COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
Date: 2011-09-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual industry, automatic game, child protection, children's rights, infancy

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.9.2011 
SEC(2011) 1043 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the application of the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 concerning the 
protection of minors and human dignity and of the Rocommendation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on the protection of minors and 
human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness of the 
European audiovisual and online information services industry  
- PROTECTING CHILDREN IN THE DIGITAL WORLD - 

{COM(2011) 556 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

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

Background .................................................................................................................. 3 

Findings........................................................................................................................ 6 

Commitment against discrimination and other illegal or harmful content .................. 6 

Instruments to promote codes of conduct, positive/appropriate content and content 
labelling........................................................................................................................ 7 

Hotlines ........................................................................................................................ 8 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) ................................................................................. 9 

Social networking sites .............................................................................................. 11 

Problematic Internet content from other Member States/from outside the EU ......... 12 

Media literacy and awareness-raising initiatives ....................................................... 13 

Technical systems (filtering, age verification systems, parental control systems, etc.)
.................................................................................................................................... 14 

3.9. 

Age rating and classification of content..................................................................... 16 

3.10.  Audiovisual media services........................................................................................ 18 

3.11.  On-demand (non-linear) audiovisual media services................................................. 21 

3.12.  Video games............................................................................................................... 22 

3.13.  Right of reply in online media ................................................................................... 25 

3.14. 

Further questions........................................................................................................ 26 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

The developments that are taking place in the field of audiovisual and online information 
services are rapidly changing the ways in which consumers use media. Media are increasingly 
being used via mobile devices, including (online) video games, there are more and more on-
demand  media  services  on  the  Internet  while  social  networks  are  growing  in  both  size  and 
importance, both for the individual users and as a societal phenomenon.  

Regulation  cannot  always  keep  pace  with  these  developments.  At  European  level  (with  the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive) and in most of the Member States, there are specific 
rules only for the content of audiovisual media. 

This makes it even more important that Member States and service providers are conscious of 
the  new  challenges  for  the  protection  of  minors  linked  to  these  developments  and  that  they 
promote  appropriate  framework  conditions  by  other  than  purely  legal  means,  e.  g.  through 
stakeholder cooperation and co- or self regulation1.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

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"2 ("the 1998 Recommendation"). This was 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.  

The "Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection 
of minors and human dignity and on the right of reply in relation to the competitiveness 
of  the  European  audiovisual  and  online  information  services  industry"of  20  December 
2006  ("the  2006  Recommendation")3  promotes  the  adoption  of  relevant  rules  for  all 
audiovisual  and  online  information  services.  It  focuses  in  particular  on  the  Internet, 
highlighting the need to use it in a positive way and to combat all illegal activities harmful to 
minors in order to make the Internet a safe medium. 

In 2001 and 2003 the Commission adopted two evaluation reports on the application of the 
1998  Council  Recommendation4.  The  Council  meeting  (Culture)  responded  to  the  2001 

1 

2 

3 

4 

L 

OJ 

270, 

At  the  same  time  it  should  be  ensured  that  all  self-regulatory  measures  taken  are  in  compliance  with 
competition law. 
98/560/EC, 
– 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998H0560:EN:NOT) 
2006/952/EC, 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006H0952:EN:NOT) 
COM(2001) 106 final / COD 2010/0064 (http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/minors/ermin_en.pdf) 
and COM(2003) 776 final (http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0776:FIN:EN:PDF) 

27.12.2006, 

07.10.1998 

(http://eur-

(http://eur-

72–77 

378, 

OJ 

48 

55 

P. 

p. 

L 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
evaluation  report  by  adopting  its  Conclusions  of  21  June  20015,  and  the  Parliament  then 
adopted a resolution on the report on 11 April 20026.  

With the present evaluation report, the Commission is responding to the call in Point 6 of the 
2006 Recommendation to submit to the European Parliament and the Council, on the basis of 
information supplied by the Member States, a report on the implementation and effectiveness 
of the measures specified in the Recommendation, and to review this Recommendation if and 
when the need arises.  

The Audiovisual Media Services Directive7, which entered into force on 19 December 2007 
and had to be transposed by the Member States by 19 December 2009, extends the standards 
for  protection  of  minors  from  traditional  TV  programmes  to  the  fast  growing  on-demand 
audiovisual  media  services,  particularly  on  the  Internet.  For  both,  the  generic  term 
"audiovisual  media  service"  was  introduced.  In  the  field  of  protection  of  minors,  the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations, which cover 
any online service that does not fall under the scope of Audiovisual Media Services Directive, 
complement each other.  

