Allgemein

Hungary: New EU Media Board should assess Blikk acquisition…

Hungary: New EU Media Board should assess Blikk acquisition by pro-government media group

The undersigned Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners and Médiafórum today raise alarm about the recent acquisition of Hungary’s most-read tabloid newspaper by a pro-government media group and calls on the newly established European Board for Media Services to launch an assessment of the merger and its potentially negative impact on media pluralism in Hungary.

21 November 2025

Our organisations call on the European Board for Media Services (Media Board) – the independent EU advisory body established by the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) – to initiate an advisory opinion on the takeover, which we hope will be an important test case for ensuring free and pluralistic media inside the bloc.

 

In early November 2025, it was announced that Indamedia, a pro-government media group, had reached a deal with Ringier, a Swiss media company, to purchase its portfolio of media titles in Hungary for an undisclosed sum. The purchase includes Blikk, the country’s most popular tabloid, which has three million monthly online readers as well as several regional newspapers.

 

The acquisition represents yet another example of the consolidation of media under government-aligned ownership. Indamedia is linked to the Prime Minister’s business circle through the influence and partial ownership of Miklós Vaszily. Vaszily owns 50% of Indamedia and is also president of TV2, a major pro-government television channel. His career includes leading roles at other Orbán-aligned outlets, including Origo, which was transformed into staunchly government-friendly media under his stewardship.

 

Indamedia already owns Index, a formerly independent online news website which was captured in 2020. If the same policies enforced at Index and Origo are now implemented at Blikk, a market leader, it would further shrink the space for citizens to access pluralistic media content. With the recent appointment of a new editor-in-chief aligned with the new owners, the threat of editorial adjustments appears high.

 

Crucially, this merger comes less than six months before the April 2026 election in which the ruling Fidesz party is facing its biggest challenge in a decade and tails in the polls. The acquisition therefore looks timed to tighten media control ahead of the vote and increase the ability of the government to reach voters.

 

The takeover, and its timing, must also be viewed against the backdrop of the Hungarian government’s long term media capture strategy, in which media titles owned by foreign owners retreating from the market have been bought up at opportune moments in strategic acquisitions led by business interests linked directly or indirectly with the government or the Prime Minister, after which new editors are brought in, the editorial line is recalibrated, and overt criticism and watchdog journalism is silenced, and to differing levels replaced with political propaganda. Examples include the sale in 2016 – also by Ringier – of the newspaper Népszabadság to Mediaworks, a company with close ties to the government who promptly closed the paper.

 

Over the past 15 years, the government has successfully orchestrated this strategy to the point where it is estimated the government holds sway or indirect control over 80% of the media market. This has been combined with capture of the public broadcaster, the installation of former Fidesz MPs to control the key media regulator, and the deliberate bloating of state advertising budgets to prop up media towing the government line. As a new report published this week outlines, the result is the most sophisticated system of media capture and control ever developed within the European Union.

 

The EU Commission’s flagship European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which entered into full force in August 2025, was developed in part to address the systemic challenges to democratic systems posed by such state-led media capture. With this new regulatory framework in place, all key obligations under the EMFA are now mandatory for Member States. The Media Board, established specifically to advise the European Commission, now has a mandate, and a duty, to act.

 

Under EMFA, any media merger that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence qualifies for assessment. Under the new rules, the Media Board can issue an opinion after being consulted by the relevant national regulator. In Hungary, the Media Council and the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH) are tasked with assessing such mergers. However, there has been no indication so far that either body will do so. As the Hungarian government has challenged EMFA before the European Court of Justice seeking to have it nullified, any interaction with Hungarian regulators appears unlikely.

 

Even if it were to launch its own assessment, the Media Council is dominated by former Fidesz MPs and is the target of infringement proceedings by the Commission over its discriminatory decision to reject the license renewal of one of the country’s last critical radio broadcasters. It is therefore unlikely that any assessment conducted by the Media Council on this merger would be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory – the criteria set out under EMFA for such assessments.

