25. 11. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 303/13 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Commission proposal states that the borrow­
ings will be used to finance investment by SMEs in industry 
and other productive sectors. 
In practice, it appears that investment projects submitted 
by SMEs engaged in the distributive trades and tourism are 
not eligible. 
The Committee feels that firms in these sectors which meet 
the basic conditions (use of new technologies, innovation, 
rational use of energy, creation of new jobs and operation 
in development regions) should also be eligible for loans. 
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1985. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee considers that 
the Green Paper provides an excellent analysis of the legal 
problems involved in unrestricted broadcasting and the 
creation of a Community broadcasting market, par­
ticularly in the context of the use of cable and satellites. 
However, it feels that economic, social, consumer and 
cultural problems should have been discussed in greater 
depth. 
1.2. The Economic and Social Committee considers that 
before any of the Directives envisaged in Part Six of the 
Green Paper are drafted, it should itself be involved in the 
opinion-forming process and should play its role as a major 
institutional vehicle for the expression of the views of 
economic and social interest groups. 2.2. The Commission proposal permits intermediaries 
to provide companies with finance in the form of both loans 
and capital contributions. While not opposed to the latter, 
which may in some cases be the most appropriate form of 
financing for innovative SMEs, which are often under­
capitalized, the Committee feels that the Commission 
should make sure it has special guarantees as to the 
solvency of the intermediaries. 
2.3. The Committee regrets that once again reports are 
to be sent to the European Parliament and the Council but 
not to the Committee. The Committee, which is the forum 
for the economic and social interest groups in the European 
Community, and therefore directly involved in Community 
financing operations, asks that in future provision be made 
for it to be kept informed. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
1.3. The Committee considers, in the light of the 
contents of the Green Paper, that it is not the task of the 
Community to interfere with the media structure of 
individual Member States. The licensing of television and 
radio organizations remains the sole responsibility of the 
Member State concerned. Member States also bear full 
responsibility for deciding whether to grant an operating 
licence to public broadcasting services, commercial 
broadcasting companies or both. The ideas set out in the 
Green Paper suggest rather that the sole aim is to ensure 
that broadcasters can transmit their programmes to all 
countries of the Community and that EEC viewers can 
receive all broadcasts transmitted in the Community. In 
this connection the Committee considers that EEC Treaty 
provisions, particularly those on competition policy, 
should be taken into account. Opinion on the Green Paper on the establishment of the common market for broadcasting, 
especially by satellite and cable 
(85/C 303/07) 
On 13 December 1984 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph of 
Article 20 of the Rules of procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on television without frontiers. 
The Sub-Committee on Television without Frontiers, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 26 July 1985. The rapporteur for Parts 
One, Two and Five was Mr Broicher, for Part Three Mr Pronk, and for Part Four Mr Ramaekers. 
At its 229th plenary session held on 25 and 26 September 1985 (meeting of 25 September 1985) the 
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 74 votes to eight, with seven 
abstentions. 
No C 303/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 85 
1.4. However, we cannot overlook the fact that, despite 
the great importance of foreign-language programmes 
from other Member States from the point of view of 
European integration, Belgian, Dutch and Irish statistics 
clearly indicate that European audiences at the present time 
watch/listen to programmes broadcast almost exclusively 
in their national language, or one of their national 
languages. Regrettably, there are no precise, systematic 
data on audience ratings for foreign-language programmes. 
1.5. Satellites, in conjunction with broadband com­
munication networks, are changing the technical infra­
structure of bradcasting markets in Europe. Alongside the 
traditional regional and national fields of operation of 
broadcasting organizations, distribution channels are now 
being internationalized. Satellite transmissions are not 
confined within national borders. Today, as many as 10 
programmes are already being transmitted via satellite and 
fed into cable networks. This tendency will be further 
reinforced with the future generation of direct broadcasting 
satellites. At the same time we should not forget that in the 
long run these technological developments may well 
change the very face of the media in the Community. Steps 
should accordingly be taken to ensure that such tech­
nological developments do not endanger access to 
diversified information and the expression of a wide range 
of opinions in the Community. 
2. Technical and economic aspects 
2.1. In the case of the printed media, where traditional 
contractual agreements have been concluded, there is 
already a dense network of European market relations and 
firms operating on a European-wide basis. 
