On November 4, the European Commission (the EU’s highest executive authority) approved another report on the EU candidate countries. This is the third report the European Commission (hereinafter referred to as the EC) has issued since Ukraine received candidate status. The report covers all clusters and chapters: from competition, the agricultural market, and healthcare, to fundamental rights and artificial intelligence. In this article, we will assess only what directly or indirectly relates to freedom of expression. 

Freedom of Expression

As in 2024, the European Commission notes that Ukraine remains between a “some” and “moderate” level of preparation regarding freedom of expression (between 2 and 3 on a 5-point scale), and that despite Russian aggression, it has achieved some progress. However, for the third year in a row, the EC’s recommendations remain almost unchanged: specifically, to continue its efforts to maintain and gradually strengthen a transparent, pluralistic and independent media landscape, ensuring that restrictions imposed temporarily by martial law comply with key public rights and interests, such as access to information and media freedom.

Overall, as the EC report notes, Ukraine provides legal guarantees for the freedom of expression; however, additional steps are needed to ensure effective conditions for independent media to operate. 

Protection vs. Intimidation

In 2025, the tone of the section changed: instead of highlighting “protection of journalists”, the heading now uses the phrase “intimidation of journalists”. This signals that the EC is emphasizing not formal guarantees but the effectiveness of investigations into cases of pressure. It is evident that freedom of expression, as one of the EU’s fundamental pillars, is under heightened scrutiny. And the harassment of journalists, especially through the use of deepfakes (as in the case of Olena Mudra) could not go unnoticed. And while the 2024 report noted cases of “harassment and intimidation of journalists, including illegal surveillance and threats of enlistment into the armed forces”, this year it explicitly states the need to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations.

The EU also pays particular attention to SLAPP lawsuits, and while two cases were mentioned last year, in 2025 the EU noted the creation of a working group to develop mechanisms to counter SLAPP. 

The EC explicitly emphasizes that Ukraine must ensure journalists’ safety and independence, as well as respect for their role in informing the public.

Suspilne

The 2025 report gives more attention to Suspilne (Public Broadcasting Company). The European Commission noted that Ukraine has made some progress, particularly regarding the Public Broadcaster’s financial independence. However, it also stressed that the level of funding is still below the threshold set by law.

Additionally, the reports’ rhetoric has shifted: from the general call to “ensure proper funding” to “maintain adequate funding for the Public Service Broadcaster to allow the independent public service media to carry out their role as enshrined in Ukraine’s legislation, and ensure that content produced by publicly funded media are representative of Ukraine’s political and societal pluralism“. In this subtle way, the European Commission hints that attempts at political control over Suspilne are not a good idea. The EC also emphasizes that the Suspilne’s independence must be not only institutional but also editorial.

Other State Media

The European Commission noted that the Rada TV channel resumed live broadcasting of the plenary sessions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on September 16, 2025. As for the Telethon, for the second year in a row it has emphasized the need to assess the appropriateness of this platform. The 2025 report notes that it should be shut down after the suspension of martial law. The EC explicitly states that the basis for this requirement is “an ongoing decline in public trust and outreach”. The wording about “the pluralism of content produced with public funds” is applied by the EC both to Suspilne and to the Telethon, which indicates the need to review the Telethon’s editorial model.

Regulator

When it comes to the National Council on Television and Radio Broadcasting of Ukraine, the European Commission, as in the case of Suspilne, points to insufficient funding. As far back as 2024, the European Commission emphasized that with the adoption of the media law, the powers of the National Council were expanded, but it has limited resources and capacity to exercise them. And since the state has not provided these resources for two years in a row, the guarantee of proper funding for the National Council is not being fulfilled. 

Regional Media and Pluralism

In 2024, the EC described economic factors: the decline of the advertising market due to the war and a lack of revenue, especially in front-line regions. The 2025 report notes (not stating it explicitly, though) the USAID withdrawal as an additional factor creating difficulties for the independent regional and local media. 

At the same time, this year’s report also mentions the need for greater disclosure of media ownership structures, especially when it comes to online platforms. Here the EC directly points to the need to adopt Draft Law No. 12111, which introduces a number of amendments to the media law.