In its 2008 Video Games Communication8 the Commission supported systems of graduated 
access  to  video  games  using  age  classifications  and  welcomed  the  success  of  PEGI,  the 
industry's  voluntary  "Pan-European  Games  Information  System"9  and  PEGI  Online10  for 
online  games11.  In  this  Communication,  the  Commission  calls  for  better  advertising  and 
promotion of PEGI by the industry, regular review of the rating and the criteria applied, wider 
adoption of PEGI Online and the development and implementation of a Code of Conduct by 
video games retailers in order to push back "underage" sales12. 

Regarding the fight against  illegal  online content, the Commission launched a  proposal in 
March 2010 for a new Directive on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children 
and  child  pornography13,  currently  under  discussion  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council. 

5 
6

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 

12 

13 

http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/reg/minors/council_conc-01.htm 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CALDOC&FILE=020411&LAN

GUE=EN&TPV=DEF&LASTCHAP=23&SDOCTA=8&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1 
Directive  2010/13/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  10  March  2010  on  the 
coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member 
States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services - codified version, OJ L 15.04.2010, p. 1 
– 24 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:095:0001:0024:EN:PDF) 
COM/2008/0207 final: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, 
the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the protection of 
consumers, in particular minors, in respect of the use of video games (22 April 2008) 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008DC0207:EN:not) 
http://www.pegi.info/en/ 
http://www.pegionline.eu/en/ 
The  Commission  under  the  Safer  Internet  Programme  provided  initial  financial  support  for  its 
development. 
The Commission's positions were backed by the European Parliament in a Resolution of 12 March 2009 
on  the protection  of  consumers,  in  particular  minors,  in  respect  of  the  use  of  video  games  ("Manders 
Report")  (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-
2009-0126) 
2009 
(http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/reg/minors/video/hearing/index_en.htm) 
COM/2010/0094 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010PC0094:EN:NOT) 

(http://eur-

(http://eur-

hearing 

games 

public 

video 

final 

July 

and 

on 

of 

in 

8 

a 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
 
Complementing  these  various  initiatives,  the  Commission  also  funds  since  1999  Safer 
Internet Programmes14, which aim at empowering and protecting children and young people 
online  and  fighting  illegal  and  harmful  online  content  and  conduct.  With  a  budget  of  55 
million  Euros  for  the  period  2009-2013,  the  current  Safer  Internet  Programme  focuses  on 
three main goals: 

First,  to  empower  children  to  get  to  know  their  rights  and  responsibilities  online.  The 
Commission co-funds awareness centres and helplines in all Member States, as part of the 
integrated network "INSAFE". Action 40 of the Digital Agenda for Europe requests Member 
States to develop strategies to teach online safety in schools15.  

Furthermore, the Commission promotes systematic and speedy notification of illegal content 
online by INHOPE hotlines16 to Internet Service Providers, in an agreed procedure with law 
enforcement agencies.  

Second, to ensure that all children have access to quality content online. In March 2009, the 
Commission  set  up  a  focus  group  of  experts  with  the  aim  of  discussing  how  to  promote 
excellence  and  quality  in  online  content  for  children.  Following  a  proposal  by  the  focus 
group,  the  Commission  initiated  the  "European  Award  for  Best  Children's  Online  Content", 
which  was  organized  at  national  level  in  14  Member  States  in  2010-201117.  The  award 
ceremony took place on 17th June 2011 in Brussels in the framework of the Digital Agenda 
Assembly18. 
Third,  to  strengthen  the  fight  against  illegal  content  and  promote  cooperation  between 
industry, NGOs and law enforcement authorities to protect children online.  

In  addition,  the  Commission  facilitated  the  signature  of  two  self-regulatory  agreements  in 
the area of protection of minors online: the "European Framework for Safer Mobile Use by 
Younger Teenagers and Children"19 (signed in February 2007), implemented through national 
codes of conduct in the Member States, and the "Social Networking Principles for the EU"20 
(signed  in  February  2009)  which  are  implemented  directly  by  its  21  signatories.  The 
Commission  presented  the  findings  of  an  independent  assessment  of  the  implementation  of 
the Principles21 in June 2011 for a first batch of results22. 

In  line  with  action  37  of  the  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe,  the  Commission  has  launched  a 
review  of  the  current  self-regulatory  agreements  which  involve  all  stakeholders  who  have 
impact on child online safety (mobile handset manufacturers, internet service providers, and 
online content providers).  

