatike e Evropës Juglindore (SEEMO)
  • Nisma Ballkanike për Media të Lira (BFMI)
  • Rrjeti Reporting Diversity

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

World Environment Day 2026 Fact Sheet

World Environment Day 2026 Fact Sheet

05.06.2026

Attacks on Environmental Reporting 2020-2025

On this 2026 World Environment Day, the MFRR is publishing a fact sheet analysing attacks on environmental reporting documented between 2020 to 2025 in EU Member States and candidate countries. Journalists and media workers reporting on climate and environmental issues suffered physical attacks, verbal abuse, legal threats or were otherwise obstructed in their work. 

 

The data shows that climate protests are the most common site of attacks related to environmental reporting, but journalists were also attacked when documenting natural disasters. Coverage of the Türkiye-Syria earthquake from 2023 made reporters particularly vulnerable to attacks. Topics otherwise covered, ranged from environmental crimes to pollution and corporate malpractice. 

 

These attacks highlight the urgent need to protect journalists covering environmental issues safely and without intimidation as part of public interest reporting in Europe.  

Download the Fact Sheet

This fact sheet 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.

Allgemein

France: MFRR partners and RSF to carry out media…

France: MFRR partners and RSF to carry out media freedom mission in Paris

Partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), together with Reporters Without Borders (RSF), will travel to Paris from 9 to 11 June 2026 to assess the current state of media freedom in France less than a year before the presidential elections. 

04.06.2026

en français

While France’s legal and regulatory framework is generally supportive of media freedom, there has been an alarming increase in the number and severity of attacks documented on journalists and media outlets in recent years. As of 3 June 2026, 376 violations of press freedom affecting 590 media professionals had been documented since 2023 on Mapping Media Freedom database. In 2025, the most frequent type of attacks were verbal abuse (40.6%), followed by interference (26%), legal threats (19%), physical attacks (18%), and attacks on property (12%). In the absence of adequate legislation, media concentration continues to increase, and the safeguards designed to ensure genuine protection of journalistic sources have proven to be insufficient.

 

Led by the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and joined by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), ARTICLE 19 Europe, the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), Free Press Unlimited (FPU), and the International Press Institute (IPI), the mission will engage with journalists, government officials, legal experts, civil society organisations, including the French observatory OFALP, official partner of the MFRR, to evaluate the critical threats to media freedom. It is organised with the support of local partners, the journalists’ trade unions SNJ, SNJ-CGT, and CFDT-Journalistes.

 

Key areas of concern

 

The mission will focus on the following key areas of concern:

  • Attacks on public service media: France Télévisions faced unprecedented funding cuts in 2025, leading to layoffs, reduced programming and fears of political influence over editorial content, as funding became the subject of growing debate. A parliamentary inquiry into the “neutrality, operation, and funding of public broadcasting” led to 70 recommendations which were strongly criticised as a political attempt to discredit and undermine the role of public service media.
  • Stalled EMFA implementation: France has yet to align with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which entered into force in August 2025 and provides mechanisms to protect media independence and pluralism. Key provisions remain unimplemented, including requirements for transparency on media ownership and funding, safeguards against political interference in the appointment and dismissal of public service media leadership, and protections for editorial independence.
  • Media landscape highly concentrated in the hands of a few billionaires: Multimillionnaire Vincent Bolloré, in particular, has built a media empire that has expanded significantly in the run-up to the 2027 presidential elections, exercising direct control over a dominant share of French televisions (CNews, most-watched TV channel in 2025), radio (Europe 1), publishing houses and advertising, with an editorial policy aligned with the far-right. The current law is considered outdated and ineffective in preventing such concentration.
  • Rising cases of SLAPPs: Recent cases of defamation lawsuits have shown that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are increasingly used to silence journalists and undermine media outlets. On 7 May, a new decree transposing the European Union’s anti-SLAPP directive was adopted with minimal protections and without parliamentary debate, demonstrating a lack of ambition to protect journalists from judicial harassment.
  • Weak law on protection of sources. The vague wording of the 2010 legislation coupled with weak safeguards, has enabled judicial harassment against journalists. Two recent cases raised concerns about source protection: Ariane Lavrilleux of Disclose and Philippe Miller of Warning Trading. 
  • Journalists at risk during protests. Physical safety of journalists remains a persistent concern. As of 3 June, 20 journalists have been assaulted by law enforcement officers, since 2025, despite clearly identifying themselves as members of the press. Seven journalists suffered injuries, including photojournalist Anna Margueritat who was struck in the face, following a police charge  on 1 May.  Most recently, freelance journalist Enzo Rabouy was hit with a baton and left unconscious while filming the violent clashes after the Champions League final in Paris – another stark reminder of the risks journalists face while covering demonstrations. Seriously injured, police officers provided him with first aid.