2.1.1. In contrast with the printed media, there are as yet 
only a handful of broadcasting services which operate on 
an international scale in Europe either programme-wise 
(e.g. the external services provided by Deutschlandfunk, 
France Inter, BBC External Services) or also commercially 
(e.g. RTL/CLT, Radio and Tele Montecarlo). Examples of 
the new type of international media company, made 
possible solely by satellite technology, are the British Sky 
Channel, TV 5 and 3 SAT. 
2.1.2. As far as cooperation between broadcasting 
organizations is concerned, the EBU has already proved to 
be a success and should be further developed. 
2.1.3. Already by today many television productions in 
Europe can only be financed as international co-produc­
tions. The Commission is right in considering that it has a 
duty to promote and encourage cooperation and exchanges 
between European television and radio (including co-
productions designed for a European public), whilst taking 
steps to ensure that quality is high and that there is as wide a 
choice of programmes as possible (J). 
(*) Cf. proposal for a Council Regulation on a Community aid 
scheme for non-documentary cinema and television co-
productions (OJ N. C 125, 22. 5. 1985, p. 13). 2.1.4. It would therefore be a welcome move if, in its 
planned Directive on the harmonization of certain 
provisions regulating the law on broadcasting, the 
Commission were to put forward measures designed to 
guarantee and further the production of television 
programmes within the Community in order to stimulate 
creativity and cultural life in Europe. To this end it should 
also encourage the emergence of autonomous EEC 
programme producers operating independently of broad­
casting organizations. 
2.1.5. The EEC should also make use of the move in the 
direction of an integrated radio and television policy to 
make the European ideal more tangible for the Com­
munity's citizens. This means, in particular, that the call for 
an independent European television channel endorsed by 
the European Parliament should be given serious consider­
ation. 
2.2. The removal of legal obstacles to the freedom of 
establishment and to the free movement of services and 
programmes in the television sector will not suffice to 
create a common television market comparable with that in 
America. European markets are in a special situation 
because of the many different languages used. However, 
new sound transmission techniques which allow broad­
casting in several languages can help overcome these 
language barriers. 
2.3. Only through an efficient European programme 
industry — whose position would be strengthened by a 
common broadcasting market — can Europe withstand 
competition on world markets dominated by American 
production studios. This would in no way imply a 
weakening of local, regional and national broadcasting 
potential. Rather it would mean that creative and economic 
capacities at these various levels would be combined in a 
single market permeable at all levels and would be 
strengthened by being part of an integrated system of local, 
regional, national and international programmes. 
2.4. The creation of a common market for radio and 
television could influence the structure and development of 
several sectors of the European economy. 
2.4.1. Widening the scope for television and radio 
programmes in Europe would provide manufacturers of 
technical equipment (studio equipment, transmission 
technology, satellite technology) with new market oppor­
tunities. 
2.4.2. Europe's television-manufacturing industry has 
gained a lead over manufacturers in other continents 
through developments such as the Bildschirmtext, 
Videotext, Teletel, Antiope, etc. The trend is towards the 
manufacture of multifunction television sets that can also 
be used as home terminals for data services (interactive 
videotex). 
25. 11. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 303/15 
2.4.3. Cross-frontier television broadcasting acts as an 
additional spur to the creation of efficient integrated 
communications networks which are of vital importance 
for the international competitiveness of European industry 
in the future. 
2.5. Restrictive and protectionist measures would, 
however, make it difficult or even impossible to exploit the 
economic potential of a common European market for 
television programmes. 
3. The social aspects of cross-frontier television and radio 
broadcasting 
3.1. The social effects of changes in the media scene are 
extremely varied and difficult to evaluate in any detail. ' 
3.2. Definitions of the media sector, those employed in 
the media sector, and their conditions of employment, all 
vary from country to country. Nor are there any really 
useful statistics to go on in the Community. The Green 
Paper, however, reckons that approximately 1 % of the 
workforce is employed in the media sector as a whole, a 
figure which would be higher if one included all those 
working only partially for the media. 
3.3. In some of the studies of employment trends in the 
media sector (presented in greater detail in the accompany­
ing report), it is maintained that the number of media jobs 
available will be affected in future years by the introduction 
of new technologies, structural changes and increased 
competition. The extra jobs created in the new media will 
not, however, be sufficient to offset the losses in traditional 
media and live stage performances. 
3.3.1. The studies further express the fear that the 
overall number of jobs in the media sector will fall in so far 
as mergers and multi-media concerns come into existence. 
These same studies also suggest that there might be adverse 
repercussions in such related sectors as, for example, 
telecommunications. 
