Evaluation Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the application of Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning the protection of minors and human dignity
Date: 2001-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European audiovisual area, administrative cooperation, approximation of laws, competitiveness, infancy, information policy

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 27.02.2001
COM(2001) 106 final

EVALUATION REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the application of Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998
concerning the protection of minors and human dignity

EVALUATION REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

on the application of Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998
concerning the protection of minors and human dignity

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

2.

3.

Introduction.............................................................................................................. 3

The Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 5

Results...................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.

Internet..................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.1.

Self-regulation and codes of conduct ........................................................................ 5

3.1.2.

Illegal and harmful content ....................................................................................... 6

3.1.3.

Filtering and education ............................................................................................. 8

3.1.4.

European and international cooperation .................................................................... 9

Broadcasting........................................................................................................... 10

Further initiatives ................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 14

3.2.

3.3.

4.

Annex

2

1.

INTRODUCTION

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 (98/560/EC)1 (the Recommendation).

Section III of the Recommendation invites under paragraph 4 the Commission to present an
evaluation report on its application in the Member States, two years after its adoption, to the
European Parliament and the Council.

With the present document, the Commission submits this report to the European Parliament
and to the Council.

The development of digital media, namely in the form of the Internet, digital broadcasting and
videogames constitutes a major challenge for the European Union’s audiovisual policy and in
particular for the protection of minors.

Originally, there were only few broadcasters in the Member States and broadcasting was
terrestrial. Regulation fell exclusively into the competence of the Member State the
broadcaster was located in. With the introduction of cable networks and satellites the situation
has changed; broadcasters are not limited anymore to a specific Member State. The resulting
need for establishing a Community framework has been dealt with by the establishment of
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,2 amended on 30 June 1997 by Directive
97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council
Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
activities (Directive Television without Frontiers)3. The Directive deals also with the
protection of minors from harmful content, be it via watersheds or technical devices.

Digital television offers greater possibilities than analogue television both in terms of content
available and technological capabilities. It therefore constitutes not only a challenge but also
gives new opportunities for protecting minors. Following the request of Article 22b of the
Directive Television without Frontiers that the Commission investigates the issue of parental
(Oxford
control of television broadcasting, a study was carried out by a consultant
University)4. It concluded that digital television offered in comparison to analogue technology
the chance to develop far more reliable, sophisticated and secure filtering systems. It further
stressed that technical measures could not completely substitute for broadcaster responsibility
and a harmonised approach was to be ruled out because of the cultural diversity which
characterises the European audiovisual market; however, common descriptive criteria would
allow audiovisual content to be described in similar ways, whilst leaving the evaluation of
such content to the competent national and regional authorities. The study further came to the
conclusion that there was a need for rating systems used in the different media – cinema,

1

2

3

4

O.J. L 270 of 07.10.1998, p.48
O.J. L 298 , 17/10/1989 p. 23
O.J. L 202 , 30/07/1997 p. 60
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/avpolicy/key_doc/parental_control/index.html

3

television, video games, Internet – to be brought more into line with each other and made
more coherent. This study led to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the
European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee - Study on Parental Control of
Television Broadcasting (COM/99/371 final).

On 5 October 2000, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission
communication "Study on Parental Control of Television Broadcasting", which also covers
the Internet and in which the needs for the systematic establishment of self-regulation
throughout the whole territory of the European Union and for a debate on protection of
minors at both national and regional level were emphasised.

The development of the Internet has further complicated the situation for protecting minors.
Whereas in traditional broadcasting - analogue or digital - the individual broadcaster easily is
identifiable, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to identify the source of content on the
Internet. Access to harmful and illegal content is easy and can even occur without any
intention.

In order to promote a safer Internet, the European Parliament and the Council adopted on 25
January 1999 Decision No 276/1999/EC adopting a multiannual Community Action plan on
promoting safer use of the Internet by combating illegal and harmful content on global
networks5 (the Safer Internet Action Plan), which provides funding for measures dealing with
illegal and harmful content on the global network. Projects cover in particular the creation of
a European network of hotlines, support for self-regulation and codes of conduct, rating and
filtering mechanisms and awareness campaigns with respect to the potential of the Internet
and its drawbacks.