 

A detailed statement will be produced shortly after the mission sharing the preliminary findings. Following the mission, the coalition will also publish a report based on the mission findings, which will include recommendations. 

 

Media inquiries: Camille Petit, camille@europeanjournalists.org; Camille Magnissalis, cmagnissalis@europeanjournalists.org. 

France : La liberté de la presse au coeur de la mission organisée par les partenaires du MFRR et RSF à Paris du 9 au 11 juin

 

Les organisations partenaires du Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), en collaboration avec Reporters sans frontières (RSF), se rendront à Paris du 9 au 11 juin 2026 afin d’évaluer l’état actuel de la liberté de la presse en France, à moins d’un an de l’élection présidentielle. 

 

Si le cadre juridique et réglementaire français est globalement favorable à la liberté de la presse, on constate depuis quelques années une forte augmentation du nombre et de la gravité des attaques visant des journalistes et des médias. Au 3 juin 2026, 376 violations de la liberté de la presse touchant 590 professionnels des médias ont été documentées sur la plateforme Mapping Media Freedom depuis 2023. En 2025, les agressions verbales (40,6 %) constituaient le type d’attaque le plus fréquent, suivies par les ingérences (26 %), les menaces judiciaires (19 %), les agressions physiques (18 %) et les atteintes aux biens (12 %). En l’absence d’une législation adéquate, la concentration des médias continue de s’accroître et les garanties destinées à assurer une véritable protection des sources journalistiques se sont révélées insuffisantes.

 

Portée par la Fédération européenne des journalistes (FEJ), en collaboration avec Reporters sans frontières (RSF), ARTICLE 19 Europe, le Centre européen pour la liberté de la presse et des médias (ECPMF), Free Press Unlimited (FPU) et l’Institut international de la presse (IPI), la mission consultera des journalistes, des responsables gouvernementaux, des experts et des organisations de la société civile, dont Observatoire français des atteintes à la liberté de la presse (OFALP) partenaire officiel du consortium Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), afin d’évaluer les menaces majeures qui pèsent sur la liberté de la presse. La mission est organisée avec le soutien de partenaires locaux, les syndicats de journalistes SNJ, SNJ-CGT et CFDT-Journalistes.

 

Principaux sujets de préoccupation

La mission se concentrera sur les principaux sujets de préoccupation suivants :

 