3.3.2. At the same time, however, we should not 
overlook the repercussions on employment in telecom­
munications and the impact thereof on the development of 
the economy as a whole. 
3.3.3. The Committee regrets that the Commission's 
Green Paper fails to give careful consideration to the effects 
of its proposals on employment. The Committee therefore 
calls upon the Commission to carry out further studies in 
this area and, if necessary, propose employment measures 
to combat any possible negative effects. 3.4. As far as the free movement of labour is concerned, 
the opportunity workers would have to see and hear their 
own radio and TV programmes in the host country would 
undoubtedly be an improvement from the point of view of 
European unity and in terms of the workers' own social 
welfare and integration. 
3.5. The Committee would further emphasize the 
urgent need to improve on an on-going basis, the basic and 
further training of both the technical and creative staff of 
broadcasting organizations so as to ensure that their skills 
are relevant to the new standards required. 
3.6. The wide variety of new media on the market, and 
the many potential services available via home terminals, 
signal a completely new age for the consumer. The 
consumer now has access to more diversified information 
but needs intensive consumer education if he is to be able to 
use the information properly. The increase in the range of 
media now coming on to the market necessitates consumer-
policy measures if the consumer is not unwittingly to 
become the plaything of those who exercise a direct 
influence on the media and on the information dis­
seminated thereby. Consumer education can help the 
consumer make responsible use of media services. Con­
sideration should be given to whether consumer organiza­
tions might not themselves be able to help directly in this 
task via their own consumer education programmes. 
3.7. In developing the media, account should be taken of 
consumers' real needs as well as their financial resources. 
Where necessary, talks should be held between consumer 
organizations and broadcasters to ensure that this is 
happening. 
4. Cultural aspects 
4.1. Because of the expansion of cable networks, the 
development of satellites and growing cooperation in the 
field of cross-frontier television, the European television 
viewer is going to be faced with a sharp increase in the 
number of television programmes to choose from. 
4.2. At the present time it is extremely difficult to assess 
the cultural impact ,of this much wider choice of 
programmes (particularly cross-frontier television pro­
grammes) on the individual television viewer as well as on 
local, regional, national and European communities of the 
same culture. 
4.3. For most Member States this trend will create a new 
situation. However, in some Member States — and 
particularly the Benelux countries — there is already a 
more or less extended range of programmes on offer as a 
result of cable teledistribution. 
4.3.1. Surveys of the behaviour of radio and television 
audiences in Belgium, the Netherlands and the Grand 
Duchy of Luxembourg (which are served by an extremely 
dense cable network) have revealed that: 
No C 303/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 85 
— 85 % and more of broadcasts are seen/heard in the 
viewers' own language, 
— foreign programmes in Belgium are watched by only 
one-third of the television audience, 
— generally speaking, television viewers only tune in to 
foreign stations broadcasting in their own language 
when there is light entertainment and to a lesser extent 
news programmes, 
— a majority of television viewers only watch foreign-
language programmes when they offer sport or a la 
rigueur, music, 
— children form that section of the public which most 
watches and listens to light entertainment programmes 
in foreign languages. 
4.3.2. The above figures show that television viewers 
watch a restricted selection of broadcasts, and the wider 
range of programmes now on offer does not necessarily 
mean that viewers will choose to watch a culturally varied 
selection of programmes. 
4.4. There is therefore a possible danger that an ever-
increasing proportion of so-called popular programmes 
(feature films, variety programmes, games) will be offered 
to the public once the common broadcasting market, as 
advocated by the Green Paper, has been established. 
Because of the high audience ratings they command, such 
programmes are particularly profitable from a commercial 
point of view. The result might well be standardization 
incompatible with the objectives of the Green Paper rather 
than a genuine diversification of programmes. 
4.5. Such a trend (which is foreshadowed by what is 
happening in some countries and will no doubt be 
aggravated by satellite television) gives cause for concern 
both for social and cultural reasons. 
4.5.1. Catering solely for mass taste and producing or 
distributing virtually nothing but light entertainment 
programmes could force other aspects of broadcasting such 
as information and continuing education into the back­
ground. This, however, presupposes that national pro­
gramme standards would permit and encourage such a 
development. 
4.5.2. Hence the case for setting limits to the free play of 
competition in radio and television broadcasting through 
the imposition of European-wide quality standards. For the 
time being, however, existing national quality standards 
should be retained and supported. Cultural and edu­
cational programmes must also be presented in an 
attractive manner. 
