WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Broadcasting licences, rules governing State aid for broadcasting and media advertising in Greece.
Date: 2003-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, administrative transparency, advertising, aid system, broadcasting, contract, public service, quasi-fiscal charge

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/733

DG RTD makes a detailed analysis of its requirements for payment appropriations for each financial year,
and then implements most of the budget (for example, 96 % in 2002). The risk of payment appropriations
being cancelled is therefore low. Moreover, DG RTD has set up instruments for monthly reporting on OCs
and is endeavouring to cancel the commitments for which payment appropriations are no longer required
as soon as possible.

(1) Decision number C(2002) 3710.
(2) Decision number C(2002) 4524.

(2004/C 78 E/0782)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2160/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Broadcasting licences, rules governing State aid for broadcasting and media advertising in Greece

In reply to my previous question regarding the media activities in Greece (E1775/02 (1)), the Commission
informed me that, in response to complaints, the Commission was investigating the complex and unclear
situation regarding broadcasting licensing and preferential treatment given to the public broadcasting body,
the ERT, by the Greek authorities.

Given the new and excessive increase being envisaged in fees levied by the Public Power Corporation on
behalf of the Greek public broadcasting body coupled with the latter’s increased share in earnings from
public and private advertising:

1. What were the Commission’s findings regarding the complaints, particularly in the light of the recent
judgement by the ECJ (C 53/2000 Ferring) concerning the illegality of subsidies exceeding the net
additional cost attributable to public service obligations and what measures have been taken to ensure
a transparent and irreproachable system of media licensing in Greece in accordance with Community
rules?

2. How will the Commission as guardian of the Treaties ensure effective monitoring of public service
obligations by broadcasters in Greece where no clear agreement exists between the State and the
is not
company concerned clearly defining its activities where the supervisory authority (ERS)
independent of the Government or the company concerned and no separate accounts are kept
indicating sources and amounts of income and expenditure in respect of non public service activities?

3. How will it ensure the smooth implementation of internal market rules governing the allocation of

State/public advertising and media subsidies in Greece?

4.

In how many and which Member States are fees levied by public power corporations and how is this
increase in fees payable to the public broadcasting body, coupled with its increased share of
advertising earnings, consistent with rules governing State aid, in particular for public broadcasting
services?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 224.

C 78 E/734

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Ferring judgement does not modify the basic rationale of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, i.e. that

1.
State funding of a service of general economic interest must not exceed its net additional costs.

The Commission’s examination concerning the proportionality of the public support granted to Elliniki
Radiophonia Tikorassi (ERT) is still ongoing and at this stage it is not possible to indicate whether the
funds granted to it exceed the cost attributable to its public service obligations. Nonetheless, based on the
available information, it can be noted preliminarily that the Commission does not possess evidence of anti-
competitive behaviour of ERT in any commercial market, that would suggest the presence of such an
overcompensation.

Nor does the Commission have information in its possession on the attribution of broadcasting licences to
ERT which provide evidence of a possible infringement of the relevant EU rules, in particular the freedom
of establishment.

2.
The Law 1730/87 defines the mission of the Greek public broadcaster which is to inform, to educate
and entertain the Greek nation. ERT’s broadcasts must be governed by the principles of objectivity,
polyphony, good quality of broadcasts, preservation of quality of the Greek language, promotion and
dissemination of Greek culture and traditions. Furthermore, ERT must ensure radio and television coverage
of the activities of the Parliament, of the pre-election campaigns by the political parties, of issues related to
local government, and of the activities of other organisms involved in the cultural, social and economic
development of the country. This definition of the broadcasting public service mission appears to be in
line with Article 86(2): the Protocol of Amsterdam (1) and the Communication from the Commission on
the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (2), recognise that the definition of the
public service mandate falls within the competence of the Member States.

Furthermore, the Commission considers that it is within the competence of each Member State to choose
the mechanism to ensure effective supervision of the fulfilment of the public service obligations. The
National Commission of Electronic Means of Communication (Ethniki Epitropi
Ilektronikon Meson
Epikinonias, EEIME) established by the Law 2173/93 in order to control the fulfilment by ERT of its public
service obligations is an independent authority attached to the Government. Its members enjoy personal
and functional independence and are not submitted to administrative control in the framework of their
duties.

Finally, regarding the separation of accounts, as stated in the Communication on the application of State
aid rules to public service broadcasting, Member States may consider the whole programming of the
broadcasters as covered by the public service remit, while at the same time allowing for its commercial
exploitation. Thus, costs attributable to public service activities, but also benefiting commercial activities,
need not be apportioned between the two and can be entirely allocated to public service. However it is
necessary that the State support does not exceed the net costs of the public service mission, considering
also other direct or indirect revenues derived from this mission. The main question is therefore the
proportionality of the public support granted to ERT which is still being investigated by the Commission.

3.
The compatibility of State aid to broadcasting is examined by the Commission on the basis of the
criteria set out in the Communication on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting.

4.
In most Member States public broadcasters are financed at least partially through television licence
fees. There are different arrangements concerning the modalities of collection of these fees and their
amount varies. It is also common to observe a dual financing scheme, combining public funds and
advertising revenues. The Commission considers that the imposition of such a licence fee on households as
well as the choice of a dual financing scheme is compatible with the State aid rules, as long as the total
amount of funds granted to the public broadcaster does not exceed the net costs of its public service
mission. This means that an increase in total funding, where justified by an increase in the cost of the
public service, is consistent with the EC Treaty rules on State aid.

Interpretative Protocol on the system of Public Service in Broadcasting.

(1)
(2) OJ C 320, 15.11.2001.