As concerns audiovisual policy in particular, the technological development asks for a new
approach. Traditional regulation alone, which worked in the analogue environment, is not
necessarily the appropriate approach in the digital age.

In response to this challenge, the Council adopted the Recommendation, which calls for the
establishment of national
regulatory
frameworks,
in order to enhance the protection of minors and human dignity in the
broadcasting and Internet sectors.

self-regulatory frameworks,

supplementing the

The Recommendation was a direct result of the public consultation that took place on the
basis of the Commission’s 1996 Green Paper on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity
in Audiovisual and Information Services6. Some clear lines of consensus emerged from the
consultation, including the need - in an environment where an almost unlimited amount of
content, hosted at any point in the world, can be accessed from almost any point in the world -
for a self-regulatory approach supplementing the legal framework and for international
cooperation.

In order to promote national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level
of protection of minors and human dignity,
the Recommendation enumerates different
objectives to be fulfilled by (i) the Member States, (ii) the industries and parties concerned
and (iii) the Commission.

5

6

O.J. L33, 6/2/1999 p. 1
COM (96) 483 final.

4

2.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

For the preparation of this evaluation report a questionnaire was addressed to the Member
states on 2 August 2000 (see annex). It covers questions concerning self-regulation, code of
technical and educational measures and also the question whether a better
conducts,
coherence between the activities protecting minors across the different media was felt to be
necessary. In view of the phenomenon of convergenceand the Commission’s regulatory
approach of technological neutrality with respect tocommunication networks, the question
whether a common approach of rating covering all audiovisual media could improve the
protection of minors has been included.

Eighteen replies were received covering all the Member States (in one case, the two linguistic
communities replied instead of the Member State concerned 7 and in another case the Federal
Government and two regions replied8). One Member State did neither reply to the questions
related to the Internet - as no association of operators had yet been set up – nor to the
questions related to videogames as there were “no provisions”9.

3.

RESULTS

3.1.

Internet

3.1.1.

Self-regulation and codes of conduct

(1) of

the Member States foster

the Recommendation foresees that

Section I
the
establishment of national frameworks for self-regulation by operators of on-line services. This
necessitates at least regular contacts between the operators. In most of the Member States10
associations of Internet-operators have already been founded, and in at least one Member
State11, the establishment of such an association is being discussed. Four Member States12
have more than one representation of operators, whereas the others have a single
representation. Internet Service Providers from eleven Member States13 are members of the
European Internet Service Providers Association organisation (EuroISPA)14. EuroIspa was
founded on 6 August 1997 as the pan-European association of the Internet services providers
associations of the countries of the European Union. Its objectives comprise the promotion of
the Internet, the encouragement of the development of a free and open telecommunications
market, the development of professional standards for the industry and the influence of the
development of technical standards and the promotion of self-regulation by and the influence
of the regulatory process on behalf of the Internet industry. Where established, codes of
conduct15 deal with subjects such as the responsibility of providers with respect to the content
hosted, questions of protection of minors and procedures concerning complaints.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Belgium
Austria
Portugal
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland,
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Germany, Spain, Italy, Finland
Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, United Kingdom
http://www.euroispa.org
http://www.euroispa.org/coc.html

5

Eight of the Member States have indicated that there is a direct access to the associations via
one or several websites16 where information on their objectives and activities can be found.

Section II (2) of the Recommendation recommends that the industries and the parties
concerned draw up codes of conduct for the protection of minors and human dignity, inter
alia in order to create an environment favourable to the development of new services. These
should address the issues of basic rules (i) on the nature of the information to be made
available to users, its timing and the form in which it is communicated, (ii) for the business
providing on-line services concerned and for users and suppliers of content, (iii) on the
conditions under which, wherever possible, additional tools or services are supplied to users
to facilitate parental control, (iv) on the management of complaints, encouraging operators to
provide the management tools and structures needed so that complaints can be sent and
received without difficulties and introducing procedures for dealing with complaints and (v)
on cooperation procedures between operators and the competent public authorities.

With one exception, in all Member States where associations of operators exist, such codes of
conduct have been established or are being finalised17. One Member State18 replied that its
legislation was considered sufficiently up-to date to combat Internet crime, so that a code of
conduct was not necessary. However, a variety of operators are working in that Member State
on a joint « netiquette » which includes the protection of minors and which may become a
code of conduct such as suggested by the competent authorities. Two Member States19 follow
the EuroIspa model.