    • Attaques contre les médias de service public. France Télévisions a été confrontée à des coupes budgétaires sans précédent en 2025, entraînant des licenciements, une réduction de la programmation et des craintes d’ingérence politique sur le contenu éditorial, alors que le financement faisait l’objet d’un débat de plus en plus vif. Une enquête parlementaire sur « la neutralité, le fonctionnement et le financement de l’audiovisuel public » a donné lieu à 70 recommandations qui ont été vivement critiquées comme une tentative politique visant à discréditer et à affaiblir le rôle des médias de service public.
  • Transposition de l’EMFA à la peine. La France peine à mettre en œuvre le règlement européen sur la liberté des médias (EMFA), entré en vigueur en août 2025. Ce texte vise à protéger l’indépendance et la pluralité des médias. Certaines dispositions clés, telles que les exigences en matière de transparence concernant la gouvernance et le financement des médias, les garanties contre l’ingérence politique dans la nomination et la destitution des dirigeants des services publics de médias, ainsi que les protections de l’indépendance éditoriale, n’ont pas encore été mises en œuvre.
  • Un paysage médiatique fortement concentré entre les mains de milliardaires. Le multimillionnaire Vincent Bolloré, en particulier, a bâti un empire médiatique qui s’est considérablement développé à l’approche des élections présidentielles de 2027, exerçant un contrôle direct sur une part prépondérante des chaînes de télévision françaises (CNews, première chaîne de télévision en termes d’audience en 2025), de la radio (Europe 1), des maisons d’édition et de la publicité, avec une ligne éditoriale alignée sur l’extrême droite. La législation actuelle est considérée comme obsolète et inefficace pour empêcher une telle concentration.
    • Les “procédures-bâillon” en hausse. Des affaires récentes de poursuites pour diffamation ont montré que les procédures abusives, appelées « procédures bâillon » (SLAPPs), sont de plus en plus utilisées pour réduire les journalistes au silence et affaiblir les médias. Le 7 mai, un nouveau décret transposant la directive anti-SLAPP de l’Union européenne a été adopté avec des garanties minimales, sans débat parlementaire, traduisant ainsi un manque d’ambition dans la protection des journalistes contre le harcèlement judiciaire.
  • Une législation insuffisante en matière de protection des sources. La formulation vague de la loi de 2010, combinée à des garanties insuffisantes, a ouvert la voie à des poursuites judiciaires abusives à l’encontre de journalistes. Deux affaires récentes ont suscité des inquiétudes quant à la protection des sources : celles d‘Ariane Lavrilleux, de Disclose, et de Philippe Miller, de Warning Trading.  
  • Risques encourus par les journalistes lors des manifestations. La sécurité physique des journalistes reste une préoccupation constante. Au 3 juin, 20 journalistes ont été agressés par des agents des forces de l’ordre depuis 2025, alors qu’ils étaient clairement identifiés comme membres de la presse. Sept journalistes ont été blessés, dont la photojournaliste Anna Margueritat, qui a été frappée au visage lors d’une charge de la police le 1er mai. Plus récemment, le journaliste indépendant Enzo Rabouy a été frappé à coups de matraque et a été laissé inconscient alors qu’il filmait les violents affrontements qui ont suivi la finale de la Ligue des champions à Paris – un autre rappel brutal des risques auxquels sont exposés les journalistes lorsqu’ils couvrent des manifestations. Gravement blessé, il a reçu les premiers soins de la part des agents de police.

 

Un communiqué détaillant les conclusions préliminaires sera publié après la mission. Le MFRR et RSF publieront également un rapport s’appuyant sur les conclusions de la mission et incluant des recommandations.

 

Contact presse : Camille Petit, camille@europeanjournalists.org; Camille Magnissalis, cmagnissalis@europeanjournalists.org

This mission is being 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

Turkey: MFRR consortium and partner organisations call for the…

Turkey: MFRR consortium and partner organisations call for the release of journalist İsmail Arı ahead of June 5 court hearing

The undersigned press freedom, freedom of expression, journalists’ and human rights organisations call for the immediate release of BirGün journalist İsmail Arı, who has been behind bars for 75 days. Arı is due to appear before an Ankara court on June 5, after being jailed under Turkey’s so-called “disinformation law” in connection with his investigative journalism. Media Freedom Rapid Response’s (MFRR) monitoring database Mapping Media Freedom reports 55 cases related to disinformation, including that of İsmail Arı, since the introduction of Disinformation Law in 2022.

05.06.2026

Arı was detained in the Turhal district of Tokat province on March 21, where he had travelled to visit family during the Eid al-Fitr holiday, and was subsequently transferred to Ankara. The investigation, conducted by the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, includes charges of “publicly disseminating misleading information” under Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code and “insulting a public official,” under Article 125. Following the investigation, Arı was formally arrested.