 

Instead, in the absence of an independent consultation by the national regulators, rules state that the Media Board may issue an opinion on its own initiative, or when requested by the European Commission. Given the clear impact the merger in Hungary will have, our organisations believe this represents an important first potential case for the Media Board. Rather than wait for the Commission’s appeal, the Board should swiftly launch its own assessment. This advisory opinion should address the wider landscape for media pluralism in Hungary, and examine the editorial practices imposed by Indamedia after previous acquisitions, as well as its connections to government.

 

When completed, the Media Board can then present its assessment to the Hungarian Media Council, which is, under EMFA rules, obliged to take its opinion “to the fullest extent possible”. If this opinion is disregarded, the regulator is obliged to submit its reasoning to the Board and the Commission explaining its position and why the opinion was not followed.

 

While any conclusions made by the Board assessment are non-binding, we believe this impact assessment can still play an important role in highlighting the undemocratic nature of the takeover at the European level. In addition, any actor seeking to challenge the merger under domestic law will be able to cite in the Board’s advisory opinion in court. Moving forward, assessments of the Media Board on Hungary must be combined with close monitoring of implementation of the EMFA in Hungary by the Commission, which should use all tools at its disposal to enforce the rules.

 

While our organisations recognise that the EMFA alone cannot and will not be a silver bullet for addressing systemic challenges in Hungary, its provisions must be utilised to the fullest extent to roll back entrenched media capture, to the benefit of a free and pluralistic media market, and more widely the country’s democracy. The EMFA’s new rules are now in place. No time should be wasted in using them.

Signed by:

  • International Press Institute (IPI)
  • European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)
  • European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) 
  • Médiafórum Egyesület (Hungary)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

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

Allgemein

Serbia: Election of REM Council undermines democratic principles

Serbia: Election of REM Council undermines democratic principles

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) today expresses renewed concern over the undemocratic process by which the National Assembly conducted the latest election for the Council of the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Media (REM), Serbia’s key media regulator.

20 November 2025

After a delay of more than one year, the National Assembly last week appointed eight members to the REM Council, including four candidates seen by media experts as independent. However, it failed to approve the ninth appointee representing the country’s national minorities after the ruling majority abstained, drawing criticism of obstruction and leading to the resignation of four of the elected members.

 

Our organisations warn the European Union that the deliberate exclusion of the representative of the national minority councils, which followed non-transparent adjustments to the nomination criteria and procedure, represents yet another effort by the ruling majority to retain government influence over the body and block democratic reform of the media ecosystem.

 

The recent vote violates Article 12 of the country’s Law on Electronic Media, undermines the right of minority communities to legitimate representation on the REM Council, and further undermines public trust in the independence of the regulator.

 

MFRR partners stress that this election follows two previous processes favouring pro-government candidates, which we previously criticised as making a mockery of EU mandated reforms. This latest vote repeats this unsatisfactory process and provides yet another example of an entrenched strategy of media and regulatory control.

 

In light of the recent resignations of elected members, the MFRR underscore to the EU that the only acceptable outcome remains the lawful and complete appointment of the REM Council, with independent members and a legitimate minority representative. Without this, the regulator will lack credibility and cannot fulfill its role in protecting media pluralism and media ethics.

 

European standards under the newly adopted European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) are clear: national media regulatory authorities must be legally, functionally, and financially independent, shielded from political interference and influence, and appointed through fair, transparent and merit-based procedures. This recent process again violates these rules.

 

The MFRR consortium therefore urges the international community and institutions such as the OSCE and the European Union to refrain from legitimising this outcome. We stress that any assessment of progress on media freedom in Serbia must be conditioned on a complete, lawful and transparent appointment of the REM Council.