In one Scandinavian country20the code of conduct concentrates on good business practice, but
does not deal with the protection of minors.

The Recommendation stresses that relevant parties such as users, consumers, business and
public authorities should participate in the definition, implementation and evaluation of
national measures. In their
three Member States have underlined that public
authorities and/or consumers have been involved21.

replies,

3.1.2.

Illegal and harmful content

Only three Member States22 have mentioned additional specific legal requirements dealing
with the operators’ obligations with respect to illegal content hosted. One Member State23 is
reflecting on how to integrate rules concerning the Internet into its telecommunication law
and the other Member States seem to consider the application of the civil and penal law as
being sufficient to deal with illegal content.

As concerns the specific legal requirements one Member State24 has introduced a system of
three levels according to the intensity of the harm of the contents. This has requested an
adaptation of the criminal law in order to cover on-line services; harmful but not illegal

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden
Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, United
Kingdom
Finland
Austria, Belgium
Sweden
Belgium and Ireland: public authorities, Italy: public authorities and consumers
Germany, Italy, Sweden
Austria
Germany

6

content can be indexed and its distribution then is only authorised if it can be ensured by
technical measures that minors cannot have access; where measures against the responsible
for the content are not possible, action can be taken against the operator directly. Operators
are obliged to protect minors efficiently and they have to employ a person responsible for the
protection of minors or to charge an organisation with this task. The philosophy with respect
to the degree of responsibility of the operator is the following: full responsibility for his own
content, limited responsibility for the content hosted and no responsibility for the access to the
Internet. In the two other Member States25 specific legal requirement deal with the obligation
of an operator to cooperate with justice in the case of illegal or harmful content. In one case26
a specific Act foresees that anyone operating on the Internet bears a certain amount of
responsibility for his content including the duty to remove or otherwise prevent the further
distribution of information which is clearly covered by the penal codes provisions.

Only in one of the Member States specific requirements to inform justice and/or the police
on illegal content exist27. Whereas the Scandinavian countries count on good practice by the
operator, in one Member State28 this subject is dealt with by the code of conduct. Two
Member States29 have let known that in practice there is an obligation of withdrawing illegal
content once the operators have become aware of its existence, as this situation would fall
under penal law.

Hotlines to handle complaints about harmful or illegal content have been established in
nearly all Member States or are under construction.

In five Member States, especially in the context of child pornography, it is the police who
offers a hotline30. One Member State envisages the creation of a hotline with respect to child
pornography31. Hotlines associated to the European Network of Hotlines INHOPE32 – which
is funded by the Commission and is part of the Action plan (see below) - exist already in six
Member States33. Hotlines from two other Member States34 are in the process of joining
INHOPE and hotlines from two additional Member States35 have been selected for co-funding
as part of the network. In one Member State36 the large operators have abuse departments and
there is an
the police is being informed on illegal content reported to;
Ombudsman who provides Internet users with help and support in terms of both technical
problems and question of content and a specific Save the Children Hotline.

in addition,

The efficiency of Hotlines may be increased, if their existence is well known to the Internet
users. However, major campaigns have taken place only in five Member States37 and some

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Italy, Sweden
Sweden
Italy
Belgium
Ireland, Luxembourg
Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Finland
Spain
http://www.inhope.org
Austria (ISPA), Germany (FSM, Newswatch,
(Hotline), Netherlands (Meldpunt), (United Kingdom(IWF))
Spain, Sweden
Denmark, Italy
Sweden
Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, United Kingdom

jugendschutz.net), France (AFA-France),

Ireland

7

information has been provided in two additional ones38. One Member State envisages to
launch an information campaign39.

Overall, the Member States consider the existence of hotlines as an important issue but there
is divergence with respect to the appreciation of their efficiency. Probably it is still too early
to draw a definite conclusion to this respect.

As regards the geographic origin of illegal content, nearly all Member States who replied
confirm that the vast majority of those websites is located outside of the European Union,
mainly in the USA as concerns politically extremist and sexual brutal content and Russia and
Asia as concerns pornography or paedophilia.

3.1.3.

