This seems like a nothing burger. The ban of RT is in place already, the new decision is not relating to whether it stays in place or not:

In the law, operators are forbidden from distributing content from a list of banned media, including RT. The question is not relating to the continuation of that ban, but on the word "operator" in particular; it essentially means that it's an entity distributing the content from a commercial perspective.

The question is whether gifts & donations to a private (non-commercial) individual turn that private individual into a commercial distributor and thus an operator.

‘Must Article 2f(1) of [Regulation No 883/2014] be interpreted as meaning that operators, within the meaning of that provision, also include natural persons who, through a website operated by them, only generate income in the form of voluntary contributions from third parties (donations or gifts)?’

Cited in Judgement #16, page 6

And it follows in the conclusion:

[The law] must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who operates a website by broadcasting on it content originating from legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV to Regulation No 833/2014, as amended, and derives from the operation of that website only income from voluntary contributions from third parties, in the form of donations or gifts, comes within the concept of ‘operator’ within the meaning of that provision

This is the conclusion on the last page of the judgement (is it me or the wording is pretty bad around "that website only income from"?)

The judgement also carefully qualifies why gifts & donations are qualified as income in #15

However, that court observes that the collection of private donations, which constitute gifts under civil law, is capable of being classified as a ‘professional activity’, where it is carried out to such an extent that the beneficiaries receive significant sums enabling them to finance, at least in part, their means of subsistence. In the present case, the appeal for donations appears to be designed to generate financial resources for the continued operation of the traugott-ickeroth website and therefore to constitute a sustainable source of income, which is characteristic of a professional activity

So essentially, the information itself can still be freely shared so long as it's done without monetary support that can be qualified as "income"; they're not further banning the information itself, simply closing a "loophole" around hidden commercial exploitation.

I don't like the original law either (because the media list can be amended to practically include anything and anyone), but this is not changing much, and given the amount of the donations (60k in a year) it's surprising that they thought it would not be considered commercial exploitation to begin with.

Honestly, if they had cut off donations early or capped them to their server costs, then the prosecution would have no recourse.

Edit: Cutoff sentence, wording