 

The investigation file is built primarily around Arı’s journalistic work, including his published reports, social media posts, and attendance at public events, making clear that Turkish authorities are treating routine journalistic activity as criminal evidence. Covering stories, speaking with sources, and investigating matters of public interest are not criminal acts.

 

Turkey’s disinformation law is structurally incompatible with international press freedom standards. Its vague wording fails to clearly define what constitutes “untrue information” or to specify what type of content poses a threat to national security or public order, handing authorities broad discretion to weaponise the law against independent journalism and intimidate reporters.

 

Arı’s arrest earlier this year is not the first time the journalist has been targeted for his work. Last year, Arı received direct threats following his reporting on the “Şahinler” organised crime network and an article he wrote about alleged judicial bribery. These threats, sent from an unknown foreign number, included not only direct messages targeting him personally, but also a list of information about his relatives. At least one family member also received direct threats. 

 

Following the threats, Arı filed complaints with the police and the Ministry of Interior. Despite the seriousness of the incident, the police only provided him with a 90-day “caution protection” number to report further incidents.

 

We call on Turkish authorities to:

  • Immediately and unconditionally release İsmail Arı at the hearing in Ankara on June 5,
  • Repeal Article 217/A of the Turkish Penal Code in its entirety,
  • Bring all legislation regulating freedom of expression into line with Turkey’s international obligations.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Articolo 21
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • Foreign Media Association Turkey (FMA)
  • Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • PEN International
  • PEN Norway
  • PEN Sweden
  • Progressive Journalists Association (ÇGD)
  • P24 Platform for Independent Journalism 
  • South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO)
  • Wales PEN Cymru

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

Serbia: Solidarity with Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation following another setback…

Serbia: Solidarity with Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation following another setback in its quest for justice

The undersigned media freedom and journalist organisations stand in full solidarity with the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation, which has been ordered to pay over one million dinars (€8,812)  in damages in a defamation case brought by those acquitted of the murder of the Serbian editor and newspaper founder, Slavko Ćuruvija. For 27 years, the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation has fought for justice for the assassination of Ćuruvija, who was gunned down outside his apartment in Belgrade in 1999. 

19.05.2026

On 15 May 2026, the Second Basic Court in Belgrade ruled that the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation had defamed Milan Radonjić, Ratko Romić and Miroslav Kurak. The three men were previously convicted of Ćuruvija’s murder before the landmark ruling was controversially overturned in February 2024, leaving the murder case in a state of total impunity.

  

Following the ruling, the Foundation published a statement entitled “A Country That Does Not Punish Murderers Has No Future”, criticising the acquittal and renewing the call for justice. The former defendants sued the Foundation for allegedly violating their honour and reputation, and causing them non-material damage in the form of emotional distress.   

 

The Court of Appeal judgment in Ćuruvija’s case, criticised by the Foundation, was ultimately determined by the Supreme Court as containing substantial violations of the criminal procedure of Serbia. 

 

In its ruling, the Second Basic Court in Belgrade ruled against the Foundation and ordered them to pay a total of 1,035,000 dinars (€8,812) in damages. This included  €1,700  to each plaintiff in compensation, and €979,2 in additional legal costs, according to reports. The Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation announced they will appeal the first instance’s ruling.

 

The undersigned organisations raise concern that this amount is  disproportionately higher than damages in similar defamation cases. We are concerned that the scale of damages will dissuade others from investigating or publicly addressing Ćuruvija’s murder and the family’s fight against impunity.

 

This judgement not only highlights the failure of the judicial system to bring those responsible for the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija to justice, but disproportionately weakens the Foundation’s efforts to combat impunity in cases of journalist killings in Serbia and to preserve Ćuruvija’s legacy.

 

During a recent mission to Serbia on 26–27 March, partners of the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Journalists and the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) met with the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation and Ćuruvija’s daughter, who told the delegation about the double injustice of being denied justice for 27 years and now being on the defendant’s bench themselves. 

