Digital Services Coordinator: a new player in the regulation of online platforms and who will take this role in Ukraine?

The analytical report was prepared as part of the Promoting Internet Freedom in Ukraine Program implemented by the American Bar Association in Ukraine / Rule of Law Initiative

 1. Origins of legal regulation of online platforms in the EU

Until recently, international attempts to regulate the activities of social networks were limited either to the states accepting impossibility of influencing the decisions of companies based abroad, or to repressive laws in authoritarian and totalitarian states, which focused on forcing platforms to remove content that would violate national laws, or to localize the processing of personal data. The states that chose the former approach mostly tried to establish informal contacts with social networks on restricting access to content or obtaining information about offenders. The effects of these measures can be seen, for example, in transparency reports published by online platforms.

The second group of states mainly acted by creating and developing legislation. Prominent examples have been Turkey, where Twitter and Wikipedia were once blocked due to the distribution of content defaming the memory of Atatürk; Russia with its various social media laws, legislation criminalizing likes and reposts, as well as its attempt to block Telegram; and Singapore with its demands to label fake news based on government orders under the threat of significant fines. A common feature was that such regulation was directive in its nature: very often, decisions on limiting information or providing personal data were issued without adequate guarantees of independence by bodies belonging to the executive power, or by courts that did not meet the criteria of independence.

Over time, member states of the European Union joined the formulation of legislative norms aimed at regulating platforms. Examples are Germany, where NetzDG became, according to several pundits, the inspiration for further censorship of social networks in non-democratic countries; Austria where a similar law was adopted; as well as France that adopted legislation aimed at countering the spread of false information in the pre-election period. They focused on establishing transparency obligations for platforms on content moderation and assigning them obligations to create effective and prompt mechanisms for handling user complaints.

These countries became the harbingers of regulation for the entire European Union, which has been discussed since 2020 in the form of the Draft Digital Services Act (DSA). It entered into force in November 2022, and the DSA will be fully operational from February 17, 2024. This act is a systemic solution in the field of online security in the EU, and its main slogan is:everything that is prohibited offline should be prohibited online.”

The main solutions proposed by the DSA to limit the harmful influence of online platforms center around content moderation. Thus, European lawmakers pay special attention to procedures for notification of the existence of illegal content on the platform (notice and action) and the possibility of appealing platform decisions. The Act also provides for a number of due diligence obligations, in particular regarding the establishment of sustainable communication with the authorities and citizens, transparency of platforms and requirements for their terms and conditions.

However, in addition to substantive rules, when it comes to implementing the DSA in Ukraine, it is necessary to analyze the mechanisms of implementation and monitoring of the compliance with the rules, because constructing an effective system of interaction with online platforms is impossible without proper supervision of implementation of the adopted norms.

2. Commissions, coordinators and other implementers

The DSA provided for several levels of supervision over the activities of all Internet intermediaries. The European Commission has undertaken to supervise the specific obligations of the very large online platforms and search engines (Articles 33-43 of DSA). It is the Commission at the Union level that will oversee to what extent such platforms carry out systemic risks assessments, implement crisis response mechanisms, and also comply with enhanced obligations regarding the transparency of advertising and recommender systems.

In turn, the main burden of supervision over obligations of due diligence will remain at the level of the platform’s state of establishment (Articles 9-32 of DSA). States of establishment will be those states where these companies are based – for example, Ireland for the European office of Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp). At the same time, such a state of establishment will, in fact, be the single point of entry and the only regulator on the territory of the European Union for each intermediary. This means that only this state will receive requests about the violation of DSA requirements by the intermediary. States of establishment will also have certain powers over the very large online platforms and search engines and can be the first to scan these companies for compliance with basic due diligence requirements, unless and until the European Commission intervenes.

The DSA provides for the possibility of appointing several competent authorities to share the responsibilities for the implementation of the Act in the intermediary’s state of establishment. In particular, they can be regulators in the areas of personal data protection, consumer protection, electronic communications or media. However, each EU Member State, even in when several bodies are granted the authority to implement the DSA, is obliged to appoint one state authority responsible for supervision and coordination – the Digital Services Coordinator, and EU Member States have until February 17, 2024, to decide on their own candidate for this role and inform the European Commission accordingly.

