Changes from resolution motion to resolution motion joint

RemovedB100070/2026

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,

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

▸4 unchanged paragraphs

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 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,

Removed– 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,

Added– having regard to Protocol (No 29) on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States,

Added– 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,

– 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,

Changed– 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,

Changed– having regard to the Commission’s annual rule of law reports, and, in particular, toparticular 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,

Changed– having regard to RuleRules 136(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

Change 1

ChangedA. 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; whereas the weakening of national public broadcasters undermines standards of media freedom at a time when disinformation, foreign interference and political polarisation are increasing;

Change 2

ChangedB. whereas public service media playsproviders play a key role in ensuring access to impartial information, safeguarding pluralism, scrutinising those in power, 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;

Change 3

RemovedC. 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;

AddedC. whereas reforms affecting public service media providers should be undertaken in a transparent and inclusive manner, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including journalists, civil society and media experts, and in line with EU law;

RemovedD. 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;

D. 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;

Change 4

RemovedF. 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;

AddedE. whereas the independent functioning of public service media providers requires robust national legal safeguards to protect their editorial and institutional independence and to ensure the impartial provision of a plurality of information and opinions; 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; whereas Article 5 EMFA gives effect to these principles by establishing 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 Article 5(3) EMFA obliges the Member States to ensure that ‘funding procedures for public service media providers are based on transparent and objective criteria laid down in advance’, providing adequate, sustainable and predictable financial resources aligned with their public service remit and safeguarding their editorial independence; whereas under Article 21 EMFA, any national legislative, regulatory or administrative measures liable to affect media pluralism or editorial independence must be duly justified and proportionate;

RemovedG. 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;

AddedF. 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;

RemovedH. 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;

AddedG. 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;

Change 5

ChangedI.H. 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; 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;

Change 6

ChangedJ.I. whereas the Lithuanian Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has held that the constitutional mission of the national public broadcaster implies that it must be independent, 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 reportingits obligationsindependence, 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;

Change 7

ChangedK.J. 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 ofon 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 making antisemitic and hate-inciting statements; whereas this Nemunas Dawn partythese leaderfindings waswere subsequently found guiltyconfirmed 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 publicto proponentsactively ofpromote thea campaign targeting theLithuanian nationalNational publicRadio broadcasterand (theTelevision LRT);(LRT);

Change 8

ChangedL.K. whereas the Lithuanian Prime Minister from this governing coalition had to resign in July 2025 following investigative journalism findings, including reporting by the LRT, which raised serious concerns regarding his possiblealleged involvement in corrupt practices; whereas,whereas inlater thein aftermath2025, oflegislative hisinitiatives resignation,affecting aLRT’s sustainedfunding and escalating campaign targeting the LRT has emerged, combining legislative initiatives, financial pressure,governance institutionaltriggered auditsdomestic and political rhetoric aimed atinternational underminingconcerns itsregarding leadership,media credibilityfreedom and institutional independence;

Change 9

ChangedM.L. 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,conclusions, the National Audit Office found that the LRT had successfully fulfilled its public service mission, that the vast majority of itsLRT’s strategic and operational performance indicators had been achieved at a level of at least 90 %, thatand itsthat financialthe managementplanning and use of publicLRT’s financial resources were soundsubstantiated and welltransparent, grounded,with andsome thataspects nothat seriousneeded violationsto ofbe legaladdressed, actssuch hadas beenpublic identified;procurement whereasand thestaff auditrecruitment containedprocedures; onlywhereas minorthe technicalaudit recommendations aimed at further improving internal processes and did not recommend any changes to the LRT’s funding model, governance structure or leadership, or ask for any political or institutional action in that regard; whereas after these findings of the National Audit Office, further actions followed, including overlapping inspections, requests addressed to other state bodies to verify LRT’s activities, and thereforerepeated didpublic notattacks provideagainst anyLRT’s objectivemanagement; basiswhereas forsome extraordinarymedia and journalist organisations have warned that the audit findings have been publicly misrepresented and selectively used in political ordiscourse; institutionalwhereas intervention;neither the audit recommendations nor any other arguments can justify legislative measures that are contrary to the Lithuanian Constitution and the EMFA;

Change 10

RemovedN. 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;

AddedM. whereas on 27 November 2025, the Lithuanian Parliament, the Seimas, adopted amendments to the Law on LRT, freezing LRT’s budget for 2026-2028 at the 2025 level of EUR 79.6 million, 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 among media freedom stakeholders as regards legal certainty, legitimate expectations and compliance with the principle of vacatio legis inherent in the rule of law;

RemovedO. 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;

AddedN. whereas draft laws were subsequently introduced, lowering the safeguards for the early dismissal of the director general of 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, removing the requirement of public-interest justification and introducing secret voting within the LRT Council;