14 
15 

16 
17 

18 
19 
20 
21

22

report  on 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm 
Assessment 
the  status  of  online  safety  education 
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf) 
INHOPE Association of Internet hotlines https://www.inhope.org/ - see under 3.3. 
Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Spain,  France,  Greece,  Hungary,  Iceland,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Netherlands, 
Slovenia. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/competition/index_en.htm) 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/daa/index_en.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/self_reg/phones/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/self_reg/social_netwk/index_en.htm 

in  schools  across  Europe 

Portugal 

Poland, 

and 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation

_princip_2010/index_en.htm 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation

_princip_2011/index_en.htm 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
 
 
On 15 February 2011, the Commission adopted the Communication on "An EU Agenda for 
the  Rights  of  the  Child"23.  The  Communication  reiterates  the  Commission's  commitment  to 
support Member States and other stakeholders in strengthening prevention, empowerment and 
participation of children to make the most of online technologies and counter cyber-bullying 
behaviour,  exposure  to  harmful  content  and  other  online  risks,  namely  through  the  Safer 
Internet  Programme  and  cooperation  with  the  industry  through  self-regulatory  initiatives.  A 
workshop to discuss the review of the current self-regulatory agreements was organised at the 
Digital Agenda Assembly on 17 June 201124. 

In conclusion, the evaluation report complements several actions listed in the Digital Agenda 
for  Europe25.  In  particular,  in  order  to  enhance  trust  and  security,  the  Commission  has 
committed  itself  to  "foster  multi-stakeholder  dialogue  and  self-regulation  of  European  and 
global  service  providers  (e.g.  social  networking  platforms,  mobile  communications 
providers),  especially  as  regards  the  use  of  their  services  by  minors".  Moreover,  the  Digital 
Agenda  calls  on  Member  States  to  "fully  implement  hotlines  for  reporting  offensive  or 
harmful online content, organise awareness raising  campaigns on online  safety for children, 
and  offer  teaching  online  safety  in  schools,  and  encourage  providers  of  online  services  to 
implement self-regulatory measures regarding online safety for children by 2013". 

The present report is based on replies from the Member States to a questionnaire26. 

The answers are summarized in section 3 “Findings”. 

3. 

FINDINGS 

Commitment against discrimination and other illegal or harmful content 

The 2006 Recommendation calls for measures aimed at avoiding "all discrimination based on 
sex,  racial  or  ethnic  origin,  religion  or  belief,  disability,  age  or  sexual  orientation,  in  all 
audiovisual  and  online  information  services,  and  to  combat  such  discrimination"  and  other 
illegal or harmful content. Apart from relevant legal provisions, for example those envisaged 
for  audiovisual  media  services  by  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive,  this  aims  to 
secure self-commitments from the service and content providers.  

Content  and  service  providers  are  increasingly  taking  steps  to  ban  discriminating  and  other 
illegal or harmful content. They are doing this particularly through self-commitments, which 
exist  in  24  Member  States27,  and  by  developing  and  signing  up  to  codes  of  conduct, 

23 

24 
25 

26 

27 

for 

final 

Europe 

(2011)60 

(http://eur-

COM 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0060:EN:NOT)  
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/daa11/item-display.cfm?id=5997 
COM(2010)  245  final/2:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital 
Agenda 
version) 
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm) 
Member States responses reflect circumstances as at 2 July 2010 The Commission also received a reply 
from Norway. Not all of the Member States responded to all of the questions, and in the answers given, 
there were considerable differences concerning the level of elaboration and detail. The answers from the 
Member States reflect the relevant issues as perceived by them.  
Austria  (only  against  other  than  discriminating  illegal  or  harmful  content),  Belgium  (Flemish 
Community:  only  against  discriminating  content;  in  the  French  Community  in  Belgium,  service  and 
content  providers  have  made  such  commitments  in  the  form  of  codes  and  recommendations  by  the 

corrected 

August 

2010 

(26 

– 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
something  which  —  in  the  case  of  online  services  —  can  be  documented  by  a  label  on  the 
website.  

Altogether 23 Member States and Norway deem that the correct balance between prohibition 
of  discriminatory  content  and  freedom  of  expression  and  information  has  been  reached28. 
According to Cyprus, this is not the case. France and Italy did not reply to this question.  

3.1. 

Instruments  to  promote  codes  of  conduct,  positive/appropriate  content  and 
content labelling 

Both the 1998 and the 2006 Recommendations highlighted the importance of codes of conduct 
for  content  providers,  of  measures  promoting  positive  and  appropriate  content  for  minors, 
which keep them away from harmful content, and of content labelling.  

More  and  more  content  providers  seem  to  consider  adherence  to  a  code  of  conduct  as  a 
distinctive quality criterion. In 12 Member States29 there have been efforts to adopt a quality 
label, e.g. in the form of a certification that would allow users to easily check whether or not a 
given provider subscribes to and is in compliance with a code of conduct.  

Efforts  have  been  made  in  12  Member  States30  to  increase  the  use  of  content  labelling 
systems for material distributed over the Internet. 

In 18 Member States31 there have been efforts to facilitate the access of minors to "positive" 
and appropriate content tailored to minors in order to keep them away and thus protect them 
from potentially harmful content in audiovisual and online information services and to make 
such content more visible and easier to find. 

Germany, Italy and Portugal promote the programming of audiovisual content specifically 
dedicated  to  children  by  media  service  providers;  Germany  is  urging  content  providers  to 
establish a "positive list" of relevant offerings.  

Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland put particular emphasis on specific 
search  engines  and  browsers  that  are  dedicated  to  or  facilitate  access  to  websites  for 

"collège  d'avis  du  Conseil  supérieur  de  l'Audiovisuel  (CSA)",  where  they  are  represented,  e.g.  in  a 
"Recommendation  on  the presence  and  representation of women  in  broadcasting  services"),  Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland (only against other than discriminating illegal or harmful 
content),  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  (only  against  discriminating  content),  Slovakia  (only  against  other  than 
discriminating  illegal  or  harmful  content),  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden  and  the  UK,  plus  Norway  (only 
against  other  illegal  or  harmful  content).  Denmark  referred  only  to  legal  obligations;  France  did  not 
reply to this question. 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Romania and Sweden. 
Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Hungary,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  UK,  plus  Norway.  Estonia  considers 
itself too small to run its own labelling system. In Lithuania, there is a legal obligation to label content 
potentially harmful for children. 
Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Cyprus (financial constraints have put such actions on hold), 
the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the UK, plus Norway.  

28 

29 

30 

31 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
children32.  In  Luxembourg,  the  use  of  such  search  engines  is  part  of  primary  school 
education. In Poland, the  "Child-Friendly Website Certificate"  certifies website content (not 
necessarily children's websites) and shows children which websites are safe and reputable.  

3.2. 

Hotlines 

Hotlines can be an efficient means to detect and pursue illegal content, and they can empower 
consumers to do something about such content on the Internet. This contributes to the general 
awareness on relevant risks and to a culture of shared responsibility. Consequently, the 1998 
Recommendation  already  formulated  the  objective  "to  promote  the  effective  management  of 
complaints  [over  hotlines]  about  content  which  does  not  comply  with  the  rules  on  the 
protection of minors and/or violates the code of conduct". The survey seeks to establish the 
development  and  progress  since  then  and  the  functioning  of  the  hotlines  put  in  place.  As 
already  mentioned,  the  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe33  calls  on  Member  States  to  fully 
implement hotlines for reporting offensive or harmful online content by 2013.  

All  Member  States  and  Norway  report  that  "hotlines"  for  reporting  content  have  been 
established. They are run and funded by public institutions (e.g. police authorities), by NGOs 
or by commercial service providers on a self-regulatory basis.  

The  European  Commission's  Safer  Internet  Programme34  co-funds  hotlines  in  26 
European  countries.  Hotlines  in  24  Member  Sates35  are  members  of  the  INHOPE 
International  Association  of  Internet  hotlines  which  was  founded  in  1999  under  the  EC 
Safer Internet Action Plan36. INHOPE covers countries beyond Europe37 and has the goal to 
increase cooperation in this area. 

INHOPE member hotlines must comply with the INHOPE Code of Practice.  

"Notice  and  take-down  procedures"  require  ISPs  —  despite  having  only  limited  liability 
and  responsibility  for  Internet  content  under  the  E-Commerce-Directive38  —  to  take  down 
certain  content  (e.g.  child  sexual  abuse  content).  19  Member  States39  report  that  notice  and 
take-down procedures have been developed and are applied. There are differences as regards 

32 

33 

34 
35 

36 
37 
38 
39 

for 

In  Germany,  "fragFINN"  is  part  of  "Ein  Netz  für Kinder",  which  is  jointly  run  by  public  and  private 
broadcasters  and  currently  gathers  8 500  attractive  and  safe  websites  for  children  from  8  to  12  years 
(www.fragFINN.de).  There  is  cost-free  software  available  which  limits  children's  Internet  access  to 
these  websites.  Netherlands  mentions  e.g. 
the  children's  browser  MYBEE  from  KPN  and 
Mediasmarties, a pilot project for a system for all audiovisual media content for children between 1 ½ 
and  12  years  old.  In  the  Flemish  Community  in  Belgium  several  Internet  providers  have  set  up  their 
own projects. 
COM(2010)  245  final/2:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital 
version) 
Agenda 
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm) 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. 
http://www.inhope.org/gns/home.aspx 
Hotlines from 35 countries worldwide are full members of INHOPE. 
See below the introduction to section 3.4. Internet Service Providers (ISPs). 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland, 
Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Malta  (for  cases  of  child  abuse  images),  the 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK.  

corrected 

August 

Europe 

2010 

(26 

– 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
the  verification  of  the  illegality  or  the  harm  involved  in  the  reported  content,  the  review  of 
such assessments, tracking of the source and of the web hosting provider and notification to 
the competent authorities. 

