Revoking Broadcast Licenses in Hungary? How A European Court Decision Emphasizes Media Freedom
Hungary called it administrative enforcement, but the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized a larger issue: a disproportionate crackdown on independent media.
Over the past decade, journalists and civil society groups have raised concerns about media pluralism and press freedom in Hungary. The Hungarian media landscape, observers have noted, has undergone substantial transformation since 2010, with ownership structures and regulatory policies evolving in ways that favor outlets aligned with the government. At the same time, officials have placed increasing pressure on independent media organizations.
Recently, Hungarian regulators denied the renewal of the broadcast license for the prominent independent radio station Klubrádió, thus removing it from the FM airwaves. When Hungary’s Media Council launched a new tender procedure for the same radio frequency, it declared Klubrádió’s application invalid.
Not only did the station’s disappearance from the radio spectrum in Hungary attract significant attention both domestically and internationally, but it also led to a significant legal decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that demonstrated how seemingly technical and administrative questions can implicate fundamental rights such as freedom of expression.
On 26 February 2026, the CJEU, in Commission v Hungary (Case C-92/23), held that Hungary had breached EU law when its national media regulator refused to renew Klubrádió’s broadcasting license and subsequently excluded the station from a tender procedure for the provision of media services on the same frequency.
The CJEU concluded that the Hungarian authorities had relied on regulatory grounds that were disproportionate and incompatible with EU law and that the resulting measures interfered with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which protects the freedom of expression and information, including the freedom and pluralism of the media.
The decision, therefore, sits at the intersection of two legal domains that do not always overlap in obvious ways — namely the EU framework governing electronic communications and the protection of fundamental rights, specifically that of expression and information. By doing so, the CJEU reaffirmed that the renewal of licenses and tender procedures cannot be treated solely as administrative matters when they affect media outlets’ ability to reach audiences and participate in democratic debate.
Background on The Dispute
Klubrádió was founded in 1999 and has been described by the European Parliament as “one of the few remaining free voices in the Hungarian media landscape.” In 2014, the Hungarian Media Council granted Klubrádió the right to use the 92.9 MHz frequency in Budapest, allowing it to broadcast in the capital for a period of seven years. The agreement also contained a clause permitting the licence to be renewed once for an additional five-year term under certain conditions. As the license was about to expire, the station applied for renewal in accordance with the applicable legal framework.
The Media Council rejected the application. The authority relied on a provision of Hungarian media legislation according to which a licence could not be renewed if the broadcaster had committed “repeated infringements” of regulatory obligations during the licence period. According to the regulator, Klubrádió had failed to fully comply with certain reporting requirements regarding programming quotas and had therefore committed repeated breaches of national media law.
The infringements cited by the authority were largely administrative in nature. They were related to failures to submit two monthly reports regarding broadcasting obligations. Although the breaches had been identified and sanctioned during the licence period through warnings or modest fines, the Media Council nevertheless considered them sufficient to prevent the renewal of the station’s broadcasting licence.
As a result of the refusal, Klubrádió lost its right to broadcast on the Budapest FM frequency. In February 2021, the station ceased broadcasting on FM radio and continued operating only online. The decision attracted considerable criticism from journalists, civil society organisations, and international observers, many of whom viewed the move as part of a broader pattern of pressure on independent media outlets in Hungary.
Following the refusal to renew the licence, the Media Council launched a new tender procedure for the 92.9 MHz frequency. Klubrádió submitted an application to participate in the competition. However, the regulator subsequently declared the application invalid. The authority cited technical irregularities in the station’s proposed programming schedule and concerns relating to the company’s financial data.
The European Commission subsequently initiated infringement proceedings against Hungary before the CJEU. The Commission argued that the refusal to renew the licence and the handling of the tender procedure violated EU law.
Spectrum Allocation and EU Law
The radio spectrum (the radio-frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum) constitutes a limited public resource that must be allocated to ensure efficient use while preserving fair competition and pluralism in the media market. Although Member States retain primary responsibility for managing spectrum resources, EU law establishes a framework governing how these powers must be exercised.
The EU electronic communications regime requires national authorities to allocate and manage radio frequencies in accordance with principles of objectivity, transparency, non-discrimination, and proportionality. These principles aim to ensure that regulatory decisions affecting access to spectrum do not distort competition or undermine the functioning of the internal market.
In the present case, the Commission argued that Hungary’s regulatory framework and the decisions adopted by the Media Council were incompatible with these requirements. In particular, the Commission maintained that the Hungarian rules allowed relatively minor administrative breaches to automatically lead to the refusal of licence renewal, thereby producing consequences that were disproportionate to the seriousness of the underlying infringements.
The Commission also challenged the way the tender procedure for the frequency was conducted. It argued that the reasons given for excluding Klubrádió from the competition were excessively formalistic and inconsistent with the principles governing spectrum allocation under EU law.
