# EUR-Lex - 52011SC1043 - EN

*|*

# 52011SC1043

**COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER /* SEC/2011/1043 final */**

			*

			*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3

2........... Background.................................................................................................................... 3

3........... Findings.......................................................................................................................... 6

3.1........ Commitment against discrimination
and other illegal or harmful content............................. 6

3.2........ Instruments to promote codes of
conduct, positive/appropriate content and content labelling    7

3.3........ Hotlines.......................................................................................................................... 8

3.4........ Internet Service Providers (ISPs).................................................................................... 9

3.5........ Social networking sites.................................................................................................. 11

3.6........ Problematic Internet content from
other Member States/from outside the EU................. 12

3.7........ Media literacy and
awareness-raising initiatives.............................................................. 13

3.8........ Technical systems (filtering, age
verification systems, parental control systems, etc.)........ 14

3.9........ Age rating and classification of
content.......................................................................... 16

3.10...... Audiovisual media services............................................................................................ 18

3.11...... On-demand (non-linear) audiovisual
media services....................................................... 21

3.12...... Video games................................................................................................................ 22

3.13...... Right of reply in online media......................................................................................... 25

3.14...... Further questions.......................................................................................................... 26

1. 
Introduction

The developments that are taking place in
the field of audiovisual and online information services are rapidly
changing the ways in which consumers use media. Media are increasingly being
used via mobile devices, including (online) video games, there are more and
more on-demand media services on the Internet while social networks are growing
in both size and importance, both for the individual users and as a societal
phenomenon.

Regulation cannot always keep pace with
these developments. At European level (with the Audiovisual Media Services
Directive) and in most of the Member States, there are specific rules only for
the content of audiovisual media.

This makes it even more important that
Member States and service providers are conscious of the new challenges for the
protection of minors linked to these developments and that they promote
appropriate framework conditions by other than purely legal means, e. g.
through stakeholder cooperation and co- or self regulation[1].

2. 
Background

On 24 September
1998, the Council adopted the "Recommendation on the development of the
competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry
by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective
level of protection of minors and human dignity"[2] ("the 1998 Recommendation").
This was the first legal instrument at EU-level concerning the content of
audiovisual and information services covering all forms of delivery, from
broadcasting to the Internet.

The "Recommendation
of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of minors and
human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of
the European audiovisual and online information services industry"of 20 December 2006 ("the 2006 Recommendation")[3] promotes the adoption of relevant rules for
all audiovisual and online information services. It focuses in particular on
the Internet, highlighting the need to use it in a positive way and to combat
all illegal activities harmful to minors in order to make the Internet a safe
medium.

In 2001 and 2003 the Commission adopted two
evaluation reports on the application of the 1998 Council Recommendation[4]. The Council meeting (Culture)
responded to the 2001 evaluation report by adopting its Conclusions of 21 June
2001[5], and the Parliament then
adopted a resolution on the report on 11 April 2002[6].

With the
present evaluation report, the Commission is responding to the call in Point 6
of the 2006 Recommendation to submit to the European Parliament and the
Council, on the basis of information supplied by the Member States, a report on
the implementation and effectiveness of the measures specified in the
Recommendation, and to review this Recommendation if and when the need arises.

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive[7], which entered into force on 19
December 2007 and had to be transposed by the Member States by 19 December
2009, extends the standards for protection of minors from traditional TV
programmes to the fast growing on-demand audiovisual media services,
particularly on the Internet. For both, the generic term "audiovisual
media service" was introduced. In the field of protection of minors, the
Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations,
which cover any online service that does not fall under the scope of Audiovisual
Media Services Directive, complement each other.

In its 2008 Video Games Communication[8] the Commission supported
systems of graduated access to video games using age classifications and
welcomed the success of PEGI, the industry's voluntary "Pan-European Games
Information System"[9]
and PEGI Online[10]
for online games[11].
In this Communication, the Commission calls for better advertising and
promotion of PEGI by the industry, regular review of the rating and the
criteria applied, wider adoption of PEGI Online and the development and
implementation of a Code of Conduct by video games retailers in order to
push back "underage" sales[12].

Regarding the fight against illegal online content, the
Commission launched a proposal in March 2010 for a new Directive on
combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child
pornography[13],
currently under discussion with the European Parliament
and the Council.

Complementing these various initiatives, the
Commission also funds since 1999 Safer Internet Programmes[14], which aim at empowering and
protecting children and young people online and fighting illegal and harmful
online content and conduct. With a budget of 55 million Euros for the period
2009-2013, the current Safer Internet Programme focuses on three main goals:

First, to empower
children to get to know their rights and responsibilities online. The
Commission co-funds awareness centres and helplines in all Member
States, as part of the integrated network "INSAFE". Action 40 of the
Digital Agenda for Europe requests Member States to develop strategies to teach
online safety in schools[15].

Furthermore, the Commission promotes
systematic and speedy notification of illegal content online by INHOPE hotlines[16] to Internet Service Providers,
in an agreed procedure with law enforcement agencies.

Second,
to ensure that all children have access to quality content online. In March
2009, the Commission set up a focus group of experts
with the aim of discussing how to promote excellence and quality in online
content for children. Following a proposal by the focus group, the
Commission initiated the "European Award for Best
Children's Online Content",
which was organized at national level in 14 Member States in 2010-2011[17]. The award ceremony took place on 17th June
2011 in Brussels in the framework of the Digital
Agenda Assembly[18].

Third,
to strengthen the fight against illegal content and promote cooperation between
industry, NGOs and law enforcement authorities to protect children online.

In addition, the
Commission facilitated the signature of two self-regulatory agreements
in the area of protection of minors online: the "European Framework for
Safer Mobile Use by Younger Teenagers and Children"[19] (signed in February 2007),
implemented through national codes of conduct in the Member States, and the
"Social Networking Principles for the EU"[20] (signed in February 2009)
which are implemented directly by its 21 signatories. The Commission presented the findings of an independent
assessment of the implementation of the Principles[21] in June 2011 for a first batch
of results[22].

In line with action 37 of the Digital
Agenda for Europe, the Commission has launched a review of the current
self-regulatory agreements which involve all stakeholders who have impact on
child online safety (mobile handset manufacturers, internet service providers,
and online content providers).

On 15 February 2011, the Commission adopted
the Communication on "An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child"[23]. The Communication reiterates
the Commission's commitment to support Member States and other stakeholders in
strengthening prevention, empowerment and participation of children to make the
most of online technologies and counter cyber-bullying behaviour, exposure to
harmful content and other online risks, namely through the Safer Internet Programme
and cooperation with the industry through self-regulatory initiatives. A
workshop to discuss the review of the current self-regulatory agreements was
organised at the Digital Agenda Assembly on 17 June 2011[24].

In conclusion,
the evaluation report complements several actions listed in the Digital Agenda
for Europe[25].
In particular, in order to enhance trust and security, the Commission has
committed itself to "foster multi-stakeholder dialogue and self-regulation
of European and global service providers (e.g. social networking platforms,
mobile communications providers), especially as regards the use of their
services by minors". Moreover, the Digital Agenda calls on Member States
to "fully implement hotlines for reporting offensive or harmful online
content, organise awareness raising campaigns on online safety for children,
and offer teaching online safety in schools, and encourage providers of online
services to implement self-regulatory measures regarding online safety for
children by 2013".

The present report is based on replies from
the Member States to a questionnaire[26].

The answers are summarized in section 3
“Findings”.

3. 
Findings
Commitment against discrimination
and other illegal or harmful content

The 2006 Recommendation calls for
measures aimed at avoiding "all discrimination based on sex, racial or
ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, in
all audiovisual and online information services, and to combat such
discrimination" and other illegal or harmful content. Apart from relevant
legal provisions, for example those envisaged for audiovisual media services by
the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, this aims to secure self-commitments
from the service and content providers.

Content and service providers are
increasingly taking steps to ban discriminating and other illegal or harmful
content. They are doing this particularly through self-commitments,
which exist in 24 Member States[27],
and by developing and signing up to codes of conduct, something which —
in the case of online services — can be documented by a label on the website.

Altogether 23 Member States and Norway deem
that the correct balance between prohibition of discriminatory content and
freedom of expression and information has been reached[28]. According to Cyprus, this is
not the case. France and Italy did not reply to this question.

