WRITTEN QUESTION P-2360/00 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Impending abolition of Dutch Board of Film Censors.
Date: 2000-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, competence of the Member States, control of communications

C 89 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

the Commission (cid:129) in recognition of the separate distribution of powers in the Belgian
2. Will
Federation (cid:129) henceforth apply a distinction between the Flemish and French communities? If not, why
does the Commission refuse to take the separate distribution of powers in the Belgian Federation into
account and distinguish between its two sets of educational data?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2357/00 and E-2358/00
given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The methodology used for the preparation of the report in terms of data presentation for Belgium was
based on the following principles. In cases where qualitative data exists for both the French and Flemish
communities, both sets of data are presented in situations where that data differs. If, however, the data is
identical, it is presented under the single heading of Belgium. This was the case with Eurydice data.

In cases where certain data was not available, only the data that was available was presented. This is the
case with IEA (International association for the evaluation of educational achievement) sources, where this
independent
financial
contributions from the countries which have agreed to participate. So, the countries presented in the
indicators from an IEA source are only those which have participated in the survey.

international organisation is conducting world-wide surveys on the basis of

When data are from a Eurostat source, the approach followed by Eurostat is,
statistics at Member State level. This has been reflected in the report.

in general, to present

(2001/C 89 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2360/00

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Impending abolition of Dutch Board of Film Censors

(7 July 2000)

1.
Is the Commission aware of the Netherlands government(cid:146)s intention to abolish the (new) Dutch
Board of Film Censors (Nederlandse Filmkeuring (cid:129) NFK) established by law and replace it with a scheme
of self-regulation by the industry?

2. What is the Commission(cid:146)s position in this connection, having regard in particular to the numerous
measures it takes to ensure protection of minors and uphold human dignity in relation to the new media?

3.
How can the Commission explain the self-evident contradiction between abolishing an independent
classification committee like the Dutch Board of Film Censors and European Union efforts to promote
protective measures applicable to the new media?

4. What action will the Commission take to preserve the expertise and experience of the Dutch Board
of Film Censors for the future, and what part does the Commission think should be assigned to itself in
that connection?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

1.
The Commission is aware of the Dutch government(cid:146)s intention to establish a new system for the
classification of audiovisual media in the Netherlands. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, and given
the cultural differences between Member States and regions, the establishment of such systems is first and
foremost the responsibility of Member States.

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/191

The Commission understands that the Dutch government has proposed a legal framework for a system of
self-regulation for audiovisual media in the Netherlands, and has also provided financial assistance for the
establishment of the Netherlands Institute for the classification of audiovisual media (NICAM). NICAM
brings together Dutch public service and commercial broadcasting organisations, film and video producers,
video stores, retailers, and computer games distributors. The Commission understands that it is intended
also to include Internet service providers in NICAM. A new Dutch media law will disband the Netherlands
board of film classification but it is intended that its knowledge and expertise will be employed within
NICAM.

The Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of
2.
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 (98/560/EC) (1) calls
on Member States to establish national self-regulation frameworks in audiovisual and information services.
The approach taken by the Dutch government would appear to be fully in line with the Recommendation.

Children today use audiovisual media in a variety of forms. They go to the cinema, they watch television
and videos, they play computer games and they surf on the Internet. There would seem to be no reason
why each medium for delivering audiovisual content (often the same content) should be subject to
different classification systems. Indeed, this is highly confusing for parents. A coherent approach to the
classification of audiovisual media is therefore to be welcomed.

3.
The Commission does not see a contradiction here, since the approach of the Dutch government is
not to simply abolish the Dutch board of film censors but to replace it with a system and an institute that
covers all audiovisual media. NICAM has stated its desire to employ the knowledge and expertise of the
Dutch board of film censors when the latter is disbanded.

As already stated, systems for classifying audiovisual media and for protecting minors from harmful
4.
audiovisual content are primarily the responsibility of Member States. However, it is the Commission(cid:146)s
view that a coherent approach to the classification of audiovisual media (cinema, television; video games,
Internet) would be more comprehensible for parents and would lead to a higher level of protection for
minors. Film classification boards in all Member States have gathered almost a century of experience in the
evaluation and classification of audiovisual material, and their participation in any such approach would
therefore seem to be essential.

(1) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2375/00

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: European Journalism Centre

The European Journalism Centre serves as the only pan-European school of journalism. It is known as an
excellent and important centre of journalism throughout the European states.

Originally begun with a budget of € 450 000 from the Commission, this accounted for 90 % of the centre(cid:146)s
funding. By 1999, the centre(cid:146)s budget had increased to such an extent that the same Commission grant
accounted for 26 % of the centre(cid:146)s funding. This dramatic increase of funds from the private sector and
other investors, along with the concurrent increase of projects and programmes offered by the centre, are a
testament to a successful initiative and indicate Commission funds which were well invested and continue
to support a viable and vibrant initiative.

Last year the centre was notified that the Commission would abolish the grant it had received from 2001
onwards, but that the centre could apply for funding directly for projects of the type which it currently
offers.