 

To conclude the mission, a symbolic press conference was held at the site of Ćuruvija’s murder, during which the delegation urged Serbian officials to put an end to the spiral of violence, before attacks on journalists lead to another tragedy. In the coming weeks, a mission report will be published, including a set of recommendations for both the Serbian authorities and the international community.

 

Ranked 104th out of 180 countries in the 2026 RSF World Press Freedom Index, media freedom in Serbia has reached a new historical low. From January to 19 May 2026, 91 attacks on journalists have already been documented on the Mapping Media Freedom platform, representing nearly half of all attacks recorded for 2025. These numbers confirm the continuing decline of journalists’ safety in Serbia, given the record surge of cases of attacks against journalists recorded last year by the platform. Amidst severe democratic backsliding, a letter signed by ten organisations was sent last week to a group of European Affairs ministers in support of the call to suspend EU funds to Serbia, as suggested by EU Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos.

 

At this critical time, when journalists are facing unprecedented pressure, the authorities, including the judiciary, must urgently protect them from intimidation by ensuring that justice is served and that their right to press freedom and freedom of expression is preserved. 

 

The undersigned organisations express their full solidarity with the Slavko Ćuruvija Foundation and with the journalist’s family.  

Signed by:

  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
  • Index on Censorship
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
  • PEN International

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.

pexels-efrem-efre-2786187-32625778 Greece Parliament Athens Library

Greece: Abusive lawsuit against independent newsrooms should be dismissed

Greece: Abusive lawsuit against independent newsrooms should be dismissed

Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners condemn the filing of abusive legal action by Air Mediterranean against the Greek investigative newsroom Mediterranean Institute for Investigative Reporting (MIIR), the newspaper Efimerida ton Syntakton (EfSyn) as well as their editors and directors.

13.05.2026

Our organisations, which have long documented legal threats against media in Europe, today urge the Court of First Instance of Athens to treat the lawsuit by Air Mediterranean as an abusive lawsuit and to uphold European press freedom standards when assessing the case during the upcoming hearing on 21 May 2026.

MFRR partners regret that although the Greek government has indicated some level of preparation for the transposition of the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, no concrete legislative amendments were adopted before the 7 May deadline.

Now that the deadline has passed, we urge the Greek authorities to take decisive action to ensure the EU Directive’s swift and effective implementation into national law. Reform of the civil code should also strengthen safeguards against domestic Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) which aim to silence quality public-interest journalism.

The lawsuit stems from a cross-border investigation by MIIR and its partners entitled “The Mediterranean Wings of the Underworld”, published in August 2025. Air Mediterranean, an Athens-based international airline company, initiated legal proceedings seven months later, targeting MIIR, EfSyn and the journalists who worked on the report. MIIR is a non-profit organisation with a reputation for hard hitting investigative data journalism and EfSyn is one of the major independent dailies in Greece.

The legal action followed an earlier complaint submitted by the airline’s legal representatives in August 2025, in which it rejected the reporting as “false and defamatory” and denied any links to criminal activity. In response, MIIR and EfSyn stated that the company had been given multiple opportunities to respond prior to publication in line with the applicable journalistic ethical standards and emphasised that the investigation adhered to journalistic standards and addressed issues of clear public interest.

The cross-border investigation was supported by Journalismfund Europe and published jointly by MIIR and Siraj (Syria), Daraj (Lebanon), VoxEurop (France and Belgium), and L’Espresso (Italy). It examined alleged links between the private Greek airline Air Mediterranean and individuals involved in arms, drug and migrant trafficking. It also raised serious questions about the oversight abilities of Greek, Italian and EU authorities.

Air Mediterranean targeted only the two Greek media outlets involved in the cross-border collaborations, while all four other media partners were excluded from litigation.

MFRR observes that Air Mediterranean’s lawsuit bears several hallmarks of a SLAPP: the amount of damages requested is excessive (EUR 100,000 jointly); there is an imbalance of power between the defendants and the claimant, given the company’s financial resources; and the lawsuit also appears to be aimed at suppressing public interest information.