Filtering and education

Specific programs for developing filtering systems, in addition to projects co-funded under
the European Union’s Action plan, have taken place in three Member States40 and one
Member State replied that such activities were included in the national plan of research &
development, without giving additional specifications41. One Member State42 stressed that the
existing filtering systems such as “Websense” have been developed essentially for the English
speaking market and had to be adapted. Another Member State noted43 that, because a
common labelling standard was missing, filtering systems had their limits. An obligation of
the operators to inform users on filtering and rating systems and software to determine the
age of the user exists only in one Member State44 and in another this forms part of the
operators’ code of conduct45.

In conformity with Section (II) paragraph 4 of the Recommendation industry has also made
major efforts to contribute to the establishment of a safer Internet through research on rating
and filtering systems and the establishment of “walled gardens”.

In the spring of 1999 a group of leading international Internet companies and associations
established the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) as an independent, non-profit
implement and manage an internationally
organisation. ICRA’s mission is to develop,
acceptable voluntary self-rating system which provides Internet users worldwide with the
choice to limit access to content they consider harmful, especially to children46.

Walled gardens consist of special portals where the operators guarantee the quality of sites,
which may be accessed through them.

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Germany, Sweden
Spain
Germany, Greece, United Kingdom
Spain
Austria
Germany
France
Spain
Contrary to its predecessor RSACi which provides consumers with information about the level of sex,
nudity, violence, offensive language (vulgar or hate-motivated) in websites and which reflects
exclusively US-American cultural values, the ICRA enables parents across the Member States to
determine individually the criteria which websites have to fulfil in order to pass the filter; for further
information see www.icra.org

8

Campaigns for a safer use of the Internet have taken place in most of the Member States47.
Several Member States have stressed the importance of schools as the appropriate place for
educational measures.

Many Member States acknowledge the dangers of the Internet. However, none of them
considers that these may have slowed down the developed of the Internet.

Section III of the Recommendation invites the Commission to facilitate the networking of the
the definition and implementation of national self-regulation
bodies responsible for
frameworks and the sharing of experience and good practices and to promote multinational
cooperation. The main instrument which the Commission has used is co-funding of projects
under the Safer Internet Action Plan. All of these contribute in various ways to achieving the
objective of networking. The first action line concerns the creation of a safer environment
through the creation of a European network of hotlines (INHOPE) and links between this
network and hotlines in third countries and through support for the development of guidelines
at European level for codes of conduct. Another action line concerns the objective of
encouraging the establishment of European filtering and rating systems and familiarising
users with their use, and demonstrating the benefits of filtering and rating48.

The Action Plan further draws particular attention to the importance of international
cooperation between operators and other concerned parties in the European Union and their
partners in other regions. Additional actions concern encouraging awareness in order to
contribute to the trust and the confidence of parents and teachers in safer use of the Internet by
in particular including questions of
implications,
children and the assessment of legal
applicable law and procedure in view of the fact that law operates on a territorial basis -
national or in the case of Community lawcovering the European Union - whereas Internet
operates on a global level.

On 21 December 200049the Commission adopted a Communication and a proposal for a
Framework Decision combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, i.e. a
proposal providing primarily common definitions, sanctions and incriminations. The proposal
also covers the offence child pornography when committed by means of a computer system,
for example the distribution of child pornography through the Internet.

3.1.4.

European and international cooperation

European cooperation is welcomed by all the Member States who have replied to the
questionnaire and the European Action Plan is particularly welcomed. One Member State50
explicitly regrets the lack of harmonisation of the national laws as concerns cooperation
between the Member States. Several Member States however stress that a cooperation on a
European level is not sufficient and request global cooperation and the establishment of
world-wide minimum standards.

47

48

49

50

Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden, Finland,
United Kingdom
5 projects are under way and the Commission is currently launching a new call for proposals. In
particular the measures comprise (i) walled gardens, (ii) the adaptation of existing software to cover
new languages, (iii) “family friendly” searching, (iv) third party supply of templates and lists for use in
combination with filtering options built into browsers from commercial or non-commercial, values-
services
oriented
(http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/iap)
COM/2000/854 final
Germany

benchmarking

organisations

software

filtering

and

and

(v)

of

9

3.2.