3.1. 
Instruments to promote codes of conduct,
positive/appropriate content and content labelling

Both the 1998 and the 2006
Recommendations highlighted the importance of codes of conduct for content
providers, of measures promoting positive and appropriate content for minors,
which keep them away from harmful content, and of content labelling.

More and more content providers seem to
consider adherence to a code of conduct as a distinctive quality
criterion. In 12 Member States[29]
there have been efforts to adopt a quality label, e.g. in the form of a
certification that would allow users to easily check whether or not a given
provider subscribes to and is in compliance with a code of conduct.

Efforts have been made in 12 Member States[30] to increase the use of content
labelling systems for material distributed over the Internet.

In 18 Member States[31] there have been efforts to
facilitate the access of minors to "positive" and appropriate
content tailored to minors in order to keep them away and thus protect them
from potentially harmful content in audiovisual and online information services
and to make such content more visible and easier to find.

Germany, Italy and Portugal promote the programming
of audiovisual content specifically dedicated to children by media service
providers; Germany is urging content providers to establish a "positive
list" of relevant offerings.

Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, the Netherlands
and Poland put particular emphasis on specific search engines and browsers that
are dedicated to or facilitate access to websites for children[32]. In Luxembourg, the use of
such search engines is part of primary school education. In Poland, the "Child-Friendly
Website Certificate" certifies website content (not necessarily children's
websites) and shows children which websites are safe and reputable.

3.2. 
Hotlines

Hotlines can be an efficient means to
detect and pursue illegal content, and they can empower consumers to do
something about such content on the Internet. This contributes to the general
awareness on relevant risks and to a culture of shared responsibility.
Consequently, the 1998 Recommendation already formulated the objective "to
promote the effective management of complaints [over hotlines] about content
which does not comply with the rules on the protection of minors and/or
violates the code of conduct". The survey seeks to establish the
development and progress since then and the functioning of the hotlines put in
place. As already mentioned, the Digital Agenda for Europe[33] calls on
Member States to fully implement hotlines for reporting offensive or harmful
online content by 2013.

All Member States and Norway report that "hotlines"
for reporting content have been established. They are run and funded by
public institutions (e.g. police authorities), by NGOs or by commercial service
providers on a self-regulatory basis.

The European Commission's Safer
Internet Programme[34]
co-funds hotlines in 26 European countries. Hotlines in 24 Member Sates[35] are members of the INHOPE
International Association of Internet hotlines which was founded in 1999
under the EC Safer
Internet Action Plan[36]. INHOPE covers countries beyond Europe[37] and has the goal to increase cooperation in this area.

INHOPE
member hotlines must comply with the INHOPE Code of Practice.

"Notice and take-down procedures" require ISPs — despite having only limited liability and responsibility
for Internet content under the E-Commerce-Directive[38] — to take down certain content
(e.g. child sexual abuse content). 19 Member States[39] report that notice and
take-down procedures have been developed and are applied. There are differences
as regards the verification of the illegality or the harm involved in the
reported content, the review of such assessments, tracking of the source and of
the web hosting provider and notification to the competent authorities.

For instance, whereas in Austria an ISP is
required to take down the content immediately on request by the hotline
operator, after which the hotline operator reviews the case, in Bulgaria,
Poland and Portugal, the hotline operator first verifies the information and
assesses the case before it requests the ISP to take down the content and
informs the competent enforcement authorities (police). In Slovakia and
Slovenia, problematic content first has to be reported to the police, who have
to approve a take-down notice to the respective ISP.

As regards the public awareness of
hotlines, existing hotlines — be they private, public or jointly run on a
public/private basis — inform the public about their work and procedures
through a variety of means The Czech Republic and Slovakia report that the launch
of the hotline was widely supported by the government and the police and widely
publicised in the media, with information on its purpose and operation. Malta
reports that campaigns on the hotlines are organised on a regular basis by the
agencies that operate them.

Finland reports that, in order to make it
easier to report illegal content directly to the police, the police have asked
service providers to provide links to the hotline on their websites. Latvia
reports that Members of the Internet Association have placed information
(booklets) about reporting options at ISP customer service centres.

Bulgaria and Slovenia referred to the monitoring
of hotlines[40].
In this regard, Bulgaria reports that the operation of hotlines is supervised
and supported by a public council including representatives of a number of
governmental, private and non-governmental organisations and Slovenia reports
that twice a year the police produces a report on the work of hotlines with the
number of notifications and of cases passed to the public prosecutors' offices
as criminal complaints.

3.3. 
Internet Service Providers (ISPs)

Better protection of minors on the
Internet requires essentially the active involvement of Internet Service
Providers (ISPs). However, it has to be borne in mind that, pursuant to the E‑Commerce
Directive[41], ISPs are under no general obligation to monitor the information
they transmit or store, nor any general obligation to seek actively facts or
circumstances indicating illegal activity (Article 15(1)). ISPs have limited
liability for the information transmitted (Article 12(1)), for the automatic,
intermediate and temporary storage of that information (Article 13(1)) and for
the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service (Article
14(1)).

A total of 21 Member States[42] and Norway replied that there
are legal requirements regarding illegal or harmful content accessed
over the Internet which apply specifically to ISPs, but only in Austria, Italy,
Malta, Portugal and the Flemish Community of Belgium are ISPs legally obliged
to inform the police or judicial authorities about illegal content offensive to
human dignity which is available over the Internet.

Altogether 23 Member States[43] and Norway replied that associations
of ISPs have been established in their country; 18 Member States[44] and Norway replied that ISPs
have also drawn up codes of conduct. Bulgaria and Hungary referred specifically
to codes of conduct for mobile use[45].

However, ISP associations generally have no
specific mandate regarding the protection of minors. Signature and observance
of a code of conduct for the protection of minors is generally optional for
members of the associations[46].
On the other hand, activities related to the protection of minors that are not
covered by associations are often carried out by ISPs, either where ISPs are
not members of an association or where such activities are not encompassed by
the associations' code of conduct[47].

Eight Member States[48] and Norway replied that consumers
or public authorities are consulted when the codes of conduct are amended
or revised. In six Member States, there are evaluation systems in place
to assess the effectiveness of the code[49].

A minority of Member States (11 Member
States[50]
and Norway) deem that the self-regulation system and ISPs' codes of conduct —
with regard to the easy and wide access to content through the Internet and new
access methods such as mobile systems (e.g. via 3G) — are well-suited to the
new digital environment[51].

3.4. 
Social networking sites

Although the 1998 and the 2006
Recommendations do not refer directly to "social networking sites"
(e.g. Facebook, MySpace etc.), social networking sites have been the object of
several initiatives by the Commission, taking into consideration their growing
importance and potential risks for minors[52].
The Commission committed to monitor the implementation of "The Safer Social Networking
Principles for EU[53]"
which were voluntarily adopted by the industry in February 2009. On Safer Internet Day on 9 February
2010 in Strasbourg[54],
the Commission presented the findings of an independent
assessment of the implementation of the Principles by the 20
signatories[55].
In June 2011 the Commission published the first batch of results of the second
assessment of the implementation of the "Safer Social Networking
Principles" by the signatories[56].
The survey amongst the Member States is looking at how this issue is assessed
and what actions have been taken in this field in light of the self regulatory
approach the Commission has promoted (see section 2).

The Member States reported on various
activities related to the risks involved in social networks. For
instance, in Austria "saferinternet.at" offers teachers' handbooks
concerning the safe and responsible use of social networking sites. In
Luxembourg there is public funding support for projects where young people
themselves create social networks[57].
In Estonia, public authorities, content providers and ISPs jointly organise
twice a year media campaigns in which principles for the use of social
networking sites, particularly addressing young people, are publicised.

Only 10 of the Member States[58] referred to guidelines,
addressing providers of social networking sites and/or users.

In Finland, the major social media service
providers committed to promoting safe Internet use among children and young
people, in particular in the spring of 2010. In Germany, the multimedia
voluntary self-regulatory association (FSM) developed a code of conduct for
providers of social communities, which several of them have joined. In Spain,
in 2008 the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade produced a "Legal
guide to social networking, young people and online privacy" in
conjunction with the Information Security Observatory, which is part of the
National Communications Technology Institute (INTECO).

Apart from that, 21 social networking
providers in the Member States[59]
have by now joined the code of conduct "Safer social networking
principles for the EU" already mentioned (see section 2).

In Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg and
the UK evaluation systems are in place to assess the effectiveness of
the guidelines adopted. In Finland, the Ethical Committee for Premium Rate
Services inspected all of the websites participating in the self-regulation
scheme in May 2010 and found that the participating service providers had
followed the self-regulation rules extremely well. The inspections and regular
dialogue with the participating service providers are to continue. In Germany,
the signatories to the code of conduct agreed on an evaluation by an
independent research institute with practical application tests from the user
viewpoint. They further agreed with the multimedia voluntary self-regulatory
association (FSM) to check whether the code needs to be updated. In Luxembourg,
the only social networking site has been evaluated by local experts and the
results have been forwarded to the European Commission as part of the
Commission monitoring of the Social networking principles.

3.5. 
Problematic Internet content from other Member
States/from outside the EU

The 2006 Recommendation raised the issue
of harmful Internet content from outside the EU and suggested that this issue
be taken into consideration in relations with non-EU countries, "bearing
in mind the global character of producers, distributors or providers of
audiovisual content and Internet access". The survey aims to find out how
Member States perceive this problem, taking into account also content from
other Member States, and how it should be tackled through cooperation with the
countries where the content originates.

As to the origin of reported problematic
Internet content, most Member States estimate the share of problematic content
from their own territory as very low, the share of problematic content from
other EU Member States as significantly higher and the share of problematic content
from outside the EU as the highest. This applies particularly to smaller Member
States, which produce less "national" content than others, and to
those that joined the European Union only in 2004[60].

The current level of international
cooperation in this matter, particularly within Europe, is seen as
sufficient in 13 Member States[61]
and in Norway.

Ten Member States[62] do not consider the
current level of international cooperation in this matter, particularly
within Europe, to be sufficient. Amongst them, Germany deems that
effective international cooperation in practice only exists in the field of
child sexual abuse material, but would welcome improved cooperation regarding
other illegal and harmful content, especially racist content.

Germany also considers it easier to achieve
further harmonisation of standards at European than at international
level. Romania and Slovenia agree to adopt common standards at European level.
The UK proposes that the list of child abuse sites prepared by the Internet
Watch Foundation be used more widely in Europe, at least as a basis for
national measures, given that most of such material comes from outside the EU.
The Czech Republic regards cooperation among EU Member States as good, but
deems it a problem when content from third countries is classified as illegal
by one or more EU Member States, but not by the country of origin. The UK
further sees potential for greater European coordination of work to encourage
those countries outside the EU which host the bulk of illegal material,
including child abuse and race hate material, to take action domestically.

A total of 20 Member States[63] and Norway deem that the
threat from Internet content from outside the EU could be countered by concluding
agreements with third countries. Austria takes the view, given the global
dimension of the Internet, that priority should be given to multilateral
cooperation and coordination. Sweden mentions as an example of successful
bilateral cooperation the collaboration between the Swedish Examination Board
for Radio and TV and Ofcom in the UK regarding broadcasters that are
established in the UK, but direct their offers to Sweden. Malta deems that the
effectiveness of agreements with third countries depends on how the countries
classify content and points out that there may be cultural differences. The
Czech Republic stresses the need to also implement and enforce agreements that have
been concluded.

3.6. 
Media literacy and awareness-raising initiatives

The 1998 Recommendation already stressed
the "need to raise awareness among parents, educators and teachers of the
potential of the new services and of the means whereby they may be made safe
for minors". This was reiterated by the 2006 Recommendation, which goes
even further by addressing actions to improve media literacy[64].

All Member States and Norway mentioned
initiatives raising media literacy and awareness. Concerning education in online
safety, however, an assessment was carried out by the Commission in 2009 which
showed that while the topic is included
in national curricula in 23 Member States and in Norway[65], the implementation of such education is fragmented and
not standardised. In all of these countries, they
target also parents and teachers.

In 15 Member States[66] these initiatives are part of
a national/regional media literacy strategy. Several Member States referred to
the European Commission's Safer Internet Programme[67]
which inter alia aims at increasing the awareness of children, parents and
teachers, through Safer Internet Centres (present in all Member States). These centres
are responsible for implementing campaigns, coordinating actions, developing
synergy at national level and working in close cooperation with all relevant
actors at European, regional and local level. They form part of the European awareness
centre network INSAFE[68].

Some Member States refer to EU Kids
Online projects, which is also funded by the Safer Internet Programme. 19
Member States[69],
Iceland and Norway have taken part in the EU Kids online I project. The EU Kids
online II project[70]
is now ongoing; it is a comparable quantitative survey of children's use of
online technologies across 25 European countries, focusing on online risks and
safety. It also addresses the parents' experiences, practices and concerns
regarding their children's online risk and safety.

In 23 Member States[71], in the Flemish and French
Communities in Belgium and in Norway, awareness-raising and media literacy
measures are financed by a mixture of public and private funding. In the
German-speaking Community in Belgium, in Romania and in Slovenia, they are
exclusively supported by public funds. France did not reply clearly to this
question.

3.7. 
Technical systems (filtering, age verification
systems, parental control systems, etc.)

Parental control measures, filtering and
age verification systems were already addressed in the 1998 Recommendation; the
2006 Recommendation added the rating or classification of audiovisual content.
The survey aims to establish how such technical systems are being used in the
Member States to ensure graduated and age-appropriate access to audiovisual
content.

Altogether 15 Member States[72] consider that technical
measures aimed at avoiding potentially harmful content are generally useful.

However, ten Member States[73] and Norway were hesitant –
albeit for a great variety of reasons: efectiveness, feasibility, reliability,
transparency, freedom of expression, etc.

As to their effectiveness, Portugal
distinguishes between computers that are publicly accessible (e.g. in schools
or libraries), where technical measures are considered useful, and
personal/family computers, where they are deemed rather ineffective. Portugal
also argues that content filtering and parental control systems could give a
false sense of security, as often even very young children have sufficient
technical knowledge to circumvent them.

Austria and Greece also have doubts as to
the technical feasibility and reliability of technical systems[74]. Like Finland, Ireland and
Lithuania, they stress the importance of parental supervision. Sweden
considers that children should learn to deal with reality rather than be
protected by filters. Luxembourg also considers that the use of technical
systems must be accompanied by awareness-raising and prevention campaigns.

The Czech Republic and Denmark take the
view that technical measures should allow children and parents to choose and
use the systems for themselves, and that they should target specific age groups
(Denmark)[75].
The Czech Republic stresses the need for transparency as regards the
inclusion of certain content in a black list and the possibility of
having it removed from the blacklist.

Sweden emphasises the need to respect adults'
right to information when filtering is discussed. The Czech Republic,
Estonia and Finland stress that filtering must not be misused to censor
content, Estonia referring to its Constitution and Finland to freedom of speech
on the Internet.

A wide variety of initiatives have been launched
by industry or public authorities in 20 Member States to develop a filtering
and rating system for the Internet: these are ongoing in Austria, Belgium
(Flemish and French Communities), Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark (on the
basis of private initiatives; a voluntary scheme has been established whereby
the police work together with Save the Children Denmark to maintain lists of
addresses to be blocked; all major Danish Internet providers have put filters
on their network connections to block access to child pornography),
Estonia, Finland (filtering is carried out voluntarily, but there is a legal
obligation to filter child pornography), France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland (a
centralised content filter managed by the National Centre for Technology in
Education (NCTE) has been put in place for schools which blocks access to
illegal and harmful websites from schools in Ireland and works with blacklists
that are regularly updated; hundreds of these sites are automatically blocked
on a weekly basis), Italy, Latvia (through the participation of various
organisations and State bodies), Lithuania (access providers have to install
and operate filtering software for harmful Internet content that must have been
approved by the Information Society Development Committee, which also lays down
the procedure), Malta (the Malta Communications Authority (MCA) is encouraging
all ISPs to provide these filtering services), the Netherlands, Slovakia, Spain
(INTECO, the National Institute of Communication Technologies, has produced a
list of free parental control software, together with a guide to using parental
control tools, targeting parents and teachers), Sweden and the UK.