Notwithstanding the long transition period in the implementation of the Act for EU Member States, it is already important that Ukrainian authorities pay attention to it and prepare for its implementation as a part of its EU membership bid. In particular, the EU questionnaire regarding the preparation of an assessment of Ukraine’s application for EU membership has already raised questions about the measures and initiatives that intersect with DSA.

The distribution of powers between Ukrainian authorities will be a significant challenge and should be discussed already at the early stages of modeling and ensuring the implementation of DSA in Ukraine. Based on this, it will be necessary to create an institutionally capable system of enforcing authorities to entrust them with the specific functions provided for by the Act. Therefore, we suggest to take a closer look at the functions of Digital Services Coordinators and start a discussion on which modality of this body is the most appropriate within the framework of effective architecture of Ukrainian government apparatus.

3. Who is Mr/Ms Coordinator?

The DSA puts forward a number of requirements to the bodies that will be involved in its implementation at the national level, which is necessary to ensure the public interests of the EU in the online platforms’ policy. They will also apply to the Digital Services Coordinator, who should be able to ensure coordination between implementing bodies, both at the national and international levels. Such requirements are:

  • complete independence of the body from direct and indirect external interference;
  • being equipped with sufficient technical, financial and human resources;
  • impartial and transparent exercise of powers, which includes regular reporting, without taking instructions from any other public authority or any private party.

These requirements are very similar to those imposed on independent regulators in other areas – for example, in the field of media and personal data protection. In their case, these requirements should ensure institutional independence of regulators from external influence in the performance of their powers and establish their independent status in the relevant legal systems. Therefore, this factor should significantly narrow down the choice of bodies to be involved in the implementation of the Act and nominated as Coordinators.

The very name of the body, however, should not mislead – the Digital Services Coordinator not only coordinates the actions of others (although it must do so in case when the state chooses a scheme with several involved bodies), but is also responsible for overseeing compliance with very specific and complex obligations enshrined in the DSA. To do this, it is empowered to investigate, conduct inspections and impose fines for violations of DSA requirements.

Next topic is the analysis of areas in which the Coordinator of Digital Services will be empowered to supervise and implement the Act. These areas will differ depending on the type of Internet intermediaries, as the DSA provides for a diversified approach to imposing duties on different regulatory entities.

If such intermediaries are providers of the transmission of information provided by a recipient of the service, or the provision of access to a communication network (mere conduit according to DSA terminology), providers of temporary and permanent information storage services (caching and hosting), the Coordinator will be responsible for the supervision and implementation of all due diligence norms that apply to them, except in cases of delegation of powers to other bodies. Such requirements for these categories of Internet intermediaries are:

  • creation of a single point of contact;
  • appointment of a legal representative if a company does not have a representative office in the EU;
  • specific requirements for the terms and conditions;
  • submission of transparency reports;
  • implementation of notice and action mechanisms by hosting providers and provision of statement of reasons for the decisions taken regarding the restriction of the use of services.

At the same time, a number of requirements will apply to the supervision and regulation of online platforms only. They differ from hosting providers in that they not only store, but also disseminate information at the user’s request. With regard to this category of entities, the Digital Services Coordinators will be able to supervise the following requirements’ implementation:

  • creation of an internal complaint-handling system against the decisions of online platforms;
  • strengthened requirements regarding transparency of platforms, in particular regarding statistics of dispute resolution, average number of monthly users, recommender systems and placement of advertisements;
  • creating an online interface that does not deceive or manipulate the users.

Two powers will be unique to Coordinators. First, they will approve and revoke the recognition of out-of-court dispute settlement bodies. Such bodies should consider disputes about decisions made by platforms regarding content as a result of receiving notifications from users and be independent in performing their functions. The second significant power provided by the Act is the competence of the Coordinators to approve and revoke the recognition of trusted flaggers. Such flaggers, which can include state authorities, will act in certain areas of expertise (for example, hate speech, child sexual abuse content, graphic and violent content, etc.) as subjects whose notifications on illegal content will be considered by the platforms as a priority.

Powers regarding the very large online platforms and search engines will be primarily concentrated in the hands of the European Commission, but it will share some of them with the Digital Services Coordinators. In particular, the Coordinators of the states of establishment – that is, the states in which the platform is registered or has designated a legal representative, can help the European Commission determine the size of online platforms for the qualification of the latter as the very large online platforms and search engines.

In this regard, at the beginning of February, the European Commission issued the guidance on determining active users of online platforms, and after February 17, 2023 – that is, after a deadline for publishing the number of users of online platforms – companies such as Amazon, Apple, AliExpress and Pinterest claimed to have more than 45 million users in the EU. At the same time, Spotify,, OnlyFans, eBay said that they did not reach 45 million users in the EU and could not be recognized as the very large online platforms and search engines. On April 25, 2023, the European Commission published the first decision regarding the recognition of the following companies as the very large online platforms and search engines:

  • Alibaba, Aliexpress, Google Shopping,, Zalando;
  • Amazon Store, Google Store, AppStore;
  • Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube;
  • Google Maps, Wikipedia;
  • Bing, Google Search.

The power to obtain and use data for supervision powers and designate ‘vetted researchers’ who request access to the platform information to investigate the systemic risks of their work will be unique to Digital Services Coordinators across major online platforms. This power is critical to get understanding of the systemic risks to users that are caused by the algorithms of these platforms. Such risks include mass dissemination of illegal content, negative impact on human rights, or negative impact on the election process and public order. The work of the Coordinators in this field will be supported by the European Commission, with involvement of the newly created European Algorithm Transparency Center. Based on the outcomes of such interaction, the European Commission in cooperation with national Coordinators can issue recommendations on mitigating systemic risks.

The Digital Services Coordinators will interact through the European Board of Digital Services – an independent advisory body, which will consist of high-level representatives from the Digital Services Coordinators and will be headed by the European Commission. As members of the European Board of Digital Services, the Digital Services Coordinators will be involved in developing voluntary standards, codes of conduct and crisis protocols and providing recommendations to the European Commission on taking special measures during crises.

4. Functions and powers of Coordinators

The capabilities and tasks of the Digital Services Coordinators will not only be regulatory and supervisory in nature. They will also act as the main point of contact for both national authorities and European counterparts – other Coordinators and the European Commission. Internally, states can distribute the authority to implement the DSA between various bodies, but it is the Coordinators who will systematically oversee the implementation of the Act and its future modifications at the level of the EU as a community. Within the framework of the EU, the Coordinators will perform this function through the following powers:

  • voting within the European Board of Digital Services;
  • acting as a national point of contact for cooperation with the European Commission;
  • implementation of cross-border cooperation with other Coordinators, in particular through conducting joint investigations and exchanging information.

For effective work, the Coordinators receive a number of powers in the field of investigating the actions of Internet intermediaries and imposing sanctions for violations of DSA norms. For the purpose of investigating and researching the work of companies, the Coordinators are authorized to:

  • send information requests to any relevant organizations;
  • carry out inspections of premises to obtain information (independently or with the help of other authorities, with or without a court order);
  • conduct interviews with representatives of Internet intermediaries to collect information necessary for consideration of cases.

The range of activities aimed at facilitating the implementation of DSA is flexible. They vary from tools aimed at the cooperation between a Coordinator and an Internet intermediary in solving the arising problems to imposing sanctions. Notably, the Coordinators should be empowered to:

  • accept the commitments offered by Internet intermediaries, make them binding, and enforce obligations on the implementation of DSA undertaken in such a way;
  • apply to order the cessation of infringements of the Act (independently or through the court);
  • impose fines and periodic penalty payments (independently or through the court) in the amount of up to 6% of the annual worldwide turnover of the company and up to 5% of the average daily worldwide turnover or profit of the company, respectively;
  • apply interim measures;
  • adopt and implement action plans to eliminate violations, or, as a measure of last resort, restriction of access to the platform for four weeks in case of significant damage and risks from the continued operation of such a platform (independently or through a court).

Therefore, the Digital Services Coordinators will have a significant amount of powers and opportunities to meet the goal of the DSA implementation – that is, to ensure functioning of a more transparent and secure online space. Some of them, such as the possibility of blocking the platform, are generally unprecedented in the European legal system, which has constantly emphasized the almost complete incompatibility of this measure with international human rights standards.

5. Can Coordinators exist outside the DSA?

DSA is definitely the main act in the system of regulating the activities of Internet intermediaries in the territory of the EU. This Act actually established the position of Coordinator. At the same time, the nature of rule-making within the framework of acquis communautaire is that future rules may be prepared with references to regulations or directives not yet adopted and implemented. Therefore, even today, before the launch of the entire regulatory system provided for by the Act, it is worth considering how the role of Coordinators can change in terms of documents being developed in parallel at the level of the European Union.

The regulation of digital platforms is and will be supplemented by special acts either regarding specific types of prohibited content (for example, terrorist content or copyright infringement), or in terms of special regulation of certain areas of public life that are vulnerable to the influence of digital platforms (electoral processes or the functioning of the media). Certain acts will have even greater impact on the interaction between online platforms and businesses, including the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Most of them provide space for the involvement of the Coordinator in their implementation.

A direct reference to the role of the Digital Services Coordinator is established in the Draft Regulation on Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising . In its Article 15 the Coordinator is referred to as one of the main bodies that will oversee how Internet intermediaries comply with the rules regarding the labeling of political advertising, the creation of mechanisms for users to send complaints regarding the qualification of certain material as political advertising, as well as the publication of libraries repositories of such content.

Certain powers deriving from the Draft European Media Freedom Act also apply to online platforms and are vested on media regulators – one of the main candidates for the role of Coordinator, despite the primary focus of this type of regulator on media regulation and a sole type of online platforms – video-sharing platforms (such as YouTube and Vimeo). In particular, Section III of the Draft establishes the competence of media regulators to oversee compliance with its provisions, improves the procedure of communication between regulators regarding the implementation of the provisions of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, which cover video-sharing platforms’ due diligence obligations and significantly overlap with the provisions of the DSA. Also, the Draft Act can add additional competences to media regulators in the field of regulation of the very large online platforms – notably, regarding the creation of functionality for self-labeling of the media status. However, their implementation will most likely take place jointly with the European Commission.

The Digital Markets Act will also primarily be implemented by the European Commission in relation to the so-called gatekeepers. Although the logic of this step is clear, further implementation of this instrument at the national level by EU candidate states, which will not have access to the European Commission as a regulator, remains an issue. So, potentially, the Digital Services Coordinator can find a place in this regulatory system as well.

6. How the EU states decide on the Coordinators’ designation

Each individual EU member state decides on appointing the Digital Services Coordinators based on the following factors:

  • the ability to meet DSA requirements regarding the Coordinator, including independence requirements;
  • current configuration of authorities;
  • synergy between a potential Coordinator and the existing authorities;
  • implementation of other relevant EU acts;
  • strategic views on the regulation of online platforms.

Regulators of audiovisual media services received wide support. In particular, the Irish government has already given a clear answer by entrusting the Coordinator functions with a new body, which was created as part of the reform of the media sphere – the Media Commission, and starting drafting relevant legislation for the implementation of this decision. Similar to the situation regarding the protection of personal data, the Irish regulator will face one of the biggest difficulties in its activity, because at least 11 online platforms identified by the European Commission as very large online platforms and search engines are registered there. A similar approach regarding the appointment of a media regulator for the implementation of DSA was also applied by Slovakia and Belgium.

Hungary has chosen its convergent regulator that simultaneously regulates both the field of media and the field of electronic communications as the Coordinator. It should be expected that France and Italy will impose similar duties on convergent regulators. Notably, French ARCOM has already issued a number of recommendations to platforms under national law and analyzed the status of their compliance. The United Kingdom – although not a member of the EU – plans to adopt Online Safety Act, a document similar in nature to the DSA in the near future – and entrust the powers to implement it to a converged Ofcom.

In the Netherlands, the regulator in the field of competition and consumer protection – the Authority for Consumers and Markets – took on the role of Digital Services Coordinator. At the same time, its head has already stated in an interview that one of its main roles in the future is the coordination and involvement of regulators in the field of personal data protection, media and financial discipline. Finland and Spain are about to follow a similar path: appoint the regulator in the field of consumer rights protection and regulator in the field of competition, respectively.

Another option regarding possible assignment of the role of the Coordinator is the regulators in the field of electronic communications. Malta plans to nominate this body for the role. The Czech Republic, Greece, Poland and Slovenia are also thinking of this option.

