Somewhere in Saarland, a private website called “Live-Ticker” operated under the name of its founder’s pseudonym, Traugott Ickeroth. It charged nothing. It ran no advertising. Between April 2022 and August 2023 it survived on voluntary donations from its readers — a little over sixty thousand euros in total. Four times in 2023, its operators reposted videos originally broadcast by RT Deutschland, the German-language arm of the Russian state broadcaster.
That is the entire factual basis of a case that reached the European Union’s highest court this month.
What the Court Was Actually Asked
The EU banned RT and Sputnik across all platforms in March 2022, weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — cable, satellite, apps, websites, all of it. The regulation prohibits “operators” from broadcasting, or helping to broadcast, content from a short list of sanctioned Russian outlets.
The open question was what “operator” means. Does it cover a business running a television channel — or does it also cover a private citizen with a blog and a donation button? Germany’s regional court in Saarbrücken, hearing the criminal case against the three individuals behind the site, wasn’t sure. Under Article 267 of the EU treaties, national courts facing a genuine uncertainty about EU law can refer the question upward. Saarbrücken did exactly that, in January 2025.
The Answer
On July 2, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union answered in Case C-67/25. The ruling states that the ban applies “irrespective of whether or not” the activity is commercial, and that it depends “neither on the extent nor on the duration of the broadcasting.” The court explicitly rejected the European Commission’s own earlier guidance, which had suggested the rule applied only to people or entities conducting “commercial or professional” activity. The Commission’s FAQ documents, the court noted, aren’t legally binding and can’t narrow a sanctions regulation on their own.
In plain terms: it makes no difference whether you ran a media company or a hobby blog, whether you made a cent or a euro, whether ten people saw the video or ten thousand. If the content originated from a sanctioned outlet and you made it available to the public, the court has now confirmed you can be treated as an “operator” under EU law — and prosecuted accordingly. Under Germany’s Foreign Trade Act, that carries a sentence of three months to five years; a February 2026 amendment introduced an aggravated version running up to ten.
The ruling doesn’t decide the German defendants’ fate. It answers the legal question and returns the case to Saarbrücken, where the actual verdict will now be reached using this interpretation.
What the Ruling Doesn’t Say
It’s worth being precise about the shape of this, because the precision is what makes it striking rather than merely loud.
The research continues every week.
Hidden history. Forgotten symbols. New articles before they disappear into the archive. Delivered once a week. No noise.
Join the dispatch →Prefer Telegram? Daily updates here.
The court did not rule on whether anything the three defendants posted was true, false, or propaganda. It didn’t need to. The regulation’s own stated justification — a “systematic, international campaign of media manipulation” — is about the source as a whole, not about verifying any individual video. The mechanism the court upheld doesn’t ask what was said. It asks only where it came from.
That is, in fact, the entire design. A regulation built to block a propaganda operation, enforced through a rule that never has to look at the content itself, so long as the source is on the list.
Not the First Time
Germany had already moved against RT Deutschland before the EU-wide ban existed — licensing pressure, platform removals, and banking restrictions had made the channel difficult to distribute domestically well before March 2022. What’s new here isn’t the ban. It’s the confirmation that the ban reaches all the way down to a single unpaid person with a blog and a donation link, with no floor for how small an operation has to be before it counts.
⬥ ⬥ ⬥
A restriction that depends entirely on the identity of the speaker, and not at all on the content of the speech, is a specific and well-known category of restriction. Ordinarily, when the European Union encounters that category of restriction, it has strong opinions about it — provided the restriction belongs to somebody else.
Primary source: Case C-67/25, Traugott Ickeroth, Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 2 July 2026. Reference for a preliminary ruling lodged by the Landgericht Saarbrücken, 31 January 2025. Official case record: eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2062/oj/eng