Broadcasting

Section (I), paragraph 2 of the Recommendation invites the Member States to encourage
broadcasters in their jurisdiction to carry out research and to experience, on a voluntary basis,
with new means of protecting minors and informing viewers, as a supplement to the national
and Community regulatory frameworks covering broadcasts.

According to the replies received from the Member States, self-regulation seems to be less
strong in broadcasting in comparison to the Internet. One Member State51 has established a
system which covers various media including broadcasting (see frame below).

In some Member States there is a distinction between public and commercial broadcasters as
concerns self-regulation. In five Member States public broadcasters have internal codes of
conduct52 and in one case commercial broadcasters have established a self-regulation
organisation53. In one Member State54 an independent Television Commission and Radio
Authority is exclusively in charge of private broadcasters.
In other Member States
broadcasters are subject to more general rules55 or self-regulation relates only56 or mainly57 to
questions of protecting minors. Finally, in some Member States private broadcasters apply
their individual code of conduct58.

The Directive Television without Frontiers foresees in Article 22(3) that programs, which
may be harmful to minors, are preceded by an acoustic warning or identified by the presence
of a visual symbol
their duration. All Member States who replied to the
questionnaire have transposed this Article into national law.

throughout

Filtering systems are only used for digital broadcasting. One Member State59 distinguishes
between digital public broadcasters to which the same policy applies as for analogue public
broadcasters (watershed, warning by signs and acoustic means) and digital commercial
broadcasters where the watershed can be replaced by a specific pin code technique. The latter
technique is also used for private broadcast or pay-per-view in two Member States60.
Electronic locking takes place in four Member States61.

In accordance with Article 22b of the Directive Television without Frontiers the Commission
asked the Oxford University for a study on parental control of television broadcasting62 which
came to the conclusion that in the current analogue system, the US and Canadian approach of
- which is based on the so-called V-chip technology - is not technically feasible in Europe.
Rather than focus on the V-chip, regulatory approaches should be directed at the opportunities
and challenges of the digital environment as digital technology allows for the operation of
technical devices which offer a much higher level of protection.

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Netherlands
Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Germany, France, Ireland
Germany
United Kingdom
Greece, Italy
Italy, Finland
Spain
Belgium (Flanders), France
Germany
France; pay-per-view: United Kingdom
Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Sweden
See web site reference in above footnote in section “introduction”

10

The main conclusions of the above-mentioned study were reported in a Commission
communication on "Study on Parental Control of Television Broadcasting"63.The European
Parliament adopted a resolution on this communication64 in which it noted the conclusions
on European television systems included in the Oxford University study and expressed the
hope that the work of Digital Video Broadcasting (see below) will have a favourable impact
in the near future for both undertakings and families. It also emphasised the need to ensure the
availability to all families of television filtering devices at an affordable price and the
necessity that all television operators in the EU to agree on a code of self-regulation in respect
of the protection of minors.

Section II, paragraph 4 of the Recommendation invites also industries and parties
concerned to develop positive measures for the benefit of minors, including initiatives to
facilitate their wider access to audiovisual services while avoiding potentially harmful
contents.

Following receipt of the Study on Parental Control of Television Broadcasting in early 1999,
the Commission consulted the DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting Consortium) on the
operational requirement of technical devices to facilitate the control exercised by parents or
guardians over the programmes that minors watch. The DVB comprises more than 200
(both public and commercial), manufacturers (of
organisations including broadcasters,
consumer and professional equipment), operators (of satellite, cable and terrestrial networks)
and regulators, including the European Commission.

The DVB considers65 that the Internet is evolving into a video-broadcasting medium at rapid
speed with the advances of video streaming via ADSL and Cable Modem technologies.
Further a number of operators are bringing set top boxes onto the market that provide viewers
with access on their main TV sets to both traditional broadcasting sources and the Internet at a
click of the remote control. The DVB considers therefore that to try to introduce a new
technical system to assist parental control that applies to only digital broadcasting would
unnecessarily distort the market according to the technology of delivery. It would impose a
competitive disadvantage for the traditional broadcasters and broadcasting distributors. The
DVB believes that any new system to assist parental control must be applied proportionately
across all medium for delivery to the home. It considers that such a system may be feasible
although the technical and institutional challenges should not be neglected. The DVB’s
approach would be to target the long-term solution without be concerned in the first instance
with the problems of transition. In particular an enforced convergence between broadcasting
and the Internet on a solution suitable for neither would be a retrograde step. In order to
ensure the support of industry nothing should be imposed upon the market retrospectively in a
way that would require changes to an existing installed base of equipment.

