Advocate General Norkus opinion on meaning of “operator” in Reg 833 broadcast prohibition

13 February 2026

Advocate General Norkus (the Lithuanian Advocate General at of the European Court of Justice) has issued his non-binding opinion in Case C-67/25 on the meaning of “operator” in Article 2f(1) of Regulation (EU) 833/2014. See our EU preliminary rulings page for pending and concluded requests for preliminary rulings on sanctions issues.

The request for a preliminary ruling was made by the Saarbrücken Regional Court in Germany in criminal proceedings against 3 people suspected of violating the broadcast prohibition under Article 2f of Reg 833 by broadcasting videos from the RT Deutschland channel via their blog. The website was free to access, but it accepted donations and raised €60,000. Article 2f prohibits “operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast” any content of people/entities listed in Annex XV of Reg 833.

The German Court asked the ECJ whether “operators” included “natural persons who, through a website operated by them, only generate income in the form of voluntary contributions from third parties (donations or gifts)”. The AG is of the opinion that operators include people operating websites and that it is irrelevant whether they derive income from that operation. He said:

• The meaning of operator refers to the exercise of a function of control, direction or management of the broadcasting process. Its scope is not limited to broadcasts that generate economic activity.

• The effectiveness of Article 2f would be undermined if it depended on economic or professional activity. The concept of operator must be interpreted in a functional and technologically neutral manner.

• Where the EU legislature intends to limit a measure to a specific economic scope, it expressly does so – see Article 3r of Reg 833.

• The voluntary funding models of websites like in this case are especially vulnerable to manipulation and can easily be used to circumvent EU sanctions, because they can present themselves as “independent” while still spreading prohibited materials. If Article 2f depended on economic activity, operators could circumvent sanctions by adjusting their funding model or keeping their income low. A broad interpretation of operator prevents these circumvention risks.