In 16 Member States[76] there are obligations, either
by law or in relevant codes of conduct for ISPs or mobile operators, to make
available and/or inform subscribers about available filtering and rating
systems and age verification software: for instance, in Poland, this is one
of the conditions for ISPs to obtain the ‘UKE Safe Internet Certificate’. In
Ireland and the UK, this is part of the ISPs’ code of practice and ethics. In
Germany, there is such a legal obligation and parallel efforts are being made by
self-regulatory bodies, broadcasters and the industry to ensure consistent
implementation of youth protection programmes.

According to the survey, parental
control tools are provided to consumers in 24 Member States[77] and in Norway. In 15 Member
States[78]
those tools are available free of charge. Finland, Poland, Portugal and the UK report
that parental control tools are also available upon payment. Greece and Ireland
report that parental control tools are only available upon payment.

3.8. 
Age rating and classification of content

The technical instruments mentioned and
described above can only promote graduated and age-appropriate access to
audiovisual content on the basis of reasonable and reliable rating and
classification systems. The survey takes a closer look at whether and how such
systems exist in the Member States and how they work.

Altogether, there are legal obligations
in 21 Member States[79]
and in Norway and co- or self-regulatory obligations in 13 Member States[80] regarding the age rating and
classification of audiovisual content, applicable to audiovisual content in
cinemas or on DVDs, television or the Internet. Denmark is envisaging
establishing a coordinated classification and
labelling scheme for films, DVDs, TV and video-on-demand services. This system would
extend across all technologies and would cover any content that might be "seriously"
or "mildly" harmful to minors.

The rating or classification systems for
audiovisual content (cinema, television, on-demand services, DVDs) in place are
considered sufficient and effective by 12 Member States[81], whereas 13 Member States[82] and Norway deem they should
be improved. The Flemish, French and German-speaking Communities in Belgium
and Bulgaria consider the rating system for audiovisual content applied in
cinemas and for DVDs as unsatisfactory. The Flemish, French and German-speaking
Communities in Belgium refer to a lack of effective controls in cinemas and
differences in cinema and DVD ratings for the same content.

As regards the question of consistency/divergence
of age ratings and classifications, 16 Member States[83] and Norway responded that they
have differences in the age ratings and classifications for the same content in
cinemas, on DVDs, on television or on the Internet (including cases where there
is an age rating/classification only for some of these media). Eight Member
States[84]
responded that they have the same age ratings and classifications for the same
content in cinemas, on DVDs, on television or on the Internet.

Ten Member States[85] and Norway consider the
lack of consistency a problem. Austria, the French and the German-speaking
Communities in Belgium and Portugal deem that different age rating and
classification systems and different age ratings are incomprehensible for
consumers. However, the UK considers it appropriate to have different age
ratings and classification systems, given the different contexts and
technologies and deems this is only a problem if viewers are confused about
what they might expect within a given media environment.

Eight Member States[86] and Norway point out that
there are measures or initiatives being considered to introduce greater
consistency in this field.

Altogether 15 Member States[87] and Norway consider cross-media
and/or pan-European classification systems for media content helpful and
feasible. Nine Member States[88]
do not consider cross-media and/or pan-European classification systems for
media content helpful and/or feasible, due to the different cultures in the
Member States.

3.9. 
Audiovisual media services

As regards protection of minors, the
provisions of the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations also apply — in general terms —
to television broadcasting. The Recommendations refer to the specific rules in
Article 22 of the Television without Frontiers Directive of 3 October 1989[89]. The Recommendations and the Television without Frontiers Directive
— and its successor, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive — complement each
other.

The rules for television broadcasts (now
named "linear audiovisual media services"[90]) are retained by the
Audiovisual Media Services Directive that entered into force on 19 December
2007 (see above in section background). At the same time, this Directive
introduces some basic rules for the protection of minors in relation to
on-demand audiovisual media services ("non-linear audiovisual media
services"[91])
that are less strict than those laid down for traditional television
broadcasts.

This is illustrated by the table below:

|| Linear services (TV) || Non-linear services (via Internet or « on-demand »)

Content which might seriously impair minors must ... || ... not be included in any programme (total ban) Article 27(1) of the AVMS Directive || ... only be made available in such a way that ensures that minors will not normally hear or see such on-demand audiovisual media services Article 12

Content which is likely to impair minors must ... || ... be ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure (e.g. encryption), that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts. Article 27(2),(3) || No restrictions

This system of "graduated regulation"
takes account of the fact that users of on-demand audiovisual media services
can decide what they watch and when, whereas viewers of television programmes
can only switch the television set on or switch it off. The different rules for
linear and non-linear audiovisual media services concern essentially the
transmission of harmful content and the requirements to restrict its
availability for minors (Articles 12 and 27), but also restrictions for
commercial communications/advertising with a potential impact on minors
(Articles 9(1)(g) and 22).

The survey put particular focus on
systems of co-/self-regulation, which the Audiovisual Media Services Directive
welcomes and considers appropriate for the implementation of the relevant rules[92].

In 14 Member States[93] television broadcasters
have established a system of co-/self-regulation relating to the
protection of minors. Those systems include a code of conduct regarding the
protection of minors from harmful content in 11 Member States[94].

In Greece, the broadcasting law requires TV
and radio broadcasters to draw up multilateral self-regulating agreements. The
Swedish Media Council is encouraging broadcasters to create self-regulating
instruments. In the German-speaking Community in Belgium a code of conduct is
currently being prepared. In Estonia the broadcasters are preparing to launch a
self-regulation system for the protection of minors in the near future. In
Portugal there is no integrated system of co-/self-regulation relating to the
protection of minors, but certain individual measures have been taken,
including specific agreements, e.g. between the three mainstream broadcasters,
which lay down a classification system for television programmes. In Poland, a
self-regulatory system was replaced by legal regulation because broadcasters
did not comply with their self-commitments. In the UK, the regulator Ofcom has
established a co-regulatory arrangement with the Advertising Standards
Authority in relation to television advertising, which is being applied by
Ofcom also in the field of protection of minors. In Hungary, the two commercial
television stations with national coverage agreed to draw up a common code of
ethics for afternoon talkshows, including the principles of conduct of the
German code of ethics applied to daytime talkshows.

As to the legal nature and
enforceability of the codes of conduct, in Bulgaria and Spain, non-compliance
with self-regulatory codes constitutes a breach of administrative law and
operators can be penalised accordingly.

In 14 Member States[95], on-screen icons for and
acoustic warnings before potentially harmful television programmes are
required by law, in Italy also by codes of conduct. In Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Denmark, the UK and the German-speaking and Flemish Communities in Belgium the
law allows TV broadcasters to choose between on-screen icons and acoustic
warnings. In Austria, France, the French Community in Belgium, Poland, Portugal
and Slovakia only on-screen icons are required by law, in Portugal also by
codes of conduct. In Estonia only acoustic warnings before potentially harmful
television programmes are required by law. In Ireland, prior warnings for
potentially harmful programme material are required, but with no further
specification.

Generally, on-screen icons for and acoustic
warnings before potentially harmful television programmes are considered useful
and effective, which is according to Cyprus and Italy also due to the legal
possibility to sanction their absence.

As regards reliance on such
labelling and warning systems, the French Community in Belgium, Finland,
Germany and Portugal emphasise in this context the importance of parental responsibility.
Reference was also made to the importance to carefully select the transmission
time for potentially harmful programmes ("watershed"). Germany deems
that a labelling obligation cannot replace other youth protection measures.

Broadcasters established in 13 Member
States[96]
use technical filtering devices or software, mainly integrated into TV
decoders and hard disc recorders, to ensure that minors cannot view harmful
programmes. In Cyprus and Spain these devices are applicable to
subscription-only television channels. Germany is discussing an obligation for
broadcasters to use age-labelling for potentially harmful content and for industry
to set up digital receivers and hard disc recorders to use these labels.

In Germany and Romania, there are also pre-locking
systems in use, which means that viewers have to enter an at least
four-digit PIN code to unlock the programme. In Germany digital content
providers can pre-lock potentially harmful programmes. In Romania digital
providers have to use a pre-lock for the transmission of over-18 content.

Nine Member States[97] hold technical filtering
devices or software to be an effective means for the protection of
minors. As to the effectiveness of pre-lock systems, Germany and Romania point
to the need to withhold the PIN code from the minors. Sweden considers it
doubtful whether code functions work satisfactorily. In Germany, particularly
youth protection associations provide information about the possibility of
pre-locking programmes. Given the increasing use of mobiles, smartphones and
laptops by children in the Netherlands, NICAM (the Netherlands Institute for
the Classification of Audiovisual Media) is to look into the question of
whether the parental control functions are known and work properly[98].

