P6_TA(2005)0322
Television without frontiers
European Parliament resolution on the application of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 89/552/EEC
(“Television without Frontiers ”), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC, for the period 2001-2002
(2004/2236(INI))
The European Parliament ,
—having regard to 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 thepursuit of television broadcasting activities (
1) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of 30 June 1997 of
the European Parliament and of the Council (together “the Directive ”)(2),
—having regard to the results of the public consultation held by the Commission on the application of
Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive,
—having regard to the Council of Europe's 1989 European Convention on Transfrontier Television,
—having regard to the Council of Europe's resolution on cultural diversity and media pluralism in times
of globalisation, adopted by the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy in Kiev(Ukraine), 10-11 March 2005,
—having regard to the Commission communication on the future of European regulatory audiovisual
policy (COM(2003)0784),
—having regard to the Commission communication on principles and guidelines for the Community's
audiovisual policy in the digital age (COM(1999)0657),
—having regard to Articles 151 and 157 of the EC Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union and the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexedto the EC Treaty,
—having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2003 on Television without Frontiers (
3),
—having regard to its resolution of 4 October 2001 on the third report of the Commission to the
Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the application of Direc-tive 89/552/EEC “Television without Frontiers ”(
4),
—having regard to its resolution of 2 July 2002 on the Commission communication on certain legal
aspects relating to cinematographic and other audiovisual works (5),
—having regard to its position of 12 February 2004 on the proposal for a European Parliament and
Council decision modifying Council Decision 2000/821/EC of 20 December 2000 on the implementa-tion of a programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovi-sual works (
6),
—having regard to its resolution of 26 September 2002 on an EU action plan for the successful intro-
duction of digital television in Europe (7),
—having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
—having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0202/2005),
(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
(3) OJ C 76 E, 25.3.2004, p. 453.
(4) OJ C 87 E, 11.4.2002, p. 221.
(5) OJ C 271 E, 12.11.2003, p. 176.
(6) OJ C 97 E, 22.4.2004, p. 603.
(7) OJ C 273 E, 14.11.2003, p. 311.17.8.2006 MT C 193 E/117 Il-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 6 ta' Settembru 2005
A. whereas the Lisbon strategy seeks to reinforce the innovative capacity of European industry and to
make the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world,
B. whereas the audiovisual sector is characterised both by technological innovation and by its social,
economic and cultural impact,
C. whereas one of the EU's priorities is to defend the specific nature of cultural goods, including those in
the audiovisual sector, within the World Trade Organization (WTO); whereas the Commission regretta-bly failed observe that principle by proposing to bring the audiovisual sector within the scope of theproposal for a directive on services in the internal market,
D. whereas the movement of European works and the works of independent producers is essential in
order to promote cultural diversity, freedom of expression and pluralism,
E. whereas the Directive, which was enacted in the context of the single market, must take greater account
of aspirations relating to a Community area of law, citizenship and political union,
F. whereas the Directive is also obsolete in the light of the rapid development of new technology, which
will soon result in unlimited supply in the context of the European audiovisual landscape, making itnecessary to adapt the rules which it lays down to technological developments,
G. whereas it is the responsibility of the Member States and their national competent authorities to
apply the Directive, although the Commission plays an essential evaluating and supervisory role, withwhich Parliament, national parliaments, national regulatory authorities and public opinion must all beassociated,
H. whereas the Directive, forming a flexible framework which has permitted the application of rules by the
Member States and self-regulation by the audiovisual industry, plays an important role in establishing a
minimum framework,
I. concerned to note that certain provisions in the Directive (on quotas, advertising, etc.) are inadequately
applied and observed in certain Member States due to a lack of appropriate monitoring,
J. whereas the growth in the number and diversity of the services on offer must go hand in hand with
access for all,
Application of Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive
1. Notes that the above-mentioned Commission communication on the future of European regulatory
audiovisual policy highlights positive results and that the indicators, in all but a few cases, show an increasein the scheduling of European works; notes that the quotas for the broadcasting of European works andworks of independent producers have broadly been met; notes that the Commission considers that theobjectives of the Directive have been achieved; encourages Member States, however, to strengthen theirefforts with regard to broadcasting of European and independently-produced programmes;