Not all governments will find it easy to identify a digital services coordinator. For example, the German government has at least four options and has not yet decided on the future model of the Digital Services Coordinator, in particular due to the generally decentralized regulation in these areas, which is delegated to the level of the individual federal states. Candidates for the role of Coordinator are:

  • The Federal Network Regulator (Bundesnetzagentur), an independent body that has the necessary tools for implementation, experience of interaction with other regulators at the EU level, and certain elements of the necessary competences;
  • A coordinating body in the field of media, which meets the conditions of independence, is gaining experience in the implementation of the Directive on audiovisual media services , but does not have enough practical leverage in terms of supervision and interaction with online platforms;
  • The Federal Office of Justice, which implements NetzDG – regulation to combat the dissemination of illegal content in the largest social networks, provided that the independence of the body from the Ministry of Justice is ensured;
  • The Conference on Personal Data Protection, a coordinating body in the field of personal data protection, which, however, has difficulties even with the implementation of the relevant legislation – GDPR.

Interestingly, as of today, there is no knowledge of examples or ideas regarding the creation of a separate body by the EU member states to perform the functions of the Digital Services Coordinator. However, this should be followed in the future – there is still enough time until February 2024.

Another topic worth mentioning is the regulation of the very large online platforms, which the European Commission will perform at the Union level. It plans to hire more than 100 additional staff to strengthen the Directorate of Communications Networks, Content and Technologies (DG CONNECT), create a European Algorithm Transparency Center and harness the support of other European Commission directorates. 

7. Ukrainian authorities that can perform the role of Digital Services Coordinator

Choosing a Digital Services Coordinator in Ukraine is expected to be challenging. Today, Ukraine has virtually no experience in regulating online platforms. For the first time, certain powers in this area were entrusted to one of the national bodies, the National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting (only in 2023 with the entry into force of the Law of Ukraine “On Media”). Its provisions stipulate that the National Council will be able to supervise and sanction platforms for, for example, failure to apply a user age verification system for content that may harm children, or lack of mechanisms for users to send complaints about the distribution of illegal content. At the same time, from the jurisdiction perspective, there is no such entity on the territory of Ukraine – therefore, relevant powers of the media regulator, as well as its competences to sign memorandums with online platforms regarding cooperation in the field of countering illegal content, are quite theoretical. The National Council also represents the positions of Ukraine regarding the regulation of platforms in some international organizations, in particular in the Council of Europe and UNESCO. From this perspective, the National Council looks like a sufficiently ambitious candidate for the role of Coordinator, especially considering its attempts to work on ensuring the freedom of the media environment from harmful content.

The media regulator generally meets the independence requirements to become a DSA Coordinator. The new Law of Ukraine “On Media” has secured financial guarantees for its activities, which should allow the National Council both to hire new staff to exercise its mandate over the platforms and to ensure decent working conditions. The law also removed political grounds for the dismissal of its members, which could be used by the subjects of the nomination – the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the President of Ukraine – for possible political pressure. However, the final independence of the body can be achieved only by changing the system of appointing its members and changing their number to an odd one, which is impossible without constitutional changes.

The regulator of electronic communications in Ukraine – the National Commission for State Regulation of Electronic Communications, Radio Frequency Spectrum and the Provision of Postal Services (NCEC) – has experience in regulating one of the categories of Internet intermediaries, namely Internet providers that are qualified by DSA as mere conduit. The Law of Ukraine “On Electronic Communications” does not provide for requirements similar to the DSA regarding the rules for using the services of such providers or other relevant provisions. Notwithstanding, the NCEC has experience of working with a large number of entities that will be covered by the provisions of the DSA, has created an electronic system of interaction with them, and also meets the requirements of institutional independence due to the implementation of the European Code of Electronic Communications, unlike its predecessor NKRZI, whose members were appointed exclusively by the President of Ukraine. The NCEC also has an observer status with BEREC, the EU body that brings together regulators of communications services and played an active role in finalizing the provisions of the DSA before it was adopted. Therefore, the potential role of the NCEC in working with Internet intermediaries can also be significant due to its experience and expertise, which the National Council does not have.

Today, the ways of introducing norms concerning the very large online platforms and search engines into the national legislation of EU candidate states remain unclear. Since the European Commission is not an available avenue for EU non-member states, and such platforms are naturally reluctant to operate in a system of fragmented regulation imposed by dozens of different countries, it is worth thinking about a system that would not leave on the regulatory sidelines the entities that the ordinary users of online platform services have the most concerns about. Most likely, part of them will be taken over by the national Digital Services Coordinator, and this factor should also be taken into account when making a decision.