Our organisations stand in solidarity with the teams at MIIR and EfSyn and remain committed to supporting them as the case progresses. We also express our solidarity with journalists in Greece who are repeatedly subjected to vexatious lawsuits intended to intimidate, create a chilling effect, and deter reporting on matters of clear public interest.

For years, Greece has been considered a high-risk country in Europe for SLAPPs. While some high-profile lawsuits against journalists in recent years have been dismissed, others continue to be fought, as in the case of Alterthess.

Overall, this lawsuit demonstrates the urgent need for robust anti-SLAPP legislation in Greece, which covers both cross-border cases, as foreseen within the EU’s Anti-SLAPP Directive, but also wider protections against domestic SLAPP cases, as outlined in the Council of Europe’s 2024 Recommendation on SLAPPs.

Our organisations hope to see this lawsuit against MIIR, EfSyn and the journalists thrown out. We will continue to monitor this case and respond to further developments.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • European Center for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • 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.

Library

Serbia: 10 organisations ask Ministers for European Affairs to…

Serbia: 10 organisations ask Ministers for European Affairs to draw a red line on media freedom

EU Member States must show political leadership and join calls for the suspension of EU funds to Serbia to prevent the spiral of violence against journalists from escalating into deadly attacks, 10 media and press freedom organisations said on Friday in a series of letters sent to a group of Ministers for European Affairs across Europe. 

11 May 2026

The organisations highlight the shocking numbers of physical, legal and online attacks against journalists as recorded on international monitoring platforms since November 2024, a level of persistent violence against media that is rare in any EU member state or candidate country. Since the outbreak of nation-wide protests in November 2024 and the heavy-handed state response, our organisations conducted multiple missions to Belgrade, observing that the situation continues to worsen rapidly. 

 

The organisations furthermore warn that the Serbian government and high-level politicians have been, and continue to be, a driving factor behind this significant surge in attacks, and the wider media freedom decline. They point at the enabling environment created by the public vilification of journalists by high level public figures from the ruling party,  Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, violence against journalists by police officers, and almost complete lack of intervention and prosecution during and following attacks on journalists. While authorities confirm that physical attacks against journalists increased by 367% in 2025, only three convictions were secured during that period.

 

The labeling of journalists with dehumanising and inflammatory terms such as “insects”, “non-humans,” “terrorists,” and “traitors” by political actors has translated into the incitement of hatred in society against individual journalists. A smear campaign in March 2026, broadcast on national TV, targeted over 45 journalists as “enemies of the state”, baselessly accusing them of betraying their country and explicitly referencing previous murders of journalists in Serbia. Combined with the rising physical attacks, the lack of protection, and the unwillingness of the state to hold perpetrators to account, the organizations note that they observe all of the ingredients known to further drive violence against the media and warn that this may soon lead to grave or even deadly attacks against members of the press if urgent and concrete action is not taken. 

 

The letter calls upon Ministers of European Affairs, who came together for an informal gathering in Brussels this weekend, to support the call for the suspension of EU funds to Serbia as suggested by EU Commissioner Kos, who proposes to withhold EU funds in response to the sustained democratic backsliding and the government’s close ties with Russia. The Ministers were asked to swiftly and publicly demand the Serbian authorities to take action against the dangerous climate of violence and repression towards journalists. 

 

The letters also called on EU Member States to demand Serbian authorities to take action against the dangerous climate of violence and repression towards journalists. This includes: immediately halting open attacks against journalists and smear campaigns; effectively addressing impunity for all crimes against journalists; reforming law enforcement, including improving journalist protection at protests and ending arbitrary surveillance; and putting in place meaningful and effective institutional and legal measures to guarantee better protection for journalists, including addressing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.