3.10. 
On-demand (non-linear) audiovisual media
services

In eight Member States[99], providers of on-demand
(non-linear) audiovisual media services have established systems of
co-/self-regulation which, with the exception of Poland, include a code of
conduct regarding the protection of minors[100].
In the UK, advertising is co-regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority.
A system of self-regulation was operated by most major providers from 2003
onwards, but has, following implementation of the AVMS Directive, been
converted into co-regulation by the Association for Television On-Demand, which
providers of on-demand audiovisual media services within the scope of the
Directive are required to notify. In Ireland, following the encouragement in
the AVMSD, a code of conduct is being developed.

As to the question how providers of
on-demand (non-linear) audiovisual media services ensure that content which
might seriously impair the development of minors is not heard or seen by minors,
the Member States referred to the following methods, most of which are imposed
by law: age classifications[101],
combined with transmission time restrictions[102], technical access
restrictions such as filtering, encryption, pre-locking/PIN codes or other
age verification systems[103].

Altogether 11 Member States[104] where technical access
restrictions are used consider them effective. Italy considers technical
access restrictions to be the only means to balance the protection of minors
with the freedom of expression and information for adults. Ireland and
Slovakia, where such systems are very new, consider it too early to evaluate
their effectiveness. In the UK, their effectiveness is still under the scrutiny
of the Association for Television On-Demand, but the UK expects that PIN codes
will not be considered sufficient. Poland considers that adults are not
sufficiently acquainted with how to install the relevant safeguards.

3.11. 
Video games

It was only with the Video Games
Communication of 22 April 2008 that the issue of video games and their
potential risks for minors was addressed at European level. The survey among
the Member States aimed to update the replies they gave to the survey conducted
in preparation for the Communication. A particular focus is put on preventive
measures in the field of media literacy and awareness raising, including the
integration of relevant measures in school education and measures addressing
the under-age retail sale of video games.

Asked how they promote the protection of
minors playing video games, most of the Member States referred to PEGI (the
Pan-European Games Information System) and PEGI Online.

Ten Member States[105] and Norway consider the
current measures to protect minors from harmful video games to be effective
or even very good (Finland, Germany and the UK); Germany regards the
youth protection standards of its own national system[106] as higher than the PEGI
standards.

A total of 17 Member States[107] and Norway consider the
functioning of the age rating system in place in their countries as satisfactory.

Ten Member States[108] consider the current measures
to protect minors from harmful video games to be ineffective or only
partially effective. 15 Member States[109]
and Norway consider further action concerning video games necessary.
The Czech Republic deems it necessary to make parents more familiar with the
content rating of video games through e.g. an advertising campaign and
awareness-raising activities carried out under the "Safer Internet"
Programme.

As to the question what should be done to
improve the protection of minors from harmful video games, 12 Member States[110] refer to awareness-raising
measures concerning the possible risks of video games and the existing
protection tools.

In 22 Member States[111] and in Norway measures have
been taken to improve awareness and media literacy with regard to video
games (see also section 3.7.). Eight Member States[112] and Norway report that such
measures are integrated in school education; initiatives of this nature
partly took place as single actions, not on a continuous basis (Finland) or
only on an informal basis (Ireland). Sweden intends to include media awareness
in all curricula, but not as a separate subject or topic. Austria advocates the
extension of media literacy measures. Cyprus is launching media literacy
campaigns in schools, covering video games. Lithuania takes the view that
school education on information technologies might only insufficiently draw
attention to the detrimental effect of video games. The UK reports that video
games might be part of ICT or other courses, but are not part of the national curriculum.

Awareness-raising measures are deemed to be
sufficient ("in general", "with a view to minors"
and "with a view to parents and teachers") in 11 Member States[113] and insufficient in 11
other Member States[114]
and in Norway. Sweden and Romania see deficits in awareness-raising targeted at
parents and teachers.[115]

Concerning further measures in the
field of video games, the UK reports that steps have been taken to extend the
number of games that would be covered by statutory measures. Finland and Poland
refer specifically to the retail sale of video games.

Regarding online games, including
those referred to as "casual games" ("easy" games
that can be played speedily and are often offered for free to users, as they
are financed by advertising), 12 Member States[116] and Norway consider the level
of protection achieved as satisfactory and six Member States[117] as unsatisfactory. In
Bulgaria there are no established standards for online games. Cyprus and Poland
point out that there are no access barriers in place for online games, such as
filtering or age verification systems. Slovakia does not have enough
information to evaluate the protection standards for online games. In Germany,
online games are covered by the relevant cross-media regulation that is
applicable to any online content. Germany is of the opinion that providers of
online games should take even more responsibility.

Denmark, Portugal and Sweden deem PEGI
Online to be working well, but deplore the fact that this system is not
used widely enough. Austria regrets that providers do not seem very motivated
to implement self-regulation systems, such as PEGI online.

Evaluation systems for assessing any possible favourable or adverse effects of
video games on minors' development or health are in place in five Member
States[118]
and in Norway.

Regarding the retail sale of video games
in shops, awareness-raising measures have been taken in six Member
States[119]
and in Norway, aimed at informing retailers and ensuring that they enforce the
ratings. Finland considers that the retail sector needs information on age
limits and their enforcement. Poland is considering requiring stores selling
video games to set up a special section where over-18 games would be sold.
Latvia deems more enforcement and preventive measures by the police authorities
necessary. Estonia sees the introduction of specific legal requirements for
video games as necessary. Austria, Cyprus and Hungary propose to make PEGI
mandatory by law for all video games, including online games. Ireland announces
that it will examine this. Poland advocates better parental control. Malta
points out that there should be collaboration between those who run the system
and the regulatory authorities in order to improve the effectiveness of any
measures implemented.

Video games retailers in four Member States
have implemented a code of conduct to address the risk of games being sold
to minors below the age specified in the ratings[120].

Beyond the information given by the Member
States, one initiative is worth mentioning: In the Netherlands,
"buro240a"[121]
is monitoring the enforcement of age ratings for different media in retail
shops. This includes awareness raising initiatives, "mystery
shopping" campaigns in video games shops[122] and particularly trainings
for retailers' staff[123].

As regards a pan-European code of
conduct for the retail sale of video games, the Interactive Software
Federation of Europe[124]
through PEGI S.A. developed a "PEGI Retail Code" and recommends the
game publishers in the PEGI contracts (by which they acquire the PEGI label) to
apply it. However, the ISFE has no power to enforce its application in relation
to the retailers. In addition to that, the games publishers often do not have a
direct relationship with the retailers, but sell their games to a wholesale
distributor. A further problem is the lack of a pan-European retailers
association; the "Global Entertainment Retail Association-Europe"
covers only six European countries[125].

Latvia and Romania referred to possible
negative effects of excessive use of video games.

3.12. 
Right of reply in online media

For television programmes, the 1989
Television without Frontiers Directive already provided for a right of reply or
equivalent remedies in relation to broadcasters[126]. The 2006
Recommendation then suggested that Member States consider "the
introduction of measures regarding the right of reply or equivalent remedies in
relation to online media". However, as this was not included in the 2007
Audiovisual Media Services Directive, there is no obligation on the Member
States. The survey aimed to find out the current state of play in this field.

As to the relevance of a right of reply in
online media, 13 Member States[127]
answered that concrete problems concerning the right of reply, in particular
problems involving cross-border aspects, have not occurred in the past two
years.

Differentiated by the types of media,
in 16 Member States[128]
there is a right of reply against providers of online newspapers/periodicals,
in 13 Member States[129]
against Internet-based news services, in 17 Member States[130] against online television
services, in 15 Member States[131]
against online radio services and in nine Member States[132] against other online
services[133].

Relevant obligations are applicable
in 12 Member States[134]
by law, in six other Member States[135]
through co- or self-regulation. In five Member States[136], the right of reply or
equivalent remedies also applies to social networking sites (e.g.
Facebook, MySpace).

The level of protection from an
assertion of facts[137]
in a publication or transmission, in online services and on social networking
sites and the effectiveness of the respective system(s) in place is
assessed as sufficient and effective by nine Member States[138].

Eight Member States[139] consider it necessary to
improve the situation, and Bulgaria and Romania regard the situation as unsatisfactory.

3.13. 
Further questions

· Link between public fears concerning harmful and illegal Internet
content and the development of the Internet

Altogether 20 Member States[140] do not see any indications
that the development of the Internet in their countries has been slowed down by
public fears concerning harmful and illegal content which can be accessed over
the Internet. In this context, Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Lithuania,
Poland, Portugal and Romania point out that Internet use is steadily increasing
in their countries. The Czech Republic and Slovakia consider that, for the
development of the Internet, affordability of the Internet connection for the
various sections of society is more crucial than public fears concerning
harmful and illegal Internet content. The UK suggests that public fears
concerning harmful and illegal content are not the most significant factors
affecting take-up of the Internet. It postulates that parents may be
insufficiently concerned about the lack of application of parental controls,
although they should be aware of their availability. The UK suggests that
concerns about fraud, theft and privacy seem greater and have more impact on
use, if not on take-up. It considers that the main reason for non-take-up of Internet
is some people's perception that there are no benefits for them.

· Initiatives for monitoring online chat groups, in particular to
protect minors from abuse

Cyprus, Estonia, Germany and Portugal
report that monitoring of online chat groups by public authorities does not
take place. Germany points out that the monitoring of online chat groups falls
within the power of the providers, who have to obey the general legal
requirements.

Austria, Romania, Sweden and the UK mention
public initiatives in this field. Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
Sweden point out that many websites for children and young people have
moderated online chat services. In Hungary, the public "Safe Browsing
Programme" also offers a solution against harassment in chat rooms. In
Luxembourg there are online chat groups which are monitored more or less
actively, but this is done at the initiative of the providers, as there is no
such legal obligation.

Estonia rejects Internet monitoring and
puts the focus on enhancing the awareness of minors and their parents; this is
intended to help them recognise the dangers of grooming and teach them how to
behave in an emergency. Portugal deems monitoring online chat groups a
violation of privacy and makes it subject to a court warrant or police powers.

· Involvement of consumer associations, voluntary associations and
non-governmental organisations in implementation of the 1998 and 2006
Recommendations

As to the involvement of consumer
associations, voluntary associations and non-governmental organisations in
implementation of the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations, the Member States made
rather general reference to a dialogue with these groups on the issue of
protection of minors. Only Austria, Germany, Poland and Portugal related this
exchange directly to the implementation of the Recommendations. The Czech
Republic mentioned that providers of online services were involved in
transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, some of whose
provisions are in line with both Recommendations.

· Scientific approaches regarding violence or other harmful content
and their impact on minors; voluntary agreements in this field between
broadcasters and content providers

A total of 18 Member States[141] replied that efforts in their
country with respect to the protection of minors have been accompanied by
scientific boards and specific studies regarding violence or other harmful
content and their impact on minors. Broadcasters and online content providers
in Estonia, Finland, Germany, Portugal, the UK and Norway had concluded
voluntary agreements in this field.

Final remarks

As this Staff Working Paper is intended as
a neutral survey of policy issues to accompany a Commission Report, it is
inappropriate for it to draw conclusions, which would inevitably have a more
political character. Readers should therefore refer to the Report on the
Recommendations on Protection of Minors in order to find out which issues are
priorities for the Commission and how it plans to address them.

[1]               At the same time it should be ensured that all
self-regulatory measures taken are in compliance with competition law.

[2]               98/560/EC, OJ L 270,
07.10.1998 P. 48 – 55 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998H0560:EN:NOT)

[3]               2006/952/EC, OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 72–77 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006H0952:EN:NOT)

[4]               COM(2001)
106 final / COD 2010/0064 (http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/minors/ermin_en.pdf) and COM(2003) 776 final (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0776:FIN:EN:PDF)

[5]               http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/minors/council_conc-01.htm

[6]                http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=020411&LANGUE=EN&TPV=DEF&LASTCHAP=23&SDOCTA=8&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1

[7]               Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid
down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning
the provision of audiovisual media services - codified version, OJ L
15.04.2010, p. 1 – 24 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:PDF)

[8]               COM/2008/0207 final: Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the protection of
consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games (22 April
2008)               (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0207:EN:not)

[9]               http://www.pegi.info/en/

[10]             http://www.pegionline.eu/en/

[11]             The Commission under the Safer Internet Programme
provided initial financial support for its development.

[12]             The Commission's positions were backed by the European
Parliament in a Resolution of 12 March 2009 on the protection of consumers, in
particular minors, in respect of the use of video games ("Manders
Report") (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2009-0126)
and in a public hearing on video games of 8 July 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/minors/video/hearing/index_en.htm)

[13]             COM/2010/0094 final (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010PC0094:EN:NOT)

[14]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm

[15]             Assessment report on the status
of online safety education in schools across Europe (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf)

[16]             INHOPE Association of Internet hotlines https://www.inhope.org/ - see under 3.3.

[17]             Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and
Slovenia. (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/competition/index_en.htm)

[18]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/daa/index_en.htm

[19]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/self_reg/phones/index_en.htm

[20]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/self_reg/social_netwk/index_en.htm

[21]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation_princip_2010/index_en.htm

[22]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation_princip_2011/index_en.htm

[23]             COM (2011)60 final (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0060:EN:NOT)

[24]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/daa11/item-display.cfm?id=5997

[25]             COM(2010) 245 final/2: Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions – A Digital Agenda for Europe (26 August 2010 –
corrected version) (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm)

[26]             Member States responses reflect circumstances as at 2
July 2010 The Commission also received a reply from Norway. Not all of the
Member States responded to all of the questions, and in the answers given,
there were considerable differences concerning the level of elaboration and
detail. The answers from the Member States reflect the relevant issues as
perceived by them.

[27]             Austria (only against other than discriminating illegal
or harmful content), Belgium (Flemish Community: only against discriminating
content; in the French Community in Belgium, service and content providers have
made such commitments in the form of codes and recommendations by the "collège
d'avis du Conseil supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA)", where they are
represented, e.g. in a "Recommendation on the presence and representation
of women in broadcasting services"), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Finland (only against other than discriminating illegal or harmful
content), Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania (only against discriminating
content), Slovakia (only against other than discriminating illegal or harmful
content), Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK, plus Norway (only against other
illegal or harmful content). Denmark referred only to legal obligations; France
did not reply to this question.

[28]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[29]             Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Sweden.

[30]             Belgium (Flemish Community), Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Slovakia, Spain and the UK, plus Norway. Estonia considers itself too small to
run its own labelling system. In Lithuania, there is a legal obligation to
label content potentially harmful for children.

[31]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Cyprus (financial
constraints have put such actions on hold), the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the UK, plus Norway.

[32]             In Germany, "fragFINN" is part of "Ein
Netz für Kinder", which is jointly run by public and private broadcasters
and currently gathers 8 500 attractive and safe websites for children from 8 to 12 years (www.fragFINN.de). There is cost-free software
available which limits children's Internet access to these websites.
Netherlands mentions e.g. the children's browser MYBEE from KPN and
Mediasmarties, a pilot project for a system for all audiovisual media content
for children between 1 1⁄2 and 12 years old. In the Flemish Community in Belgium
several Internet providers have set up their own projects.

[33]             COM(2010) 245 final/2: Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital Agenda for Europe
(26 August 2010 – corrected version) (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm)

[34]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm

[35]             Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain and the UK.

[36]             http://www.inhope.org/gns/home.aspx

[37]             Hotlines from 35 countries worldwide are full members
of INHOPE.

[38]             See below the introduction to section 3.4. Internet
Service Providers (ISPs).

[39]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Malta (for cases of child abuse images), the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK.

[40]             Through their grant agreements with the Commission,
co-funded hotlines must be able to show that they have procedures endorsed by
the police.

[41]             Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society
services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ("Directive
on electronic commerce") (OJ L 178,
17.7.2000, p. 1):                
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:en:NOT.

[42]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus,
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Slovakia, Spain and the UK.

[43]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria,
Denmark, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[44]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[45]             Under the auspices of the GSMA, which represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications
industry and with support and facilitation from the Commission, mobile
operators in all Member States have signed the "European Framework for
Safer Mobile Use by Younger Teenagers and Children", which gives
recommendations concerning the classification
of commercial content, access control mechanisms, education and awareness raising
and the fight against illegal
content on mobile community products and the Internet (http://www.gsmeurope.org/safer_mobile/european.shtml).

