(Op-Ed Analysis) On May 20, 2025, the European Union imposed sanctions under Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966, targeting German nationals Thomas Röper and Alina Lipp, and Turkish journalist Hüseyin Doğru, for alleged disinformation tied to ‘Russian propaganda’.
These unprecedented measures—asset freezes, travel bans (subject to Germany’s discretion), and funding prohibitions—mark the first time the EU has sanctioned its own citizens.
Enacted by the unelected Council, led by High Representative Kaja Kallas, without judicial oversight, the sanctions raise alarms about democratic accountability and freedom of expression.
This analysis critiques the sanctions’ implications, their potential as a test for broader executive measures, and the tension between security and civil liberties.
(Alina Lipp)
Executive Sanctions Without Courts
Proposed by Kallas and adopted under Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, the sanctions accuse Röper (Anti-Pepiegel) and Lipp (News from Russia) of spreading misinformation about Russia’s war in Ukraine, and Doğru (Red. media) of amplifying divisive narratives, including pro-Palestinian protest coverage, with alleged Russian ties.
The EU provides no specific evidence of false statements, relying on vague terms like “information manipulation,” undefined in EU law. Bypassing courts, the process denies the accused a defense, violating due process under Article 47 of the EU Charter.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) offers appeal, but Article 275 TFEU limits its foreign policy oversight, with only 30% of challenges succeeding, per a 2023 College of Europe study.
EU officials justify the sanctions as a response to hybrid threats. A 2025 Commission statement argued, “Sanctions target actors undermining EU security through foreign-backed disinformation.”
Kallas cited 150 million EU citizens reached by Russian propaganda in 2024 (EEAS data). Yet, legal expert Nico Krisch notes that absent transparent evidence, the sanctions risk disproportionality, undermining legitimacy.
From Betrayal to Upheaval: AfD Becomes Germany’s Largest Party as Voters Reject Merz
Testing Broader Repression?
Targeting citizens and a non-EU journalist suggests a trial to gauge executive measures’ feasibility. By focusing on Röper and Lipp, based in Russia, and Doğru, a foreigner, the EU minimizes domestic backlash.
X posts warn, “This sets a precedent for silencing critics.” The EU’s Hybrid Toolbox and 2022 Strategic Compass frame disinformation as a security threat, enabling swift action, while a 2024 Parliament resolution urged expanding such sanctions.”
A Council advisor clarified in 2025, “Sanctions focus on foreign-linked actors, not domestic dissent.”
Yet, vague criteria and no judicial checks raise fears of broader application, potentially chilling discourse.
EU Sanctions Citizens, Journalists for Russia Disinformation, Bypasses Courts: Democratic Threat? – Alina Lipp, Sergei Lavrov, Thomas Röper
Democratic Norms Under Threat
The sanctions threaten freedom of expression (Article 11, EU Charter). Röper and Lipp’s pro-Russian views, while controversial, do not clearly violate laws like incitement.
Doğru’s protest coverage, amid Germany’s 2,500 protest bans since 2023 (Federal Interior Ministry), is journalistic, not criminal.
A 2024 Freedom House report warns anti-disinformation measures can suppress media, contradicting the EU’s Media Freedom Act.
Travel bans, if enforced, could breach the right to return (Article 13, Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
The Council’s unelected power highlights the EU’s democratic deficit, with Parliament unable to repeal sanctions.
Counterarguments stress necessity: 68% of EU citizens support sanctions against Russia but not against EU citizens and journalists (2025 Eurobarometer), and a 10% drop in German Ukraine aid support (2022–2024) shows disinformation’s impact.
Centrist MEPs argue executive action suits hybrid threats’ speed, though Greens advocate judicial oversight.
Germany’s Elite Under Scrutiny for Suppressing AfD’s Democratic Rise
Security vs. Liberties
The EU’s 505 Russian disinformation incidents in 2024 (EUvsDisinfo) justify action, but targeting citizens escalates concerns.
Unlike Hungary’s 2020 “fake news” fines, the EU offers ECJ recourse, yet limited scope weakens safeguards. France’s 2024 “foreign interference” law debates reflect similar tensions.
NATO’s view of information as a “weapon” normalizes executive measures, but a 2024 Carnegie report warns such policies may encroach on domestic speech.
Conclusion
The EU’s courtless sanctions on citizens and journalists, while countering disinformation, threaten democratic norms through executive overreach. As a potential test, they could normalize broader repression if unchallenged.
Judicial review, clear criteria, and parliamentary oversight are urgent to balance security and liberties. The EU must uphold its democratic values or risk eroding the freedoms it defends.
EU Sanctions Citizens, Journalists for Russia Disinformation, Bypasses Courts: Democratic Threat?
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings