Second 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: 2003-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual communications policy, automatic game, broadcasting, child protection

EN

EN

  EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 12.12.2003
COM(2003) 776 final

SECOND 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

EN

  EN

 
SECOND 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

1.

2.

3.

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

Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 5

Results .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.

Internet ......................................................................................................................... 6

3.1.1.

Self-regulation and codes of conduct........................................................................... 6

3.1.2.

Illegal and harmful content .......................................................................................... 7

3.1.3.

Filtering and education................................................................................................. 9

3.1.4.

European and international cooperation..................................................................... 10

3.1.5. UMTS ....................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.6. Control of chat-groups ............................................................................................... 11

3.1.7. Right of reply ............................................................................................................. 11

3.2.

Broadcasting............................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1.

Filtering systems ........................................................................................................ 13

3.3.

3.4.

Media literacy............................................................................................................. 14

Rating ......................................................................................................................... 15

3.4.1. Developments since 2000 concerning cinema, videocassette and DVD rating systems15

3.4.2.

Lack of coherence between rating systems................................................................ 15

3.5.

3.6.

Video game software.................................................................................................. 15

Measures against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or nationality in all
media .......................................................................................................................... 17

3.7.

Consumer associations ............................................................................................... 17

4.

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 17

Annex ....................................................................................................................................... 19

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").  The  Recommendation  is
the first  legal  instrument  at  EU-level  concerning the content of audiovisual and information
services covering all forms of delivery, from broadcasting to the Internet.

In  section  III  of  the  Recommendation,  paragraph  4  calls  on  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.

The implementation of the Recommendation was evaluated for the first time in 2000, and the
first  report  was  published  in  2001:  Evaluation  Report  to  the  Council  and  the  European
Parliament  on  the  application  of  Council  Recommendation  of  24  September  1998  on
protection of minors and human dignity2. The report indicated that the implementation of the
Recommendation  was  already  quite  satisfactory  in  overall  terms.  The  Council  meeting
(Culture)  adopted  its  conclusions  concerning  the  evaluation  report  on  21  June  2001,  and
Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  on  the  report  on  11  April  20023,  in  which  it  called  on  the
Commission  to  draw  up  a  further  report,  at  an  appropriate  time,  and  preferably  before  31
December 2002.

This  document  is  the  Commission's  second  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the
Council,  which  is  based  on  the  Member  States'  and  accession  countries'  replies  to  the
questionnaire (attached as annex I). 

The  development  of  digital  media  – namely  the  Internet,  digital  broadcasting  and  video
games –  still  constitutes  a  major  challenge  for  the  European  Union’s  audiovisual  policy,
particularly as regards the protection of minors.

Adopted in 1989, the “Television Without Frontiers” (TVWF) directive4, the main legislative
instrument at EU level concerning audiovisual services, was revised in 1997 to take account
of  technological  and  market  developments.  The  Directive  also  deals  with  the  protection  of
minors from harmful content disseminated via broadcasting, by means of either watersheds or
technical  devices.  Public  consultations  concerning  the  TVWF  Directive,  which  took  place
during  20035  have  shown  a  strong  consensus  that  the  principles  contained  in  the
Recommendation are still considered to be appropriate.

The TVWF Directive has been complemented in particular by Council Directive 2000/31/EC
on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in

1

2

3

4

5

OJ L 270, 7.10.1998, p.48.
COM(2001) 106 final, 27.2.2001.
C5-0191/2001 - 2001/2087(COS).
Council Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council.
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/regul/review-twf2003/consult_en.htm

3

 
                                                
the Internal Market (the e-Commerce Directive)6. This Directive clarifies some legal concepts
and harmonises certain aspects in order to enable information society services to fully benefit
from the internal market principles. A number of provisions in the e-Commerce Directive are
also relevant to the protection of minors.

In order to promote a safer Internet, the European Parliament and the Council adopted on 25
January 1999 a multi-annual Community Action plan on promoting safer use of the  Internet
by  combating  illegal  and  harmful  content  on  global  networks7  (the  "Safer  Internet  Action
Plan").  On  16  June  2003,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  a  two-year
extension to the Safer Internet Action Plan8. The extended Safer Internet Action Plan is still
aimed  at  promoting  safer  use  of  the  Internet  by  combating  illegal  and  harmful  content  on
global networks, but it also includes measures to encourage exchange of information and co-
ordination  with  the  relevant  actors  at  national  level,  and  has  special  provisions  for  the
accession countries.

Rating or classification of audiovisual content fulfils an essential role in the protection of
minors.  An  independent  Study  on  the  rating  practice  used  for  audiovisual  works  in  the
European  Union9  has  been  carried  out  for  the  Commission,  and  examines  the  issue  of
comparative content rating systems in the various media (television, film, interactive games,
Internet) and different forms of transmission. 

Ratings may differ not only between EU and EEA Member States, but also within a Member
State  depending  on  the  distribution  medium,  such  as  cinema,  television  and  DVD/video
cassettes. As a consequence, the very same film may also be rated in a different way within a
given Member State. The situation is further complicated by the fact that a specific film can
lead to secondary works and services such as a video games and Internet websites, and by the
fact  that,  in  future,  it  may  also  be  possible  to  download  films  via  the  Internet.  The  study
therefore  aims  to  highlight  the  rating  practices  in  the  various  EU  and  EEA  Member  States,
depending  on  the  distribution  channels  involved,  and  to  evaluate  the  impact  of  differences
between  national  legislation  and  actual  rating  practice  on  the  marketing  and  distribution  of
films. It also looks at the potential for confusion amongst those responsible for minors arising
from differences in rating.

The consultants’ main conclusions are that,  although there is  no strong pressure  from  either
industry  or  consumers  for  homogeneity,  there  are  still  some  structural  pressures  that  are
tending  towards  greater  consistency.  Principal  among  these  are  the  twin  forces  of
globalisation  and  convergence  –  both  driven  by  societal  and  technological  changes.  The
consultants  believe  that  the  combination  of  globalisation  and  convergence  trends  will,  over
time, create extremely strong pressures for a more homogenous system of content rating than
exists  at  present.  Moreover,  these  pressures  will  result  in  a  volume  and  variety  of  delivery
methods for content that will make it increasingly difficult for the public authorities to rate on
an ex ante basis. There will be greater pressure to consider ex post methods of content rating
and forms of coregulation, which will involve efficient and  effective channels for consumer
complaints.

6

7

8

9

Directive  2000/31/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  8  June  2000,  OJ  L  178,
17.7.2000, p. 1 - 16.
Decision No 276/1999/EC, OJ L33, 6/2/1999 p. 1.
Decision No. 1151/2003/EC amending Decision No 276/1999/EC, OJ L 162, 1.7.2003, p. 1.
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/stat/studi_en.htm#rating

4

 
                                                
The development of the  Internet has further complicated the situation for protecting minors.
Whereas  in  traditional  broadcasting  (analog  or  digital)  the  individual  broadcaster  is  easily
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 intent. In
addition, the volume of information in the Internet is massive in comparison to broadcasting.
The  Recommendation  on  the  protection  of  minors  has  a  cross-media  approach  and
emphasises  the  cross-border  exchange  of  best  practices  and  the  development  of  co-
regulatory  and  self-regulatory  mechanisms.  A  coregulatory  approach  may  be  more
flexible, adaptable and effective than straightforward regulation and legislation. With regard
to  the  protection  of  minors,  where  many  sensibilities  have  to  be  taken  into  account,  co-
regulation  can  often  better  achieve  the  given  aims.  Coregulation  implies  however,  from  the
Commission’s point of view, an appropriate level of involvement by the public authorities. It
should consist of cooperation between the public authorities, industry and the other interested
parties, such as consumers. This is the approach laid out in the Recommendation. 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.

2.

QUESTIONNAIRE

In preparing this evaluation report, a questionnaire was addressed to the Member States and
the accession countries on 30 April 2003 (see annex I). A copy of the questionnaire was also
sent  to  the  members  of  the  Contact  Committee  established  under  the  “Television  Without
Frontiers” Directive.

The objective  of  the new  report  is  to  establish  what  progress  has  been  made  in  comparison
with the situation  in 2000,  on  issues  concerning  self-regulation,  codes  of  conduct,  technical
and educational measures, the question of whether greater consistency between the activities
protecting minors across the different media was felt to be necessary, as well as the question
whether a common approach as regards the rating across all audiovisual media could improve
the  protection  of  minors.  The  questionnaire  also  takes  into  consideration  technical  progress
such as UMTS and looks at subjects which until now have received only marginal attention,
such as the control of chat-groups.

26  replies  were  received  covering  all  Member  States,  eight  accession  countries10,  Turkey,
Iceland  and Norway (in  the  case  of  Belgium,  two linguistic  communities  replied).  Italy  and
Latvia only replied to the questions relating to broadcasting. The replies received are available
on the Commission’s website11.

10

11

Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/regul/new_srv/secondreport_en.htm

5

 
                                                
3.

RESULTS

3.1.

Internet

3.1.1.

Self-regulation and codes of conduct

Section I (1) of the Recommendation provides that the Member States should encourage the
establishment of national frameworks for self-regulation by operators of on-line services. This
will  require,  at  the  very  least,  regular  contacts  between  the  operators.  Internet  Service
Provider  Associations  (ISPAs)  have  been  established/are  active  in  10  Member  States12,
Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia,  Turkey,  Iceland and Norway. In  Lithuania the  establishment of
an ISPA is planned for late autumn 2003. In Denmark, Greece, Portugal and Finland, the ISPs
are represented through other trade organisations.

ISPAs from eight Member States13 are members  of the European  Internet  Service Providers
Association  organisation  (EuroISPA)14.  Where  established,  codes  of  conduct15  deal  with
subjects such as the responsibility of providers for content, questions concerning protection of
minors  and  complaints  procedures.  EuroISPA  is  keen  for  any  ISPA  from  the  accession
countries to  join  EuroISPA. EuroISPA has  conducted research through contacts  in  industry,
and the conclusion is that most accession countries do not currently have an ISPA. Therefore,
EuroISPA  decided  at  its  recent  Council  Meeting  to  investigate,  as  a  matter  of  priority,  the
possibility of setting up "EuroISPA outposts" in those countries where ISPAs do not yet exist.
This will also include current Member States where no ISPA exists16.

In Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden,
the United Kingdom, Turkey and  Norway, direct  access to the associations via one or  more
websites of the ISPAs is possible, where information on their objectives and activities can be
found.

Section  II  (2)  of  the  Recommendation  proposes  that  the  industries  and  the  parties
concerned draw up codes of conduct for the protection of minors and human dignity, among
other things 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 businesses
providing  the  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  handling  of  complaints,  encouraging  operators  to
provide  the  management  tools  and  structures  needed  so  that  complaints  can  be  sent  and
received without difficulty and introducing procedures for dealing with complaints and (v) on
cooperation procedures between operators and the competent public authorities.

Eight Member States17, Hungary, Iceland, and Norway state that such codes of conduct have
been established, and both Luxembourg and Slovenia have indicated that the ISPA is drawing
up  a  code  of  conduct.  The  Netherlands  replied  that  although  there  is  no  code  of  conduct,  a

12

13

14

15

16

17

Belgium,  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands  Austria,  Sweden,  United
Kingdom.
Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, United Kingdom.
http://www.euroispa.org
http://www.euroispa.org/25.htm
Information received from Mr. Richard Nash, Secretary General EuroISPA.
Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Austria, Sweden, United Kingdom.

6

 
                                                
public policy line has been established. Six Member States18 followed the EuroISPA model.
In Sweden, as in 2000, the code of conduct concentrates on good business practice, but does
not deal with the protection of minors. 

The Recommendation stresses that interested parties such as users, consumers, business and
public  authorities  should  participate  in  the  definition,  implementation  and  evaluation  of
national  measures.  The  United  Kingdom  proposed  that,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of
self-regulation, codes of conduct should drawn up by industry  representatives. Germany,  on
the  other  hand,  stated  that  although  codes  of  conduct  had  been  drawn  up  by  industry
representatives,  contributions  to  the  debate  were  also  made  by  the  public  authorities,
consumers  and  scientific  experts.  In  Belgium,  France  and  Finland,  public  authorities  have
been involved, and in Ireland public authorities and consumers have played a role alongside
each other. The Netherlands stated that, on the initiative of the ISPs, public authorities, child
pornography and discrimination hotlines and civil liberties organisations are involved  in the
setting-up of a ‘Notice and take down system’ based on the e-commerce Directive.

3.1.2.

Illegal and harmful content 

Germany, Sweden and Lithuania stated that they had additional specific legal requirements
dealing with the operators’ obligations with respect to illegal content hosted. Seven Member
States19,  Hungary,  Poland,  Iceland  and  Norway  refer  to  the  provisions  implementing  the  e-
commerce  Directive.  In  Sweden,  a  specific  piece  of  legislation  stipulates  that  anyone
operating  on  the  Internet  bears  a  certain  responsibility  for  the  content  of  their  material,
including  the  duty  to  remove  or  otherwise  prevent  the  further  distribution  of  information
which is clearly covered by the provisions of the country's Penal Code.

Lithuania  and  Poland  stated  that  specific  requirements  exist  for  informing  the  judicial
authorities and/or the police about illegal content. Luxembourg and Iceland stated that, in
practice, there is an obligation to withdraw illegal content once operators become aware of it,
as this situation would fall under provisions of criminal law. None of the other replies referred
to the existence of such specific requirements. Portugal indicated that the transposition of the
e-commerce  Directive  would  lay  down  rules  in  this  regard.  Denmark,  Ireland  and  Sweden
indicated that, in practice, there is ongoing co-operation between the police and ISPs, and in
Greece  and  France  ISPs  have  specific  obligations  to  preserve  data  in  order  to  assist  in  the
investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of crimes, especially crimes against minors. 

18

19

France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Austria, , United Kingdom
Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal.

7

 
                                                
Notice and take down procedures 

The conditions under which a hosting provider is exempted from liability as set out in Article
14(1)(b) of the e-commerce Directive constitute the basis for the development of notice and
take  down  procedures  for  illegal  and  harmful  content20  by  stake-holders.  At  the  time  the
Directive  was  adopted,  it  was  decided  that  notice  and  take  down  procedures  should  not  be
regulated in the Directive itself. Instead, Article 16 and Recital 40 expressly encourage self-
regulation in this field.21 This approach has also been followed by the Member States in their
national laws transposing the Directive.  Of  those  Member States  which  have  transposed  the
Directive,  only  Finland  has  included  a  legal  provision  setting  out  a  notice  and  take  down
procedure  concerning  copyright  infringements  only22.  All  the  other  Member  States  have
followed  the  approach  adopted  in  the  Directive  to  leave  this  issue  to  self-regulation.  In
accordance  with  Article  21(2),  which  requires  the  Commission  to  analyse  the  need  for
proposals  concerning  notice  and  take  down  procedures,  the  Commission  has  actively
encouraged stakeholders to develop notice and take down procedures and has systematically
collected and analysed information about emerging procedures.

Hotlines  receive  complaints  from  the  public  about  illegal  content.  After  screening  the
complaint, they then pass it on to the appropriate body – police, Internet service-providers or
a  correspondent  hotline.  Creating  a  European  network  of  hotlines  to  span  the  EU  both
geographically  and linguistically  was  one  of  the  key  aims  of  the  Safer  Internet  Action  Plan
1999-2004,  since  hotlines  only  existed  in  a  limited  number  of  Member  States  in  its  early
stages.

Thirteen Member States23, Lithuania, Poland,  Iceland and Norway indicated that hotlines to
handle  complaints  about  harmful  or  illegal  content  have  been  established.  In  Denmark,
Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and Norway, especially in the context of child pornography,
it is the police which provides a hotline. In Hungary, a hotline will be set up in the near future.

Hotlines associated with the European Networks of Hotlines INHOPE24 – which is funded by
the Commission under the Safer Internet programme – exist in thirteen Member States25 and
Iceland.  Between  December  2001  and  May  2002  INHOPE  members  have  processed  more
than 35.000 reports.

20

21

22

23

24

25

Mechanisms provided by interested parties aimed at identifying illegal content hosted on the network
and at facilitating its rapid removal.
The European Parliament, when adopting the Directive in 2000, invited the Commission to encourage
the  establishment  of  efficient  notice  and  take-down  procedures  by  interested  parties.  European
Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a European Parliament
and Council Directive on certain legal aspects of Information Society services, in particular electronic
commerce, in the Internal Market, 4.5.2000, OJ C 041, 7.2.2001, p. 38.
Amongst the EEA countries, Iceland has also established a statutory notice and take down procedure.
Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Austria,
Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom.
http://www.inhope.org
Belgium  (Child  Focus),  Denmark  (Red  Barnet),  Germany  (FSM,  ECO,  jugendschutz.net),  Greece
(Netwatch), Spain (Protegeles), France (AFA-France), Ireland (Hotline), Italy (Save the Children Italy),
Netherlands  (Meldpunt-),  Austria  (Stopline),  Finland  (Save  the  Children  Finland),  Sweden  (Save  the
Children Sweden), United Kingdom(IWF).

8

 
                                                
The efficiency of Hotlines may be enhanced if their existence is well-known to Internet users.
Campaigns  have  been  launched  in  eight  Member  States26  and  Poland.  Others  rely  on  the
presence of various websites.

Overall, the States which replied to the questionnaire still consider the existence of hotlines
as an important issue since they regard them as an effective tool for reducing the amount and
accessibility  of  illegal  content.  However,  no  respondents  seem  to  have  made  provision  for
assessing the actual efficiency of hotlines. Ireland states, however, that the number of reports
received by the hotline indicates that the public is aware of its existence and the opportunity it
offers to for users to respond to illegal material on the Internet.

As  regards  the  geographic  origin  of  illegal  content,  most  States  confirm  that  the  vast
majority of the websites concerned are located outside the European Union.

3.1.3.

Filtering and education

To promote safer use of the Internet, illegal and harmful content must be readily identifiable.
Rating  and  filtering  systems  can  help  to  empower  users  to  select  the  content  they  wish  to
receive. 

In  Germany,  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag  on  1  April
2003, ISPs must ensure that children and minors do not have access to harmful material. The
ISP can  fulfil this obligation  by  technical means,  which  must  be  assessed  and  tested  by  the
authorities. This means that the ISPs must participate in the development of filtering software,
and that software producers must market it effectively. France decided to establish an online
list of “francophone” websites for all ages.  In order to be  included in the list,  the  editors of
these websites must have confirmed that they adhere to a quality charter. This list should also
serve  as  an information  source  for  filter  programs,  which  can  propose  to  Internet  users  that
they restrict themselves to the websites on the list.

The Netherlands and the United Kingdom referred to the Internet Content Rating Association
(ICRA)27,  which  allows  website  managers  to  apply  for  a  rating  on  a  voluntary  basis.  This
allows  parents  to  restrict  access  to  websites  with  the  most  suitable  rating.  ICRA,  which
received funding under the Safer Internet Action Plan, has produced a content rating system
suitable for EU and international needs. Content providers rate the content of their own sites.
Parents are free to set acceptance criteria according to their personal and cultural preferences
and beliefs.

In Poland, three organisations are developing filtering and/or rating systems for the Internet.
In Lithuania, there has been an open tender to test filters, in addition to which rating systems
and  recommendations  to  the  public  and  ISPs  concerning  filters  and  rating  systems  will  be
published.

Norway stated that figures from a survey suggested that parents generally did not believe in
filtering as a tool, and that awareness and dialogue between parents and children was the best
way to provide a safe environment.

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

26

27

Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, United Kingdom.
http://www.icra.org

9

 
                                                
and  filtering  systems  and  the  establishment  of  “walled  gardens”.  Walled  gardens  consist  of
special  portals  where  the  operators  guarantee  the  quality  of  sites,  which  may  be  accessed
through them.

In  Germany,  it  was  decided  that  age  differences  should  be  taken  into  account  in  the
development of filtering  systems, and  that  walled  gardens  should  be  developed.  If  possible,
ISPs should offer these walled gardens free of charge. 

In  three  Member  States28,  obligations  exist  for  ISPs  to  inform  subscribers  about  available
filtering  and  rating  systems  and/or  age  verification  software.  In  Hungary,  the  ISP  requires
providers to give easy access to filter systems or to give information about such services.

In  2003,  campaigns  for  safer  use  of  the  Internet  were  launched  in  12  Member  States29,
Poland, Iceland and Norway. In Lithuania, the Ministry of Culture will issue a labelling order
by  the  end  of  the  year  and  the  Ministry  of  Education  will  provide  informative  training  and
seminars  for  teachers,  social  workers  and  the  general  public.  Again,  several  Member  States
stressed  the  importance  of  schools  as  the  appropriate  context  for  educational  measures,  for
instance within the broader framework of media education.

Many  of  the  States  which  replied  to  the  questionnaire  acknowledge  the  challenges  of  the
Internet.  However, none  of them  consider  that there is evidence to suggest that  public  fears
concerning  harmful  and  illegal  content  may  have  slowed  down  the  development  of  the
Internet.

Section III of the Recommendation calls on the Commission to facilitate the networking of
the  bodies  responsible  for  the  definition  and  implementation  of  national  self-regulation
frameworks and the sharing of experience and good practices, and to promote multinational
cooperation.  The  Action  Plan  for  Safe  Use  of  the  Internet  (1999–2002)  aimed  to  set  up  a
European  system  of  hotlines,  develop  a  European  filtering  and  rating  system  for  Internet
content  and  promote  a  series  of  educational  and  awareness-raising  measures.  The  extended
Action  Plan  (2003–2004)  aims  to  build  on  the  progress  already  made,  and  to  add  value  by
extending  the  programme  into  new  online  technologies  such  as  mobile  and  broadband
content, online games, chat rooms and instant messages.

3.1.4.

European and international cooperation

France  and  Portugal  refer  favourably  to  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Cybercrime,
which  would  reinforce  the  provisions  at  European  level  relating  to  child  pornography.
Germany  felt  that  only  in  the  fight  against  child  pornography  was  there  any  genuine
international  cooperation,  and  stated  that  it  would  welcome  more  effective  collaboration  in
other fields relating to illegal or harmful content.

Denmark  stated  that  there  were  positive  benefits  from  the  existing  cooperation.  The  United
Kingdom  is  happy  with  level  of  European  cooperation,  but  considers  that  the  wider
international  context  is  more  important.  Luxembourg  felt  there  was  a  need  for  further
benchmarking  and  best  practice.  Austria  would  like  to  see  more  cooperation  on  rating  and
filtering  software.  Some  countries  felt  that  the  level  of  cooperation  was  insufficient30,  that

28

29

30

Germany, France– legislation. Ireland – Code of Conduct and Ethics.
Denmark,  Germany,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Austria,  Finland,
Sweden, United Kingdom, .
Greece, Poland.

10

 
                                                
more effective cooperation would be helpful31 or that the level of cooperation was difficult to
measure32.  Poland  suggested  setting  up  an  international  hotline  in  Europe  in  order  to
strengthen  joint  efforts  and  initiatives.  Hungary  is  in  favour  of  setting  up  an  international
network of hotlines.

3.1.5. UMTS

Germany,  France  and  Finland  indicated  that  transmission  via  mobiles,  in  particular  through
UMTS, is covered by regulation. Sweden considers that its legislation on illegal content is in
principle  applicable  to  mobile  phone  transmissions,  but  mentioned  that  this  had  not  been
tested  in  the  courts.  The  Netherlands  argued  that  the  self-regulatory  provisions  had  been
drafted  in  a  technologically  neutral  way,  but  were  limited  to  “hosted  information”.
Nevertheless,  this  could  in  principle  apply  to  UMTS.  The  importance  of  technological
neutrality  of  all  applicable  rules  was  also  underlined  by  Hungary.  The  United  Kingdom
mentioned  that  a  self-regulatory  code  of  conduct  is  in  the  process  of  being  drawn  up  and
Norway  pointed  out  that  the  extension  of  the  Internet  Action  Plan  aimed  to  let  the  self-
regulation initiatives also cover the UMTS-network. Denmark referred to a code of conduct
for Short Message Services (SMS).

3.1.6. Control of chat-groups

Germany and Norway consider that the control of chat-groups is the responsibility of the chat-
group  operators/providers  and  not  of  the  government.  In  the  Netherlands,  negotiations  are
going  on  between  the  government,  chat-group  providers  and  child  rights  organisations.
Greece has set up a special police unit which surfs the Internet. Sweden indicated that in some
circumstances, chat-group services were covered by its basic constitutional law (guaranteeing
freedom of expression).

Ireland, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Hungary and Lithuania mentioned that chat-rooms are
run by moderators provided on the initiative of chat-group operators.

In  Denmark,  France,  Luxembourg,  Finland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  awareness-raising
campaigns  concerning  the  dangers  relating  to  chat-groups  have  been  run.  In  the  United
Kingdom,  Safer  Surfing  guidelines  on  the  need  for  parents  to  monitor  their  children’s
computer use – particularly in chat-rooms – is regularly referred to in the media following a
number of high-profile news  stories. Denmark mentioned  that  ignore buttons are often  used
which  makes  it  possible  for  an  individual  user  to  remove  all  communication  from  other
specific  users.  Poland  referred  to  a  special  form  concerning  chat-groups  on  its  hotline
webpage.

3.1.7.

Right of reply

In Denmark, Germany and Poland, the right of reply covers all media, including the Internet.
In Austria, the right of reply is thought to cover online media, and the law in this area is in the
process of being clarified. In Belgium (at federal level) and France, draft legislation has been
drawn up to adapt the right of reply to include online media; this legislation has not yet been
adopted.  In  Hungary,  in  the  framework  of  the  self-regulatory  system  the  code  of  conduct
provides for application of the general rules of the right of reply to the specific conditions of
the Internet. Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Lithuania and  Norway

31

32

Estonia, Turkey, Iceland.
Lithuania.

11

 
                                                
mention that there is no specific regulation in their country. The United Kingdom and Norway
do not see this as a major problem. In Sweden the press has its own code of conduct, which
includes  the  right  of  reply  (Press  Ombudsman).  The  Press  Ombudsman  can  under  some
circumstances deal with publications on the Internet. Lithuania mentioned that codices based
on self-regulation will be implemented.

Most of the stakeholders in the public consultation on the TVWF Directive who commented
on  the  right  of  reply  in  respect  of  television  services,  find  that  the  provision  as  such  is
appropriate and that no additional regulation is necessary. Some stakeholders considered that
a  right  of  reply  applicable  to  all  electronic  media  should  be  developed.  As  far  as  online
media  are  concerned,  there  should,  for  instance,  also  be  an  effective  right  of  reply  in  cases
where an allegation has been published in another country. 

3.2.

Broadcasting

The TVWF Directive stipulates in its Article 22(3) that programmes which may be harmful to
minors  must  be  preceded  by  an  acoustic  warning  or  identified  by  the  presence  of  a  visual
symbol  throughout  their  duration.  In  2000,  all  Member  States  which  replied  to  the
questionnaire had transposed this Article into national law.

Cyprus,  Hungary,  Latvia, the Czech  Republic,  Slovenia,  Iceland  and  Norway  also  indicated
that  they  had  transposed  this  Article  into  national  law,  and  Turkey  stated  that  it  would  be
doing so. Lithuania and Poland stated that although on-screen icons are not required by law,
they are used by broadcasters on a voluntary basis, and Estonia stated that although there is no
requirement, acoustic warnings are used effectively.

Eight Member States33 stated that the acoustic warning and/or visual symbols were deemed to
be effective or at least useful. Austria considers that this system is only effective together with
other  measures  such  as  media  literacy  programmes,  and  Norway  considers  that  it  has  great
potential. Slovenia stated that it is too soon to judge the effectiveness of the measures taken.

Belgium (French-speaking community) indicated, among other things, that the evaluation of
their signalétique highlighted the following: poor visibility of the signs, the need to have the
sign  on-screen  during  the  entire  programme,  the  need  to  extend  the  system  to  talk  shows,
reality shows, etc.

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

According to the replies received, self-regulation still seems to be less strong in broadcasting
in  comparison  with  the  Internet.  In  the  Netherlands,  the  self-regulatory  NICAM  Kijkwijzer
rating system, which was already planned in 2000 and which covers various media including
broadcasting, has been established34. 

33

34

Denmark, Germany, France,Italy, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom.
The NICAM Kijkwijzer system was discussed in depth in the (First) Evaluation Report to the Council
and the European Parliament on the application of Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on
protection of minors and human dignity. Broadcasters may only broadcast possible harmful content if
they  are  a  member  of  an  organisation  which  deals  with  the  classification  of  content  and  which  is
recognised by the Government. The NICAM system also includes a code of conduct.

12

 
                                                
As  in  2000,  in  some  Member  States  there  is  a  distinction  between  public  and  commercial
broadcasters  as  regards  self-regulation.  Codes  of  conduct  have  been  established  in  nine
Member States35 and Norway. In Germany, public-service broadcasters have guidelines while
private  broadcasters  have  a  self-regulatory  code  of  conduct.  In  Italy,  private  and  public
broadcasters  have  arrived  at  a  self-regulatory  code  of  conduct.  In  Sweden,  there  is  no
their  own  age
industry-wide  self-regulation 
recommendations.

initiative,  but  some  channels  give 

In  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Poland  and  Slovenia,  self-regulatory  systems  have  been  established.  In
Estonia  and  Slovenia,  only  some  provisions  deal  with  protection  of  minors.  In  the  Czech
Republic,  the  public  broadcaster  adopted  a  Code  of  Conduct  dealing  with  protection  of
minors, but only in respect of news. The system in France is a coregulatory system, and the
provisions  concerning  the  protection  of  minors  deal  specifically  with  the  classification  of
programmes. The United Kingdom argued that self-regulation had a limited role following the
introduction of the new Communications Act.

The contributions received relating to the consultation on the TVWF Directive show that co-
regulatory models work very well in some Member States, but some stakeholders argued that
simple codes of conduct without control by the public authorities are not sufficient.

3.2.1.

Filtering systems

In its Resolution of 11 April 200236 on the first evaluation report on the Recommendation, the
European Parliament calls on the Commission to promote the creation of user-friendly content
filter systems at affordable prices, so as to provide effective support for parental control over
the use of the Internet and over audiovisual media.

Filtering  systems  are  only  used  for  digital  broadcasting.  Electronic  locking  takes  place  in
nine  Member  States37,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Slovenia  and  Iceland.  As  in  2000,  Germany  still
distinguishes  between  public  broadcasters  to  which  the  same  policy  applies  as  for  analogue
public  broadcasters  (watershed,  warning  by  signs  and  acoustic  means),  and  commercial
broadcasters  where  the  watershed  can  be  replaced  by  a  specific  pin  code  technique.  Only
Belgium  (French-speaking  community),  Germany  and  Sweden  consider  that  the  public  is
aware  of  these  encryption  systems  and  only  Germany38  considers  that  these  measures  are
effective.

Section II, paragraph 4 of the Recommendation also calls on industry and interested parties
to develop positive measures for the benefit of minors, including initiatives to facilitate their
wider access to audiovisual services while avoiding potentially harmful content.

35

36

37

38

Belgium,  (French-speaking  community),  Denmark,  Greece,  France,  Ireland,  Italy,  Austria,  Portugal,
Finland.
C5-0191/2001 - 2001/2087(COS).
Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom. 
In  Germany,  a  specific  type  of  electronic  locking  is  used,  known  as  a  Vorsperre.  The  viewer  must
punch  in  a  four  number  PIN-CODE  to  decrypt  a  broadcast,  which  has  been  pre-encrypted
(“vorgesperrt”) by the broadcaster. Without punching in the correct code the screen remains black (but
for an explanatory message) and there is no sound. According to a study, the pre-encryption system has
been well received by viewers. Apart from the fact that it is viewed favourably as a  means to protect
minors,  73%  of  the  subscribers  do  not  view  the  system  as  a  nuisance  or  inconvenience.  The
effectiveness of the pre-encryption depends on the extent to which the PIN-CODES are kept secret from
the  minors.  The  study  shows  that  only  a  negligible  number  of  children  under  14  knows  the  PIN-
CODES. Among 14 and 15-year-olds, 20% know the PIN-CODE, and 40% of 16 and 17-year-olds.

13

 
                                                
Industry has been active mainly through the DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting consortium),
– which  comprises more than 200 organisations including  (public  and  private)  broadcasters,
manufacturers  of  consumer  and  professional  equipment,  operators  of  satellite,  cable  and
terrestrial networks, and regulators – and with which the Commission is in permanent contact.
In its Resolution of 11 April 200239 on the first evaluation report on the Recommendation, the
European Parliament encouraged the DVB consortium to work on the development of reliable
filter  and  rating  systems  for  digital  broadcasting.  On  5  June  2003,  the  Commission  sent  a
letter  to  the  DVB  asking  for  information  on  the  consortium’s  work  in  this  area.  As  yet,  no
reply has been received from the DVB. 

3.3.

Media literacy

The changing media landscape arising from new technologies and media innovation, makes it
necessary to teach children (and parents) to use the media effectively. Knowing where to find
information and how to interpret it is nowadays an essential skill.

The  Work  Programme  for  2003  -  2004  under  of  the  Safer  Internet  programme  includes  in
particular a call for proposals to bring about media literacy. One of the actions provided for in
the new call  for proposals concerns applied  research for  media  education,  more  specifically
applied research on media education into children's use of the Internet, and new technologies
so as to identify educational and technological means of protecting them from harm.

In  ten  Member  States40  and  Slovenia,  media  literacy  is  part  of  the  school  curriculum.  In
Poland, pilot programs for schools have been developed, and in Lithuania a series of seminars
was held in order to teach children and the general public how to make responsible use of new
media. In Hungary, a Media Educational Strategy with concrete programmes is in preparation
for next year.

An interesting initiative  concerning  Media  Literacy  is Media  Smart41. This is a  non-profit-
making  media  literacy  programme  for  primary  school  children,  initially  focused  on
advertising,  which was launched in November  2002. The  Media  Smart  initiative  is  strongly
supported by the UK Government. The objective is to provide children with the tools to help
them  understand  and  interpret  advertising  in  the  context  of  their  daily  lives.  The  most
important role of Media  Smart is to develop and  provide schools, on request,  with  teaching
materials for teachers and parents. There is also a media literacy infoad on TV on 10 satellite
channels  in  the  UK,  which  encourages  children  to  think  about  what  they  see  on  TV  and  to
question whether or not it is real.

A number of stakeholders who participated in the public consultation concerning the TVWF
Directive  also  suggested  including  media  literacy  among  the  subjects  covered  by  the
Recommendation.

39

40

41

C5-0191/2001 - 2001/2087(COS).
Belgium (Flemish Community), Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland,
Sweden, United Kingdom.
http://www.mediasmart.org.uk/

14

 
                                                
3.4.

Rating

3.4.1. Developments since 2000 concerning cinema, videocassette and DVD rating systems

In  the  Netherlands,  the  cross-platform  Kijkwijzer  classification  system  came  into  force  in
2001.  In  Finland,  the  Audiovisual  Programmes  Classification  Act  came  into  force  at  the
beginning of 2001. In Luxembourg, a working group has been set up to investigate whether
the level of protection of minors is sufficient and effective, and to look into the possibilities of
a cross-platform content-rating system. In Cyprus and Hungary, proposals for new film rating
systems  have  been  introduced  into  the  legislative  process  but  still  wait  for  approval  by
Parliament.

3.4.2.

Lack of coherence between rating systems

A number of Member  States42,  together with  Iceland  and  Norway,  consider  that  the  lack  of
coherence between rating systems poses problems. In Belgium (French and Flemish-speaking
communities) and Luxembourg, working groups have been set up to look at this issue.

In  five  Member  States43,  the  lack  of  coherence  between  rating  systems  does  not  pose  any
problems.  Germany  considers 
its  Jugendschutzgesetz  and  Jugendmedienschutz-
Staatsvertrag  ensure  that  there  is  no  lack  of  coherence.  The  Netherlands  considers  that  its
Kijkwijzer classification system ensures coherence. Estonia stated that “in our small and self-
contained society, the remarkable abnormalities are regulated by social attention”.

that 

In  a  number  of  contributions  to  the  public  consultation  on  the  TVWF  Directive,  it  was
considered  that  – taking  into  account  the  cultural  and  social  diversity  between  Member
States – the rating of programmes should be carried out at Member State level, but that there
could  nevertheless  be  an  EU  system  of  common  descriptive  symbols  which  would  help
viewers to assess the content of programmes.

3.5.

Video game software

Video  games,  at  the  beginning  of  their  history,  were  mostly  geared  towards  children  and
teenagers. This is no longer the case. Today, with ever more sophisticated games, those very
first  users  are  grown-ups  who  continue  to  enjoy  the  products  of  this  very  creative  industry.
From  an  economic point of view,  its potential should not be underestimated: Computer and
video games now generate more revenue than either the cinema box office or video rentals. 

On  1  March  2002,  the  Council  adopted  a  Resolution  of  on  the  protection  of  consumers,  in
particular  young  people,  through  the  labelling  of  certain  video  games  and  computer  games
according  to  age  group44.  Six  Member  States45  indicated  that  they  had  legal  provisions
concerning the sale of video games. Portugal states that it had, since 2001, applied the same
legislation  system  governing  videocassettes  and  DVDs.  Nine  Member  States46  and  Iceland
and Norway indicated that they have a self-regulatory system in place, which covers questions
relating to age-ratings.