For instance, whereas in Austria an ISP is required to take down the content immediately on 
request by the hotline operator, after which the hotline operator reviews the case, in Bulgaria, 
Poland and Portugal, the hotline operator first verifies the information and assesses the case 
before  it  requests  the  ISP  to  take  down  the  content  and  informs  the  competent  enforcement 
authorities (police). In Slovakia and Slovenia, problematic content first has to be reported to 
the police, who have to approve a take-down notice to the respective ISP. 

As regards the public awareness of hotlines, existing hotlines — be they private, public or 
jointly  run  on  a  public/private  basis  —  inform  the  public  about  their  work  and  procedures 
through  a  variety  of  means  The  Czech  Republic  and  Slovakia  report  that  the  launch  of  the 
hotline was widely supported by the government and the police and widely publicised in the 
media,  with  information  on  its  purpose  and  operation.  Malta  reports  that  campaigns  on  the 
hotlines are organised on a regular basis by the agencies that operate them. 

Finland reports that, in order to make it easier to report illegal content directly to the police, 
the  police  have  asked  service  providers  to  provide  links  to  the  hotline  on  their  websites. 
Latvia  reports  that  Members  of  the  Internet  Association  have  placed  information  (booklets) 
about reporting options at ISP customer service centres. 

Bulgaria and Slovenia referred to the monitoring of hotlines40. In this regard, Bulgaria reports 
that  the  operation  of  hotlines  is  supervised  and  supported  by  a  public  council  including 
representatives of a number of governmental, private and non-governmental organisations and 
Slovenia reports that twice a year the police produces a report on the work of hotlines with the 
number  of  notifications  and  of  cases  passed  to  the  public  prosecutors'  offices  as  criminal 
complaints. 

3.3. 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) 

Better  protection  of  minors  on  the  Internet  requires  essentially  the  active  involvement  of 
Internet Service Providers (ISPs). However, it has to be borne in mind that, pursuant to the 
E-Commerce  Directive41,  ISPs  are  under  no  general  obligation  to  monitor  the  information 
they  transmit  or  store,  nor  any  general  obligation  to  seek  actively  facts  or  circumstances 
indicating  illegal  activity  (Article  15(1)).  ISPs  have  limited  liability  for  the  information 
transmitted  (Article  12(1)),  for  the  automatic,  intermediate  and  temporary  storage  of  that 
information (Article 13(1)) and for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the 
service (Article 14(1)).  

40 

41 

Through  their  grant  agreements  with  the  Commission,  co-funded  hotlines  must  be  able  to  show  that 
they have procedures endorsed by the police. 
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal 
aspects  of  information  society  services,  in  particular  electronic  commerce,  in  the  Internal  Market 
("Directive on electronic commerce") (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1): 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:en:NOT. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
 
A  total  of  21  Member  States42  and  Norway  replied  that  there  are  legal  requirements 
regarding  illegal  or  harmful  content  accessed  over  the  Internet  which  apply  specifically  to 
ISPs, but only in Austria, Italy, Malta, Portugal and the Flemish Community of Belgium are 
ISPs legally obliged to inform the police or judicial authorities about illegal content offensive 
to human dignity which is available over the Internet. 

Altogether  23  Member  States43  and  Norway  replied  that  associations  of  ISPs  have  been 
established  in  their  country;  18  Member  States44  and  Norway  replied  that  ISPs  have  also 
drawn up  codes of conduct.  Bulgaria and Hungary referred specifically to codes  of conduct 
for mobile use45. 

However,  ISP  associations  generally  have  no  specific  mandate  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors.  Signature  and  observance  of  a  code  of  conduct  for  the  protection  of  minors  is 
generally optional for members of the associations46. On the other hand, activities related to 
the  protection  of  minors  that  are  not  covered  by  associations  are  often  carried  out  by  ISPs, 
either  where  ISPs  are  not  members  of  an  association  or  where  such  activities  are  not 
encompassed by the associations' code of conduct47. 

Eight  Member  States48  and  Norway  replied  that  consumers  or  public  authorities  are 
consulted when the codes of conduct are amended or revised. In six Member States, there are 
evaluation systems in place to assess the effectiveness of the code49. 

A minority of Member States (11 Member States50 and Norway) deem that the self-regulation 
system  and  ISPs'  codes  of  conduct  —  with  regard  to  the  easy  and  wide  access  to  content 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 
49 

Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland, 
France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the UK. 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland, 
Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the 
UK. 
Under  the  auspices  of  the  GSMA,  which  represents  the  interests  of  the  worldwide  mobile 
communications industry and with support and facilitation from the Commission, mobile operators in 
all Member States have signed the "European Framework for Safer Mobile Use by Younger Teenagers 
and  Children",  which  gives  recommendations  concerning  the  classification  of  commercial  content, 
access  control  mechanisms,  education  and  awareness  raising  and  the  fight  against  illegal  content  on 
mobile community products and the Internet (http://www.gsmeurope.org/safer_mobile/european.shtml). 
For  instance,  in  the  UK,  members  of  the  Internet  Service  Providers'  Association  ISPA  are  free  to 
subscribe to the ISPA code, which includes a commitment to avoid transmitting child abuse images or 
material inciting violence, cruelty or racial hatred. The ISPA also encourages its members to join the 
Internet Watch Foundation and to support its work. In the Flemish Community in Belgium, the Internet 
Service Providers Association works together with relevant organisations for the protection of minors. 
The three major telephone companies in Belgium (Mobistar, Base and Proximus) have jointly signed a 
code of conduct based on the European Framework for Safer Mobile Use by Younger Teenagers and 
Children.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  in  2008  mobile  operators  signed  an  ethical  code  in  response  to  this 
initiative of the Commission. In the Netherlands there are codes of conduct for text message services 
which are applicable to all operators, service providers and paid mobile Internet services.  
In  the UK  some  ISPs do not  work via  the  ISPA,  but directly  with  the UK  Council  for  Child Internet 
Safety, which is updating published guidance on search, moderation, instant messaging and chat. 
Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Slovenia and the UK. 
Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Spain. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
through  the  Internet  and  new  access  methods  such  as  mobile  systems  (e.g.  via  3G)  —  are 
well-suited to the new digital environment51. 

3.4. 

Social networking sites 

Although the 1998 and the 2006 Recommendations do not refer directly to "social networking 
sites" (e.g. Facebook, MySpace etc.), social networking sites have been the object of several 
initiatives  by  the  Commission,  taking  into  consideration  their  growing  importance  and 
potential  risks  for  minors52.  The  Commission  committed  to  monitor  the  implementation  of 
"The  Safer  Social  Networking  Principles  for  EU53"  which  were  voluntarily  adopted  by  the 
industry in February 2009. On Safer Internet Day on 9 February 2010 in Strasbourg54,  the 
Commission presented the findings of an independent assessment of the implementation of the 
Principles by the 20 signatories55. In June 2011 the Commission published the first batch of 
results  of  the  second  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  "Safer  Social  Networking 
Principles" by the signatories56. The survey amongst the Member States is looking at how this 
issue is assessed and what actions have been taken in this field in light of the self regulatory 
approach the Commission has promoted (see section 2). 

The  Member  States  reported  on  various  activities  related  to  the  risks  involved  in  social 
networks.  For  instance,  in  Austria  "saferinternet.at"  offers  teachers'  handbooks  concerning 
the safe and responsible use of social networking sites. In Luxembourg there is public funding 
support  for  projects  where  young  people  themselves  create  social  networks57.  In  Estonia, 
public authorities, content providers and ISPs jointly organise twice a year media campaigns 
in  which  principles  for  the  use  of  social  networking  sites,  particularly  addressing  young 
people, are publicised. 

50 

51 

52 

53 
54 
55

56

57 

to 

for 

the 

Social 

"Safer 

Principles 

Networking 

Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia. 
Italy mentions that the Italian code of conduct lacks specific regulations relating to access via mobile 
terminals. 
According 
EU" 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/sn_principles.pdf),  potential 
online risks to children and young people fall into the following four categories: "illegal content", such 
as images of child abuse and unlawful hate speech; "age-inappropriate content", such as pornography or 
sexual  content,  violence,  or  other  content  with  adult  themes  which  may  be  inappropriate  for  young 
people; "contact", which relates to inappropriate contact from adults with a sexual interest in children or 
by  young  people  who  solicit  other  young  people  and  "conduct",  which  relates  to  how  young  people 
behave  online.  This  includes  bullying  or  victimisation  (behaviours  such  as  spreading  rumours, 
excluding  peers  from  one’s  social  group,  and  withdrawing  friendship  or  acceptance)  and  potentially 
risky  behaviours  (which  may  include  for  example,  divulging  personal  information,  posting  sexually 
provocative photographs, lying about real age or arranging to meet face-to-face with people only ever 
previously met online). It is also important to remember that in addition to being victims young people 
can also initiate or participate in anti-social or criminal activities.  
See footnote 52. 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/events/day/index_en.htm 

the 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation

_princip_2010/index_en.htm 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/eu_action/implementation

_princip_2011/index_en.htm 
www.audiometropolis.lu 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
Only  10  of  the  Member  States58  referred  to  guidelines,  addressing  providers  of  social 
networking sites and/or users.  

In Finland, the major social media service providers committed to promoting safe Internet use 
among  children  and  young  people,  in  particular  in  the  spring  of  2010.  In  Germany,  the 
multimedia  voluntary  self-regulatory  association  (FSM)  developed  a  code  of  conduct  for 
providers  of  social  communities,  which  several  of  them  have  joined.  In  Spain,  in  2008  the 
Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade produced a "Legal guide to social networking, young 
people and online privacy" in conjunction with the Information Security Observatory, which 
is part of the National Communications Technology Institute (INTECO). 