 

More widely, Serbia remains in a period of deep crisis for media freedom and has experienced significant backsliding on media freedom and freedom of expression in the past year, as rightly recognised by the European Commission in its latest EU Enlargement Package.

 

Moving forward, the MFRR will closely watch the response of the European Union and the European Commission to this alarming development and continue to update European institutions on all future latest developments regarding the REM Council.

Signed by:

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

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

Allgemein

European Democracy Shield Bolstering independent media at the core…

European Democracy Shield Bolstering independent media at the core of democratic resilience

In the face of rising digital manipulation, shrinking civic space and collapsing media business models, the European Democracy Shield offers an important opportunity to ensure safety of journalists and media viability, among other things, but only if turned into concrete action. This is what MFRR aims to follow.

18.11.2025

On 13 November 2025, the European Commission adopted its European Democracy Shield, the first comprehensive, flagship strategy for strengthening democratic resilience within the bloc, with a key focus on free and independent media, fighting disinformation and creating healthier information ecosystems to protect European values and security. 

 

The Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) partners welcome the fact that many priorities from our submission on media freedom and security of journalists, as well as EPD-led joint submission of 65 organisations, have been incorporated in the text. 

 

Strengthening the economic viability of media, and updating the EU Recommendation on the safety of journalists and to combat Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which have become a pervasive tool for silencing critical voices, are important priorities. Media and press freedom priorities are defined under the umbrella of the second focus of the European Democracy Shield, aimed at strengthening democratic institutions, free and fair elections and free and independent media. A comprehensive list of commitments has been developed to address economic viability, safety of journalists, influence of AI and disinformation. 

 

The MFRR calls for these protections to be retained and enforced. We also call for further protections of journalists from digital pressures and harmful legislation to be introduced. The MFRR also calls for the strict implementation and timeline for the implementation of these commitments, as well as for strengthening the European Democracy Shield enforcement in relation to the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and Digital Services Act (DSA).

 

Below we outline  how the EU Commission’s priorities reflected the MFRR submission on media freedom and protection of journalists. 

 

Economic viability

 

Tackling the changing business models for media and the advertising market, now increasingly dominated by online platforms that divert funding away from independent media, is one of the main issues that media is facing in terms of its viability. The commitment to reviewing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market is a positive step toward ensuring the economic viability of the media sector. However, the MFRR cautions that these measures must be implemented swiftly and effectively to prevent further erosion of media pluralism.

 

The Shield’s detailed section on funding for democracy support is particularly significant. The organisations note the Commission’s acknowledgment that additional financial resources are necessary to sustain independent media, especially in the EU neighbourhood and candidate countries. Prioritisation of core funding for independent media is vital for countering the economic pressures imposed by dominant online platforms. The creation of the Media Resilience Programme and the new MFF Global Europe could be important additions to ensure impartiality and core support in the media ecosystem. It is welcoming that media is recognised as a part of defence budgets, but we urge for the precise clarification of the timeline and understanding of the scope Media Resilience Programme and MFF will have.

 

Safety of journalists

 

One of the key priorities detailed in the document is ensuring the safety and protection of journalists, including in the EU external action, in line with the highlighted needs of our submission. To intensify its efforts to protect journalists against undue pressure, threats and attacks, the Commission commits to updating its Recommendation on the safety of journalists, which is very welcomed by our consortium.

 

Reinforcing and strengthening measures on the safety of journalists and combating abusive litigation (SLAPPs) by reviewing its anti-SLAPP Recommendation remains crucial to addressing pressures on journalists. We hope that a high-level event on combating SLAPPs will translate into concrete policies, as indicated by this document. We highlight again that the revisions should include measures that foster a sustainable support system for journalists and media targeted with SLAPPs, ensuring that they are compensated for the damages incurred; as well as to equip the judiciary and legal community with the knowledge to recognise and address SLAPPs while upholding public participation rights. 

 

That being said, our organisations stress the need for robust legal safeguards against the criminalisation of defamation and the use of foreign-agent laws, which continue to drive self-censorship and force journalists into exile.

