Pearle*-Live Performance Europe welcomes the European Commission’s continued work to monitor, safeguard and strengthen the rule of law across the European Union. Pearle* is the European federation for the music and performing arts sector, with over 35 years of cooperation with EU institutions. In the context of the targeted stakeholder consultation for the 2026 Rule of Law Report, Pearle* wishes to draw attention to the growing evidence of restrictions on freedom of artistic expression and interference with cultural institutional autonomy across Member States. These developments have increasingly visible rule of law implications and should be explicitly reflected in future reporting cycles.
In recent years, the cultural sector has been facing intensifying pressures which undermine artistic freedom in practice, despite the fact that this freedom is protected in International and European law.
Artistic freedom should not be only a cultural sector concern. When cultural institutions are subject to political interference, when arts funding becomes conditional on political alignment, or when artists face intimidation and censorship, the impact reaches far beyond the sector. It restricts pluralism and erodes the conditions for democratic debate. For this reason, Pearle* considers that artistic freedom should be understood as a cross-cutting rule of law concern and included in the scope of future Rule of Law Reports.
Across Member States, recurring patterns of interference in culture have been observed. These patterns appear with varying intensity depending on the national context, but they often follow the same logic: weakening independent cultural ecosystems, discouraging critical discourse and diversity, and increasing ideological influence over the cultural sphere. A particularly concerning trend concerns bureaucratic and political encroachment over cultural institutions, including partisan or non-transparent managerial appointments, dismissals of cultural leaders without appropriate procedural safeguards, and institutional restructuring aimed at centralising control. These measures shift decision-making away from professional standards and artistic merit towards political loyalty or ideological alignment, undermining institutional independence and public trust.
A second cross-cutting trend concerns the politicisation of arts funding. The cultural sector is structurally sensitive to this form of interference, as many institutions and organisations depend partly or primarily on public support. In some contexts, centralised funding mechanisms and conditional allocation of resources reward political loyalty, marginalise independent voices, and deprive critical or diverse programming of support. Even when restrictions are not expressed in direct legal terms, these dynamics generate a chilling effect. The risk of defunding or public disapproval encourages self-censorship, weakens artistic experimentation, and reduces the space for independent expression.
Pressure is also exercised through public discourse and media narratives. In certain contexts, public broadcasters and political communication channels have been transformed into instruments of government influence and polarisation. This creates a hostile environment for cultural operators and increases intimidation. Such developments are closely related to the broader erosion of media freedom and pluralism and contribute to a decline in democratic culture.
In addition, Pearle* notes that restrictions on civil society, including legal and financial burdens imposed on independent organisations, also have a direct impact on artistic ecosystems. Excessive administrative requirements, stigmatisation of civil society actors, and measures discouraging civic participation all undermine cultural engagement and the ability of organisations to operate freely. These restrictions both reflect and reinforce wider democratic decline and the erosion of the rule of law, particularly when civil society and cultural participation are framed as “threats” rather than essential components of democratic life.
Artistic freedom is firmly anchored in the Union’s legal order and is directly relevant to the EU’s foundational values. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the Union’s values, including democracy, freedom and respect for human rights. The Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees freedom of expression and information under Article 11 and explicitly guarantees freedom of the arts and sciences under Article 13. In addition, Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union mandates the EU to contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States while respecting diversity. Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that artistic freedom is not a secondary consideration but part of the Union’s core legal and democratic framework.
Given this, we consider that the European Commission Annual Rule of Law Report is well placed to address these concerns, particularly since the report already monitors adjacent and closely connected areas such as media freedom, checks and balances and civic space. However, the absence of explicit monitoring of artistic freedom risks overlooking an increasingly relevant domain of interference. Excluding artistic freedom also risks leaving unaddressed the gap between legal protection and practical reality, as Member States may formally guarantee artistic freedom while simultaneously undermining it through governance capture, politicised funding frameworks, intimidation and indirect censorship.
We further note that the European Parliament has explicitly supported the inclusion of artistic freedom in future reporting cycles1, in its analysis of the Commission’s Rule of Law reporting.
In conclusion, Pearle* calls on the European Commission to explicitly include freedom of artistic expression in future Rule of Law Reports as a cross-cutting element linked to democracy and fundamental rights. Pearle* also encourages the Commission to develop monitoring approaches addressing transparency and safeguards in cultural governance, the independence and fairness of funding mechanisms, and intimidation, harassment and violence targeting artists and cultural organisations. Pearle* remains available to contribute further sectoral expertise and evidence in support of the Commission’s work.