The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has repeatedly received applications from French television channels challenging sanctions imposed by the Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (ARCOM). The most recent ruling dates from June 18, 2026: CNEWS v. France (No. 41355/23). The Court upheld ARCOM’s decision to censor remarks made in November 2021 by Professor Christian Perronne. CNEWS was accused of allowing this doctor to speak while he downplayed the fifth wave of COVID-19 and urged the French public not to get vaccinated.

“CNEWS Cases” about Freedom of Expression on COVID-19, Immigration, and Islam

This is the fourth application by CNEWS that the Court has rejected. In 2025, the ECHR had already issued a ruling regarding comments critical of the COVID-19 vaccine passport made by a journalist. Two other decisions in 2023 and 2024 concerned remarks made by the French far right leader Éric Zemmour regarding immigration and Islam. Regarding the June 18, 2026, ruling concerning Professor Perronne, it remains open to CNEWS to request and obtain a referral of the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court, especially since two of the seven judges on the Chamber wrote well-reasoned dissenting opinions.[1]  

If the Court agrees to rehear the case of CNEWS v. France (No. 41355/23) in the Grand Chamber, the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) will once again be able to submit written observations, as it did during the Chamber’s consideration of the case. In the meantime, the ECLJ filed its written observations this week in the pending case of C8 v. France (No. 17525/25). The company that operated the French channel “C8” between 2005 and 2025 alleges a violation of its freedom of expression due to ARCOM’s decision not to renew its license to broadcast on digital terrestrial television (DTT).

The ECLJ’s Arguments in the New Case C8 v. France

The Court considers that audiovisual regulation is justified “for technical reasons related to the constraints inherent in audiovisual communication, namely the limited number of available frequencies and the need to establish a certain discipline in the allocation of these frequencies.”[2] It reviews the criteria used by national regulatory authorities regarding the allocation or renewal of audiovisual frequencies.

ARCOM’s decision regarding the closure of C8 was not published on its website. It therefore does not comply with the requirement of the Council of Europe, which established the principle that any decision adopted by regulatory authorities must be made available to the public.^[3] However, since ARCOM’s decision was attached to C8’s application, the Court will be able to examine its reasoning.

The Court distinguishes between objective grounds – such as the possession of modern technical or financial resources, or the experience acquired by the operator – and grounds that involve “a highly subjective assessment,” such as a project’s ability to fulfill a “societal function” or to serve the public interest.^[4] In this case, ARCOM took into account, in particular, the accumulation of sanctions imposed on the C8 channel to justify the non-renewal of its license to broadcast on DTT.^[5]

Charles-Henri Alloncle’s Parliamentary Report About French Audiovisual Regulation

Regarding these sanctions, the ECLJ deemed it useful to cite before the Court excerpts from the parliamentary report of April 27, 2026, on audiovisual regulation.[6] French MP Charles-Henri Alloncle, the rapporteur, noted “a clear asymmetry in the use of financial sanctions, to the detriment of private broadcasters alone.” Among the “very specific differences in treatment” observed, the report notes a contrast between the “severity” applied against C8 and the “restraint” shown, by contrast, toward France Inter.[7] Charles-Henri Alloncle concludes as follows:

It is this discrepancy that has caught your rapporteur’s attention. On the one hand, there is a series of punitive decisions, high fines, and repeated litigation —culminating in the disappearance of a channel. On the other hand, with regard to public broadcasting, there have been reminders, warnings, or occasional interventions, but no financial sanctions for the past fifteen years. Such a disparity in treatment can only fuel doubts about the balance with which the regulator exercises its power to sanction. This is all the more difficult to understand given that public broadcasting—funded by all taxpayers and subject to specific obligations—should be subject to oversight that is at least as rigorous.[8]

Furthermore, the various warnings and fines issued by ARCOM against C8[9] should not be treated as equivalent. Thus, a distinction must be made between, on the one hand, cases involving violations of public decency, sexual assault, or personal humiliation, and, on the other hand, the more questionable restrictions concerning Cyril Hanouna’s expression of his opinion on the “Lola affair” or the broadcast of the film Unplanned on abortion. In the latter case, ARCOM’s decision was made amid political pressure – including from the government – calling for C8 to be sanctioned.

The French audiovisual regulatory regime, more restrictive than European models

The ECLJ’s observations analyze various European audiovisual regulatory regimes and show that the French approach is unique. It is centralized, top-down, and focused on ethical oversight of content by a single authority (ARCOM), whereas other European countries favor purely economic and competitive regulation, limiting direct government intervention in the editorial policies of broadcasters.

Most concerning is the evolution of the French audiovisual regulatory framework. In a decision dated June 12, 2026, ARCOM extended its oversight of pluralism for the first time to all contributors to a channel,[10] citing a ruling by the Conseil d’État.[11] In this formal notice issued against CNEWS, ARCOM also requires that contributors refrain from systematically criticizing the actions of the executive branch, the judiciary, the European Union, or the far-left political party La France insoumise. ARCOM is in fact challenging:

the predominance of a single interpretative framework of current events, characterized by an emphasis – through the prism of internal security – on the threat that immigration and Islam are alleged to pose to French society, the questioning – particularly on these issues – of the action of the executive and of the European Union, as well as a strong mistrust of the judicial institution, together with systematic criticism of the La France insoumise party, resulting (…) in the overrepresentation of one current of thought and opinion compared with other currents and opinions also present in public debate.[12]

If CNEWS does not comply with the editorial line imposed by this decision, there is no reason to believe it will not suffer the same fate as C8, especially since ARCOM has indicated that it will strengthen its oversight ahead of the 2027 French elections.

_______________

[1] Société d’Exploitation d’un Service d’Information - CNews v. France, No. 41355/23, June 18, 2026, dissenting opinions of Justices Zünd and Sârcu.

[2] Jacques Leveque v. France (dec.), No. 35591/97, November 23, 1999.

[3] Committee of Ministers, Recommendation Rec(2000)23 concerning the independence and functions of regulatory authorities in the broadcasting sector, December 20, 2000, § 27; Declaration on the Independence and Functions of Regulatory Authorities in the Broadcasting Sector, adopted on March 26, 2008, at the 1022^nd Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

[4] Glas Nadejda EOOD and Anatoli Elenkov v. Bulgaria, No. 14134/02, October 11, 2007, §§ 48-49; Objective Television and Radio Broadcasting Company and Others v. Azerbaijan, No. 257/12, February 18, 2025, § 77.

[5] Conseil d’État, Société C8, No. 499823, February 19, 2025, § 39.

[6] Assemblée nationale, Rapport fait au nom de la commission d’enquête sur la neutralité, le fonctionnement et le financement de l’audiovisuel public, Report No. 2698, 17th Legislature, presented by Charles Alloncle, submitted on April 27, 2026.  

[7] Ibid., pp. 192–194.

[8] Ibid., p. 195.

[9] Libération (CheckNews), « Publicités clandestines, agressions sexuelles, insultes… La liste des 36 alertes et amendes de l’Arcom à l’adresse de C8 », February 25, 2025.

[10] Arcom, Décision mettant en demeure la société d’exploitation d’un service d’information, No. 2026-271, published on June 15, 2026.

[11] Conseil d’État, Association Reporters sans frontières, No. 463162, February 13, 2024.

[12] Arcom, Decision No. 2026-271, supra, § 18.