Apart from that, 21 social networking providers in the Member States59 have by now joined 
the code of conduct "Safer social networking principles for the EU" already mentioned (see 
section 2). 

In  Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  the  UK  evaluation  systems  are  in  place  to 
assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  guidelines  adopted.  In  Finland,  the  Ethical  Committee  for 
Premium  Rate  Services  inspected  all  of  the  websites  participating  in  the  self-regulation 
scheme in May 2010 and found that the participating service providers had followed the self-
regulation  rules  extremely  well.  The  inspections  and  regular  dialogue  with  the  participating 
service providers are to continue. In Germany, the signatories to the code of conduct agreed 
on an evaluation by an independent research institute with practical application tests from the 
user viewpoint. They further agreed with the multimedia voluntary self-regulatory association 
(FSM)  to  check  whether  the  code  needs  to  be  updated.  In  Luxembourg,  the  only  social 
networking site has been evaluated by local experts and the results have been forwarded to the 
European  Commission  as  part  of  the  Commission  monitoring  of  the  Social  networking 
principles. 

3.5. 

Problematic Internet content from other Member States/from outside the EU 

The 2006 Recommendation raised the issue of harmful Internet content from outside the EU 
and suggested that this issue be taken into consideration in relations with non-EU countries, 
"bearing in mind the global character of producers, distributors or providers of audiovisual 
content  and  Internet  access".  The  survey  aims  to  find  out  how  Member  States  perceive  this 
problem,  taking  into  account  also  content  from  other  Member  States,  and  how  it  should  be 
tackled through cooperation with the countries where the content originates. 

As  to  the  origin  of  reported  problematic  Internet  content,  most  Member  States  estimate 
the share of problematic content from their own territory as very low, the share of problematic 
content  from  other  EU  Member  States  as  significantly  higher  and  the  share  of  problematic 
content  from  outside  the  EU  as  the  highest.  This  applies  particularly  to  smaller  Member 
States,  which  produce  less  "national"  content  than  others,  and  to  those  that  joined  the 
European Union only in 200460.  

58 
59 

60 

Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Arto.dk,  bebo.com,  dailymotion.com,  facebook.  Com,  giovani.it,  google,  com,  hyves,nl,  Microsoft 
Europe,  myspace.com,  nasza-klasa.pl,  netlog.com,  one.lt,  rate.ee,  skyrock,com,  VZnet  Netzwerke, 
stardoll.com, sulake.com, tuenti.es, Yahoo Europe, wer-kennt-we.de, zap.lu. 
Content  from  own  territory  /  content  from  other  EU  Member  States  /  content  from  outside  the  EU: 
Austria:  0.4 %  /  12.6 %  /  87 %;  Bulgaria:  5 %  /  25 %  /  70 %;  Cyprus:  5 %  /  35 %  /  60 %;  the  Czech 
Republic:  10 %  /  10 %  /  80 %;  Germany:  "FSM"  (multimedia  voluntary  self-regulatory  association): 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
The current level of international cooperation in this matter, particularly within Europe, is 
seen as sufficient in 13 Member States61 and in Norway. 

Ten Member States62 do not consider the current level of international cooperation in this 
matter,  particularly  within  Europe,  to  be  sufficient.  Amongst  them,  Germany  deems  that 
effective  international  cooperation  in  practice  only  exists  in  the  field  of  child  sexual  abuse 
material,  but  would  welcome  improved  cooperation  regarding  other  illegal  and  harmful 
content, especially racist content.  

Germany also considers it easier to achieve further harmonisation of standards at European 
than  at  international  level.  Romania  and  Slovenia  agree  to  adopt  common  standards  at 
European  level.  The  UK  proposes  that  the  list  of  child  abuse  sites  prepared  by  the  Internet 
Watch Foundation be used more widely in Europe, at least as a basis for national measures, 
given  that  most  of  such  material  comes  from  outside  the  EU.  The  Czech  Republic  regards 
cooperation  among  EU  Member  States  as  good,  but  deems  it  a  problem  when  content  from 
third  countries  is  classified  as  illegal  by  one  or  more  EU  Member  States,  but  not  by  the 
country of origin. The UK further sees potential for greater European coordination of work to 
encourage  those  countries  outside  the  EU  which  host  the  bulk  of  illegal  material,  including 
child abuse and race hate material, to take action domestically. 

