----

(2004/C 88 E/0611)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/03

by Roy Perry (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject:   Transparency in the application of broadcasting legislation in the Czech Republic

In its latest Regular Report on the Czech Republic (1), the European Commission criticised that country's ‘continued lack of transparency and stability in relation to questions of ownership and control of commercial TV stations’. It noted that ‘a second such dispute has now arisen that may also have to be solved in international arbitration courts’. The Commission furthermore notes that the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting ‘should ensure the timely, objective and effective application of broadcasting legislation’ and that ‘it remains particularly important to establish and supervise effectively a transparent and predictable regulatory framework’.

How will the Commission continue to monitor the handling by the Czech authorities of the problems of the past, such as the TV3 case which is mentioned by the Regular Report (‘the second such dispute’), whereby EC investors were discriminated against in a licence transfer decision of the Czech Council for Radio and Television Broadcasting? Are any specific actions planned by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The concerns expressed by the Commission in its 2002 Regular Report (2) reflect the two ongoing disputes concerning foreign investment in Czech commercial television stations and the additional mid-2002 disagreements (now apparently solved) within the Czech Republic about control of the largest commercial channel. That these three issues were able to develop suggests that measures should be taken by the Czech authorities to improve matters in the sector via the amendment of relevant legislation, the modification of regulatory practice, or a combination of the two.

The 2002 Report also sought to highlight the central role that the regulator plays in such an environment, particularly at a time when (following recent adoption of new legislation) precedents are set and its authority must be established.

The audio-visual ‘acquis’ does not detail specific requirements about broadcasting sector regulation, nor about the licensing processes which have been at the centre of the TV3 dispute. The Television Without Frontiers Directive (3) requires that Member States be in a position to effectively implement the ‘acquis’, which gives the Commission grounds to express concerns with the general state of regulation in the sector, and call for improvements — but not to require exact models of regulation or licensing.

There have been numerous contacts between Commission officials and parties interested in the TV3 dispute and the Commission continues to follow developments very closely. Allegations of discrimination are taken very seriously by the Commission, as are the duties attached to the monitoring of Candidate Countries. The Commission will reflect developments in this sector as appropriate when presenting its 2003 Monitoring Report.

However, the Commission's scope for ‘specific actions’ in commercial disputes such as this is limited, in particular when such disputes are sub judice. The foreign investor filed a lawsuit in the Czech Republic immediately after the regulator made its disputed decision — the lawsuit was rejected by the Prague Municipal Court, and the Czech Constitutional Court is considering the appeal. The foreign investor is also now about to file a claim based on the Belgium/Luxembourg — Czech Republic Bilateral Investment Treaty. Legal proceedings must take their course. The Commission will continue to emphasise to the Czech authorities the importance of effective supervision of a transparent and predictable regulatory framework.

----

(1)  SEC(2002) 1402, Chapter 20, pages 99-101, of 9 October 2002.

(2)  COM(2002) 700 final.

(3)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, OJ L 298, 17.10.1989.

----