WRITTEN QUESTION E-3864/02 by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)and Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Encryption digital satellite TV channels.
Date: 2003-01-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cryptography, freedom of communication, freedom to provide services, high-definition television, intellectual property, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, satellite communications, single market

C 161 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Greece has not yet asked the Commission for the financial closure of this programme. Under the
Community rules on assistance in the period 1994-1999, the Commission must receive the details
required for closure by 31 March 2003.

The project promoter has submitted a new proposal following a call for tenders launched under a new aid
scheme ‘Encouraging private investment in energy’, which was also approved by the Commission. That aid
scheme is part-financed under the ‘Competitiveness’ operational programme of Greece’s Community
support framework for 2000-2006. The total cost of the proposal amounted to EUR 406 134, of which
60 % was to be provided by the investor, 20 % by the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 20 % by the
State.

According to the information received by the relevant national authorities, the project has not yet been
included in the operational programme in question.

(2003/C 161 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3864/02

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)
and Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Encryption digital satellite TV channels

On 4 December the Chief Director of the Westdeutsches Fernsehen WDR, Mr Pleitgen, made a plea to lift
any obligation for European Public television channels to encrypt their digital satellite broadcasts for
reception abroad. He argued that ‘this would considerably contribute to cultural exchange and cultural
diversity in Europe’. The President of the German-French cultural channel ARTE, Jobst Plog, made an
appeal ‘to stick forcefully to the principle of a free flow of information.’

Does the European Commission agree with us that the necessary protection of copyrights should not

1.
lead to hindrances in the free flow of information in Europe?

2.
Does the Commission share our opinion that a free flow of information as given by the public
broadcast systems should not be encrypted for the public in a country other than where the programmes
originate?

Does the Commission share our view that such free exchange of information may also contribute to

3.
a better knowledge of foreign languages?

4.
Does the Commission agree that a free access to public broadcasting in a country other than where
the public channel is based also benefits expats of that country and is a contribution to a more flexible
labour market?

5.
Is the Commission willing to contact the relevant competent authorities at national, regional and
European level and investigate whether existing barriers, which originate from the encryption of public
digital channels broadcasting over satellite, or from legal restrictions, can be taken away?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The principle of a free flow of information within the internal market is primarily based on the principles
of the freedom of establishment (Article 43 of the EC Treaty) and the freedom to provide services
(Article 49 of the EC Treaty). In this context, any obstacles to the broadcasting of programmes by public or
private channels across national borders would only be compatible with these principles if they consisted
of appropriate measures justified by a general-interest objective that did not go beyond what is necessary
to protect the general-interest objective concerned (principle of proportionality).

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/157

Since the protection of intellectual property has been recognised by the Court of Justice as a general-
interest objective (1),
it is possible that this may justify obstacles to the cross-border broadcasting of
television programmes which could be recognised as compatible with the principles in Articles 43 and 49
of the EC Treaty if they comply with the principle of proportionality.

With regard to satellite broadcasting, the Commission has been able to establish, as explained in its report
of 26 July 2002 (2), that whilst there has been a proliferation of television channels, these are more and
more often encrypted and are not accessible to viewers who do not live in the Member State in which the
transmission is organised. This restriction on access to these channels is, in particular, related to conditions
governing the transfer of intellectual property rights for television programmes.

This situation is of some concern to the Commission because there are genuine benefits to be gained from
broadcasting programmes across national borders, both for citizens residing in their Member State of
origin (cultural and linguistic exchanges) and for those resident in a Member State other than their own
(who can remain in touch with their culture of origin).

As indicated in its report, the Commission has started to hold in-depth discussions on the conditions
governing the transfer of intellectual property rights for television programmes broadcast by satellite. It
has, more specifically, set up a working group to bring together various representatives of the different
parties involved in satellite broadcasting (including some of the competent authorities at national and
European level),
in order to find a solution which might reconcile the interests of rightholders and
broadcasters.

Since work on this complex issue has still to be completed and is scheduled to continue in 2003, the
Commission cannot, at this stage, comment on whether the encryption of programmes broadcast by either
public or private bodies can be justified in accordance with the principles of the internal market.

(1) See judgment of 25 July 1991, Case 288/89, Mediawet.
(2) Report on the application of Council Directive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright
and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission, COM(2002) 430 final.

(2003/C 161 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3868/02

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

Subject: Netherlands Student Grants Act

(10 January 2003)

In the Netherlands, grants are awarded to students aged over 18. That applies to all forms of education.
Child benefit is not paid in respect of students aged over 18.

If the students concerned pursue their studies in Belgium or Germany, student grants are awarded in
respect of higher education and university courses but not in respect of secondary, basic or intermediate
vocational training courses.

The Netherlands authorities recognise periods of study in Belgium and Germany in connection with the
Compulsory Education Act, and degrees taken in Germany and Belgium are recognised as full degrees.

1.
Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands’ decision not to award grants to students over the age
of 18 following secondary (vocational) training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of the
principle of ‘free movement of services’ (following a recognised training course abroad) and/or the ‘free
movement of persons’?

Does the Commission feel that the Netherlands’ decision not to award grants to students over the age
2.
of 18 following secondary (vocational)
training courses in Belgium and Germany is in breach of
Articles 149 and/or 150 of the EC Treaty in that the action of the Netherlands Government restricts
student mobility?