The DVB has also confirmed its will to play its part, and work with the Commission,
representatives of the Member States and other actors in the market, to investigate a “fair
description” content rating system and study how it could be made to work in the market
place. In particular, the DVB is willing to (i) examine Internet rating systems and advise how
they might work in a future broadcasting environment, (ii) work on technical specifications
that will ensure rating data is transferred across the broadcasting transmission network and

63

64

65

COM (1999) 371 final
A5-0258/2000
Letter of Mr Theo Peck, Chairman DVB to the Commission of 13th December 2000

11

(iii) play a role with others in helping to implement a broadly based consensus for an industry
led solution.

3.3.

Further initiatives

Legal provisions concerning the classification of videogames exist only in a minority of
Member States66. One Member State has opted for an approach covering film, videocassettes,
videogames and subscription services67 foreseeing the indication of age limits, and another
one prohibits the sale of illegal videogames and limits the distribution of videogames, which
may be harmful to minors68. Another Member State is considering to introduce age rating69
and one has established the legal frameworks for prohibiting illegal videogames70. Self-
regulation with respect to rating videogames exists only in a minority of the Member
states71.

Only three Member States72 consider that their measures concerning videogames are effective
as concerns the protection of minors. For three Member States73 it is too early to take any
position.

Particular initiatives have been taken by two Member States74,
leaving the traditional
approach of dealing individually with each distribution channel of information such as
broadcast, Internet, videocassettes/DVD and videogames. These initiatives seem also to
confirm that self-regulation may contribute in an efficient way to the protection of minors as
regards audiovisual media, if all the parties concerned are narrowly involved:

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Germany, France, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, United Kingdom
Finland
Germany
Sweden
France
Germany, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom
Austria, Netherlands, United Kingdom
Belgium, Ireland, Sweden
Netherlands, United Kingdom

12

In response to the Recommendation, in the Netherlands the Dutch Institute for Classification
of Audiovisual Media (NICAM - Nederlands Instituut voor de Classificatie van Audiovisuele
Media) was founded on 1 December 1999. Three government departments were involved in
the establishment of NICAM: the Ministry of Health, Welfare & Sport, the Ministry of Justice
and the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science.

NICAM brings together Dutch public service and commercial broadcasting organisations,
film and video producers, video stores, retailers and computer games distributors. In addition,
a large number of academics and other organisations and persons have links with NICAM
through their membership of the advisory committee or the independent complaint and
appeals boards.

NICAM was set up to provide an effective and uniform system of classification for all
audio-visual media. NICAM draws up classification guidelines, deals with complaints and is
the Netherlands' principal knowledge centre when it comes to protecting young people from
the detrimental effects of audio-visual media. Consumers, journalists, politicians and those
involved in the classification of audio-visual media can come to NICAM with inquiries about
age ranges and other forms of classification. Also, NICAM aims to provide consumers with
information such that it will enable them, on the basis of descriptive information about a
computer game, film or TV programme, to arrive at a rational decision as to whether or not
they can regard the product concerned as suitable for young people. This form of information
provision is new, supplementing and complementing existing and future age classifications
such as that currently used by the Netherlands Board of Film Classification.

In the United Kingdom a Communications White Paper has been published, which sets out a
new framework for communications regulation75. According to the paper, codes underpinned
by statute will be developed for the most pervasive broadcast services. Work with industry
will ensure effective co- and self-regulatory approaches to protection for other services, such
as the Internet. Systems will be promoted to help people make informed choices about what
they and their children see and hear and also efforts to develop media literacy. It foresees
continuing and effective mechanisms for tackling illegal material on the Internet, such as
those being pursued under the auspices of the Internet Watch Foundation. The Paper also
mentions the promotion of rating and filtering systems that help Internet users control the
content they and their children will see. Finally, it considers the place of the pre-classification
system for videos, DVDs and computer games within the regulatory structure.

75

www.communicationswhitepaper.gov.uk

13

4.