2. Regrets the fact that over the reference period analysed in the Commission's 6th report on the appli-
cation of Articles 4 and 5 (COM(2004)0524), the proportion of independent productions has declined by3.48 % in four years (page 7 of the report);
3. Notes that major discrepancies among the methods of applying and interpreting the provisions of the
Directive make it impossible accurately to reflect the situation, as the findings of the independent auditshave shown; recommends that the Commission establish and forward to the Member States a standard gridmaking it possible to obtain comparable results; stresses the urgency of analysing the results from the newMember States; proposes that this standard grid also include data on services to assist the disabled;
4. Stresses that a more consistent indicator to measure compliance with Article 5 would be to base the
10 % quota on value (rather than on qualifying hours), thus removing the inconsistencies observed amongthe Member States as to what counts as qualifying hours;C 193 E/118 MT 17.8.2006 Il-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 6 ta' Settembru 2005
5. Regrets that some Member States have still not provided all the relevant information, particularly as
regards satellite and/or cable TV channels, which are often omitted from national reports; considers that theCommission has a responsibility to ensure that the Member States comply with their obligations and that itshould do more than merely stress that the notification requirement applies to all television programmesunder the jurisdiction of a Member State; and calls on the Commission and the competent national autho-rities to impose clear sanctions in the event of persistent failure to comply with the relevant provisions orwith the obligation to supply information;
6. Regrets that in certain Member States the application of quotas is calculated by broadcaster and not by
channel, which is in breach of the principles of the Directive, such breach being particularly serious inMember States where there is a high concentration of broadcasters;
7. Calls for the discretion which the Member States are allowed in applying Article 4 to be at least
compensated for by the communication of public, accurate and transparent indicators;
8. Believes that the differing interpretations among Member States of the concepts of “European work ”
and“independent producer ”could be avoided if the Commission, in the context of the revision of the
Directive, gave a more precise definition of the concepts of “independent producer ”,“European work ”and
“thematic channel ”; considers also that this would offer greater legal certainty in the application of the
Directive;
9. Notes that the quotas for “European works ”are mainly filled by national works and supports volun-
tary initiatives for further quotas for non-national European works;
10. Stresses the importance of strengthening the MEDIA programme, pointing out that the objective
behind its inception and its renewal is, and should continue to be, to support independent producers andsmall and medium-sized enterprises;
11. Stresses the importance of strengthening this programme as an essential tool of European audiovisual
policy for professional training and support for the distribution, broadcasting and movement of cinemato-graphic works; encourages the Member States to open up their educational systems to a knowledge of theEuropean film heritage, the languages, cultures, tastes, histories and experiences of the peoples of Europe;
12. Recalls the importance, for the movement of European works, of European co-productions and
common marketing strategies; notes that the European audiovisual space is better exploited by United Statesproducers than by Europeans themselves —even though Europeans produce more documentaries and
fiction —owing to the lack of an integrated and globalised European industry; considers that the imbalance
in the movement of audiovisual works could jeopardise cultural diversity;
13. Considers that, to enable the European audiovisual industry to compete with the United States indus-
try, European efforts should be geared much more towards promotion;
14. Draws the Commission's attention to the fact that, in the face of the onslaught by production groups
on European markets, it seems essential to encourage aid for uniquely European content and to developsuch content by establishing a link with sources of finance;
15. Recalls the importance of giving the greatest possible number of European citizens access in as many
languages as possible to pan-European channels such as Arte and Euronews or other similar initiatives; callson the Commission and the Member States to support Europe-wide information about, and the broadcas-ting of, European cultural events, by also providing formats accessible to the disabled (i.e. with audio-desc-ription, subtitling and sign language);
16. Stresses that methods of qualitative analysis must be established as a matter of priority covering the
cultural content of European audiovisual production and recalls the importance of the RTD FrameworkProgramme;17.8.2006 MT C 193 E/119 Il-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 6 ta' Settembru 2005
Revision of the Directive
17. Stresses that the audiovisual sector contributes to technological innovation, economic growth and job
creation; considers it also to be an important instrument for the functioning of the single market; believesthat it is also of critical importance to the functioning of democracy, provided there is diversity of input and
opinion, pluralism and cultural diversity; considers that, precisely in order to maintain such democratic
values and freedom of expression and opinion, measures are needed to regulate the protection of the rightto one's own image;
