Prishtina, 11 June 2026 – The Kosovo Law Institute (KLI) is following the recent decision-making of the Independent Media Commission (IMC) with deep concern, through which this institution is seriously undermining media freedom in Kosovo. These decisions constitute an overreach of the IMC’s legal mandate and create a dangerous precedent for the functioning of the media, public debate, and democracy.
Through its recent decisions, the IMC is assuming powers that belong not to the regulator, but to the court. By means of these decisions, the IMC is imposing sanctions on media outlets for statements made by third parties during televised debates, attributing automatic responsibility to the media for every statement made by invited guests. Such an approach is unlawful and unacceptable in a democratic society.
The IMC is a media regulator, not a court that determines liability for defamation or insult against third parties. The IMC’s role is to assess whether a media outlet has complied with professional standards: whether the moderator intervened when necessary, whether a right of reply was provided, whether a distinction was made between fact and opinion, whether balance was maintained, and whether appropriate editorial care was exercised. However, the IMC has no authority to determine on its own that a statement is defamatory, false, or damaging to a person’s reputation. These are matters that may be pursued through civil litigation by parties who consider that one of their rights has been violated, through the appropriate judicial channels.
This is precisely where the problem lies. Instead of examining the editorial conduct of the media outlet, the IMC is assessing the content of statements made by guests and sanctioning media outlets as if they were the authors of those statements. This transforms editorial responsibility into strict liability, a standard that is incompatible with media freedom and the fundamental principles of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has clearly held that penalising a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview seriously hampers the contribution of the press to public debate and can only be justified where there are particularly strong reasons for doing so (Jersild v. Denmark, §35). Likewise, the ECtHR has emphasised that journalists cannot be required to systematically and formally distance themselves from every quotation that may provoke, offend, or damage a person’s reputation (Thoma v. Luxembourg, §64). In the same vein, the ECtHR has found that imposing strict liability for third-party content, without balancing freedom of expression against reputation rights, violates Article 10 of the Convention (Magyar Jeti Zrt v. Hungary, §83).
Furthermore, in cases of this nature, a clear distinction must be made between facts and value judgments. The ECtHR has emphasised that facts are capable of proof, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible to proof in the same manner (Lingens v. Austria, §46). The IMC cannot disregard this test and proceed as if every serious political statement automatically constitutes a violation by the media outlet. In this regard, KLI calls on the Chairperson and members of the IMC to return to legality and to their institutional mission by exercising their powers and responsibilities solely on the basis of the law and within the powers and competences conferred by the Constitution and the applicable legislation of Kosovo.
KLI reiterates that offensive language, personal attacks, and serious allegations in the public sphere should not be normalized. The media bear professional responsibility for the manner in which they handle such statements. However, this responsibility cannot be transformed into automatic punishment. If someone claims to have been defamed, the appropriate legal avenue is the court. If the IMC considers that a media outlet has failed to comply with editorial standards, it must specifically demonstrate the editorial failure and the proportionality of the measure imposed, rather than automatically sanctioning the media.
On the other hand, KLI has also noted with concern the warnings regarding the suspension of TV Dukagjini’s programme DEBAT PLUS, a warning that came in the form of a threat. That case was scandalous and exposed the problematic mindset with which the IMC approaches the media: first the sanction is announced, and only then is justification sought. In a democracy, such logic is dangerous.
However, the problem is not limited to this case alone. The IMC’s recent decisions reveal a broader pattern of acting beyond the limits of its legal mandate, relying on weak reasoning, without a genuine proportionality assessment, and adopting a punitive approach towards the media. This is not lawful regulation of the media sector, but institutional pressure on public debate.
KLI calls on the IMC to fulfil its constitutional and legal role as a regulator, not as a court. The IMC must restore legality to its decision-making, including with regard to unlawful decisions resulting from missed deadlines and procedures linked to recommendations issued by the Executive Office under the leadership of an acting Chief Executive Officer serving outside the applicable legal standards. The IMC must abandon its hostile approach towards the media and act solely on the basis of the law, facts, due process, and European standards on media freedom.
KLI calls on the IMC to urgently complete the procedure for the appointment of its Chief Executive Officer, in accordance with the law and through a merit-based process. The continued exercise of this position through acting appointments undermines the legality, functionality, and credibility of the IMC’s decision-making.
KLI also calls for responsibility and accountability from the Assembly of Kosovo, which has yet to operationalise the Appeals Board for decisions of the IMC. The failure to establish this mechanism undermines the media’s right to an effective legal remedy and leaves the IMC’s decision-making without the necessary institutional oversight within the administrative procedure.
KLI calls on the next legislature to be guided solely by the criteria of personal integrity, professionalism, and independence when appointing individuals to independent institutions. Independent institutions must not be filled with individuals who make unlawful decisions, undermine media freedom, and turn the regulator into an instrument of pressure against public debate.