On the attempted takeover of Lithuania’s public broadcaster and the threat to democracy in Lithuania

B100073/2026

European Parliament resolution on the attempted takeover of Lithuania’s public broadcaster and the threat to democracy in Lithuania

(2026/2568(RSP))

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Articles 2 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 114 and 258 thereof,

– having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 11 thereof,

– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (European Media Freedom Act – EMFA), in particular Articles 5 and 21 thereof,

– having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of Human Rights on media freedom,

– having regard to the case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania on the constitutional status and independence of the national public broadcaster, in particular its rulings of 21 December 2006, 16 May 2019 and 3 November 2020, which set out the constitutional foundations of the national public broadcaster, its constitutional mission arising, inter alia, from Article 25 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of pluralistic democracy and the rule of law, and the inseparable requirements of editorial and institutional independence, as well as constitutional safeguards concerning governance, accountability and financing,

– having regard to the updated Rule of Law Checklist of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the European Union’s Rule of Law Toolbox,

– having regard to the recent legislative developments in Lithuania that affect the funding model for the national public broadcaster and aim to simplify procedures for the dismissal of its director general, which raise serious concerns as regards compliance with constitutional guarantees and European standards on media freedom and public service media independence,

– having regard to the Commission’s annual rule of law reports, and, in particular, to its 2025 Rule of Law Report, specifically the country chapter on the rule of law situation in Lithuania (SWD(2025)0915), which raised concerns regarding legislative developments affecting the funding model for the national public broadcaster,

– having regard to Rule 136(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas free, independent and pluralistic media constitutes one of the essential pillars of democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights within the EU;

B. whereas public service media plays a key role in ensuring access to impartial information, safeguarding pluralism, scrutinising those in power and holding public authorities accountable, countering disinformation and enabling informed democratic participation; whereas these functions can only be effectively fulfilled when the institutional and editorial independence of the public service broadcaster is fully guaranteed;

C. whereas the independent functioning of public service media providers requires robust legal safeguards at national level to protect their editorial and institutional independence and to ensure the impartial provision of a plurality of information and opinions; whereas Article 5 EMFA gives concrete expression to these requirements by laying down binding safeguards for transparent and objective procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the head of management or members of the management board of public service media providers, including provisions ensuring that any early dismissal is exceptional, duly justified, subject to prior notification and open to judicial review; whereas it also establishes safeguards for funding procedures that guarantee adequate, sustainable and predictable financial resources, while protecting editorial independence, and provides for independent monitoring mechanisms free from political influence and public reporting;

D. whereas under Article 21 EMFA, any legislative, regulatory or administrative measures taken by a Member State that are liable to affect media pluralism or editorial independence must be duly justified and proportionate; whereas under Article 3 EMFA, Member States must respect the right of citizens to have access to a plurality of editorially independent media content, to the benefit of free and democratic discourse;

E. whereas public service media providers play a particular role in the internal market for media services by ensuring that citizens and businesses have access to a diverse content offering, including quality information and impartial and balanced media coverage, and are therefore instrumental in upholding the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, enabling people to seek and receive diverse information, and in promoting the values of democracy, cultural diversity and social cohesion;

F. whereas according to Reporters Without Borders, public service media providers across the EU are increasingly subjected to political, financial and governance-related pressure, often leading to institutional capture or intimidation;

G. whereas in her 2025 State of the Union Address, the President of the Commission underlined that the decline of traditional and independent media in parts of the EU has created ‘news deserts’ in which disinformation thrives, posing a serious risk to democracy; whereas she stressed that independent media is essential for holding those in power to account and preventing corruption, and that its capture is often the first step in authoritarian playbooks, enabling democratic backsliding and corruption to occur without public scrutiny;

H. whereas experience in several Member States and around the world demonstrates that attempts to capture public service media may constitute an early step towards broader democratic backsliding; whereas the capture or weakening of public service media has been a recurring early indicator of democratic backsliding in several Member States, notably in cases where public broadcasters have been transformed into government-aligned or state-controlled media, serving as vehicles for disseminating propaganda and official narratives;

I. whereas, under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the national public broadcaster is entrusted with a special public interest mission of ensuring that society is properly informed at national level in a manner that fosters constitutional and common human values, including the protection of national interests, the strengthening of democracy, the promotion of civic consciousness, respect for the rule of law, openness and tolerance of society, the fostering of language and culture, and the prevention of disinformation;