Signed by:

  • Free Press Unlimited (FPU)
  • ARTICLE 19 Europe
  • Association of European Journalists (AEJ)
  • Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
  • Index on Censorship
  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)
  • Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

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

Albania: Fresh concerns over journalist’s safety following suspected arson…

Albania: Fresh concerns over journalist’s safety following suspected arson attack

The International Press Institute (IPI) condemns the suspected arson attack which destroyed the car of journalist Sami Curri and calls on Albanian authorities to carry out a thorough investigation to establish the motive and bring those responsible to justice.

07.05.2026

The blaze, which is currently being treated by police as a suspected arson attack, has raised fresh concerns about the climate for the safety of journalists carrying out investigative journalism in Albania.

 

On the night of April 26, the journalist’s car was set on fire and destroyed while parked 30 meters away from his residence in Bulqizë, northeastern Albania. Curri is the owner of Bulqizaime.al, a local investigative media outlet in the Dibër region that reports on public interest topics including abuse of public funds, protests and environmental affairs.

 

The fire was discovered by nearby residents shortly before 3am and the police and fire brigade arrived soon after. Preliminary investigations found no injuries or damage to nearby property and only Curri’s car was destroyed, indicating a targeted attack.

 

While the full circumstances of the incident remain unclear, Curri told IPI that he considered the attack “a clear message intended to influence and intimidate” his work. He added: “This was not a random attack, but something that appears to have been ordered and executed deliberately”.

 

The journalist said this was the first time he experienced such an attack. While he did not receive any direct threats in the lead up to the attack, Curri told IPI he had faced indirect pressures and warnings tied to his recent investigative work that suggested he should refrain from pursuing certain topics.

 

Albanian law enforcement authorities are currently investigating the incident under the direction of the prosecution and the fire is being treated as an act of intentional arson. As of now, Curri said he had not received any updates regarding concrete results or identified suspects. The journalist is not currently under any formal police protection and has not requested it.

 

IPI urges Albanian law enforcement to ensure a thorough investigation is conducted that leads to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for what appears to be a targeted act of intimidation against a journalist over their media outlet’s reporting.

 

IPI also calls on political authorities in Albania, both at the local and national level, to strongly condemn the apparent threat and make clear that any attack on independent journalism will not go unpunished.

 

Curri told IPI that this attack will not impact his work moving forward. “I consider journalism, especially at the local level and under such conditions, not just a profession but a mission. Despite the many known difficulties, particularly in local environments, it remains a commitment to serve the public interest.”

 

The case has been recorded on the Mapping Media Freedom platform, which is run by the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR). IPI will continue to monitor the case.

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

As deadline passes, MFRR renews call for urgent transposition…

As deadline passes, MFRR renews call for urgent transposition of EU Anti SLAPP Directive

Today, 7 May 2026, marks the deadline for EU Member States to transpose the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive, also known as Daphne’s law. As we mark this landmark, however, the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor shows a fragmented and uneven picture for transposition across Europe, as the deadline is being missed by nearly all Member States.

07.05.2026

While the Anti-SLAPP Directive marked a significant step forward in protecting journalists and media from abusive litigation, its implementation at the national level remains alarmingly incomplete. Although there are some positive examples, the majority of states are seriously lagging behind and others have made no progress at all.

 

Today, Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners issue an urgent call to Member States to demonstrate their commitment to media freedom by accelerating their legislative processes and ensuring that national measures fully reflect both the letter and the spirit of the Directive  as well as substantive and procedural safeguards set out in in EU and Council of Europe Recommendations. Partial, delayed, or weak implementation will fail to provide effective protection and may allow abusive practices against the press to persist.

 

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are abusive legal actions used by powerful individuals or entities to silence journalists and media organisations by burdening them with costly and time-consuming litigation. By creating a chilling effect and imposing significant financial pressure, such lawsuits directly threaten the media’s ability to cover public interest matters such as corruption, environmental harm, and human rights abuses.

 

The case of Maltese investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galicia is one of the clearest cases demonstrating how harmful these actions can be. The investigative journalist faced 48 libel suits at the time of her assassination in 2017, many from powerful figures she investigated. She was killed in reprisal for her work, while her case became a catalyst for anti-SLAPP efforts in Europe and the establishment of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE).

