Internet Censorship and Surveillance in Europe Today

Internet censorship and surveillance in Europe are complex issues, with multiple countries having their own approaches.

The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets a framework for data protection, but its effectiveness varies across member states.

Some European countries have implemented strict internet censorship laws, such as Russia, which has blocked access to websites and social media platforms.

In contrast, countries like Germany have more relaxed laws, with a focus on protecting individual freedoms.

The use of surveillance technologies, like facial recognition software, is also on the rise in Europe.

Additional reading: Internet Censorship and Surveillance by Country

Belgium has been filtering several websites at the DNS level since April 2009, including those involved in unlicensed gambling, hate speech, and file sharing.

These filters are implemented by Internet providers such as Belgacom, Telenet, and Proximus, who redirect users to a page stating that the content is illegal under Belgian law.

In Europe, several countries have taken steps to regulate and restrict internet access. Moldova, for instance, has seen the government interfere with mobile and internet connections to silence protestors and influence election results.

Moldova's internet users enjoy largely unfettered access despite the government's restrictive tendencies. Filtering and surveillance occur mainly at internet cafes and workplaces, not at the backbone level.

Some countries have implemented DNS filtering to block access to certain websites. Belgium, for example, has been filtering websites at the DNS level since April 2009, blocking sites that engage in illegal activities or display information contrary to public order or morality.

The Czech Republic has also taken steps to block certain websites, including conspiracy and fake news websites spreading Russian propaganda during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Greece, on the other hand, has seen a push towards surveillance of internet communications, with the Prosecutor of the Greek Supreme Court declaring that internet-based communications are open to surveillance by the police.

Here's a breakdown of some European countries' internet regulations:

These examples illustrate the varying approaches to internet regulation across European countries.

Ukraine has a relatively liberal legislation governing the Internet and access to information. The country's constitution and laws provide for freedom of speech and press. However, the government does not always respect these rights in practice.

Local media observers express concern over high monetary damages that at times were demanded and awarded for alleged libel. This can have a chilling effect on free speech and the ability of journalists to report on important issues.

The Ukrainian government has attempted to create legislation that could censor or limit content online, presenting indirect threats to freedom of information. Despite this, the Internet in Ukraine is largely unhindered, with no practice of institutionalized blocking or filtering.

Here is a breakdown of Ukraine's ratings in the Freedom on the Net report by Freedom House:

In Germany, internet censorship is practiced by law, with laws that allow blocking of offensive sites or media on websites unwilling to pay licensing fees. For example, the GEMA-YouTube dispute is a well-known example of this.

There are no government restrictions on access to the Internet or credible reports that the government monitors e-mail or Internet chat rooms without judicial oversight in Germany.

However, the NetzDG law in Germany demands social media sites move quickly to remove "hate speech", "fake news" and "illegal material", with sites facing fines of up to €50 million if they don't comply within 24 hours.

Consider reading: Internet Censorship in Germany

Germany has no government restrictions on access to the Internet.

There are no credible reports that the German government monitors e-mail or Internet chat rooms without judicial oversight.

In fact, the German government has repealed a law that would have implemented large-scale filtering of child pornography websites, citing that ISPs already quickly take down such content after receiving knowledge about it.

Consider reading: Computer Says No Internet but Internet Works

A leaked EU communication has revealed a worrying trend in the region: the increasing privatisation of surveillance and censorship efforts.

The leaked document shows that private companies are being hired to monitor and control online activity, often with little oversight or accountability.

This trend is particularly concerning in countries like Hungary, where the government has been accused of using private companies to silence critics and opposition voices.

In Hungary, the government has been using private companies to monitor online activity, often through the use of invasive and untested technologies.

Broaden your view: Free Online Web Cams

The EU's own data protection agency has expressed concerns about the use of private companies in surveillance and censorship efforts, citing a lack of transparency and accountability.

Private companies are often more aggressive in their surveillance and censorship efforts than government agencies, using techniques like deep packet inspection to monitor and control online activity.

This has serious implications for online freedom and security, as private companies are often more interested in making a profit than in protecting users' rights.

Take a look at this: What Is Online Tracking

The European Union's (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) sets a high standard for data protection, but its effectiveness in preventing mass surveillance is still debated.

The GDPR requires companies to obtain explicit consent from users before collecting and processing their personal data.

In 2020, the French data protection authority fined Google €50 million for violating the GDPR by not providing users with clear and transparent information about their data collection practices.

The EU's ePrivacy Directive aims to protect electronic communications, including emails and online messages.

The UK's Investigatory Powers Act (2016) allows for bulk data collection and retention of internet records, which raises concerns about mass surveillance.

In 2019, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK's bulk data collection practices were unlawful, citing a breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

For your interest: Digital Collection System Network

In November 2023, a coalition of organizations filed a complaint against the French decree implementing the EU's Regulation on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online. The complaint aimed to annul the regulation due to its incompatibility with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The French supreme administrative court, the Conseil d'État, rejected the organisations' arguments and their request to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in a decision released on Monday, 16 June 2025.

The United Kingdom has a long history of notable cases and decisions that have shaped the country's laws and regulations.

The UK's Supreme Court has played a crucial role in this process, with one notable example being the case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, where the court ruled that the UK government did not have the power to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval.

The UK's Human Rights Act has also been the subject of several notable cases, including the case of A v UK, where the European Court of Human Rights found that the UK's refusal to allow a homeless person to remain in a hostel was a breach of their right to a home.

The UK's laws on data protection have been shaped by cases such as Durant v Financial Services Authority, where the court established the right to access personal data held by public authorities.

In November 2023, several organizations filed a complaint against the French decree implementing the European Union's Regulation on addressing the dissemination of terrorist content online.

The French supreme administrative court, the Conseil d'État, rejected the organisations' arguments and their request to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union in a decision released on Monday, 16 June 2025.

This decision is disappointing because the French court illegitimately took over the legal debate over the TCO regulation's compatibility with EU primary law, which should have been addressed at the EU level.

The organisations that challenged the TCO Regulation have consistently voiced concerns about potential violations of fundamental rights due to its inadequate safeguards, and this decision means that law enforcement authorities across the EU can continue to use the excessive censorship powers under the TCO Regulation.

Of all 349 removal orders issued in the EU between June 2022 and April 2024, 249 were issued by German authorities following the events of October 7 in Israel, which is highly alarming given the increasing crackdown in Germany on freedom of expression and on freedom of assembly and association.

This decision is also concerning because it prevents the Court of Justice of the European Union from exercising its exclusive competences in ruling on the legality of EU acts.

For more insights, see: Internet Freedom