RemovedP. 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;

AddedO. whereas these legislative initiatives were introduced and advanced under accelerated procedures, in the absence of objectively justified exceptional circumstances, thereby undermining transparency, inclusiveness and the meaningful participation of stakeholders and civil society, and falling short of EU and constitutional standards of responsible governance; whereas the Council of Europe, the European Broadcasting Union, international journalists’ organisations, the Legal Department of the Seimas, the Lithuanian National Commission for UNESCO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in European (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, have all warned that these measures significantly increase LRT’s vulnerability 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 LRT may be incompatible with the principles of transparency, openness and public accountability, which underpin democratic governance and the rule of law;

RemovedQ. 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;

AddedP. whereas the proposed amendments appear to be targeted at the incumbent Director General of LRT, as evidenced by public statements made during the legislative process expressing dissatisfaction with her performance and explicitly indicating an 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;

RemovedR. 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;

AddedQ. whereas the staff of LRT went on strike on 9 December 2025 to protest against these changes, which they warn would ‘dismantle the safeguards that protect LRT’s independence’; whereas attempts to take over LRT triggered a wave of public mobilisation when tens of thousands of citizens demonstrated in Vilnius on 9 December 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;

RemovedS. 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 an 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;

AddedR. 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;

RemovedT. whereas attempts to take over the LRT triggered an unprecedented wave of public protests, 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;

AddedS. whereas, following the suspension of fast-tracked legislative initiatives, a parliamentary working group was established to examine LRT’s governance model; whereas the Association of Professional Journalists and an initiative group of LRT journalists have refused to participate, citing a lack of dialogue, selective invitations and statements indicating that previously contested amendments would be reconsidered; whereas these organisations have warned that this process risks legitimising political interference under the guise of consultation and enabling renewed attempts at indirect censorship and weakened safeguards for editorial independence;

RemovedU. whereas the European Parliament has a responsibility to stand in solidarity with civil society actors 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;

AddedT. whereas in the context of the ongoing legislative initiatives affecting LRT’s governance, LRT was criticised for using airtime and resources for journalists’ protest actions in defence of freedom of expression, including the broadcasting of minutes of silence; whereas such statements risk contributing to political pressure and may have a discouraging effect on editorial independence;

RemovedV. 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 ha 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 lack 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;

AddedU. whereas according to the Council of Europe’s Safety of Journalists Platform, Lithuania’s allocation of GDP-based funding to public service media is already one of the lowest in the EU, and LRT has warned that prolonged financial constraints would hinder its legally mandated role as the country’s primary source of crisis and emergency communication, including its ability to maintain uninterrupted broadcasting during national emergencies,

RemovedW. 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;

AddedV. whereas in its 2025 Rule of Law Report, the Commission issued country-specific recommendations to Lithuania, calling for continued efforts to strengthen the independence, stable funding and transparent governance of public service media, including safeguards against political influence in appointment and dismissal procedures;

Change 11

ChangedX.W. whereas LRT requested that an urgent opinion on the pending amendments be issued by the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe; whereas the Venice Commission has decided to prepare an urgent opinion on the relevant legislative amendments, underlining the gravity of the situation; whereas the Venice Commission visited Lithuania on 19 and 20 January to assess the situation;

Change 12

Changed1. Recognises and appreciates the essential role of masspublic media, in particular national public service media providers, in upholding and promoting the values enshrined in Article 2 ofTEU, theand Treatyin oncountering Europeandisinformation, Union,propaganda includingand democracy,other humanforms dignity,of freedom,information equality,manipulation, thethereby rulesafeguarding ofa lawpluralistic and respectresilient democracy; underlines that independent and trustworthy media is indispensable for humandemocratic rights,accountability, inas counteringit disinformation,enables propagandacitizens to scrutinise those in power and otherto formsdetect corruption and abuse of informationoffice; manipulation,stresses andthat inweakening safeguardingindependent pluralisticmedia democracyecosystems assignificantly aweakens cornerstonedemocratic ofaccountability, thefacilitates Europeandisinformation publicand ordercorruption, and oferodes acitizens’ resilientability democracyto capablehold ofthose defendingin itself;power to account;

Change 13

Added2. Notes that attempts to polarise society, weaken trust in democratic institutions and undermine independent media ecosystems serve the objectives of the hybrid warfare waged by the Russian Federation and other hostile powers against the EU and its Member States, which is aimed at eroding democratic resilience; stresses that strong, independent public service broadcasters are 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;

Change 14

Changed3.4. Expresses full solidarity with Lithuanian journalists, the LRT and civil society actors defending media freedom, including the institutional and editorial independence of the LRT;

Change 15

Changed4.5. 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;

Change 16

Changed5.6. 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;