Media in Europe: Subsidiarity should be reconsidered

The Hungarian media law symbolises the need for the European Union to assume its responsibilities […]

Policy Study


The Hungarian media law symbolises the need for the European Union to assume its responsibilities to defend media freedom. Interpretations of this law diverge, however. In Hungary, it is seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back, coming on top of a series of laws aiming to strengthen the current government’s powers. In Europe, following the Italian, Romanian and Bulgarian cases, it has become a symbol of debate on a European media law.

The question of whether an EU directive is necessary and would be more effective is a valid one. What added value would a directive contribute? And, most importantly, considering cultural, linguistic and legal differences is it conceivable?

As the recent cases show, the Commission’s approach of legislating in the field of the media in order to complete the single market does not constitute an absolute guarantee. There is no direct correlation between a larger number of players on the market, greater competition and greater media independence. Despite this approach, and despite the fact that the laws comply with EU legislation, the Hungarian law still includes ambiguous articles with respect to the appointment of officials and media control. Concentration problems are not always solved satisfactorily in Italy and a homogenising effect can be seen in the programmes of private and public channels. The purpose of an EU regulation would not be to impose detailed rules like those at national level. However, as the cases mentioned above suggest, national legislation no longer suffices.

It fails to offer adequate guarantees in an increasingly interconnected world. Consequently, a European media framework law determining the bases and guiding principles for the functioning of this sector seems essential to effective protection of media freedom.

Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union, the ‘subsidiarity principle’, is often evoked as a ground to object to a media law. Existing legislation is nevertheless inconsistent, does not cover all aspects and shows a number of major weaknesses.

Media freedom is an essential foundation of our democracies, however, since it enables us to take informed decisions during local, national and European elections. So there is a European dimension that calls into question the principle of subsidiarity. Furthermore, based on Articles 2 and 6 of the Treaty on European Union, a policy in support of media freedom could be seen as a sort of implicit competence.

In spite of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which includes the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Commission still does not have the capacity to act in cases of violations of human rights in general. However, it seems that the current Commission does not intend in any case to evoke more fundamental human rights principles in this connection, but on the contrary to keep to the technical aspects, as seen in the criticisms Neelie Kroes sent to the Hungarian government. More positively, the joint resolution tabled in the European Parliament by members of the S&D, ALDE and Greens-EFA groups constitutes a more courageous approach.

Will the situation change once the European Union becomes a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)? It is still hard to say whether this change will have additional effects that could convince the Commission to adopt a more explicit approach to these problems and similar questions.

The Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) and its legal experts will work to advance a progressive European approach to the media, based on respect for democratic values and fundamental rights, and will propose progressive alternatives aimed at more coherent and effective European media legislation.

Find all related publications

The Sahel region: A litmus test for EU-Africa relations in a changing global order

'12 years of crises in the Sahel' series

Progressive Yearbook 2023

Looking back to look ahead

Covid-19 crisis

Implications and lessons for European social democracy

Building resilient democracies

Challenges and solutions across the globe
Find all related events
01 - 02/12/2023
Stockholm, Sweden (Expert meeting)

Progressive Governance seminar

Ahead of a crucial election year in 2024 progressives across Europe and North America face […]
FEPS HQ (Expert meeting)

Living up to, not leaving aside

The Progressive Strategy towards the elections 2024
01 - 02/12/2023
Stockholm, Sweden (Expert meeting)

Progressive Governance seminar

Ahead of a crucial election year in 2024 progressives across Europe and North America face […]
Find all related news

Joint priorities for the Defence of Democracy Package

We are proud to share that FEPS has contributed to a paper summarising the Joint […]

Europe’s largest Gen Z-focused research ever conducted

The Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) and ThinkYoung have conducted, over 3 years, Europe’s […]
Find all related in the media
In the media

‘No one is unemployable’: the French social experiment

by EUobserver 21/03/2023
EUobserver article on unemployment in the EU with a mention to FEPS' policy brief 'A Job Guarantee for Europe.'

The EU’s magic solution

by Euractiv 29/09/2022
Interview with FEPS Secretary General László Andor on the conditionality mechanism to Hungary

Omnibus Dibattito

by La 7 19/05/2022

Mehr als 2 Drittel der jungen Menschen Angst vor einem Krieg in Europa

by STOL 19/05/2022