18. Asserts that the European audiovisual model must be founded on a balance between a strong, inde-
pendent and pluralistic public service sector and a dynamic and equally pluralistic commercial sector, bothof which are directly and indirectly creators of jobs; considers that the continued existence of this model isessential to the vitality and quality of creative work and requires a legislative framework to ensure respectfor the rights of Europeans;
19. Stresses that universal public access to high-quality and diverse content is becoming ever more crucial
against a background of technological change and increased concentration in an ever more competitive andglobalised environment; considers that public broadcasting services are essential in forming opinion in ademocratic manner and allowing people to experience and familiarise themselves with cultural diversity, andthat such services must have equal opportunities of priority access to the market, including in new mediaservices;
20. Considers that the Directive needs to be revised in order to tackle structural changes; considers that
such a revision must not call into question the fundamental principles of the Directive —free movement of
European broadcasts, free access to major events, promotion of European works and recent independentproductions, protection of minors and public policy, consumer protection, right of reply —but rather must
adapt them to the new challenges without losing sight of the need for quality and economic vitality in thesector;
21. Recommends that a safeguard clause be included expressly to establish respect for Member States
competence in the fields of culture and the media;
22. Considers that the revision of the Directive should ensure the development of new technologies and
new services, in order to secure the growth of the European economy in accordance with the Lisbon
strategy;
23. Notes that the Commission has for some years been conducting a public consultation around a new
directive which it intends to present at the end of 2005; notes that the British Presidency of the Council willbe holding a conference in Liverpool on the revision of the Directive; calls for Parliament to be fullyinvolved in all stages of the proceedings;
24. Fears that, on such an important subject, the debate and consultation will give preference to econo-
mic considerations and inter-governmental relations; is aware that the market alone will not resolve theproblems and that the institutions must respond to the concerns of Europeans about the cultural contentof television;
25. Calls on the Commission to ensure that independent producers are in a position to retain the rights
in their productions and make it easier for them to uphold their intellectual property rights so as toimprove their ability to attract private investment;
26. Is concerned about the pressure to reduce regulation in this sector and recalls that the Directive
establishes minimum standards which have not succeeded in preventing a deterioration in the quality ofprogrammes;
27. Notes the role of advertising in the funding of certain general-interest TV channels and its effect on
scheduling; notes however that in some countries there remain such serious shortcomings in the applicationof the articles restricting the duration of advertisements that it has become difficult to maintain strictseparation between advertising and editorial content, to the detriment of the cultural integrity of the works;C 193 E/120 MT 17.8.2006 Il-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 6 ta' Settembru 2005
28. Underlines the need to define clearly the content and regulation of advertising, in particular that
relating to alcohol, which has a particularly harmful effect on children and vulnerable people; recalls thatthe protection of minors must remain a priority objective of audiovisual policy and a fundamental principlewhich ought to be extended to all audiovisual services made available to the public;
29. Emphasises, therefore, the need to preserve the rules limiting the opportunities for advertisement
breaks during audiovisual works;
30. Stresses that the revision of the Directive must make it possible to lay down legal obligations and set
out a firm political will to ensure strict separation between editorial and artistic content on the one handand commercial promotion on the other;
31. Calls for the revised Directive to impose on Member States and their competent authorities more
effective mechanisms to ensure the observance and monitoring of the legislation and the imposition ofthe sanctions provided for, particularly as regards quotas and advertising;
32. Notes that digitisation and interactivity represent opportunities both for the industry and for consu-
mers, but that more choice does not necessarily equate with better quality or a greater proportion ofEuropean works; notes the risk of a two-speed audiovisual sector emerging;
33. Observes that new forms of television have been introduced, for example television via ADSL net-
works, via the Internet and via mobile phone; considers that, in order to avoid any distortion of competi-tion between the different forms of television available today, the application of the Directive to these newforms of television should be clarified as part of the revision process;
34. Notes that extending the scope of the Directive should not prevent the strengthening of the Euro-
pean model founded on freedom of movement, high quality, public service, the general interest and respect
for European values;
35. Stresses the need for European legislation to be so far as possible independent of audiovisual techno-
