2025 witnessed one of the most significant institutional developments in the media sector: the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), Regulation (EU) 2024/1083, which became fully applicable across the European Union in August 2025.
One year after its implementation into national law on 8 August the overall picture falls far short of expectations. The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and its affiliates in EU Member States are closely following the often complicated implementation at national level and monitoring its developments. Together with the results of this year’s Media Pluralism Monitor, which includes insights on EMFA-related themes analysing its state of play, the evidence shows that implementation is uneven across most areas and that the fragmentation gap has not been closed. While only four countries have done their homework correctly, 23 Member States are still lagging behind, with some even doing the opposite of what is expected.
The protection of spyware (Art. 4), transparency obligations for media companies (Art 6), protection from political control and financial sustainability of public service media (Art.5), public interest test for media mergers (Art. 22) as well the independence of national media regulatory authorities are the most crucial ones for the EFJ and its journalists’ unions and associations. The coming year will show if there is a political will to make a much needed difference in media regulation and its political culture so essential for the democratic resilience in Europe. Especially on spyware protection, which does not require major institutional reforms, but clear guarantees and a careful interpretation of exceptions linked to national security and public interest, the EFJ has been alarmed in France, Greece, Hungary and Italy to name a few.
It is up to national governments, independent media regulators, the European Board for Media Services and media operators to turn these legal rights into daily protection. “Such an interplay of different actors only works when transparency and sufficient resources are at the centre, and when actors can be held accountable for what is being done correctly and what is not,” said Renate Schroeder, Director of the EFJ.
She added: “And certainly, active oversight from the European Commission, and the political will to launch infringement procedures against Member States that violate the EMFA, independent of geopolitical or other interests, is crucial.“
Given the lack of implementation in many Member States when it comes to building a structure that serves independent public media, the EFJ will launch a campaign on the crucial role of independent, well-financed public service media in a time of increased disinformation, polarisation and a weakened information ecosystem.
The EFJ is also in consultation with the European Media Board, particularly regarding media concentration and the public interest test at national level (Art. 22 and Art. 23). So far, implementation across Europe is uneven: according to the MPM, as of 2025, 16 countries have no media pluralism test in place, and nine others have older laws that may not comply with Article 22. The EU Media Board faces challenges around interpreting what constitutes an “internal market effect”, limited resources (opinions are drafted by regulators as a side function), and questions over how much practical impact its opinions can have, particularly in countries experiencing democratic backsliding. As the MPM rightly suggests, the Board should be encouraged to engage civil society, journalist organisations and academics more systematically. There is a strong need for Article 22 guidelines from the Commission.
Source: EFJ