 

The EU Anti-SLAPP Directive was adopted in April 2024 to protect journalists, the media, and civil society from such lawsuits, ensuring they can continue their watchdog role without fear of legal intimidation. The willingness of the countries, however, to meaningfully transpose this Directive has proven to be limited. In many Member States, authorities refuse to acknowledge the problem of SLAPPs at the national level. Only a handful of countries have begun to implement it, as the European Anti-SLAPP Monitor shows. 

 

France and Malta stand out as few countries classified as “Partially Implemented.” However, these processes have not been ideal, as Malta’s government’s ‘summary transposition’ through a Legal Notice rather than parliamentary process, was widely criticised by Maltese stakeholders as a ‘missed opportunity’ for a meaningful transposition that does justice to the situation of SLAPP targets in Malta. 

 

A majority of Member States including Belgium, Germany, and Netherlands, have formally “Started” the transposition process. Legislative proposals have been drafted, and in some cases advanced through parliamentary stages. However, in most of these countries, concerns exist about the minimum level of transposition envisioned in the draft laws. Only a few countries have expanded the protection of SLAPP-targets in cases without a cross-border element. This is problematic, as only 8.5% of the European SLAPP cases currently are cross-border. As a result, most individuals targeted by SLAPPs continue to face legal uncertainty and insufficient safeguards. 

 

Among these, the Belgian draft law stands out as one of the more progressive transpositions of the Directive. Its legislative approach goes beyond minimum EU requirements by extending protections to domestic cases and introducing key procedural safeguards, such as early dismissal mechanisms and sanctions against abusive claimants. Yet, important gaps remain, particularly regarding SLAPPs in criminal proceedings, which may still allow certain forms of legal harassment to continue. The expansion of SLAPPs into criminal law is a concern in several other Member States where defamation has not been decriminalised, fearing that the anti-SLAPP safeguards in civil cases will lead litigants to pursue criminal cases instead.

 

At the same time, several countries, including Italy and Hungary have not yet begun transposition. This raises concerns about significant delays and uneven protection for individuals targeted by abusive litigation across Europe. 

 

In some cases, such as Portugal, limited publicly available information makes it difficult to assess the state of implementation, raising additional concerns about transparency and accountability.

 

Overall, the findings highlight a clear gap between political commitment and practical implementation. While progress is underway in many Member States, the level of protection against SLAPPs remains inconsistent across Europe as the deadline passes, with potential sweeping effects on journalists and their work of public interest.

 

As we mark the deadline today, the MFRR calls for effective and urgent transposition of the Directive into the national law, with robust safeguards for media freedom. We encourage member states to implement a broad set of measures that go beyond the limits set in the transposition and include domestic cases within the definition of SLAPPs. 

 

We also want to reiterate the importance of transposing the Directive alongside the requirements of the EU Anti-SLAPP Recommendation that has concurrently been adopted, as well as Council of Europe’s Recommendation countering use of SLAPPs  which offers broader protections for journalists, media and civil society. Finally, we call on candidate countries to meaningfully engage in this process and start the application of the Directive as a part of their EU path.

 

MFRR urges Member States and candidate countries to establish, in consultation with civil society organisations, mechanisms to track SLAPP cases and evaluate the Directive’s effectiveness, as well as support mechanisms to ensure targets of SLAPPs can obtain the legal and financial support they require. Media organisations, civil society, and policymakers must work together to resist SLAPPs and defend public interest journalism. 

 

Moving forward, the European Commission should closely monitor progress and be prepared to take swift infringement action where Member States fall short. The Directive must provide broad protections across the bloc, rather than result in a fragmented landscape where safeguards depend on national borders. This should be done promoting a meaningful engagement with the media and civil society.

 

The transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is a critical step in safeguarding media freedom and the right to public participation, and the states must ensure timely, effective transposition that will serve media and civil society both nationally and across the EU. 

Signed by:

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