(CN) – The distribution of videos by Russian state television could also bring a donor-funded blogger under EU sanctions, Europe’s top court ruled Thursday.
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 EU sanctions rules on Russia, 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 videos from Russia Today Germany four times in 2023 through the website’s “Live-Ticker” blog. Under German law, breaching the EU broadcast ban can lead to three months to five years in prison. 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 Kremlin-controlled media were central to a disinformation campaign supporting the war. Since then, the bloc has expanded sanctions on thousands of Russian officials, oligarchs, banks, companies and other targets, making them one of its main tools to clamp down on Moscow.
European courts have already upheld the basic ban. In 2022, the General Court of the EU rejected Russia Today France challenged, finding that the temporary suspension of the broadcast was justified in the extraordinary context of the war and did not unlawfully infringe on freedom of expression. The judges also noted that the measure did not stop the media from doing journalistic work such as research and interviews.
Thursday’s decision addressed a narrower but more Internet-age question: Who counts as the person broadcasting the prohibited 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. “As applied to the field of communication and transmission of media and digital content, this term refers to any natural or legal person, directly or indirectly, responsible for making available or transmitting that content to the public.”
This reading also means setting aside European Commission guidance suggesting that the rule only applies to commercial or professional activity. The judges said the guidance is not legally binding and cannot limit the legislation itself. “Where the EU legislator intended to limit the scope of a restrictive measure only to operators engaged in an activity of an economic nature, it did so explicitly.”
The judges also noted the dangers of donation-funded websites. “Such a method of financing may thus be able to facilitate, directly or indirectly, the interference of foreign interests – including the interests of third countries – in the transmission of media content and, therefore, is able to increase the risk that such a site will be used to broadcast the propaganda campaign in which the Russian Federation is involved.
Jed Odermatt, a reader in international law at City Law School, City St George’s, University of London, said: “Finding that profit motives are irrelevant in determining who is an ‘operator’, the court confirms that these sanctions also apply to individuals who run websites that distribute prohibited content, shutting down what would otherwise have been an objectionable exploitation.”
Luigi Lonardo, associate professor of European law at the Luxembourg Center for European Law at the University of Luxembourg and adjunct faculty at the Paris School of International Relations at Sciences Po, said the ruling shows why the court was willing to read the sanctions broadly. “This judgment is about the extent of EU censorship,” he said. “It is good news for the effectiveness of EU sanctions.”
“It would make little sense, for censorship purposes, to say that journalists can’t share some content, but bloggers, influencers or private citizens who may receive donations (whose source is far from transparent) can,” Lonardo added.
Others warned that the decision could come at a cost.
Jan Penfrat, senior policy adviser at European Digital Rights, said the decision goes beyond the enforcement of sanctions and into free speech online. He said extending the ban to people who post 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 artistic or social commentary.
Penfrat also questioned whether prosecuting individuals or small non-commercial websites is proportionate while Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X continue to pay users to share 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 prosecuting the case, welcomed the ruling, saying it confirms that individuals operating donation-funded websites can fall within EU sanctions rules and that German law can be used to prosecute such behaviour.
Attorneys for the defendants did not respond to requests for comment.
Just last week, EU governments update the bloc’s economic sanctions against Russia until July 2027. The ruling gives national authorities a clearer roadmap for implementing part of that regime in an online world where anyone with a website can become a publisher.
With the EU law issue resolved, 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.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