4.6. Cross-frontier television undoubtedly provides an 
opportunity to help create a 'European consciousness'. 
From the point of view of European integration, it gives the 
European citizen who can hear and see radio and television 
broadcasts in his own language whilst living in another 
Member State the feeling that he belongs to the Com­
munity. 4.6.1. Nevertheless, the advantages which the Green 
Paper believes can be gained from access to the pro­
grammes of other Member States must not be over­
estimated on account of the language barriers referred to in 
point 2.2 of the opinion. 
4.6.2. When cross-frontier broadcasting becomes a 
reality, steps will have to be taken to ensure that the 
cultural identity of each individual Member State is 
preserved; this is an area for national legislation. 
4.6.3. For all these reasons the Committee endorses the 
European Parliament's resolution of 12 March 1982 calling 
for the creation of a multilingual European television 
channel. 
4.7. To safeguard freedom of opinion and access to 
diversified information, public corporations and, where 
authorized, independent or commercial broadcasting 
companies must be endowed with the financial resources 
best suited to enable them to fulfil their respective 
functions. In providing funds, the conditions of operation 
of the various broadcasting organizations should be taken 
into consideration and the Member States concerned 
should take steps to ensure that the public and independent 
sectors of their broadcasting network complement each 
other in a harmonious way. 
4.7.1. With the same aim in mind we should not ignore 
but rather encourage the experiences of local and regional 
television stations. In so far as these services reflect a wide 
range of opinions, they help to bring the media into closer 
touch with their users and at the same time consolidate the 
contribution of citizens to the life of the local community. 
4.7.2. Pending the presentation of an overall policy on 
the new communications media, the conclusions in the last 
part of the Green Paper would seem to be too limited. 
4.7.3. The Committee would point out that broadcast­
ing is a medium through which power can be exercised over 
large sections of the population so that it is necessary to 
constantly seek ways of guaranteeing intellectual freedom 
within the framework of a pluralistic conception of society. 
4.7.4. Since the media in our society are influenced 
predominantly by the State and business interests, constant 
vigilance is necessary to limit the effects of such power; this 
can be done by making it possible for users to participate in 
broadcasts and programme scheduling. 
4.8. If these guarantees are not met, the Committee is 
afraid that television, which is our most popular medium 
today, will no longer be able to fulfil its function as a vehicle 
(financially accessible to the whole Community) for the 
dissemination of pluralistic and objective information, as 
an instrument for continuing education, and as a link 
between the various currents of society (including political, 
philosophical, religious and ethnic minorities). 
25. 11. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 303/17 
5. Topics raised in connection with Part Six of the Green 
Paper 
5.1. National regulatory control of programme content, 
be it in the form of statutory provision or enshrined in a 
code of practice, will remain unchanged under the law. 
Thus, quality requirements imposed on broadcast produc­
tions within an individual Member State will remain the 
reflection of that country's social objectives and unique 
system of 'public order'. 
5.2. The Committee would point out that national rules 
on programme content may have an effect on conditions of 
competition within the Community. This is because some 
broadcasting organizations can gain an economic ad­
vantage from having to satisfy less stringent conditions 
under the national provisions existing in the country where 
they have their headquarters than their competitors from 
elsewhere in Europe. In the interest of establishing uniform 
terms of competition the Commission in therefore called 
upon to examine to what extent new proposals are needed 
to align national provisions on programme content. 
5.3. Mimimum Community legislation is now needed to 
remove the legal barriers actually impeding cross-frontier 
broadcasting and to create comparable terms of com­
petition in a common broadcasting market. 
5.4. In the field of 'public order' the Community should 
introduce provisions to harmonize the necessary basic 
measures in the interests of: 
— protecting minors in particular against pornography 
and the glorification of violence and armed conflict, 
— protecting individuals against misrepresentation (right 
of reply). 