J. whereas, under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, in carrying out this constitutionally entrusted mission, the activity of the national public broadcaster must be based on the principles of pluralistic democracy, objectivity, impartiality, and respect for human dignity and fundamental rights, including freedom of convictions and their expression;

K. whereas the Lithuanian Constitutional Court has held that the constitutional mission of the national public broadcaster implies its independence, requiring the creation of material, organisational and financial conditions and a legal framework guaranteeing independence from interference by public authorities, officials and other persons; whereas the Lithuanian Constitutional Court has also underlined that independence does not exclude accountability to the public, including reporting obligations and external oversight, but that any model of control must remain compatible with the broadcaster’s independence and must not amount to censorship or political interference;

L. whereas following the 2024 parliamentary elections in Lithuania, a governing coalition was formed that includes the far-right populist political party Nemunas Dawn; whereas in its conclusion of 25 April 2024, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania found that the leader of this party had committed a gross violation of the Constitution and a breach of the constitutional oath through antisemitic and hate-inciting statements; whereas this Nemunas Dawn party leader was subsequently found guilty by a court of first instance; whereas neither the governing coalition nor the Nemunas Dawn party have distanced themselves from these actions; whereas the Nemunas Dawn party leader continues to play a prominent role within the governing majority and has been among the most active initiators and public proponents of the campaign targeting the national public broadcaster (the LRT);

M. whereas the Lithuanian Prime Minister from this governing coalition had to resign following investigative journalism findings, including reporting by the LRT, which raised serious concerns regarding his possible involvement in corrupt practices; whereas, in the aftermath of his resignation, a sustained and escalating campaign targeting the LRT has emerged, combining legislative initiatives, financial pressure, institutional audits and political rhetoric aimed at undermining its leadership, credibility and independence;

N. whereas on 17 April 2025, at the initiative of members of the ruling parliamentary majority, the National Audit Office of Lithuania was mandated to conduct a comprehensive performance audit of the LRT, assessing its activities for 2021-2024 in terms of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; whereas in its conclusions of October 2025, the National Audit Office found that the LRT had successfully fulfilled its public service mission, that the vast majority of its strategic and operational performance indicators had been achieved at a level of at least 90 %, that its financial management and use of public resources were sound and well grounded, and that no serious violations of legal acts had been identified; whereas the audit contained only minor technical recommendations aimed at further improving internal processes and did not recommend any changes to the LRT’s funding model, governance structure or leadership, and therefore did not provide any objective basis for extraordinary political or institutional intervention;

O. whereas despite the positive findings of the National Audit Office, further and intensified pressure followed, including overlapping inspections, requests addressed to other state bodies to verify the LRT’s activities, and repeated politicised public attacks against the LRT’s management; whereas audit findings have been publicly misrepresented and selectively used in political discourse in order to delegitimise the public broadcaster and its leadership;

P. whereas on 27 November 2025, the Seimas adopted amendments to the Law on the Lithuanian National Radio and Television freezing the LRT’s budget at 2025 levels and reducing its future share of tax revenues, resulting in a structural and long-term reduction in public funding; whereas these amendments were introduced shortly before adoption and were adopted on the eve of a new financial year and without adequate deliberation, raising serious concerns as regards legal certainty, legitimate expectations and compliance with the principle of vacatio legis inherent in the rule of law;

Q. whereas draft laws were subsequently introduced, lowering the safeguards for the early dismissal of the Director General of the LRT by the LRT Council, two thirds of which (8 out of 12 members) are appointed by political authorities, namely the President and the Seimas, each of whom appoint four members; whereas these draft laws propose to replace the qualified majority necessary to dismiss the Director General with a simple majority, to remove the requirement of public interest justification and to introduce secret voting within the LRT Council;

R. whereas these politicised legislative initiatives have been introduced and advanced under accelerated legislative procedures, in the absence of objectively justified exceptional circumstances, thereby undermining transparency, inclusiveness and the meaningful participation of key stakeholders and civil society in the lawmaking process and failing to meet the requirements of a transparent, accountable, inclusive and democratic lawmaking procedure, contrary to European and constitutional standards of responsible governance, as well as best practices and legal standards for the lawmaking process;