42

43

44

45

46

Belgium (French and Flemish-speaking communities), France, Austria, Finland, United Kingdom. 
Denmark, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal.
COUNCIL  RESOLUTION  of  1  March  2002  on  the  protection  of  consumers,  in  particular  young
people,  through  the  labelling  of  certain  video  games  and  computer  games  according  to  age  group
(2002/C 65/02).
Germany, France, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom.

15

 
                                                
Germany, Denmark, France and Finland consider that their measures concerning video games
are  effective  as  regards  the  protection  of  minors.  Norway  stated  forward  that  it  would
consider  further  regulations  if  the  Pan-European  Games  Information  age-rating  system
(PEGI), discussed below, does not prove to be fully effective.

On-line  games  have  only  been  incorporated  into  regulatory  measures  in  Germany,  Sweden,
Iceland and Norway. However, the PEGI system covers games in an online environment.

An  interesting  initiative  has  been  taken  by  the  Interactive  Software  Federation  of  Europe
(ISFE),  a  pan-European  trade  body  of  games  console  manufacturers,  publishers  and
developers  of  interactive  games:  the  Pan  European  Games  Information  (PEGI)  age-rating
system.  PEGI  is  a  new,  pan-European  age-rating  system  for  interactive  games.  Designed  to
ensure that minors are not exposed to games that are unsuitable for their particular age-group,
the  system  is  supported  by  the  major  console  manufacturers,  as  well  as  by  publishers  and
developers of interactive games throughout Europe. 

Launched in  April  2003, PEGI  replaces a  significant number of  existing national age  rating
systems  with  a  single  system  that  is  identical  throughout  most  of  Europe47.  The  age-rating
system comprises two separate but complementary elements. The first is a rating, similar to
some existing rating systems. The PEGI age bands are 3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+. The second
element of the new system is a number of game descriptors. These are icons, displayed on the
back of the game box that describe the type of content to be found in the game. Depending on
the  type  of  game,  there  may  be  up  to  six  such  descriptors.  The  intensity  of  the  content  is
appropriate to the age-rating of the game. The PEGI descriptors are very similar to those used
in the Dutch Kijkwijzer system of  classification for  audio-visual media. The combination of
age-rating  and  game  descriptors  allows  parents  and  those  purchasing  games  for  children  to
ensure that the game they purchase is appropriate to the age of the intended player. In addition
to games purchased through conventional retail channels, the PEGI ratings will also apply to
games sold through the Internet, played or downloaded within an online gaming environment,
or provided on magazine cover discs.

The  Netherlands  Institute  for  the  Classification  of  Audio-visual  Media  (NICAM),  which  is
responsible for the Kijkwijzer system, has been contracted to administer the PEGI scheme. In
the UK, the Video Standards Council (VSC) will act as the agent for NICAM.

The PEGI system was developed and based on existing systems in Europe. In the drafting of
the PEGI assessment form and the shaping of the system organisation, society representatives
such as consumers, parents and religious groups have been actively involved. PEGI has been
designed to meet varying cultural standards and attitudes across the participating countries. In
all instances, the voluntary PEGI system is subordinate to the pre-existing, wider framework
established,  run  and  enforced  by  governments  to  ensure  the  protection  of  minors.  As  a
consequence, the PEGI system is subordinate to all existing and future laws and regulations in
this area.

47

According  to  the  ISFE,  PEGI  applies  to  products  distributed  in  the  following  sixteen  countries:
Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal,
Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Norway, Switzerland.

16

 
                                                
3.6.

Measures against discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or nationality in all
media

In June 2003, the Commission planned  to  table  legislation to  combat  discrimination  outside
the  workplace.  In  the  initial  drafting  phase,  provisions  were  considered  concerning
advertising  or  images  of  women  in  the  media,  especially,  with  regard  portrayals  of  women
that  do  not  “respect  human  dignity”.  However,  given  the  legal  and  practical  difficulties
associated with a ban on sexual stereotyping, the draft legislation will be limited to access to
goods and services.

As the Recommendation takes a cross-media approach and already covers “human dignity”,
the  Commission  proposes  to  examine  whether  the  Recommendation  should  more  explicitly
mention  the  exclusion  of  discrimination  on  the  grounds  of  race,  sex  or  nationality  in  all
media.

3.7.

Consumer associations

Consumer associations have been involved in the legislative process with regard to the neues
Jugendschutzrecht48, in the evaluation of the legislation49, in the updating of the classification
system  (signalétique)50,  discussions  and  round  tables51.  In  one  Member  State52  consumer
associations are members of the advisory board of the regulatory authority (for broadcasting).
Furthermore, consumer associations have been and are involved in the PEGI system.

4.

CONCLUSION

The Recommendation calls on the Member States, industry and interested parties, as well as
the Commission, to take steps to enhance the protection of minors and human dignity in the
broadcasting and internet sectors. Illegal, harmful and undesirable content and conduct on the
Internet  continues  to  be  a  concern  for  law-makers,  industry  and  parents.  There  will  be  new
challenges both in quantitative (more “illegal” content) and qualitative terms (new platforms,
new products) Taking into account the ever-increasing processing power and storage capacity
of computers, and the fact that broadband technologies allow distribution of content such as
video on 3G mobile telephones, the need for a safe environment is greater than ever.

The Recommendation is still being applied in different ways by the Member States (as well
as the accession countries and the other States which replied to the questionnaire). However,
the number of hotlines and codes of conduct has increased significantly, and the fact that two
of the accession countries which replied to the questionnaire have established hotlines is also
a positive sign. The launch of campaigns in most Member States to encourage safer use of the
Internet is a very positive development. However, based on the  replies to the questionnaire,
the measures concerning the protection of minors in the accession countries do not seem to be
as far-reaching as in the Member States.

Even  though  self-  or  coregulation  is  still  less  developed  in  the  broadcasting  sector,  the
relevant  systems  seem  to  be  working  quite  well.  However,  the  involvement  of  consumer
associations  and  other  interested  parties  in  the  establishment  of  codes  of  conduct  and  other
self-regulatory initiatives still leaves a lot be desired.

