WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Operation of the mass media: granting of broadcasting licences, State aid and advertising.
Date: 2002-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, State aid, advertising, application of EU law, audiovisual communications policy, commercial media, corporate finance, private media, public service, restriction on competition

C 301 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

The Irish government, as the government of any other Member State, has the right to present and defend
its opinion in the Council, in the context of the decision making process leading to the adoption of
Community legislation. In doing so, it may choose to vote in favor or against any legislative proposal.
A position taken in one area has no consequences for decisions in another area. This applies evidently also
to the decisions concerning the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development and its
Specific Programmes.

(2002/C 301 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1775/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Operation of the mass media: granting of broadcasting licences, State aid and advertising

Article 6 of the EU Treaty enshrines the principles of pluralism and freedom for the mass media. In spite of
this, in Greece the National Broadcasting Council (ESR) is dragging its feet over the granting of licences to
television channels and is not completing the institutional framework to govern their organisation and
operation, in contravention of the above principles.

In view of the Protocol, annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty, on the system of public broadcasting in the
Member States, and the provision of State aid to broadcasting services in Greece, could the Commission
say:

1.

In view of these events in Greece, how far is the principle of pluralism being complied with, and what
action will the Commission take to ensure that steps taken by the National Broadcasting Council with
regard to the framework for granting licences to television and radio stations conform to Community
law?

2. What is the status of the funding of public broadcasting services in Greece and to what extent does
the way the funding system operates have an effect on the harmonious functioning of the market;
does it not create problems for competition as mentioned in the Protocol annexed to the Amsterdam
Treaty on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States?

3. What is the level of State aid granted to the State and private mass media in the Member States,
particularly in Greece, and to what extent does it run counter to the principle of equality and the rules
governing the functioning of the market?

4. What level of State and private mass media revenue is derived from advertising as compared with the

advertising market total in the 15 EU Member States, and in Greece in particular?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

The Commission is currently undertaking an examination of the granting of broadcasting licences in
1.
following a complaint. Since the granting of such licences often presents a rather complex
Greece,
situation, the Commission can not yet conclude at this stage whether any substantial problems in respect
of Community law have arisen.

Greek legislation provides for the financing of the public broadcaster entrusted with a public service

2.
mission through public grants, a licence fee and other revenues linked mainly to the advertising.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/225

In 1997, the Commission received a complaint according to which Greek authorities confer a preferential
treatment to the public broadcaster, in that he is the only one to be financed from the license fee and in
that
from a particularly favourable pension scheme financed from a tax on
advertising.

its employees benefit

The Commission examines currently the above-mentioned measures in the light of the Communication on
the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (1).

At this stage, the Commission cannot prejudge the outcome of its investigation.

The Commission does not have an exhaustive overview of the current levels of State funding in the
3.
Member States, but a few observations can be made. The amount of State support to broadcasters varies
considerably in each Member State. The level of State support depends to a great extent upon the
financing system Member States have chosen to compensate broadcasters for their public service tasks. In
most Member States public broadcasters are financed through a dual financing system based on public
grants and revenues from commercial activities (mainly advertising).
In some Member States public
broadcasters have legal restrictions regarding their possibilities to raise commercial revenue. In other
Member States public and private broadcasters have to respect
the same rules. Restrictions on the
possibility to raise commercial revenues might increase the need for State funding, whilst at the same time
cause less distortion of competition in the commercial markets (like the advertising market).

Member States are free to choose the means of financing public service broadcasting, but the Commission
has to verify that State compensation for a defined public service is proportionate to the extra net costs.

The way in which the Commission assesses aid to broadcasters entrusted with public service obligations,
be it public or private, is set out in the Commission’s above-mentioned Communication.

State support to the public broadcasters is accepted when following conditions are satisfied:

(cid:1) the establishment of a clear and precise definition of public service in broadcasting;

(cid:1) the formal entrustment of the public service mission to one or more undertakings by means of an

official act;

(cid:1) the limitation of public funding to what is necessary for the fulfilment of the public service mission
(proportionality). In so far as they receive State aids and develop also non-public service activities,
public broadcasters are subject to the transparency requirements indicated in the so-called ‘Trans-
parency Directive’ (2). The separation of accounts provides the Commission with a necessary tool for
examining alleged cross-subsidisation between public service activities and commercial activities. The
obligation of separation of accounts does not apply to public service broadcasters whose activities are
limited to the provision of services of general economic interest;

(cid:1) furthermore it is desirable that an appropriated authority or appointed body monitor the application

of these conditions.

4.
According to the latest statistics published by the European Audiovisual Observatory in Strasbourg,
the Community’s advertising market in 2000 reached the level of EUR 67 164 million of which TV
advertising represented about 38 %; radio advertising about 6 %, newspaper and magazines about 49 %, the
rest being covered by cinema advertising and outdoor/transport means.

Concerning Greece, the relevant amounts are: total advertising: EUR 1 081 million, of which TV advertising
represented about 50 %; radio advertising about 4 %, newspaper and magazines about 46 %.

C 301 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

With regard to the revenues of TV broadcasters, the same source indicates that at Community level in
2000 public service broadcasters (including radio) recorded revenues from advertising for a total of about
EUR 5 487 million (20,8 % of total revenues). For the private broadcasters advertising revenues (including
radio) amounted to EUR 20 196 million (56,2 % of total revenues). No detailed data concerning Greece are
available.

(1) OJ C 320, 15.11.2001.
(2) Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980, on the transparency of financial relations between Member
States and public undertakings as amended by Commission Directive 85/413/EEC of 24 July 1985, Commission
Directive 93/84/EEC of 30 September 1993 and Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000, OJ L 195,
29.7.1980.

(2002/C 301 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1778/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Exclusion of Arreu valley from the proposed SCI and expansion of the Baqueira-Beret ski resort

Plans to expand the Baqueira-Beret ski resort in the Lérida region of the Pyrenees (Catalonia, Spain) were
submitted in 1999. The project, promoted by the private firm ‘Baqueira-Beret S.A.’, was to have been
located in Arreu valley, which was then included in the SCI for the alpine biogeographical region
(ES5130003). The project was finally withdrawn with an ‘unfavourable’ environmental impact assessment.

In August 2001 ‘Baqueira-Beret S.A.’ submitted fresh plans for expanding the ski resort,
involving a
significant area in Arreu valley and the proposed SCI of Aigüestortes (ES513002). When this last plan
received a favourable environmental impact assessment and the administrative applications allowing the
ski resort to be expanded above Arreu valley were approved, WWF/Spain lodged a complaint with the
Commission (Ref: 2002/4204, SG(2002)A1912).

Is the Commission aware of this project to expand Baqueira-Beret and the facts given by WWF/Spain in its
complaint?

Is the Commission aware that this project will affect both alpine SCIs and an IBA which have been
proposed pursuant to the Habitats and Birds Directives?

Is the Commission aware of the changes made by the Spanish autonomous communities to their proposals
for sites for the Natura 2000 network, whereby areas previously protected have been excluded to facilitate
the implementation of projects which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of
the site (Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (1)), without an adequate assessment having been made of their
environmental repercussions?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1498/02 by Mr De Roo,
Mr Mayol i Raynal and Mr Mendiluce Pereiro (1).

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 217.