logy; calls for such legislation to state clearly that public service providers may make use of all new techno-logies and new media, such as the Internet and WAP services, without thereby infringing the rules of theinternal market;
36. Welcomes, in the light of technological developments (such as growing convergence and digitisation),
the Commission's announcement, in connection with the revision of the Directive, of a proposal to broadenits scope to cover all services based on the principle of a graduated form of regulation;
37. Considers that, if the scope of the Directive is extended to cover new services, the Directive should
ensure that these services, too, abide by the principles of promoting European works and independentEuropean productions; is aware that the mechanisms provided for under Articles 4 and 5 relating to tradi-tional services are not suited to the new services and calls on the Commission to lay down obligationsrelating to investment (production or purchase), to offering European content and to providing access tothis content;
38. Considers that, in order to ensure cultural diversity, measures should be laid down to promote
European works for new services, such as video on demand;
39. Stresses the urgent need, in the light of digital technology, to make radical changes to the approach
taken until now in Community legislation, based on a distinction between content and “infrastructure ”;
40. Stresses the need both to reinforce the monitoring of non-EU channels under the jurisdiction of a
Member State in accordance with Article 2 of the Directive which broadcast programmes inciting to racialand religious hatred, and to improve coordination between Member States in this area;17.8.2006 MT C 193 E/121 Il-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 6 ta' Settembru 2005
41. Calls for particular attention to be paid to access to programmes for persons with visual or hearing
impairments; proposes that Member States submit data to the Commission each year on the percentage oftheir total programme output carrying services to assist the disabled (i.e. subtitling, audio-description andsign language) on both their public service and commercial channels and draw up national action plans toincrease the availability of such services and make them easier to access on TV equipment ;
42. Asks the Council and the Commission, within the framework of the information society, to develop
and to implement media literacy programmes to promote active and aware citizenship in Europe;
43. Stresses the importance of the working party of national regulators and calls for Parliament to be
involved in it as an observer;
44. Proposes the holding of a European Audiovisual and Media Year, involving the institutions, political
parties, civil society and the audiovisual sector, with a view to drawing up a “European Innovation Pact ”
guaranteeing a balance between competitiveness, high quality, culture and pluralism;
Pluralism and concentration
45. Is alarmed at the tendency towards (vertical and horizontal) concentration of the media in certain
Member States, which poses a threat to democracy and a risk to cultural diversity and could accentuatetendencies towards the extreme commercialisation of the audiovisual sector and the hegemony of certain
national products over those with narrower linguistic areas and smaller production;
46. Stresses that particular care should be paid, in order to ensure pluralism of opinion and diversity in
programme distribution, to preventing, when drafting Community or national regulations on digital switc-hover, the majority of new digital distribution services from falling under the control or decisive influenceof large, capital-rich, multinational media groups —particularly those with interests outside the EU;
47. Stresses that competition and competition law are not enough to ensure media pluralism; considers
that pluralism is based on respect for and promotion of diversity of points of view across all media, throughthe recognition of editorial independence, both in the public and the commercial sectors, and through theauthority and independence of the regulatory authorities;
48. Is concerned about patterns of concentration of advertising in some Member States;49. Stresses that the fragmentation of the European audiovisual markets into national markets does not
reduce the risks of media concentration at European level, and that a violation of freedom of expression andrespect for pluralism and diversity as a result of media concentration in a Member State also constitutes arisk factor for the Community institutional and democratic order;
50. Calls on those Member States, both old and new, which are experiencing rapid development in the
sector, to examine and strengthen, if necessary, national rules or measures to restrict concentration of mediaownership and to respect the independence of the regulatory authorities; considers that the Commission'srole in supervising, exchanging information and comparing legislation should be strengthened; reminds theCommission of its request to draw up a Green Paper on the degree of media concentration in Europe, whichwould allow a broad debate to be launched on the subject, and of its wish to include in the revised Directivean agreement on the diversification of media ownership and control;
51. Observes that, since cultural diversity and the freedom and pluralism of the media remain the most
important elements of the European audiovisual model, these three values are essential prerequisites forcultural exchange and democracy; considers that the revised Directive should accordingly include provisionsto uphold and protect freedom of expression and media pluralism;
*
**
52. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.C 193 E/122 MT 17.8.2006 Il-Ġurnal Uffi ċjali ta' l-Unjoni Ewropea
It-Tlieta, 6 ta' Settembru 2005