Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression, is the ultimate reference text. The European Court of Human Rights has emphasized that freedom of expression applies “not only … [to] ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also … those that offend, shock or disturb” and it has highlighted the “the essential role of a free press in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic society”.[1]  The Court has furthermore emphasized the editorial freedom of media to decide on the form of their reporting,[2] and that the media cannot be prevented from publishing on issues of public interest – and in particular, on current affairs issues – unless there is a strong public interest to the contrary.[3]

The Committee of Ministers has adopted several recommendations and declarations emphasising the importance of media freedom and editorial independence of the media. Among many others, these include Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)11 on principles for media and communication governance;[4] Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)4 on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age;[5] Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 on a new notion of media;[6] the 2007 Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on protecting freedom of expression and information in times of crisis;[7] and the 2004 Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media.[8]

Media pluralism is a vital part of the right to freedom of expression and the public’s right to be informed.[1] This has been affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights in several cases. For example, in Çetin and Others v. Turkey, which concerned a ban on the circulation of a newspaper in a region of Turkey, the Court held that:

“[C]itizens must be permitted to receive a variety of messages … [W]hat sets democratic society apart is this plurality of ideas and information.”[2]

This requires more than ‘just’ ensuring that there are many media outlets. The Court has emphasized that “it is not sufficient to provide for the existence of several channels or the theoretical possibility for potential operators to access the audio-visual market. It is necessary in addition to allow effective access to the market so as to guarantee diversity of overall programme content, reflecting as far as possible the variety of opinions encountered in (…) society.”[3]

The Court has emphasized that the State is the “ultimate guarantor” of media pluralism[4] and that States have an “obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism.”[5] In a 2022 judgment, the Grand Chamber of the Court emphasized that States must “adapt the existing regulatory frameworks, particularly with regard to media ownership, and adopt any regulatory and financial measures called for in order to guarantee media transparency and structural pluralism as well as diversity of the content distributed.”[6]

The Committee of Ministers has provided detailed guidance to states on how best to implement these standards. Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1 on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership[7] recommends a number of measures, including by regular market monitoring, ensuring effective competition, preventing individual actors from building up disproportionate market power, and taking steps to promote quality journalism and the availability of diverse media content. The Recommendation also emphasizes the importance of public service media and minority, regional, local, and not-for-profit community media: “Such independent media give a voice to communities and individuals on topics relevant to their needs and interests, and are thus instrumental in creating public exposure for issues that may not be represented in the mainstream media and in facilitating inclusive and participatory processes of dialogue within and across communities and at regional and local levels.” Transparency of ownership is key and Recommendation (2018)1 therefore also recommends several steps to in this regard, including the disclosure of ultimate beneficiary owners.

Recommendation (2018)1[1] recommends positive measures to enhance the quantity and quality of media coverage of issues that are of interest and relevance to groups which are underrepresented in the media. Support measures can be financial, such as through advertising and subsidies, as well as non-financial. States must take great care to avoid any bias, or even the appearance of bias in allocating support, and the following principles should be followed:

• Support should be based on clear, precise, equitable, objective and transparent criteria, and be administered transparently and in a non-discriminatory manner by an independent body;
• The editorial and operational autonomy of the media should be respected;
• There should be annual reports on the use of public funds to support media.

Recommendation CM/Rec(2022)4 on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age[2] recommends a number of steps that states can take to support quality journalism:

• Carry out a needs assessment;
• Provide targeted support for specific types of journalism;
• Fund the provision of local news in the public interest;
• Develop viewpoint-neutral tax policies that support media innovation;
• Allow media to operate as non-profits and benefit from appropriate tax advantages.  

The Committee of Experts on Increasing Resilience of Media (MSI-RES) was established in 2021 to produce, by the end of 2023, a study on good practices for sustainable media financing.[3]

The European Court of Human Rights has held that where a public broadcaster exists, the state must guarantee that it “provides a pluralistic service … it is indispensable for the proper functioning of democracy that it transmits impartial, independent and balanced news, information and comment and … provides a forum [where a broad] spectrum of views and opinions can be expressed.”[1]

The Court has cited Committee of Ministers Recommendation (1996)10 on the Guarantee of the Independence of Public Service Broadcasting, highlighting in particular that the legal framework for public service broadcasting organisations should protect their editorial independence and institutional autonomy; that rules governing the status and appointment of the governing boards should prevent any risk of political or other interference; and that the regulatory framework should require that news programmes fairly present facts and events and encourage the free formation of opinions.

Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)1 restates the importance of public service media in relation to media pluralism and recommends that states should “guarantee adequate conditions for public service media to continue to play this role in the multimedia landscape, including by providing them with appropriate support for innovation and the development of digital strategies and new services.” The Parliamentary Assembly has called on states to protect the editorial independence and operational autonomy of public service media and ensure stable, sustainable, transparent and adequate funding.[2]

The 2022 joint Council of Europe and the European Broadcasting Union Conference on “Public Service Media for Democracy” expressed strong concern about threats to public service media in many countries and recommended that there should be a renewed commitment to media freedom, pluralism, and independent and sustainable public service media; and that the influence of party politics on funding decisions needs to be curtailed. It recommended that existing commitments need to be implemented, in particular by:

• securing a robust and broad, platform-neutral remit ensuring that public service media can deliver quality impartial content to a wide audience, innovate, adapt to a changing media environment and drive digital transformation;
• providing stable and adequate funding which is fair, justifiable, transparent, and accountable;
• ensuring strong editorial and institutional independence;
• enabling effective governance through supervisory bodies with pluralistic composition and members who are independent and competent, and who can hold public service media to account;
• ensuring the independence of national regulatory authorities;
• ensuring the availability, findability, accessibility and prominence of PSM;
• information and other content online, including on social media.

Online resources:

Council of Europe Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals, Freedom of Expression

Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM)

Council of Europe website on public service media

Digest: Council of Europe Standards on Public Service Media

European Broadcasting Union Knowledge Hub on Public Service Media

All European countries guarantee the right to freedom of expression, as a matter of constitutional law as well as through their ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In some countries, the constitution specifically protects media freedom and aspects thereof. For example:

• Article 5(2) of Germany’s Basic Law provides that “[f]reedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.”
• The Swedish Constitution consists of four fundamental laws, including the Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. These are considered the foundations of democratic society and provide detailed guarantees of media freedom;[1]
• Belgium’s Constitution provides that “[t] The press is free; censorship can never be introduced; no security can be demanded from authors, publishers or printers … When the author is known and resident in Belgium, neither the publisher, the printer nor the distributor can be prosecuted.”[2]
• Article 14 of the Greek Constitution provides that “[t]he press is free. Censorship and all other preventive measures are prohibited. The seizure of newspapers and other publications before or after circulation is prohibited.”

In France, media pluralism is an objective with constitutional value.[3]

The Portuguese Constitution not only protects media freedom, but clarifies that this implies protection not just for media outlets but also for individual journalists. Article 38 stipulates that “[f]reedom of the press implies … the freedom of expression and creativity on the part of journalists and other employees, as well as the freedom of journalists to participate in the decision of the editorial policy of their media, except when this is of a doctrinal or religious nature”.

The editorial independence of the media and of journalists is guaranteed in the legislative frameworks of most European countries. Austrian law expressly recognizes the independence of the public broadcaster and its journalists;[4] the Bulgarian Radio and Television Law provides that the independence of media service providers and their activities from political and economic intervention is guaranteed;[5] the French Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 guarantees the independence of the media and journalists;[6] Latvia’s Press Law prohibits interference with the operations of the mass media is prohibited; and Lithuanian law prohibits exerting influence on media, their owners and journalists with the objective of obtaining incorrect or biased reporting.[7]

Some European countries protect journalists from having to publish material that contradicts their values, beliefs, or convictions. For example, in Austria, journalists may refuse to collaborate on the content creation of postings or presentations that contradict their beliefs in fundamental issues or the principles of the profession of journalism; Latvia’s Press Law similarly empowers journalists to refuse to prepare and publish material if it conflicts with their views; and Georgia’s Law on Freedom of Speech protects the right of a journalist “to make editorial decisions based on his/her conscience”.[8]

In practice, achieving media pluralism takes more than the introduction of legislation. The countries that score the lowest concentration of ownership and the lowest overall risk to media pluralism in the Media Pluralism Monitor, a media monitoring study conducted annually under the aegis of the European University Institute which covers 32 countries across Europe,[1] feature a combination of legislation and additional measures.

In Germany, the only country scoring a ‘low risk’ to media pluralism, media pluralism falls under the competence of the federal states (Länder). These have strict regulations covering media ownership and control (within and across different media sectors); transparency of ownership; support measures; the independence of public service media; and the protection of individual journalists. They also promote independent media including regional, local, minority, and not-for-profit community media outlets. Each of the fourteen media authorities is designed as an independent regulatory authority. Broadcasters are required to report ownership information and plans affecting the shareholders’ structure; online media entities need to display ownership information in the imprint information on their websites; and print media transparency obligations are stipulated in the respective state press laws. The Commission on Concentration in the Media (KEK) monitors concentration of ownership and maintains a publicly accessible database.

In Portugal, another country with a relatively good score on media pluralism, investors with more than 5% of share capital and other significant sources of finance must be made public; there is support for independent media (especially regional, local, minority, and not-for-profit community media) and public service media; journalists are protected by law against undue influence; and there is periodic review by the Regulatory Entity for Media) regarding the state of media independence in the country.[2]

Transparency of funding and ownership is crucial, and several countries have recently introduced or strengthened legislation in this regard. In Croatia, the revised Electronic Media Act updated rules on the transparency of state advertising and media ownership, and on media concentration; Estonia amended its media law to and enhance the transparency of media ownership, including beneficial owners; and Portugal extended its already comprehensive legislative framework regulating the transparency of media ownership, requiring on-demand services and video sharing platforms to register ownership data with the Regulatory Authority for the Media.[3] In the Czech Republic, there is a register of the beneficial owners of undertakings including media.[4]

