WRITTEN QUESTION No. 254/97 by Carole TONGUE to the Commission. VPRT study on the limits for public service thematic channels according to EU law
Date: 1997-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, TONGUE
Subjects: audiovisual programme, competition, free movement of programmes, freedom to provide services, private media, public financing, public service, television













EUR-Lex - 91997E0254 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0254

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 254/97 by Carole TONGUE to the Commission. VPRT study on the limits for public service thematic channels according to EU law  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0046 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0254/97 by Carole Tongue (PSE) to the Commission (7 February 1997)Subject: VPRT study on the limits for public service thematic channels according to EU lawThe Commission has received a study by Dr Christoph Engel, University of Osnabrück, done by order of the Verband Privater Rundfunk und Telekommunikation EV (VPRT), which concludes that the public service thematic channels 'Phoenix' and 'Kinderkanal' contravene European legal requirements on state aid, competition and free movement of services.What is the Commission's response to this study in the light of the Tongue report ((Doc. A4-0243/96 - OJ C 320, 28.10.1996, p. 180. )) on public service television adopted by Parliament on 19 September 1996, which affirms the pivotal role of public service broadcasting in a multichannel digital age?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission (4 April 1997)The Commission attaches a high value to the virtues of a dual broadcasting system encompassing public and private broadcasters. It is the Commission's conviction that the technological and economic development and growth of the television market will continue to be carried out largely by private broadcasters. The public broadcasters will contribute to future growth and should be able to change the spectrum of programmes offered in order to meet viewers' demands. The diversification of services offered by public broadcasters including the introduction of thematic channels as already offered by private companies is a logical consequence of the public broadcasters' goals. Another consequence may be that public broadcasters will be to an increasing extent able to derive income from advertising and other commercial activities.The assessment of the role of the public broadcasters described in the Tongue report must take these developments into account and consider the public service remit of the public broadcasters as compared to private broadcasters which in some cases also fulfil such a remit.A discussion on this matter is necessary and already under way in Member States. It will assist in the development of Commission and Member State policy in the television broadcasting field, as well as in the assessment of the state aid character of the public financing of public broadcasters. An example of the Commission policy is the case of public support for the public Portuguese broadcaster Radiotelevisão Portuguesa (RTP). In response to a complaint, the Commission decided on 2 October 1996 that RTP is complying with a clear set of distinct, individualised and quantifiable public service programming obligations. RTP is applying an accounting system for the calculation of the cost of these services, the loss of income due to the public service programming obligations (on quality, diversity and educational programmes) and the necessary state remuneration. The Commission therefore considered the public financing not to be state aid.Whilst the Commission has examined the report carefully, it has not had the opportunity to take it into account in its case-work as it has not received a formal complaint. Any complaint has to be viewed against the above background, including the conclusions which might be drawn from the Tongue report. Furthermore the Commission will take into account:- that the Member States have freedom to define the public service mission of their public broadcasters- that the Member States are fully entitled to decide on the public funding to compensate for the costs of such public service obligations- that the public service mission is of particular importance in the cultural field.