Realitatea Plus License Dispute: Court Rulings and Financial Controversies

The Bucharest Court of Appeal has suspended the National Audiovisual Council’s (CNA) decision to withdraw the broadcasting license of Realitatea Plus, allowing the television station to continue its operations amid ongoing legal proceedings. This ruling comes after CNA revoked the license on April 7, 2026, citing unpaid fines exceeding 600,000 lei accumulated between January 2024 and September 2025. The suspension, issued on April 8, 2026, prevents the immediate closure of the channel and preserves its ability to broadcast while the case undergoes further judicial review.

The court’s decision was based on procedural concerns raised by the station’s legal team, who argued that CNA failed to properly notify Realitatea Plus before imposing the sanction and ignored prior interpretations by Romania’s High Court of Cassation and Justice in similar cases. Lawyer Ioan Georgescu, representing PHG MEDIA-INVEST S.R.L., the owner of the license, warned that maintaining the withdrawal would have significant consequences, including potential job losses for over 300 employees and broader social and economic impacts.

While CNA maintained that it was obligated to enforce the law regarding unpaid fines, Vice President Valentin Jucan acknowledged internal tensions within the council following the ruling. Premier Ilie Bolojan weighed in on the matter, emphasizing the need to balance freedom of expression with legal compliance, though he did not directly intervene in the judicial process. The suspension can be challenged by CNA within five days, according to reports from Antena3, leaving the final outcome uncertain as the Court of Appeal continues to examine the case.

The ruling also extends to Gold FM, whose license was withdrawn in the same CNA session on April 7, 2026. Both outlets, known for their critical coverage of the Romanian political establishment, have framed the actions as politically motivated, though regulators insist the decisions were based solely on financial non-compliance. The case has sparked national debate over media freedom and the use of administrative procedures in regulatory enforcement, with protests and public discussions emerging in response to the initial license withdrawals.