United Group Seeks to Shut Down Balkan Free Media Initiative in Brussels

RksNews
RksNews 4 Min Read
4 Min Read

As Serbia begins confronting the legacy of Aleksandar Vučić’s rule, a legal battle is continuing before a Belgian court over an attempt to shut down an organisation monitoring media ownership and influence across the Balkans.

The case was highlighted by Antoaneta Nikolova, director of the Balkan Free Media Initiative (BFMI), in an opinion article published by Brussels-based outlet EUAlive.

The legal action was initiated by United Group, a major telecommunications company in Southeast Europe controlled by London-based private equity fund BC Partners. The company is seeking the dissolution of BFMI, a Brussels-based non-profit organisation that investigates media ownership in the Balkans, its influence on public information and the manipulation of the digital environment.

According to Nikolova, the legal proceedings followed BFMI’s complaints to the European Board for Media Services and Luxembourg’s media regulator concerning the sale of United Group’s Serbian media outlets, including television and news channels that had represented some of the country’s last major independent broadcasters.

BFMI intends to ask the Belgian court to recognise the case as an abuse of legal proceedings.

Nikolova stresses that the lawsuit does not simply seek the correction or withdrawal of a particular statement. Instead, it targets the very existence of the organisation responsible for monitoring media influence.

She argues that the case represents an increasingly sophisticated form of pressure against independent organisations, particularly when powerful corporations use expensive legal proceedings against non-profit groups with limited financial resources.

Even if such a lawsuit ultimately fails, Nikolova warns, the prolonged proceedings alone can financially and organisationally exhaust the organisation being targeted.

For years, critical voices across the Balkans have faced tabloid attacks, public smears and campaigns designed to discredit journalists and independent organisations. However, Nikolova argues that taking such pressure into European courts represents a different and potentially more effective approach.

Unlike traditional intimidation campaigns, legal proceedings in Brussels are expensive, formally structured and presented through the language of European legal institutions, while potentially serving a similar purpose: discouraging scrutiny and criticism.

Serbia’s political change has not resolved media concerns

Nikolova also warns that the political changes in Serbia do not automatically resolve the country’s deep-rooted media problems.

Questions surrounding media ownership, financial dependence and pressure on independent newsrooms remain relevant even after a change in government.

The same applies to legal proceedings targeting organisations that investigate these practices, as judicial pressure does not necessarily end when political power changes hands.

At a recent European Parliament hearing on anti-SLAPP legislation, Belgium was praised for introducing protections that go beyond the minimum requirements established by the EU.

However, discussions repeatedly highlighted a key concern: even strong legislation is only effective if judges understand how legal proceedings can be misused to intimidate critics and silence public-interest organisations.

Nikolova acknowledges that organisations monitoring institutions and society must fulfil their responsibilities and respond to legitimate legal complaints. At the same time, courts must be able to distinguish genuine legal claims from attempts to weaponise the judicial system.

She concludes that Serbia’s political landscape may have changed, but the legal battle against media watchdog organisations continues.

The next major test for Europe, she argues, may not come through an openly political confrontation, but through a seemingly ordinary corporate legal request seeking to dissolve an organisation monitoring media power.

How Belgian judges handle the case could become an important test of whether Europe’s new protections against abusive lawsuits can effectively safeguard independent media organisations.