CONCLUSION

The Recommendation invites the Member States, industries and parties concerned and the
Commission to take steps to enhance the protection of minors and human dignity in the
broadcasting and Internet sectors. The need for the establishment of a safe environment has
recently been stressed by the European Parliament when it adopted the above-mentioned
resolution on Parental Control. Overall, after two years, the results of the application of the
Recommendation are encouraging, although interested parties and in particular consumers
should have been more involved in the establishment of codes of conduct

The Member States have applied the Recommendation in a heterogeneous way; nevertheless
it should be stressed that most of the Member States have launched campaigns for a safer use
of the Internet and that some have introduced new legislation or supported measures such as
hotlines to the police to deal with child pornography. The heterogeneity of the measures is not
surprising, taking into account both cultural heterogeneity and the variation in development of
Internet. Also,
fully applying the
Recommendation.

two years may be a relatively short period for

Across the different audiovisual media, a decreasing intensity of activities can be recognised,
whereas most efforts are devoted to the protection of minors and human dignity with respect
to the Internet and the least with respect
to videogames. This is not surprising as the
Recommendation deals essentially with Internet. When it comes to the comparison of the
actions undertaken by the individual Member States, a strong variety exists, reaching from
nearly no activity at all, particular concerning the Internet, to considerable efforts establishing
a common policy across the different audiovisual media.

Industry, in particular through ICRA, is working on the development ofreliable filter and
rating systems for Internet which can be individually adapted to the cultural values of citizens
in the different Member States. As far as digital broadcasting is concerned, work by the
industry is less developed. The DVB has expressed to the Commission its willingness to lead
efforts in this area provided the European legislator gives a clear sign to the industry76.

The Commission has contributed to a better protection of minors in audiovisual media
through the implementation of the Safer Internet Action Plan. As requested by the Member
States, and as foreseen by the Action plan, the Commission will continue to strengthen
European and international cooperation.

While the Recommendation is not directly linked to the Directive “Television without
Frontiersthe results of this evaluation Report may well
influence how a possible new
Directive could deal with the protection of minors and human dignity in respect of all
electronic content.

In accordance with the provisions of the Directive the Commission will launch a full-scale
review which will be subject to an open and wide ranging consultation of all parties.

76

The last paragraph of the above-mentioned letter of 13 December from the DVB Chairman to the
Commission reads: “The views of the Member States and the European Parliament in this area are
clearly essential before any further work is put in hand behind any particular approach. If a consensus
emerges.”

14

The results of the Report show that the challenges are to be met with respect to the protection
of minors and human dignity across all the media, be it Internet, broadcasting, videogames or
supports like videocassettes and DVDs. Renewed efforts need to be made to ensure a coherent
approach, in particular as convergence will continue to increase, with Internet TV, interactive
broadcasting or downloading of videogames from the Internet. The involvement of users
including consumers should also be encouraged. Approaches like the establishment of the
Dutch NICAM-Instituteand the British Communications White Paper demonstrate that much
can be achieved under coregulation or self-regulation and may constitute an orientation for
further implementation of the Recommendation.

15

Annex

Questionnaire

Regarding Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 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 (98/560/EC)

Introduction

Section III (4) of the above Recommendation invites the Commission to present an evaluation
report, two years after its adoption, to the European Parliament and the Council. The purpose
of this questionnaire is to assist the Commission in gathering the information and viewpoints
necessary in order to report in depth on the effectiveness of the Recommendation.

Background

The protection of minors in the audiovisual sector was traditionally achieved through the
classification of cinema films and through the “watershed” (broadcasting television
programmes likely to be harmful to minors only at times when minors are unlikely to view
them). This approach is generally based on regulation. Digital technology,
in particular
through the Internet, allows new means of delivering and viewing audiovisual content which
in turn call for new methods of protecting minors from harmful content and for eradicating
illegal content which is offensive to human dignity. In response to this challenge, the Council
adopted a Recommendation on 24 September 1998. In essence, this Recommendation calls
for the establishment of national self-regulatory frameworks, supplementing the regulatory
framework,
in order to enhance the protection of minors and human dignity in the
broadcasting and Internet sectors.

