San Marino’s ‘strange legislation’: a bid to silence foreign media scrutiny amid EU integration push

As San Marino edges closer to finalizing its Association Agreement with the European Union, a controversial piece of domestic legislation is raising alarms about the micro-state’s commitment to press freedom and transparency.

Law No. 40 of 2023, dubbed the “Teodoro Lonfernini Law” after the former Secretary of State for Internal Affairs who championed it, includes provisions that extend regulatory oversight to foreign media outlets covering San Marino “recursively.”

Critics argue this vague and expansive rule is designed to deter investigative journalism and shield local institutions from criticism – precisely at a time when EU scrutiny demands higher standards of rule of law and media independence.

The issue came to a head following EUalive’s conference on 4 February, titled “Micro-States and EU Association: Is Now the Right Time?” Held at the Press Club Brussels Europe, the event featured experts like former Irish Minister Dick Roche, researcher Gérard Vespirerre, Bulgarian businessman Assen Christov, and San Marino attorney Francesca Maria Bacciocchi. Discussions highlighted concerns over San Marino’s banking transparency, judicial independence, and readiness for EU alignment, including an ongoing controversy involving a €15 million deposit linked to a Bulgarian acquisition bid for Banca di San Marino. Representatives of Andorra and San Marino, BSM, the country’s Central Bank and the Financial Intelligence Agency were invited at the conference which was also streamed online

EUalive’s subsequent article, “Bulgaria Leads Push to Put San Marino’s EU Association Agreement on Hold,” amplified calls from Bulgarian diplomats and MEPs for a pause in ratification until governance issues are resolved.

Bulgaria leads push to put San Marino’s EU Association Agreement on hold

San Marino’s government responded swiftly with a press release from the Congress of State, dated 5 February, dismissing the conference as an attempt to politicize private disputes and undermine the Republic’s sovereignty. The statement defended the judiciary’s impartiality under Dirigente del Tribunale Giovanni Canzio and rejected any linkage between domestic legal matters and the EU association process, which it claimed enjoys unanimous support from member states, including Bulgaria.

It accused critics of using “media campaigns or threats of political boycott” to exert undue pressure, framing such tactics as distortions of democratic values.

Local media in San Marino, including GiornaleSM, echoed the government’s stance but also spotlighted the very legislation now under fire. In an opinion piece by director Marco Severini, the author highlighted Article 12, paragraph 2, of Law No. 40.

This clause empowers the San Marino Authority for Information (Autorità Garante per l’Informazione) to monitor not just local outlets but also foreign websites, blogs, and media that report on San Marino “recursively”—a term left undefined in the law.

What does “recursively” entail?

As Severini notes, it could mean as few as two articles per year qualify a foreign outlet for oversight, subjecting it to demands for financial disclosures under Article 28. These include submitting names of financiers, advertisers, owners, and full financial statements by 31 July annually. Non-compliance carries fines up to €10,000. For EUalive, which has published multiple pieces on San Marino’s EU aspirations and banking issues, this could translate to San Marino authorities fining a Brussels-based EU affairs portal – an unprecedented extraterritorial claim in Western media regulation.

This “strange legislation,” as Bacciocchi described it during the conference, exemplifies broader concerns about San Marino’s media environment. The law, enacted amid domestic debates on information control, risks creating a “chilling effect” on journalism, as Severini argues, violating principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on free information flow without borders. By requiring foreign media to “submit” to local guarantors, it echoes illiberal measures in countries like Hungary or Russia, where oversight bodies stifle dissent. In San Marino’s case, the vagueness of “recursively” allows arbitrary enforcement, potentially discouraging coverage of sensitive topics like financial opacity or judicial flaws.

Bacciocchi, who shared her family’s protracted legal battle with Banca di San Marino during the conference, became a target in the government’s press release. It labelвed her participation “singular, if not openly contradictory” due to family ties to past events allegedly damaging the Republic’s reputation.

In her 6 February reply, copied to San Marino media and EUalive, Bacciocchi rejected this as delegitimization based on kinship, incompatible with rule-of-law principles. She emphasized that her concerns – violations of defence rights, procedural discrimination, and economic barriers to justice – point to systemic institutional issues, not personal vendettas. “When a notarized agreement cannot be examined… the problem is no longer individual, but institutional,” she wrote, urging verification rather than denial.

This exchange underscores how Law No. 40 could be weaponized to intimidate critics. For foreign journalists like those at EUalive, the law poses a direct threat: comply with invasive disclosures or face fines, all while San Marino seeks EU association, which requires adherence to Copenhagen criteria on democracy and human rights.

The European Commission has repeatedly stressed media freedom in enlargement talks; similar laws in candidate countries have drawn rebukes from Brussels. But the Commission never scrutinised San Marino for media freedom.

As San Marino’s EU deal nears a European Parliament vote, the country’s legislation casts doubt on its compatibility with EU values. If San Marino fines international media for scrutiny, it risks isolating itself from the very union it courts.

Ultimately, this “strange legislation” not only discourages media criticism but erodes trust in San Marino’s institutions. As Bacciocchi notes, a state strengthens by confronting limitations, not denying them. For EUalive the message is clear: report at your peril. Yet, in the spirit of press freedom, we persist – because transparency is the bedrock of any aspiring EU partner.

Caption: The 4 February conference in Brussels. From left to right: Georgi Gotev, Dick Roche, Gérard Vespierre, Assen Christov, Francesca Maria Bacciocchi [photo by Momchil Indjov]