In some countries there are publicly accessible registers that detail media ownership and funding, including in some cases income from public sources (through advertising or other forms of support). For example, in Lithuania, a public Information System of Producers and Disseminators of Public Information (‘VIRSIS’) provides data on media owners and funding received by media from public bodies. A valuable academic initiative regarding this topic is the Euromedia Ownership Monitor, which publishes a database with information on ownership and control of the most relevant news media in 15 EU countries.[5]

In Denmark and Sweden, the largest media outlets in these countries are owned and run by foundations whose purpose is to ensure the viability of the media without dependence on shareholders or public funds. This has important practical implications: “Denmark has not experienced problems with political affiliated businessowners who have taken control over central media outlets and used it for direct or indirect political influence. This is due to the large public service sector and to the tradition of foundation ownership.”[6] Academics have commented, with regard to the Swedish model, that “upholding the 4th estate is an important basis for the foundations’ strategic decisions, and not profitability per se; profitability is instead seen as a means to produce journalistic content.”[7]

Several states provide support to the media, in different forms:

• In Portugal, Executive Law 23/2015 guarantees public support for regional and local news media, depending on their levels of development and readership;
• In 2021, the Luxembourg Parliament approved a support scheme for digital and emerging media, the amount of support calculated according to the number of journalists;[1]
• In Denmark, public subsidies are determined by the number of journalists employed; the diversity of readership; and the amount of political and cultural content created.[2]

Ensuring an absence of bias is crucial. In 2021, the Austrian government announced a reflection process given concerns about high spending on state advertising, the fairness and transparency of its allocation, and political influence in the process.[3]

The independence of public service media is paramount to their ability to fulfil their function. The most effective way to ensure independence is by anchoring this in legislation, allocating long-term funding, and establishing a governing structure that protects the broadcaster from political interference. The Media Pluralism Monitor ranks Germany highest in this relation because of its robust funding allocations for public service media, determined by an independent body; fair and transparent appointment procedures for the directors and management of the broadcasters with only one-third of supervisory board members being political appointees; and an absence of attempts by politicians to influence the public broadcasters.[1]  Lithuania has a similarly robust score. The Law on Lithuanian National Radio and Television[2] (LRT) ensures that Council members’ terms of office does not coincide with those of appointing institutions and bodies; members may not be members of political parties; and members cannot be dismissed before the end of their term, save on the limited grounds specified in the Law. The LRT’s Director General is selected through a public competition and can be dismissed only by a two thirds’ majority of the members of the Council. The LRT is financed from a fixed share of tax income.

In Sweden, where the independence of public service media is also closely guarded, the Swedish Radio and Television Act and the Freedom of Expression Act guarantee the independence of public service media from economic and political interests. Appointment procedures protect the independence of the boards and management, and there are no indications or any examples of conflicts concerning appointments or dismissals of managers and board members.[3] Swedish Parliament decides on the general remit, the organisational framework as well as the allocation of funding for the public service media companies ahead of each new licensing period, based on proposals by a committee of inquiry and a public consultation. The public service media companies are required to annually and publicly report on the fulfilment of the remit’s terms and conditions; these reports are assessed by the Broadcasting Commission.[4]

• States should implement constitutional protection of the right to freedom of expression as well as of media freedom and its components, such as editorial freedom of journalists, the right of access to information, the protection of confidential sources of information, and media pluralism.
• National laws and regulatory frameworks should similarly unequivocally guarantee media freedom and all its component parts, and indicate the detailed parameters for its effective promotion and enforcement as well as the limited circumstances in which it may be restricted.

• States should adopt legislation requiring transparency of media ownership, including with regard to the beneficial owners of media companies, and make the resulting register accessible to the public.
• States should restrict concentration of media ownership including by promoting effective competition and ensuring that no particular individual, company, or consortium of companies can acquire ownership or control of a large percentage of the media market within a sector or across different sectors.
• States should ensure a regular independent monitoring and evaluation of the state of media pluralism and independence of the media.
• States should promote the availability, findability and accessibility of the broadest possible diversity of media content.  
• States should develop, in a multi-stakeholder environment, strategies and mechanisms to support professional news media and quality independent and investigative journalism.
• States should implement a comprehensive regulatory framework for media ownership.

• States should implement support measures and ensure they are based on clear, precise, equitable, and transparent criteria.
• Support measures should respect the editorial and operational autonomy of the media.
• Support measures should be administered in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner by an independent body.
• There should be annual reports on the use of public funds to support media.
• States should carry out a needs assessment of the financial sustainability of quality journalism.
• States should provide targeted support for specific types of journalism.
• States should support the provision of local news in the public interest, and implement other measures to ensure that community and independent media have sufficient resources.
• States should develop viewpoint-neutral tax policies to support media innovation.
• States should allow for the operation of media outlets as non-profits and allow appropriate tax benefits.
• States should support the innovation and the development of digital strategies and new services.

• States should protect the editorial independence and operational autonomy of public service media, including by limiting the influence of the state and ensuring that supervisory and management boards are independent.
• States should ensure stable, long-term, sustainable, transparent and adequate funding for public service media.