It also states for the second year in a row the problem of low salaries for media professionals, which worsens working conditions and pushes them to seek better-paid jobs. It is worth noting that the situation of regional media also depends on the level of overall support for Ukraine, since a prolonged war will inevitably worsen economic conditions. 

Legislation and Its Implementation

Last year, the European Commission focused on the adopted roadmap to support the re-establishment of a pluralistic, transparent, and independent post-war media environment after the termination or revocation of martial law, as well as on the transparency of local self-government bodies and the Commander-in-Chief’s Order regarding rules for journalists working in combat zones.

The 2025 report also emphasized the need to continue implementing the media roadmap. But the report is largely focused on legislative initiatives, particularly on Draft Law No. 12111 aimed at strengthening the institutional and functional independence of the national media regulator, improving media ownership transparency, and further aligning Ukrainian law with the European Media Freedom Act.

In addition, the report mentions Draft Law No. 12253 on improving the advertising law, which, in particular, attempts to modernize the law to reflect developments in online advertising and artificial intelligence. The draft law is intended to align Ukrainian legislation with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and other EU acts. 

Another positive development cited by the EU is the adoption of the law ensuring access for journalists and the public to parliamentary committee meetings. However, it should be noted that this law has not been signed by the President. 

The EU also mentioned the draft laws that are viewed with concern or openly pose a threat to media freedom. 

The first is the notorious  Draft Law No. 12230 which equates a lawyer with their client. It may be used to exert pressure on investigative journalism when lawyers represent individuals featured in journalistic materials. The EU explicitly emphasized that the broad protective clause does not provide for a sufficient balance with the protection of the freedom of expression, and the law should be revised. At present, the law is also awaiting the President’s signature. 

The EU also focused on the process of recodifying the Civil Code. The European Commission diplomatically notes that “certain provisions risk restricting the space of freedom of expression as well as potentially leading to a surge in SLAPP cases and need to be reconsidered”. This clearly refers to the new version of Article 277 on retractions.

Overall, according to the EC, Ukrainian media legislation generally complies with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and is only partially aligned with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). 

Compared with 2024, the report no longer mentions the need to reconsider restrictions on Russian TV channels after the end of the war – a change that can be cautiously seen as an internal reassessment of the role of Russian media within the European Union. This year’s version of the requirement is reduced to a statement that “current media restrictions imposed by martial law, including restricting the transmission of programmes and audiovisual commercial content/communications, are still considered necessary to protect Ukraine’s information space in the current security situation, although they will need to be reassessed upon lifting of martial law”. 

Among the new additions is a reference to the need to exclude the mandatory state registration of regulatory acts of the National Council with the Ministry of Justice, as provided for by the recently adopted Law on Law-Making Activities. 

Artificial Intelligence

The 2024 report did not mention artificial intelligence. This paragraph appeared only this year. The European Commission points out that Ukraine has not yet aligned its legislation with the EU AI Act. White Paper on AI Regulation in Ukraine and the Roadmap for AI Regulation in Ukraine pave the way for such alignment. Ukraine is planning to develop and adopt its National AI Development Strategy for the period up to 2030 by the end of this year. In August 2025, the Ukrainian government announced the launch of its first state infrastructure for AI development – the AI Factory – and efforts to create national large language model (LLM).

It is worth noting that harmonizing Ukrainian AI legislation may trigger complex debates, as literal implementation of the Act could paralyze innovation and push small and medium-sized businesses into the shadow economy. 

Disinformation and Counteraction

The 2024 report mentioned disinformation in the context of the above-mentioned roadmap for restoring the media market and Ukraine-EU interaction. Last year, the EU also noted that Ukraine continued to face several challenges to Internet freedom, in particular due to measures taken to counter Russian cyberattacks, hacking, and disinformation campaigns. The 2024 report stated that access to Internet resources should be regulated properly, in accordance with the international human rights standards and the EU legislation on freedom of expression, data protection, and individual privacy. This year, a call was added to increase transparency in decisions regarding restricted access to Internet resources, to limit the potential for abuses by authorities.