 

The Shield also highlights that it will continue assisting the civil society actors and journalists under authoritarian regimes to ensure that “tools for digital censorship circumvention, antisurveillance and anti-shutdown solutions are available to citizens, by scaling up the rapid response work with trusted partners”. It would, nevertheless, be important to ensure that the protection from digital repression, surveillance and online pressures is strengthened both within the EU member states as well as candidate and potential candidate countries. As indicated in the MFRR submission, journalists and media professionals are increasingly targeted by spyware across Europe, with the most recent examples in Serbia and Italy. Further protections from the misuse of spyware are essential to ensure that journalists feel free to conduct their roles in protecting democracy.

 

Moreover, the Commissions’ commitment to continue funding mechanisms to monitor press freedom in EU Member States and candidate countries, such as MFRR, is an essential way of contributing to the overall goal of supporting media freedom and pluralism, as recognised in the document.

 

Finally, we are happy to see that the Commission commits to supporting quality independent media and journalism in the EU and candidates and potential candidate countries, with a specific emphasis on core funding for independent media. In addition, continued core support to exiled independent journalists and media outlets, who are working from within the EU and its neighbourhood is essential. We also hope that the support and protection will be ensured in specific cases of transnational repression of exiled journalists. These proposed funding streams should be established in the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework, and in line with the GFMD recommendations for media. 

 

AI and new technology 

 

As highlighted in the MFRR submission, the Democracy Shield recognises that AI poses significant threats to media viability and the integrity of the information ecosystem. These threats to media viability and information ecosystem are planned to be tackled through a welcomed review of the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market, with a focus on ensuring that the use of AI respects intellectual property rights and does not further destabilize media business models. Developing guidance to maintain fair competition in the digital environment is mentioned as well, particularly in light of the growing influence of AI-driven platforms that can distort media markets and advertising revenues.

 

The Commission also commits to investing in AI literacy and digital skills for both citizens and media professionals, aiming to strengthen societal resilience against AI-facilitated threats to democracy and media freedom. Though a large part of the document is focused on developing mechanisms for increased media literacy, such as the creation of European Centre for Democratic Resilience, which will host a multi-stakeholder platform, we welcome the fact that the document recognises the DSA as an important tool for media pluralism and media literacy. 

 

We therefore underscore the importance of the Digital Services Act’s provisions, which require very large online platforms and search engines to actively identify and mitigate systemic risks to media freedom and pluralism. Though the Commission commits to monitoring and enforcing these obligations, it falls short of providing actions for their implementation. We urge the Commission to formulate more concrete steps for ensuring the implementation of the DSA and to develop a risk-assessment that is reflective of the real needs of journalists on the ground. To ensure this, among other things, we call for inclusion of data from the protection mechanisms, such as MapMF, in the risk assessment process.

 

Final considerations

 

While the European Democracy Shield represents a strong initial commitment, these six organisations, alongside their partners on the ground, will remain actively engaged to ensure that the Shield not only meets but exceeds its stated goals, adapting to new challenges as they arise. The document’s success will ultimately be measured by its ability to translate promises into concrete actions that protect and sustain independent journalism in an increasingly hostile environment. 

 

We agree with Commissioner McGrath that the Shield will need to be adjusted and adapted, therefore we see the document as a strategy to enhance media viability, and safety of journalists, among many other things. In this context, we call for a development of a comprehensive action plan, that would provide clarity on how these commitments will be enforced, and in which timeline. We as MFRR commit to following the situation on the ground, and to alerting the Commission on the new developments, as well as to follow the implementation of all named commitments in the scope of our mandate.

 

An increased number of attacks against journalists and media professionals across Europe demonstrates the urgency of these commitments and recommendations. If action is not taken now, independent media risk collapse, democratic institutions will be further undermined, and the information space will remain dominated by hostile actors.