Crucially, the Commission further argued that the Hungarian measures interfered with the freedom of expression, media freedom, and pluralism. Because radio frequencies are limited and access to them determines whether broadcasters can reach large audiences, regulatory decisions concerning spectrum allocation may directly affect the functioning of the media landscape. In this sense, the denial of a broadcasting licence may have consequences comparable to restrictions on publication or distribution.
The CJEU’s Reasoning
In its judgment, the CJEU emphasised that while Member States enjoy a degree of discretion in managing spectrum resources, discretion must be exercised in compliance with EU law and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter.
A central issue concerned the Hungarian legal provision that prevented the renewal of a broadcasting licence where the broadcaster had committed repeated regulatory infringements. The CJEU observed that the infringements attributed to Klubrádió were relatively minor administrative breaches relating to reporting obligations. These breaches had already been sanctioned by the competent authority.
Nevertheless, the Hungarian framework allowed those breaches to serve as the decisive reason for refusing to renew the broadcasting license. The CJEU considered that such an outcome failed to respect the principle of proportionality. As the CJEU noted, the regulatory system allowed administrative irregularities to lead to excessively severe consequences when viewed in relation to the nature of the underlying conduct.
The CJEU therefore concluded that Hungary had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law. The decision to deny the licence renewal was not compatible with the principles governing the allocation of radio spectrum within the EU legal framework.
The CJEU also examined the tender procedure organised by the Media Council after the refusal to renew the licence. Although national regulators may impose technical requirements on applicants, those requirements must be applied in a transparent and proportionate manner.
In this case, the Hungarian authorities rejected Klubrádió’s application due to alleged errors in the station’s proposed programming schedule and questions about its financial position. However, the CJEU concluded that the manner in which the tender procedure was conducted did not comply with EU rules governing spectrum allocation.
The CJEU emphasised that regulatory requirements must not be applied in ways that effectively exclude broadcasters from access to the market without adequate justification. Where technical or administrative irregularities are invoked to invalidate an application, the consequences must remain proportionate to the nature of the irregularities.
Significantly, the CJEU linked its analysis to the protection of freedom of expression and media pluralism under the Charter. The judgment recognised that decisions concerning access to broadcasting frequencies can have a direct impact on a media organization’s ability to operate and participate in public debate.
The CJEU therefore concluded that the Hungarian measures also infringed Article 11 of the Charter. The ruling confirmed that actions that may appear merely administrative cannot be separated from the broader constitutional framework governing fundamental rights within the EU.
Why The Judgment Matters
The importance of Commission v Hungary (Case C-92/23) lies not only in its outcome but also in the reasoning adopted by the CJEU. The judgment illustrates how EU law governing electronic communications can intersect with the protection of fundamental rights when regulatory decisions affect the media.
The CJEU treated access to broadcasting frequencies as a factor that can influence the effective exercise of freedom of expression, media independence and pluralism. Because radio frequencies are limited and access to them determines whether broadcasters can reach a wide audience, decisions denying such access may significantly affect the diversity of voices available in the public sphere.
By grounding part of its reasoning in Article 11 of the Charter, the CJEU reaffirmed that the freedom and pluralism of the media constitute core values within the EU legal order. The judgment, therefore, signals that national regulatory frameworks governing broadcasting licences must be applied in ways that respect those values.
In practical terms, the ruling also sends a clear message to national regulators across the EU. Administrative compliance rules and technical requirements must not be used in ways that effectively exclude media outlets from the market through disproportionate enforcement measures. Where regulatory decisions restrict access to broadcasting frequencies, authorities must ensure that the resulting consequences remain proportionate and justified.
Conclusion
The CJEU’s judgment in Commission v Hungary (Case C-92/23) demonstrates how regulatory disputes that appear technical on the surface can raise profound questions about democratic governance and fundamental rights. What began as a disagreement over the renewal of a broadcasting licence ultimately became a test of whether national spectrum management rules could be applied in ways that undermine media pluralism.
By concluding that Hungary had breached EU law and violated the Charter’s protection of freedom of expression, the CJEU reaffirmed the importance of proportionality, transparency, and non-discrimination in spectrum regulation. The ruling also highlights the increasingly important role that EU law can play in safeguarding media freedom when national regulatory systems operate in ways that disadvantage independent outlets.
Whether the judgment will lead to broader reforms in Hungary’s media licensing system remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the CJEU has established an important precedent. The allocation of broadcasting frequencies cannot be treated solely as a technical-administrative matter when the consequences of regulatory decisions affect media organizations’ ability to operate and participate in democratic debate. Where those decisions threaten the freedom and pluralism of the media, EU law may intervene to ensure that fundamental rights are respected.
Natalie Alkiviadou is a Senior Research Fellow at The Future of Free Speech. Her research interests lie in the freedom of expression, the far-right, hate speech, hate crime, and non-discrimination.