S. whereas the Council of Europe, the European Broadcasting Union, international journalists’ organisations and the Legal Department of the Seimas have all warned that these measures significantly increase the vulnerability of the LRT to political pressure; whereas the Special Investigation Service of the Republic of Lithuania – the national anti-corruption authority – identified corruption-related risks in its assessment of the proposed legislative amendments and concluded that the introduction of secret voting for the dismissal of the Director General of the LRT may be incompatible with the principles of transparency, openness and public accountability, which are essential components of democratic governance and the rule of law;

T. whereas the proposed politicised amendments appear to be targeted at the incumbent Director General of the LRT, as evidenced by public statements made during the legislative process expressing dissatisfaction with her performance and explicitly indicating the intention to enable her removal from office; whereas legislation targeting a specific individual (ad personam legislation) is incompatible with the principles of the rule of law, including legal certainty, the generality of laws and the prohibition of the arbitrary exercise of power;

U. whereas attempts to take over the LRT triggered an unprecedented wave of public mobilisation, not seen since the National Revival movement of the early 1990s; whereas tens of thousands of citizens demonstrated in Vilnius on 9 December 2025 and from 16 to 18 December 2025, and more than 140 000 citizens signed a public petition opposing the legislative initiatives, thereby demonstrating broad societal concern for media freedom and democratic standards in Lithuania;

V. whereas the European Parliament has a responsibility to stand in solidarity with civil society defending democratic values, including freedom of expression, media and assembly, and to act decisively when systemic risks to democracy, the rule of law and media freedom arise within the EU;

W. whereas following the temporary suspension of the fast-tracked legislative process, the governing parliamentary majority has not abandoned its intention to undermine the independence of the LRT, but has instead shifted to a less abrupt yet equally concerning and politicised approach by establishing a parliamentary working group tasked with reviewing the governance model of the LRT; whereas serious concerns have been raised regarding the composition, mandate and working methods of this group, which appear to be structured in a way that predetermines its outcomes and maintains political dominance; whereas the Association of Professional Journalists and an initiative group of LRT journalists have refused to participate, citing the imitation of dialogue, the selective invitation of media representatives and explicit statements by parliamentary leaders that the group would reconsider the same amendments that the mass public protests opposed; whereas these journalists’ organisations have warned that this process risks legitimising political interference under the guise of consultation and may pave the way for renewed attempts to introduce provisions amounting to indirect censorship and weakened safeguards for editorial independence;

X. whereas, in the context of ongoing politicised legislative initiatives affecting the governance of the LRT, the President of the Republic of Lithuania publicly took the side of the political majority attempting to take over the LRT; whereas the President of the Republic of Lithuania criticised the use of LRT airtime and resources for journalists’ protest actions in defence of freedom of expression, including the broadcasting of minutes of silence, in the context of ongoing legislative initiatives affecting the governance of the LRT; whereas such statements risk contributing to political pressure and may have a discouraging effect on editorial independence;

Y. whereas the Venice Commission has decided to prepare an urgent opinion on the relevant legislative amendments, underlining the gravity of the situation;

1. Recognises and appreciates the essential role of mass media, in particular national public service media providers, in upholding and promoting the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU, including democracy, human dignity, freedom, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, in countering disinformation, propaganda and other forms of information manipulation, and in safeguarding pluralistic democracy as a cornerstone of the European public order and of a resilient democracy capable of defending itself; underlines that independent and trustworthy media is indispensable for democratic accountability, as it enables citizens to scrutinise those in power and to detect corruption and abuse of office; stresses that any measures that weaken independent media ecosystems significantly weaken democratic accountability, facilitate the spread of disinformation and corruption, and undermine citizens’ ability to hold those in power to account;

2. Notes that attempts to polarise society, weaken trust in democratic institutions and undermine independent media ecosystems serve the objectives of the Russian Federation’s hybrid warfare against the EU and its Member States, which is aimed at eroding democratic resilience; stresses that strong and independent public service media is a key line of defence against such hostile interference;

3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise investigative journalism as a core component of democratic resilience and to ensure that public service media is structurally and financially capable of supporting investigative journalism, including long-term and resource-intensive investigations, and that journalists are protected from any form of political pressure, intimidation or retaliation, whether direct or indirect, in response to the lawful exercise of their professional duties;