[46]             For instance, in the UK, members of the Internet
Service Providers' Association ISPA are free to subscribe to the ISPA code,
which includes a commitment to avoid transmitting child abuse images or
material inciting violence, cruelty or racial hatred. The ISPA also encourages
its members to join the Internet Watch Foundation and to support its work. In
the Flemish Community in Belgium, the Internet Service Providers Association
works together with relevant organisations for the protection of minors. The
three major telephone companies in Belgium (Mobistar, Base and Proximus) have
jointly signed a code of conduct based on the European Framework for Safer
Mobile Use by Younger Teenagers and Children. In the Czech Republic, in 2008
mobile operators signed an ethical code in response to this initiative of the
Commission. In the Netherlands there are codes of conduct for text message
services which are applicable to all operators, service providers and paid
mobile Internet services.

[47]             In the UK some ISPs do not work via the ISPA, but
directly with the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, which is updating
published guidance on search, moderation, instant messaging and chat.

[48]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Cyprus, Finland,
Germany, Ireland, Slovenia and the UK.

[49]             Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Spain.

[50]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Finland, Germany, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia.

[51]             Italy mentions that the Italian code of conduct lacks
specific regulations relating to access via mobile terminals.

[52]             According to the "Safer Social Networking
Principles for the EU" http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/sn_principles.pdf),
potential online risks to children and young people fall into the following
four categories: "illegal content", such as
images of child abuse and unlawful hate speech; "age-inappropriate
content", such as pornography or sexual content, violence, or other
content with adult themes which may be inappropriate for young people;
"contact", which relates to inappropriate contact from adults with a
sexual interest in children or by young people who solicit other young people
and "conduct", which relates to how young people behave online. This
includes bullying or victimisation (behaviours such as spreading rumours,
excluding peers from one’s social group, and withdrawing friendship or
acceptance) and potentially risky behaviours (which may include for example,
divulging personal information, posting sexually provocative photographs, lying
about real age or arranging to meet face-to-face with people only ever
previously met online). It is also important to remember that in addition to
being victims young people can also initiate or participate in anti-social or
criminal activities.

[53]             See footnote 52.

[54]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/day/index_en.htm

[55]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation_princip_2010/index_en.htm

[56]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation_princip_2011/index_en.htm

[57]             www.audiometropolis.lu

[58]             Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[59]             Arto.dk, bebo.com, dailymotion.com, facebook. Com,
giovani.it, google, com, hyves,nl, Microsoft Europe, myspace.com,
nasza-klasa.pl, netlog.com, one.lt, rate.ee, skyrock,com, VZnet Netzwerke,
stardoll.com, sulake.com, tuenti.es, Yahoo Europe, wer-kennt-we.de, zap.lu.

[60]             Content from own territory / content from other EU
Member States / content from outside the EU: Austria: 0.4 % / 12.6 %
/ 87 %; Bulgaria: 5 % / 25 % / 70 %; Cyprus: 5 % / 35 %
/ 60 %; the Czech Republic: 10 % / 10 % / 80 %; Germany: "FSM"
(multimedia voluntary self-regulatory association): 35 % / 12.4 % /
52.6 %; "jugendschutz.net": 42 % / 22.6 % / 35.4 %;
Hungary: 8 % / 67 % / 25 %; Ireland: 1 % / 14 % / 85 %;
Latvia: 10 % / 20 % / 70 %; Lithuania: 5 % / 25 % / 70 %;
Luxembourg: 25 % / 31 % / 44 %; Poland: 30 % / 20 % /
50 %; Portugal: 29 % / 7 % / 64 %; Romania: 45 % / 20 %
/ 35 %; Slovakia: 9 % / 20 % / 71 %: Slovenia: 2 % own
territory / 98 % outside the EU; Sweden: 50 % / 25 % / 25 %;
the UK deems that the majority of problematic material, and almost all the most
problematic and illegal material, is hosted outside the UK and outside Europe.

[61]             Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain.

[62]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Finland, Germany,
the Netherlands, Malta, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.

[63]             Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[64]             Media literacy is defined as "the ability to
access the media, to understand and to critically evaluate different aspects of
the media and media contents and to create communications in a variety of
contexts" in the Media Literacy Communication of 20 December 2007 ("Communication
from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A European
approach to media literacy in the digital environment", COM(2007) 833
final, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/literacy/docs/com/en.pdf).

[65]             Austria, Belgium (French, German-speaking and Flemish
Communities), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf).

[66]             Belgium (French, German-speaking and Flemish Communities),
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, plus Norway.

[67]             http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm.

[68]             http://www.saferinternet.org/web/guest/home.

[69]             Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK -

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20I%20(2006-9)/Participants/Home.aspx

[70]             http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx.

[71]             Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden
and the UK.

[72]             Belgium (Flemish, French and German-speaking Communities),
Bulgaria, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and the UK. Poland considers that there is
insufficient understanding of how filtering software works and unfounded fears
of difficulties in accessing Internet services.

[73]             Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden.

[74]             The Safer Internet Programme has commissioned a
benchmarking study of the effectiveness of available filtering solutions
available in Europe. The first results were published in January 2011 (http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/projects/filter_label/sip_bench2/index_en.htm).

[75]             Denmark further refers to an analysis carried out in
2008 of online social networking sites on the Internet and the existing
technical solutions. It found that technical solutions alone cannot protect
children and young people and concluded that children should have the greatest
possible freedom of choice and scope to explore, while they themselves and
their right to privacy are protected.

[76]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the
Czech Republic (not for mobile operators), Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Spain.

[77]             Austria, Belgium (Flemish and French Communities),
Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic (used mainly by mobile operators that
offer parents the possibility of blocking harmful content or premium-rate calls
for mobile phone numbers used by their children. Apart from blocking access to
erotic or porn pages, the parental control tools usually also block access to
gambling and lottery sites), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK.

[78]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK.

[79]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain and the UK.

[80]             Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece,
Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.

[81]             Bulgaria, Belgium (French Community), Cyprus, Denmark
(for cinema and DVDs), France, Germany,
Ireland, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK. Cyprus considers
that awareness of these systems needs to be improved. Slovakia points out that
it is still too early for an assessment concerning on-demand audiovisual media
services, for which ratings have been mandatory only since 15 December 2009.

[82]             Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.
Luxembourg points that a particular classification system for Luxembourg is not
necessary, given that most of the content comes from abroad and has already
been classified there. Italy considers its classification for cinema outdated
and is currently reforming the rating system for television and video-on-demand
with regard to adult content and conditional access.

[83]             Austria, Belgium (French Community: possible
differences between cinema and television, and German-speaking Community),
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark (consistency only
between the classifications of films and DVDs), Finland, France, Greece,
Ireland (classification for cinema, but not for DVDs), Lithuania (different
systems/age groups for cinema, TV and Internet), Malta, Poland, Portugal
(identical for cinema and DVDs, but different age ranges for TV, no
classification for Internet), Slovenia, Spain and the UK. In Italy, there are
different classifications for audiovisual content which is not
cinematographical. Luxembourg points out that, since it does not have its own
classification system, the age ratings and classifications for content are
taken over from the country of origin, which can lead to different age ratings
and classifications.

[84]             Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Hungary (different
authorities competent for film distribution and broadcasting, but which
generally come to the same ratings and classifications), Latvia, Romania,
Slovakia and Sweden.

[85]             Austria, Belgium (French and German-speaking Communities),
Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Malta and Portugal.

[86]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Spain and Sweden.

[87]             Austria, Belgium (French and German-speaking Communities),
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. Germany points out that its national
legislation already and increasingly pursues a cross-media approach, with
cross-media binding age ratings. Austria deems that the ideal solution would be
a legally obligatory pan-European rating system for retailers and content
providers providing additional information for parents. According to Cyprus, a
cross-media and/or pan-European classification system would reduce confusion
among stakeholders. Poland and Slovakia consider that it would help create a
level playing field for media content providers. Spain calls for a cross-media
classification system, given that young people can access identical or similar
content through different, but often interrelated media, such as television, the
Internet, DVDs, video games. The Netherlands refers to the "Kijkwijzer"
system that was introduced in 2002 by NICAM (the Netherlands Institute for the
Classification of Audiovisual Media) as a uniform cross-media system for
classifying television programmes, films, DVDs and mobile content.