8. East or West: Home Is Best? Conclusions and recommendations

Digital Services Coordinator will be one of key entities in the implementation of the DSA, especially in relation to online platforms registered in the states of establishment and operating in a single state and the enforcement of their due diligence obligations. Until February 2024, EU member states still have the opportunity to choose a best model for the distribution of powers between the Digital Services Coordinator and other public authorities, although the preliminary results of selection of Coordinators prove that 27 EU member states do not have a unified approach. The constitutional features of each state impact the process – somewhere this selection will be simpler due to the availability of single convergent regulators in the field of media and electronic communications; in other states, it is more complicated due to the multiplicity of responsible bodies and the actual minimization of regulation of such areas as media. When making this selection, it is also necessary to take into account the new acts at the EU level, which are currently being developed and affect the activities of Internet intermediaries, in order to have Coordinators ready to exercise their future powers.

European partners are already interested in how Ukraine will implement the regulation on Internet intermediaries, which allows our country to be on the same page with the EU at the early stages of the implementation of DSA and subsequent legislation. At the same time, the task of designing a working regulatory system is very challenging, because not everyone within the EU currently understands how the DSA will work, especially in the field of cooperation between different national Coordinators.

The Ministry of Digital Transformation, as the government body developing legislation to implement the Act, should carefully approach the selection of the Coordinator. One of the main factors should be an understanding of the existing regulatory architecture and problems of formalizing interaction between different bodies at the national level. The martial law and the limited financial resources available in the state to create new institutions should also be taken into account.

In our opinion, the best option for Ukraine regarding the nomination of the Digital Services Coordinator would be a convergent regulator in the field of media and electronic communications, such as the French ARCOM. This approach would allow combining the available expertise of two different bodies, alleviate possible conflicts between state bodies and become a logical outcome of institutional reform in these two areas.

At the same time, this approach seems incompatible with effective constitutional architecture of Ukraine, which limits the possibilities of creating independent regulators, and directly establishes the procedure for forming the National Council of Ukraine for Television and Radio Broadcasting that does not provide an opportunity to finally guarantee its independence and status. Therefore, before the amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine, the activity of such a regulator – even in the case of its creation – may be under constant threat of unconstitutionality. Amendments to the Constitution during martial law are impossible, and therefore are not expected in foreseeable future. Most likely, the Coordinator will be selected among the state authorities that already exist in Ukraine today.

Of the existing regulators that have certain expertise in the areas of application of DSA, the choice of the National Council of Ukraine for Television and Radio Broadcasting seems the most appropriate. As a media regulator, it will in any case supervise the implementation of due diligence norms for one of the categories of online platforms, has already received powers in the field of referendum campaigning, and should also receive powers to supervise the labeling of election campaigning in the media. Also, the National Council can better assess the availability of competences for content evaluation to designate trusted flaggers and perform certification of out-of-court dispute settlement bodies, since it is the only body that currently evaluates the legality of content (with the exception of courts in the framework of civil or criminal proceedings). Granting the media regulator the status of Digital Services Coordinator will allow it to become a platform for the implementation of further EU legislation in the field of regulation of Internet intermediaries, which is being developed today.

At the same time, the legislation should clearly establish the procedure for cooperation between the National Council and NCEC in the field of regulation of certain types of intermediaries, in order to avoid duplication of functions. The legal framework should clearly divide functions and provide for the procedure for the involvement of regulators in other areas in the implementation of DSA, such as an ombudsman or a new regulator in the field of personal data protection, or the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine in case that it is involved in the implementation of norms related to competition in the market for digital services under either DSA or DMA.

In this regard, the Digital Security Lab Ukraine recommends to:

  • consider the expediency of granting the National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting the status and powers of the Digital Services Coordinator;
  • when implementing the DSA at the legislative level, avoid any steps aimed at reducing the guarantees of the independence of the National Council laid down in the effective Law of Ukraine “On Media;”
  • guarantee and provide appropriate level of financial support to the National Council necessary for the effective implementation of the assigned powers;
  • introduce a procedure for cooperation between the media regulator and NCEC, which will take into account the existing competences of both bodies and allow them to exercise their powers within the framework of the implementation of the DSA promptly and without excessive bureaucracy;
  • after the end of legal regime of martial law, consider the possibility of introducing amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the creation of independent regulators, including better institutional independence of the National Council by changing the procedure of appointing its members.

Oleksii Voloshyn DSLU Legal Counsel

Maksym Dvorovyi DSLU Head of Digital Rights