5.5. The Economic and Social Committee attaches great 
importance to the protection of copyright for authors, 
performers, producers and all others involved in cable and 
satellite broadcasting. Steps must therefore be taken to 
ensure that the exploitation of copyright and performance 
rights are adequately rewarded, even in the case of cross-
frontier and cable broadcasts outside the original country 
of transmission. In the hearings conducted by the 
Commission, most of those involved (authors, copyright 
companies, producers and television companies) came out 
in favour of maintaining and improving contractual 
systems. The Committee agrees with this view since only 
contractual systems can properly protect copyright 
holders' right of disposal and guarantee them adequate 
remuneration for, in particular, the shorter period of time 
certain works (e.g. in the cinema and theatre) remain on the 
market because of television and the internationalization of 
television broadcasts. Contractual systems also mean that individual programme organizers can be held responsible 
for the protection of copyright in so far as the broadcasts 
under their control are concerned. Particular consideration 
should be given to the question of whether broadcasting 
organizations could acquire cable re-transmission rights 
for the whole of the Community to enable them to conduct 
contractual negotiations with cable companies. As far as 
the Committee is concerned, statutory Community 
licensing can only be considered in the, hopefully, unlikely 
event that no satisfactory contractual agreements are 
reached. 
5.6. If there is to be a Community solution to the 
complex problem of broadcast advertisements then a 
balance will have to be struck between the interest of 
broadcasters, producers and authors (financing, pro­
gramme quality, cultural content of programme), con­
sumers and viewers (information to be as precise as 
possible, diversity of broadcasting, low-cost programmes), 
the advertising industry (unrestricted use of all media 
according to their specific features) and the other 
advertising media (adequate share of income from 
advertising). 
5.6.1. The Committee is concerned about the effects of 
advertising on television. Advertising has a considerable 
influence on consumers. Advertising, as a means of 
financing television programmes, could lead to a certain 
levelling down of the quality of programmes where the aim 
is maximum audience figures rather than quality. The 
Committee therefore supports the Commission's view that 
the Community should draw up a minimum set of 
regulations in this field. The Committee itself proposes the 
following: 
— the clear separation of advertising from other pro­
gramme material, 
— the authorization of no more than one commercial 
break in certain specific and restrictively-defined types 
of programmes, 
— the banning of advertising for tobacco and for 
pharmaceutical and veterinary products, 
— restrictions on the advertising of alcoholic beverages, 
— special rules to protect children and young people 
against exploitation, deception and excessive pressure, 
— measures to prevent broadcasts financed or co-financed 
by sponsors from posing a threat to the journalistic 
independence of broadcasters; the names of sponsors to 
be given before and/or after the broadcasts, 
— equal access to advertising finance for both public and 
independent broadcasters so as to obviate distortions of 
competition. 
No C 303/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 85 
5.6.2. As far as the possibility of limiting advertising 
time is concerned, the Committee believes that there is still 
no case at the present time for regulating the problem along 
the lines advocated by the Commission. 
5.6.2.1. In the first place broadcasting organizations 
need to practice voluntary restraint in order to ensure that 
viewers' tolerance levels are not exceeded; too much 
advertising automatically triggers off a negative reaction on 
the part of the responsible television consumer. 
5.6.2.2. Secondly, some individual Member States 
already apply statutory restrictions — or at any rate 
operate nationally supervised codes of conduct incorporat­
ing standards which seek to guarantee a balance between 
programmes and advertising. Irrespective of this, more in-
depth studies need to be carried out before an upper limit 
can be laid down. 
5.6.2.3. This also implies respect for the religious 
convictions of the population, particularly where broad­
casting of advertisements on Sundays and holidays are 
concerned. 5.6.2.4. Should the Commission propose an upper limit 
on average daily advertising time, the Committee reserves 
the right to express its final views when consulted on actual 
draft Directives. 
5.7. Member States should be obliged to ensure that 
restrictive regulations covering first-hand broadcasts are 
respected. This should be done, in particular, through 
recourse to existing, or to the creation of new, self-
regulatory bodies. 'Advance censorship' in the transmis­
sion of cross-frontier programmes would also be a 
violation of basic rights from the Community's point of 
view. 
5.8. The Commission of the European Communities 
should, within the framework of a policy on television 
without frontiers, study the possibility of bringing out 
programmes aimed at non-member countries (particularly 
the USA) so as to be able to inform them of the activities 
and problems of the Community. Such programmes — 
which are already beamed at Europe from other countries 
— would make the public elsewhere better informed about 
the policies and objectives being pursued by Europe. 
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1985. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected proposal for an amendment 
The following proposal for an amendment submitted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure was rejected by 
the Committee in the course of the deliberations: 
Point 5.6.1, third indent 
Delete 'banning of; substitute 'restrictions on the . . .'. 
Reason 
This would enable legally enforceable 'codes of conduct' to cover tobacco advertising in the most effective way 
to ensure the proper protection of consumers and all who work in these industries. 
Result of the vote 
For: 24. Against: 58. Abstentions: 8.