Protections of Media Freedoms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Steps Towards European Integration

The study is the first of a three-part series monitoring legislative and institutional reforms on media freedom in BiH's EU accession process. It is written for policymakers, regulators, the media sector and civil society. Its starting point is that Bosnia and Herzegovina was once seen as a regional leader in media legislation, but reform has stalled. Freedom of expression and the sustainability of public broadcasting are among the 14 key priorities of the European Commission's 2019 Opinion, and the Commission's reports have repeated the same recommendations for years. BIH is obliged to align with the EU acquis under the Stabilization and Association Agreement, and it received candidate status in 2022 and the green light to open negotiations in 2024. The authors report that no progress on freedom of expression has followed.

Sokol and Gačanica describe the constitutional and legal basis as solid and largely in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, but implementation is weak and the legal framework is fragmented. Their main findings are:

• Access to information: The 2023 state-level law was meant to align with the EU Open Data Directive and introduced proactive transparency. After a year, the authors find that the central portal had not been set up and that the law has broad exceptions and a non-independent appeals body. It also removes the duty to assist applicants, and institutions refuse aggregate data as “new information”.
• Defamation: civil defamation laws (enacted in 2002) were considered progressive, but they are misused, particularly through lawsuits by politicians, some of which the OSCE considers SLAPPs. Cases are also slow, averaging four to five years.
• Hate speech: State and entity criminal codes cover a narrower range of protected grounds than ECRI recommends. Prosecutions are rare and rulings are inconsistent. High Representative amendments in 2021-2024 added offences such as denying or glorifying war crimes, and extended hate-speech rules in the Election Law. Experts warn against hasty regulation of online content and favor a multi-sectoral, co-regulatory approach.
• “Fake news”: several cantonal laws on public peace and order penalize “fake news”, with enforcement by police, vague wording and, in some cases, prison sentences. A draft Sarajevo Canton law would extend this online. The authors contrast this with the EU approach, which relies on co-regulation and platform obligations rather than sanctions.

According to the authors, Bosnia and Herzegovina lacks key laws on electronic communications and media, on transparency of media ownership and a law on the public broadcasting system.

• Electronic communications and media: work on the electronic communications law has been blocked by political disagreement and slow procedures since 2012, and drafts were not public in late 2024. The Communications Regulatory Agency has partly transposed the Audiovisual Media Services Directive through bylaws. Provisions on regulator independence cannot be transposed this way, and the 2024 Commission report says the Agency still lacks full political and financial independence.
• Ownership transparency: no legislation requires transparency of media ownership, and no law regulates ownership concentration or public funding of media. Civil society has drafted a law, a working group was formed in 2024, and the 2024 Election Law amendment obliges online media to publish ownership data during elections. Anonymous portals persist nonetheless.
• Public broadcasting: the three public broadcasters (BHRT, FTV and RTRS) face unresolved disputes over the distribution of the RTV tax, financial instability, political influence over their governing boards, and a stalled new law.

The authors conclude by reviewing the Digital Services Act, the European Media Freedom Act (applicable since 8 August 2025) and the Anti-SLAPP Directive. The lack of political will plays the central obstacle, alongside non-transparent law-making that excludes civil society and experts. They believe that the EU acts will require extensive harmonization, including procedural, criminal and civil laws.  The opening of accession negotiations created a space of action and dialogue that should be used for substantive harmonization.