48

49

50

51

52

Germany
Austria
France and Cyprus
Estonia
Belgium (French-speaking community)

17

 
                                                
In most Member States and accession countries the measures or initiatives concerning UMTS
and the control of chat-groups are still quite abstract or left to self-regulation.

As far  as  industry  is  concerned,  ICRA  is  still  working  on  the  development  of  reliable  filter
and  rating  systems  for  the  Internet.  The  European  Parliament  further  encouraged  the  DVB
consortium  to  work  on  the  development  of  reliable  filter  and  rating  systems  for  digital
broadcasting. As yet, no further information concerning this issue has been received from the
DVB.  One  of  the  conclusions  of  the  independent  Study  on  the  rating  practice  used  for
audiovisual works in the European Union, was that there is no urgent pressure from either
industry or the consumer for homogeneity of rating systems. In the light of this supposed
absence  of  pressure  for  homogeneity  in  age-rating,  the  PEGI  age-rating  system,  which
replaces most national age rating systems in respect of video games, is indeed an interesting
initiative.

The Safer  Internet  programme provides funding  for  measures as  a  coherent response by the
European  Union  to  illegal  and  harmful  content  on  the  Internet.  The  coverage  of  the  Safer
Internet Action Plan will extend to new online technologies, including mobile and broadband
content, online games,  peer-to-peer  file  transfer,  and  all  forms  of  real-time  communications
such as chat-rooms and instant messages, primarily with the aim of improving the protection
of  children  and  minors.  Action  will  be  taken  to  ensure  that  a  broader  coverage  of  areas  of
illegal and harmful content and conduct giving rise to concern, including racism and violence.

As  far  as  online  media  are  concerned,  the  right  of  reply  could  be  enshrined  in  the
Recommendation as a first step towards an effective right of reply applicable to all media, for
instance  in  cases  where  the  allegation  has  been  published  in  another  country.  The
Commission will also be actively involved in the work of the Council of Europe concerning
the right of reply in the online-environment.

The responsibility to protect minors from harmful effects of the media is a commonly shared
one. Regulators, the audiovisual industry and  parents all  have  to  play  their  part  to  achieve
the goal. Media-literate children and parents supported by efficient self-regulatory and rating
systems are best equipped to prosper in the world of the future. Hence, the idea of including
media literacy among the subjects covered by the Recommendation seems very appropriate.

Rating  or  classification  of  audiovisual  content  serves  an  essential  role  in  the  protection  of
minors.  Because  of  the  cultural  and  social  diversity  among  Member  States,  rating  of
programmes  is  carried  out  at  national  level.  Nevertheless,  there  could  be  a  “bottom-up”
harmonisation  through  collaboration  between  self-regulatory  and  coregulatory  bodies  in  the
Member  States,  and  through  the  exchange  of  best  practices  concerning  such  issues  as  a
system  of  common,  descriptive  symbols  which  would  help  viewers  to  assess  the  content  of
programmes. 

The Commission intends to follow up on the public consultation process concerning the
TVWF  directive  and  this  evaluation  report  by  proposing  an  update  of  the
Recommendation during the first half of 2004. This could cover issues relating to media
literacy, the right of reply, and measures against discrimination or incitement to hatred
online  media.
on 

or  nationality 

grounds 

race, 

sex 

the 

all 

in 

of 

18

 
Annex

Questionnaire

Concerning  the  Recommendation  of  the  Council  of  24  September  1998  on  the
development  of  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  audio-visual  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)

Internet

1)  Has an association of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) been established in your country?

Please give details of the ISP association(s).

2)  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.

3)  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?

4)  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?

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

6)  Has a “hotline” for reporting harmful or illegal 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.

7)  Of  the  problematic  Internet  content  which  has  been  reported,  approximately  what

proportion of this is hosted outside your country or outside the EU?

8)  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?

9)  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.

10) 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?

11) 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?

19

 
12) 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?

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

14) 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?

15) Have  you  already  covered  or  do  you  intend  to  cover  by  the  above  mentioned  self-
regulation measures or by regulation similar services such as transmission via mobiles, in
particular as concerns UMTS?

16) Please  describe  any  initiatives,  which  have  been  taken  to  control  online  chat-groups,  in
particular measures taken in order to avoid any abuse, which could be harmful to minors?

17) Please describe measures, which have been taken in order to improve media-literacy (e.g

teaching children how to make a responsible use of new media)? 

18) Is there any specific regulation or self-regulation concerning the specific question of  the
right of reply with respect to online-media? Have there been concrete problems during the
last  two  years  concerning  these  issues,  in  particular  problems  involving  cross-border
aspects? 

Broadcasting

19) Have broadcasters in  your country  established a  system of self-regulation relating to the
protection of minors? Please give details of this, particularly with regard to membership.

20) 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.)

21) 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?

22) 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?

23) Please describe measures which have been taken in order to improve media-literacy (e.g

teaching children how to make a responsible use of television)? 

20

 
Video Game Software

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

25) Is there any self-regulatory system in place which covers questions relating to age-rating
for video games? (e.g. such as the system of self-rating which has been announced by the
Interactive Software Federation of Europe (ISFE)) If so, please give details.

26) Are  current  measures  to  protect  minors  from  harmful  video  games  considered  to  be

effective?

27) As  online  games  and  computer  games,  especially  on  LANs  (Local  Area  Networks),  are
very  similar,  have  you  also  included  them  into  measures  of  self-regulation  and/or
regulation?

Other Content Delivery Systems

28) With regard to cinema, videocassette and DVD rating systems, have there been any major

developments since the year 2000?

General

29) In what way have you associated consumer associations, voluntary associations and non-

governmental organisations to the implementation of the Recommendation?

30) 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  customers?  Are
any  measures  or  initiatives  being  considered  to  introduce  greater  coherence  in  the  way
audiovisual  media  are  evaluated  and  classified?  Has  there  been  any  cooperation  to  this
extent with other Member States or organizations from abroad?

31) Have  the  efforts  in  your  country  with  respect  to  the  protection  of  minors  been
accompanied  by  scientific  boards  and  specific  studies  with  respect  to  violence  or  other
harmful  content  and  their  impact  on  minors?  Are  there  any  voluntary  agreements  by
broadcasters and by content providers on the Internet?

32) If  you are aware of any study or scientific  report  which  has  been  prepared on this issue

during the last two years, please transmit a copy or give the references.

33) 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 insofar 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.

21