EU’s top court says Russia media ban reaches donation-funded bloggers

(CN) — Sharing videos from Russia’s state TV can land even a donation-funded blogger under EU sanctions, Europe’s top court ruled Thursday.

The European Court of Justice said a German court may treat three people accused of reposting videos from Russia Today Germany on the website Traugott Ickeroth as “operators” under the EU’s Russia sanctions rules, even though the website is freely accessible and not run by a traditional broadcaster.

German prosecutors accuse the trio — known only as R, N and K — of posting Russia Today Germany videos four times in 2023 through the website’s “Live-Ticker” blog. Under German law, violating the EU broadcasting ban can carry prison terms of three months to five years. Court records say R and N received more than 60,000 euros (roughly $68,400) in donations between April 2022 and August 2023.

The EU suspended broadcasts by Russia Today and Sputnik days after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, saying the Kremlin-controlled outlets were central to a disinformation campaign supporting the war. Since then, the bloc has expanded sanctions to thousands of Russian officials, oligarchs, banks, companies and other targets, making them one of its main tools for squeezing Moscow.

Europe’s courts have already upheld the basic ban. In 2022, the EU’s General Court rejected Russia Today France’s challenge, finding that the temporary broadcast suspension was justified in the exceptional context of the war and did not unlawfully violate freedom of expression. The judges also noted that the measure did not bar the outlet from doing journalistic work such as research and interviews.

Thursday’s ruling dealt with a narrower but more internet-age question: Who counts as the person broadcasting the banned content?

The judges said the law does not limit the ban to commercial broadcasters. Instead, an “operator” simply means the person responsible for making prohibited content available to the public. “Applied to the field of communication and the broadcasting of media and digital content, that term refers to any natural or legal person directly or indirectly responsible for making available or transmitting that content to the public.”

That reading also meant setting aside European Commission guidance suggesting the rule applies only to commercial or professional activity. The judges said the guidance is not legally binding and cannot narrow the legislation itself. “Where the EU legislature intended to limit the scope of a restrictive measure solely to operators engaged in an activity of an economic nature, it did so explicitly.”

The judges also flagged the risks of donation-funded websites. “Such a method of financing may thus be capable of facilitating, directly or indirectly, interference by foreign interests — including third-country interests — in the broadcasting of media content and is, therefore, capable of increasing the risk that such a website may be used to relay the propaganda campaign which the Russian Federation engages in.”

Jed Odermatt, a reader in international law at The City Law School, City St George’s, University of London, said: “By finding that profit motives are irrelevant to determining who is an ‘operator,’ the court confirms that these sanctions also apply to individuals running websites that disseminate prohibited content, closing what would otherwise have been an exploitable loophole.”

Luigi Lonardo, associate professor of European law at the Luxembourg Centre for European Law at the University of Luxembourg and adjunct faculty at Sciences Po’s Paris School of International Affairs, said the judgment shows why the court was willing to read the sanctions broadly. “This judgment is about the reach of EU censorship,” he said. “It is good news for the effectiveness of EU sanctions.”

“It would make little sense, for the purposes of the censorship, to say that journalists cannot share some content, but bloggers, influencers or private citizens who may receive donations (whose source is far from transparent) instead can," Lonardo added.

Others warned the decision could come at a cost.

Jan Penfrat, senior policy adviser at European Digital Rights, said the ruling reaches beyond sanctions enforcement and into online free speech. He said extending the ban to people publishing without a commercial motive means criminal liability could become “a substantial risk for anyone posting online,” including journalists reporting on sanctioned content or people remixing it for art or social commentary.

Penfrat also questioned whether prosecuting individuals or small noncommercial websites is proportionate while Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X continue paying users to distribute the same material through their monetization programs. He said stronger enforcement against those larger platforms under the EU’s Digital Services Act could have a greater impact.

The Saarbrücken Public Prosecutor’s Office, which is pursuing the case, welcomed the ruling, saying it confirms that individuals operating donation-funded websites can fall within the EU sanctions rules and that German law can be used to prosecute such conduct.

Lawyers for the defendants did not respond to requests for comment.

Just last week, EU governments renewed the bloc’s economic sanctions against Russia through July 2027. The ruling gives national authorities a clearer roadmap for enforcing one part of that regime in an online world where anyone with a website can become a publisher.

With the EU law question now settled, the case returns to the Saarbrücken Regional Court, where judges will decide whether the three defendants committed a crime under Germany’s sanctions law.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.