Signed by:

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

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

Library

Croatia: EFJ condemns court convicting assaulted journalist Melita Vrsaljko…

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

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

13.11.2025

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Allgemein

Open letter regarding the dismissal of journalist Gabriele Nunziati

Open letter regarding the dismissal of journalist Gabriele Nunziati

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

12.11.2025

L’italiano è sotto

Da: redazione@balcanicaucaso.org 

A: redazione@agenzianova.com 

 

Direttore responsabile Riccardo Bormioli

Agenzia Nova. Agenzia di stampa quotidiana

Redazione Via Parigi 11, 00185 Roma

November 11, 2025

Subject: Concern over the dismissal of journalist Gabriele Nunziati

 

Dear Editor-in-Chief Bormioli,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Signed by:

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

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

Oggetto: Sconcerto per il licenziamento del giornalista Gabriele Nunziati

 

Gentile direttore Bormioli,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Firmato:

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

Impunity Day: MFRR renews urgent call for justice for…

Impunity Day: MFRR renews urgent call for justice for murdered journalists around Europe

To mark the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists on November 2, the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) honours the memory of those who have lost their lives in the pursuit of truth and demands justice for the crimes committed against them.

3 November 2025

The killing of a journalist is an attack on freedom of expression, an assault on the public’s right to know and a fundamental threat to democracy. Tragically, this past year alone has seen a disturbing pattern of violence and inaction, with four killings of journalists in Europe in October alone: three in Ukraine and one in Turkey.

 

The most recent murder occurred on October 23 in Ukraine, when Olena Hubanova and Yevhen Karmazin were killed in a Russian drone attack in Kramatorsk. Earlier that month, on 3 October, French photojournalist Antoni Lallican was killed in a targeted drone strike. Reporting confirmed that Lallican was killed with the use of an FPV (first-person view) drone, which allows operators to visualise their targets at the moment of the strike with the use of a camera. Lallican was visiting visible PRESS markings at the time of his death.  

 

The ongoing and apparently deliberate targeting by the Russian military of journalists in Ukraine, and the fact that Russia refuses to investigate or even limit strikes on media workers, are stark reminders of the dangers journalists working in conflict zones face and the urgent need for protection and accountability.

 

These risks are not only confined to war zones, as demonstrated by the death of Victoria Roshchyna, a Ukrainian journalist detained and held in custody for over a year at an undefined location by Russian authorities. Roshchyna, whose death was confirmed in October 2024, weighed only 30 kilograms at the time of her death. Her body showed signs of torture while in Russian captivity.

 

In Turkey, Hakan Tosun, a journalist and activist known for his reporting on ecological destruction and local corruption, was brutally beaten in Istanbul and died from his injuries on 13 October 2025. The Büyükçekmece Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office is reportedly investigating the case. With two arrests made, authorities must now swiftly confirm whether his journalistic work was the motive behind the attack.

 

Impunity meanwhile continues for dozens more journalists killed in Europe in recent years. In total, 15 journalists were killed in relation to their activities since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. To date, no one has been held accountable for any of these killings.

 

Within the EU, seven years after the assassination of investigative reporter Ján Kuciak and his fiancée Martina Kušnírová in Slovakia, the alleged mastermind has been acquitted multiple times. In Malta, while two men were recently sentenced for their roles in the car bombing that killed Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017, the alleged mastermind has yet to face justice, with a trial expected to start next year. In Greece, the murder of Giorgos Karaivaz in April 2021 remains unsolved, with two suspects acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

 

These tragedies are not isolated incidents but part of a global crisis of impunity for the killing of journalists, both in and outside of conflict zones. This lack of justice sends a chilling message that those who target journalists can do so without accountability and that violence is an acceptable means to silence the press. We call on governments to ensure thorough and independent investigations, to protect journalists at risk, and to support independent media in their vital work.