The Recommendation was a direct result of the public consultation that took place on the
basis of the Commission’s Green Paper on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity in
Audiovisual and Information Services. Some clear lines of consensus emerged from the
consultation, including the need - in an environment where an almost unlimited amount of
content, hosted at any point in the world, can be accessed from almost any point in the world -
for a self-regulatory approach supplementing the legal
the
Recommendation is given in the Annex.

framework. The text of

16

Questions

Internet

Has an association of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) been established in your country?
Please give details of the ISP association(s).

Has a code of conduct been drawn up by the ISPs in your country? If possible, please provide
a copy or the web address where it can be accessed.

To what extent were public authorities and consumers involved in the drawing up of the ISP
code of conduct? Is consultation of public authorities and consumers required when the code
is revised or amended?

Are there any legal requirements in your country which apply specifically to ISPs and how
they should deal with illegal or harmful content accessed over the Internet? If so, what are
they?

Are there any specific requirements for ISPs to inform the police or judicial authorities about
illegal content offensive to human dignity which is available over the Internet?

Has a “hotline” for reporting harmful or illegal Internet content been established in your
country? If so please give details (including web and e-mail address) of the hotline(s),
including their method of financing.

Of the problematic Internet content which has been reported, approximately what proportion
of this is hosted outside your country or outside the EU?

What measures and initiatives have been taken, either by public authorities or by operators, to
raise public awareness of hotlines? Are these measures and initiatives judged to have been
effective?

Where hotlines have been established, please give, in so far as possible, an estimation of their
effectiveness in reducing the extent and accessibility of harmful and illegal content. This
could include public opinion as to their effectiveness/efficiency as well as the views of
operators.

Apart from any involvement in the work currently funded by the Community Action Plan on
promoting safer use of the Internet, have any efforts been made, either by industry or public
authorities, to develop a filtering and rating system for the Internet in your country? If so,
what progress has been made and what are the difficulties encountered?

Do any obligations exist, either in law or in relevant codes of conduct, for ISPs to inform
subscribers about available filtering and rating systems and age verification software?

What measures have been taken at national, local or regional level to spread awareness of
safer Internet issues? Have these been part of a larger plan for "media education"? Have they
been supported by public funds or by private funding (e.g. from industry or from voluntary
associations) or by a mixture of public and private funding?

Is there any evidence that the development of the Internet in your country been slowed by
public fears concerning harmful and illegal content which may be accessed over the Internet?

17

Is the current level of international co-operation in this matter, particularly within Europe,
seen as sufficient? If not, what measures could be taken to improve it?

Broadcasting

Have broadcasters in your country established a system of self-regulation? Please give details
of this, particularly with regard to membership?

Does this system of self-regulation include a code of conduct regarding the protection of
minors and harmful content? (Please note,
this question does not concern advertising
specifically aimed at minors. It concerns audiovisual content which could be harmful to
minors, regardless of whether this is contained in advertising or in general programming.)

Are on-screen warning icons required, either by law or by codes of conduct, for potentially
harmful television programmes? Are acoustic warnings before such programmes required,
either by law or by codes of conduct? Where such measures are used, are they considered to
be effective?

Do any broadcasters established in your country use technical filtering devices to ensure that
minors may not view harmful programmes? If so, what measures and initiatives have been
taken to ensure that parents and guardians are aware of these devices and how to operate
them. Are these devices held to be an effective means of protecting minors in your country?

Video Game Software

Are there any specific legal provisions in your country concerning the sale of video games?
(This questions concerns the physical sale of video game software, not the provision of
software over the Internet for downloading onto computers.)

Is there any self-regulatory system in place which covers questions relating to age-rating for
video games? If so, please give details.

Are current measures to protect minors from harmful video games considered to be effective?

Other Content Delivery Systems

With regard to cinema, video cassette and DVD rating systems, have there been any major
developments in your country since 1998?

General

Is the lack of coherence between the various rating and classification systems for audiovisual
media (cinema, television, videocassettes, video games, Internet) seen as problematic in your
country, e.g.
in terms of creating confusion among consumers? Are any measures or
initiatives being considered to introduce greater coherence in the way audiovisual media are
evaluated and classified?

The Commission is aware that Member States’ authorities may not be in a position to answer
all the questions posed here. Nevertheless, the Commission would request that they be
answered in so far as possible. Any additional information and any relevant views which
might help the Commission in evaluating the effectiveness of the self-regulatory approach
laid out in the Recommendation on the Protection of minors should also be given.

18