4. Expresses full solidarity with Lithuanian journalists, the LRT and civil society actors defending media freedom, including the institutional and editorial independence of the LRT;

5. Condemns all attempts to undermine the independence of the LRT, including legislative and administrative measures and political pressure aimed at acquiring political control over the LRT;

6. Considers that the freezing and reduction of the LRT’s funding, in the absence of objective economic necessity, may constitute political pressure incompatible with constitutional guarantees and Article 5(3) EMFA;

7. Considers that the proposed amendments to lower the safeguards for the early dismissal of the LRT’s Director General risk enabling arbitrary political interference and are incompatible with both constitutional guarantees and European standards for public service media independence, including Article 5(2) EMFA;

8. Considers that the swift pace of these legislative initiatives in Lithuania, combined with their potential to undermine the institutional autonomy of the LRT, fail to meet the standard of predictable and objectively justified regulation required by the EU under Article 21 EMFA, and infringe upon the right of citizens to access independent information as guaranteed by Article 3 EMFA; considers that these actions threaten not only the Lithuanian media landscape, but also the broader rule-of-law framework of the internal market;

9. Calls on the Commission to urgently assess the situation and initiate infringement procedures in response to all attempts to undermine the independence of the LRT, particularly for violation of Article 5 EMFA on protecting public service media management from political dismissal and ensuring the stable funding of the public broadcaster, which undermines the right of citizens to access a plurality of independent information under Article 3 EMFA and fails to meet the requirement of proportionality and justification for national measures under Article 21 EMFA; stresses that these actions create legal uncertainty and distort the level playing field for media providers, and therefore represent a direct threat to the proper functioning of the internal market; calls on the Commission, therefore, in its capacity as the guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that the EMFA is fully enforced to protect both our democratic values and the integrity of the European media market;

10. Underlines that the use of accelerated politicised legislative procedures for these amendments lacks objective and constitutionally justified grounds, fails to ensure transparency, inclusiveness and the meaningful participation of key stakeholders and civil society, and falls short of the requirements of a transparent, accountable, inclusive and democratic lawmaking procedure inherent in the principle of the rule of law and European best practice for the lawmaking process;

11. Strongly condemns any form of ad personam politicised legislation and recalls that laws designed to target specific individuals because of the independent performance of their professional activities are incompatible with the principles of pluralistic democracy and the rule of law;

12. Notes, with concern, the pattern of cumulative political pressure being exerted on the LRT through repeated audits, inspections and information requests, despite the absence of substantiated findings of wrongdoing; considers that such practices constitute indirect political interference and calls on Lithuania’s ruling coalition to cease such practices immediately;

13. Recalls that experience from other Member States and around the world demonstrates that attempts to capture public service media often constitute the first stage of broader democratic backsliding, leading to the erosion of media freedom, judicial independence and electoral integrity;

14. Calls on Lithuania’s ruling coalition to suspend, repeal or refrain from adopting politicised legislative measures that undermine the independence of the LRT and to ensure that national legislation complies fully with national constitutional requirements, EU law, including the EMFA, and other European standards on media freedom, including those developed by the Council of Europe and relevant international bodies; calls, in particular, for political influence to be minimised in the formation of the LRT Council, including by lessening the disproportionate influence of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, and for adequate professional requirements to be established for the members of the LRT Council, in order to ensure that the composition and functioning of the LRT Council properly reflect the principles of independence of the national public broadcaster, pluralistic democracy and an active civil society;

15. Calls on the Commission to urgently assess the compatibility of the recently adopted and proposed politicised legislative measures affecting the LRT’s funding and governance with the EMFA and EU rule-of-law standards;

16. Calls on the Commission to make use of all available instruments under the EU’s Rule of Law Toolbox, including the mechanisms provided for in the EMFA, and, where appropriate, infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU;

17. Welcomes the involvement of the Venice Commission and calls for its opinion to be fully taken into account by the Lithuanian authorities and the EU institutions;

18. Emphasises that safeguarding the independence of public service media is a shared European responsibility and an essential condition for the credibility of the EU as a community founded on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights;

19. Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to strengthening media resilience across the EU, including through increased funding and targeted support for independent, local and public service media; stresses that such support is essential for preventing democratic backsliding and safeguarding informed civic participation;

20. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the Seimas, the President and Government of the Republic of Lithuania, and the Council of Europe.