 

On this day, MFRR partners reaffirm our commitment to pushing for justice for journalists who have lost their lives. We will continue to monitor these cases, advocate for justice, and demand an end to the culture of impunity at the international level. Justice delayed is justice denied. The time to act is now.

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)
  • Osservatorio Balcani Caucaso Transeuropa (OBCT)

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

Allgemein

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

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

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

22.10.2025

Türkçe açıklama aşağıdadır…

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Signed by:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

İmzalayanlar:

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

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

Allgemein

Italy: Car bomb attack on investigative journalist Sigfrido Ranucci…

Car bomb attack on investigative journalist Sigfrido Ranucci rings alarm for media freedom in Italy

The undersigned journalists and media freedom organisations strongly condemn the car bomb attack on one of Italy’s leading investigative journalist Sigfrido Ranucci and his family. We welcome the opening of an investigation by the Anti-Mafia Investigation Division and call for an urgent assessment of the effectiveness of the protective measures applied to the journalist.

17 October 2025

On 16 October 2025, at around 10 p.m. a bomb consisting of 1kg explosive detonated near the car of Rai journalist Sigfrido Ranucci in Pomezia, near Rome. The bomb went off 20 minutes after Ranucci’s daughter parked the car. No one was injured in the attack, which damaged the two vehicles and a nearby home.

 

Ranucci is a longtime host of Report, the investigative programme broadcast on Rai 3, known for its in-depth reporting on corruption and organised crime. In recent years, he has been the target of numerous threats and intimidation. He was granted police protection in 2010, which was enhanced in 2021, following threats from mafia-style organisation N’drangheta. 

“Last summer, a year ago, we found two P38 bullets outside our house. Since then, a series of unusual situations have occurred in recent months, starting with the attempt to discredit me,” he told Il Fatto Quotidiano. Earlier this year, Ranucci appeared before the European Parliament, where he denounced that he had been under surveillance by the Italian secret services.

 

Following the attack, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said that he has given instructions to strengthen the journalist’s protection “to the maximum”. The journalist was provided with an armoured car and armed escort, as he himself announced when leaving offices of the Carabinieri, where he had filed a complaint. Opposition parties have urged the Anti-Mafia Committee in the parliament to grant an urgent hearing to Ranucci, in order to acquire his position on the case.

 

Ranucci joined the public broadcaster Rai in 1991 and devoted most of his career to investigative journalism. Recently, he has been vocal on the growing difficulties in carrying out investigative journalism in Italy, especially at Rai. He often highlighted the tensions with the management of the public broadcaster and the government, which ultimately culminated in a number of vexatious lawsuits and disciplinary measures against him. He also denounced that four episodes of his investigative programme Report had been cut following an unprecedented decision by the Rai management in the programme’s 30-year history. 

 

Alessandra Costante, the General Secretary of the Italian journalists’ trade union, the Federazione Nazionale Stampa Italiana (FNSI), said the attack on Sigfrido Ranucci was “setting democracy in Italy back by several decades”: “It is an attack not only on our colleague at Report, but on freedom of information, on Article 21 of the Constitution, on the basic principles of civil coexistence and democracy. The FNSI demands that clarity be provided quickly on what happened. The attack on Ranucci shows an escalation in actions against journalism,” she added. 

 

The editorial committee of Rai Approfondimento has called a meeting of editors in the Rai headquarters today at 12 p.m. This will be followed at 4 p.m. by a sit-in organised by FNSI, Usigrai and Stampa Romana together with colleagues from other editorial offices.

 

We stand alongside our Italian partners in expressing solidarity with Sigfrido Ranucci and the wider journalistic community in Italy. This attack is particularly troubling as it coincides with the anniversary of the death of Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who lost her life to a car bomb on 16 October 2017. 

 

The undersigned organisations strongly condemn the attempted murder of a journalist, which constitutes a direct assault on media freedom, and urgently call for a thorough investigation to ensure that the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice. 

Signed by:

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

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.