European Democracy Shield May Restrict Civil Liberties. Ordo Iuris Intervenes

Adobe Stock

• The European Democracy Shield, an instrument designed to guarantee the EU’s resilience against hybrid attacks and external interference, is currently being developed within European Union institutions.

• This initiative has generated considerable controversy, with critics accusing the European Commission of attempting to introduce censorship and exert control over the media and the Internet.

• The Ordo Iuris Institute has submitted an opinion to the European Commission, drawing attention to civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the provisions of primary EU law, and calling for their consideration during further work on the European Democracy Shield.

• Ordo Iuris also emphasizes that, in combating foreign influence, the European Commission should take steps to increase the transparency of NGOs operating in EU member states and support countries facing hybrid forms of aggression, including—but not limited to—migratory pressures.

The European Democracy Shield, currently under development by EU bodies, aims to provide a strategic legal framework to better protect and promote democracy within the EU. This framework will be based on specific, yet-to-be-defined initiatives and likely consist of various legislative measures. In light of this, the Ordo Iuris Institute has submitted an opinion to the European Commission, which, according to the Commission’s declarations, will be taken into account when drafting a communication addressed to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. This communication will constitute one of the elements of the European Democracy Shield.

In May 2024, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the creation of an agency to combat disinformation and foreign influence operations. “I believe Europe now needs its own dedicated structure for countering foreign interference. It will pool the necessary expertise and link up and coordinate with existing national agencies,” the German politician said. The initiative to establish a European Democracy Shield was included in the European Commission’s policy guidelines for 2024–2025.

To implement the EC President’s proposal, the European Parliament decided in December 2024 to establish a Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield. The committee’s purpose is to help build a more resilient EU, capable of defending democratic processes against a wide range of hybrid threats. Michael McGrath, an Irish politician serving as EU Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, and the Rule of Law, is responsible for overseeing the development of the European Democracy Shield.

According to European Commission documents, the Shield would address challenges categorized into four key areas:

1. Countering disinformation, foreign manipulation, and information interference;
2. Ensuring the fairness and integrity of electoral processes;
3. Strengthening democratic frameworks and checks and balances, including support for free, pluralistic, and independent media and civil society organizations;
4. Enhancing societal resilience and preparedness (through measures such as digital and media literacy and promoting critical thinking), as well as encouraging citizen engagement.

The launch of the European Democracy Shield has been mired in controversy from the outset. Many politicians, experts, and civil society representatives have criticized the European Commission’s approach. Tomasz Wróblewski, President of the Warsaw Enterprise Institute, accused the Commission of attempting to restrict freedom of speech. “This is a proposal tending toward censorship, albeit dressed in democratic language,” he remarked. Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik, a Polish Member of the European Parliament (Patriots for Europe), argued that the project aims to censor the Internet.

“The EP passed a resolution to establish a European Democracy Shield. For the Polish elections? If a candidate or party in opposition to Brussels (the Center Right-Socialist-Liberal mainstream) wins in any EU country, the elections will be canceled,” Polish sociologist Marcin Pallade warned. Spanish journalist Javier Villamor, writing for the European Conservative, noted that “from the conservative and sovereigntist wing of the European Parliament (EP), the ‘Democracy Shield’ was denounced as yet another attempt by Brussels to intervene in the sovereignty of member states, this time by imposing control over elections under the pretext of combating disinformation.”

In light of the extensive controversy surrounding the European Democracy Shield, the Ordo Iuris Institute has prepared an opinion on the European Commission’s draft communication. It is worth noting that while EC communications are not legal acts and do not carry binding legal force, they are significant. Through such communications, the Commission conveys its positions on many issues important to member states and their citizens. In this case, the communication will be addressed to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions.

In its opinion, Ordo Iuris argued that measures to counter disinformation, hybrid attacks, and foreign influence must not take the form of preventive censorship. The Institute emphasized that freedom of expression is protected by several provisions of the EU’s primary law, including the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It further stressed that the principle of freedom of speech is essential to the functioning of a democratic system—one in which citizens can freely express their opinions and engage in democratic processes.

Later in the opinion, Ordo Iuris experts identify additional areas where the European Union could more effectively combat foreign interference and influence by hostile third countries. These include: increasing the transparency of NGOs operating in EU member states; enhancing the transparency of EU institutions themselves; and extending support to countries facing hybrid forms of aggression. The migration crisis on Poland’s eastern border, instigated by Russia and Belarus, was cited as one such example.

“The announcement by the President of the European Commission regarding measures to combat foreign interference and disinformation has triggered a wave of negative reactions across virtually all EU member states. This response is unsurprising for two main reasons. First, many people fear that under the noble guise of combating hostile influences, basic civil rights and freedoms—especially the right to free expression—may be curtailed. Second, it is important to remember that EU institutions themselves are not free from criticism concerning their operations. A case in point is the 2024 annual report of the European Ombudsman, which criticized the European Commission for its lack of transparency. For these reasons, the Ordo Iuris Institute has submitted an opinion to the European Commission on the communication, which will most likely elaborate on or clarify the underlying assumptions of the European Democracy Shield,” noted Patryk Ignaszczak of the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law.