In 2025, disinformation is mentioned in the new sections of the report. First and foremost, this concerns the protection of the first post-war democratic elections. The report directly states that one of the challenges will be to effectively counter cyber threats and disinformation, in particular by protecting independent, transparent, and pluralistic media. 

Another mention is given in Section 31, which notesUkraine’s alignment with statements by the High Representative on behalf of the EU in July 2025, condemning ongoing Russian hybrid campaigns against the European Union, its member states, and partners. Combating FIMI (foreign information manipulation and interference) and disinformation is especially important in rural and less-developed regions, which are generally less resilient to such hybrid attacks.

Personal Data Protection and Cybersecurity

The EU’s harshest assessment concerns the lack of progress in adopting personal data protection legislation that should harmonize Ukrainian law with the GDPR – the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

The EC notes that the draft laws submitted to the parliament in 2022 regarding both the new version of the law and the National Commission for Data Protection and Access to Public Information are still under consideration. Thus, Ukraine has made no progress in aligning its legal framework for data protection with the EU standards and legislation.

The continued lack of progress is concerning, and Ukraine must remain committed in its pursuit of reforms.   The EU now sees the lack of personal data protection reforms as a systemic risk that could slow negotiating chapters and integration into the European Digital Identity.

Equally harsh is the assessment of issuing 5G mobile licenses in Lviv to operators considered high-risk suppliers, specifically Huawei and ZTE. Such a license contradicts the Protocol of Intent on 5G Security between the relevant authorities adopted by Ukraine, which includes an action plan for developing and implementing 5G security rules in accordance with the EU 5G Cybersecurity Toolbox, including the enactment of provisions to exclude high-risk suppliers.

In the context of privacy, the report also mentions the use of facial recognition systems and other intrusive technologies. This includes cameras with built-in AI (e.g., Nickvision) and systems such as Clearview, Sense, and others. The use of such systems may be justified for military purposes but must comply with the European personal data protection and privacy standards in civilian life. This mention is specifically linked to surveillance of journalists and the controversial attempt to serve a summons to a journalist at the DreamBerry Shopping Mall. 

DSA/DMA

Regarding digital services and digital markets regulation, the European Commission noted steps toward aligning national legislation with the Platform-to-Business Regulation (P2B), the Digital Services Act (DSA), and the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and is currently working to define the competent authority. 

The EC’s recommendation here remains simple: Ukraine should continue preparation of draft legislation of the DSA, DMA and P2B, in consultation with relevant stakeholders. However, even with legislation adoption, there is currently no understanding of how it should operate at a stage when Ukraine is not yet an EU member.

Conclusions

The European Commission demonstrated sufficient awareness of both Ukraine’s progress and problem areas on the path to the EU. A reminder: window dressing will not work here. 

Attacks on journalists, the imbalance of the Telethon, and questionable legislative initiatives, such as equating a lawyer with a client, did not go unnoticed. SLAPP lawsuits were also highlighted.

At the same time, the EC notes progress in harmonizing media and digital legislation, as well as gradual improvements in funding for Suspilne. It also noted the initiatives regarding draft legislation to counter SLAPP, harmonization with DSA/DMA, and further alignment with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and EMFA. 

The European Commission evaluates the lack of progress in personal data protection very negatively, as it is one of the fundamental EU rights. Licensing Chinese-origin companies in the 5G network received a similarly harsh assessment. Furthermore, the EC criticized the mandatory state registration of regulatory acts of the National Council with the Ministry of Justice and explicitly requires National Council’s removal from the Law on Law-Making Activities, along with ensuring proper funding to fulfill the functions established by the Media Law. 

Extrajudicial website blocking and the use of facial recognition technologies remain problematic. These technologies cannot be freely used in civilian life, especially against media and journalists.

This material was prepared with the support of the European Union and the International Renaissance Foundation as part of the joint initiative Joining the EU Together. The material represents the authors’ views and does not necessarily reflect the position of the European Union or the International Renaissance Foundation.