[88]             Germany, Belgium (French and German-speaking Communities),
Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. Portugal
considers the principles of subsidiarity and cultural identity more important
than a pan-European classification system. The French Community in Belgium and
Germany consider that better cooperation between the Member States below the
level of a pan-European classification system would be useful. The French
Community in Belgium proposes examining whether a common identification system
for and method of describing content could be found, with an accompanying "intensity
factor". Such common indicators could then help inform consumers, e.g. through
an easily recognisable logo. Member States could then classify programmes
according to their own socio-cultural characteristics and offer users filters
for automatically pre-selecting content. The Czech Republic mentions the PEGI
system for video games as a successful example of a pan-European rating system,
but considers it difficult to achieve agreements for audiovisual content.

[89]             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, p. 23. Directive as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 202,
30.7.1997, p. 60) 
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1989/L/01989L0552-19970730-en.pdf).

[90]             Article 1(1)(e): ""television
broadcasting" or "television broadcast" (i.e. a linear
audiovisual media service) means an audiovisual media service provided by a
media service provider for simultaneous viewing of programmes on the basis of a
programme schedule".

[91]             Article 1(1)(g): ""on-demand
audiovisual media service" (i.e. a non-linear audiovisual media service)
means an audiovisual media service provided by a media service provider for the
viewing of programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual
request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service
provider".

[92]             Article 4(7): "Member States shall
encourage co-regulation and/or self-regulatory regimes at national level in the
fields coordinated by this Directive to the extent permitted by their legal
systems. These regimes shall be such that they are broadly accepted by the main
stakeholders in the Member States concerned and provide for effective
enforcement."

[93]             Austria, Belgium (French and German-speaking Communities),
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Spain.

[94]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. In the Czech
Republic, there is no common system for broadcast providers. Individual TV
broadcasters follow their own ethical codes, in which they have also committed
themselves to protecting minors.

[95]             The Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and
Sweden.

[96]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus,
Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the
UK.

[97]             Austria, Belgium (French Community), Cyprus, Germany,
Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK.

[98]             Tests and assessments of mobile filtering solutions: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/projects/filter_label/sip_bench2/index_en.htm

[99]             Bulgaria,
Belgium (French Community), the Czech Republic (only advertising covered),
Germany, Ireland, Poland, Sweden and the UK.

[100]            In the French Community in Belgium the co-/self-regulation
system for on-demand services is identical to the one for linear services. In
Bulgaria all kinds of online business communication fall within the scope of
the National Self-Regulation Board's Code of Ethics. In Germany, the FSM
(multimedia voluntary self-regulatory association) code of conduct for
providers covers both linear (TV) and non-linear (on-demand) audiovisual media
services.

[101]            Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands (the "Kijkwijzer"
system) and Spain.

[102]            Finland, Germany, Italy.

[103]            Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia (providers are required to cover harmful
pictures and to replace rude words with a noise), Lithuania, Romania and Spain.

[104]            Bulgaria, Belgium (French Community), Cyprus, Estonia,
Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain.

[105]            Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Malta, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. The UK points out that there are few data
available to provide empirical evidence of effectiveness.

[106]            "USK system" ("Unterhaltungssoftware
Selbstkontrolle" — organisation for the voluntary monitoring of entertainment
software).

[107]            Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden.

[108]            Austria (considers their effectiveness hindered by the
inconsistent application of protection systems, due to different laws on the
protection of minors applicable in different parts of the country, and advocates
harmonisation in this field), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.

[109]            Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the
Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Malta,
Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden.

[110]            Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia.

[111]            Austria, Belgium (only Flemish community), Bulgaria,
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Sweden and the UK. Bulgaria refers to activities aimed at raising awareness of and
explaining the PEGI system; the UK referred to awareness-raising campaigns on
video games, including industry members, third sector and trade bodies and
additional statutory measures, which are currently being extended.

[112]            The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia,
Luxembourg, Poland and Slovakia.

[113]            Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania and Portugal.

[114]            Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece,
Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg (mentions increased efforts in this field),
Malta, Portugal.

[115]            See also: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf

[116]            Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania,
Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.

[117]            Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the
Netherlands and Poland.

[118]            Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Latvia and Luxembourg.
Several studies on the effects of video games have been conducted in Finland.
UK points out that academic research is monitored on a regular basis.

[119]            Austria, Finland, Germany, Poland, Sweden and the UK.
The Austrian Trade Commission has provided information leaflets on PEGI for
retailers, and on the Safer Internet Day 2009 saferinternet.at conducted a test
on how the rating systems are applied. Most of the retailers in Germany have
trained their staff to comply with the age ratings. Sale to under-age children
is classed in the German youth protection act as an administrative offence
punishable with a fine of up to € 50 000. The UK mentions in
this connection that regular training is provided by trade associations and
regulators. In Finland, Poland and Sweden, such measures, which include staff
training, are organised by games producers' and retailers' associations. In
Finland, the Board of Film Classification and the Finnish Games and Multimedia
Association have carried out joint spot checks on retailers regarding
compliance with the ratings and have publicised the results of the checks to
the general public. Denmark points out that there is
no law prohibiting the sale of labelled computer games to children and young
people, but that Danish industry associations urge their members to exercise
care and good marketing practice in this and other areas. Denmark points out
that many retail chains have, however, introduced internal codes.

[120]            Austria, Poland, Sweden and the UK. In the UK the code
is issued and maintained by the Video Standards Council. In Austria, some
individual companies have voluntarily upgraded their cash register to give
visual signals when scanning 16+ or 18+ games so as to prompt the sales person
to check the age of the purchaser. The implementation of a retailers' code of
conduct would be welcomed by Romania and is envisaged by Cyprus.

[121]            http://www.buro240a.nl

[122]            According to their information given, at the recent
campaign, while in general compliance rates are increasing, the compliance rate
in video shops was only at 28%, with a decreasing tendency. Buro240a considers
that this is due to the increasing amount of age rated video games and to the
growing competition of age rated physical video games to online games, which
would be putting pressure on retail shops to sell as much as possible.

[123]            On 28 October 2009, the Dutch minister of Justice signed
a covenant with the management of big retail companies, cinema distributors and
DVD rental companies. The purpose of this covenant is that the companies ensure
the compliance with age classifications for games and films.

[124]            ISFE (http://www.isfe-eu.org)

[125]            GERA (http://www.gera-europe.org/ourmembers.html):
Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and UK.

[126]            Article 23(1), now Article 28(1) AVMS: "Without
prejudice to other provisions adopted by the Member States under civil,
administrative or criminal law, any natural or legal person, regardless of
nationality, whose legitimate interests, in particular reputation and good
name, have been damaged by an assertion of incorrect facts in a television
programme must have a right of reply or equivalent remedies. Member States
shall ensure that the actual exercise of the right of reply or equivalent
remedies is not hindered by the imposition of unreasonable terms or conditions.
The reply shall be transmitted within a reasonable time subsequent to the
request being substantiated and at a time and in a manner appropriate to the
broadcast to which the request refers."

[127]            Austria, Bulgaria,
Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK.

[128]            Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal,
Slovenia, Spain and the UK.

[129]            Belgium (Flemish Community), Estonia, Finland, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

[130]            Belgium (Flemish and German-speaking Communities),
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[131]            Belgium (Flemish and German-speaking Communities),
Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

[132]            Belgium (Flemish Community), Finland, Germany, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Spain.

[133]            France referred to a right of reply in general terms against
"public online communication services".

[134]            Austria, Belgium
(Flemish Community), Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.

[135]            Estonia, Hungary,
the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden (the right to reply is
addressed in the Ethical Press Rules to which the major publishers" and
journalists" associations subscribe. The rules only apply to online
newspapers/magazines that are associated with a paper publication) and the UK.

[136]            Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Spain.

[137]            In the sense of 2006 Recommendation, Annex 1 –
Indicative Guidelines for the Implementation, at national level, of measures in
domestic law or practice so as to ensure the right of reply or equivalent
remedies in relation to on-line media.

[138]            Belgium (Flemish Community), the Czech Republic, Finland,
Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

[139]            Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland
and Slovenia.

[140]            Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK.

[141]            Austria, Belgium
(French Community), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Sweden and the UK.