A  total  of  20  Member  States63 and Norway deem that the threat  from Internet content  from 
outside the EU could be countered by concluding agreements with third countries. Austria 
takes  the  view,  given  the  global  dimension  of  the  Internet,  that  priority  should  be  given  to 
multilateral  cooperation  and  coordination.  Sweden  mentions  as  an  example  of  successful 
bilateral cooperation the collaboration between the Swedish Examination Board for Radio and 
TV  and  Ofcom  in  the  UK  regarding  broadcasters  that  are  established  in  the  UK,  but  direct 
their offers to Sweden. Malta deems that the effectiveness of agreements with third countries 
depends  on  how  the  countries  classify  content  and  points  out  that  there  may  be  cultural 
differences. The Czech Republic stresses the need to also implement and enforce agreements 
that have been concluded. 

3.6.  Media literacy and awareness-raising initiatives 

The  1998  Recommendation  already  stressed  the  "need  to  raise  awareness  among  parents, 
educators  and  teachers  of  the  potential  of  the  new  services  and  of  the  means  whereby  they 
may be made safe for minors". This was reiterated by the 2006 Recommendation, which goes 
even further by addressing actions to improve media literacy64. 

35 % / 12.4 % / 52.6 %; "jugendschutz.net": 42 % / 22.6 % / 35.4 %; Hungary: 8 % / 67 % / 25 %; Ireland: 
1 % / 14 % / 85 %; Latvia: 10 % / 20 % / 70 %; Lithuania: 5 % / 25 % / 70 %; Luxembourg: 25 % / 31 % / 
44 %; Poland: 30 % / 20 % / 50 %; Portugal: 29 % / 7 % / 64 %; Romania: 45 % / 20 % / 35 %; Slovakia: 
9 % / 20 % / 71 %: Slovenia: 2 % own territory / 98 % outside the EU; Sweden: 50 % / 25 % / 25 %; the 
UK  deems  that  the  majority  of  problematic  material,  and  almost  all  the  most  problematic  and  illegal 
material, is hosted outside the UK and outside Europe. 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, 
Slovakia and Spain. 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Finland,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Malta,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. 
Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Media  literacy  is  defined  as  "the  ability  to  access  the  media,  to  understand  and  to  critically  evaluate 
different  aspects  of  the  media  and  media  contents  and  to  create  communications  in  a  variety  of 

61 

62 

63 

64 

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
All  Member  States  and  Norway  mentioned  initiatives  raising  media  literacy  and  awareness. 
Concerning  education  in  online  safety,  however,  an  assessment  was  carried  out  by  the 
Commission in 2009 which showed that while the topic is included in national curricula in 23 
Member States and in Norway65, the implementation of such education is fragmented and not 
standardised. In all of these countries, they target also parents and teachers. 

In 15 Member States66 these initiatives are part of a national/regional media literacy strategy. 
Several  Member  States  referred 
the  European  Commission's  Safer  Internet 
Programme67  which  inter  alia  aims  at  increasing  the  awareness  of  children,  parents  and 
teachers,  through  Safer  Internet  Centres  (present  in  all  Member  States).  These  centres  are 
responsible for implementing campaigns, coordinating actions, developing synergy at national 
level and working in close cooperation with all relevant actors at European, regional and local 
level. They form part of the European awareness centre network INSAFE68. 

to 

Some  Member  States  refer  to  EU  Kids  Online  projects,  which  is  also  funded  by  the  Safer 
Internet Programme. 19 Member States69, Iceland and Norway have taken part in the EU Kids 
online  I  project.  The  EU  Kids  online  II  project70  is  now  ongoing;  it  is  a  comparable 
quantitative  survey  of  children's  use  of  online  technologies  across  25  European  countries, 
focusing on  online risks  and  safety.  It also addresses the parents' experiences,  practices and 
concerns regarding their children's online risk and safety.  

In 23 Member States71, in the Flemish and French Communities in Belgium and in Norway, 
awareness-raising and media literacy measures are financed by a mixture of public and private 
funding. In the German-speaking Community in Belgium, in Romania and in Slovenia, they 
are exclusively supported by public funds. France did not reply clearly to this question. 

3.7. 

Technical systems (filtering, age verification systems, parental control systems, 
etc.) 

Parental control measures, filtering and age verification systems were already addressed in 
the  1998  Recommendation;  the  2006  Recommendation  added  the  rating  or  classification  of 

Poland, 

Portugal, 

Slovakia, 

Romania, 

contexts"  in  the  Media  Literacy  Communication  of  20  December  2007  ("Communication  from  the 
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  —  A  European  approach  to  media  literacy  in  the  digital 
environment", COM(2007) 833 final, http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/literacy/docs/com/en.pdf).  
Austria,  Belgium  (French,  German-speaking  and  Flemish  Communities),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Denmark, 
Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 
Malta, 
UK 
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf). 
Belgium  (French,  German-speaking  and  Flemish  Communities),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  France, 
Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden, 
plus Norway. 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/index_en.htm. 
http://www.saferinternet.org/web/guest/home. 
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, 
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK -  
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20I%20(2006-
9)/Participants/Home.aspx 
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx. 
Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, 
Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia, 
Spain, Sweden and the UK. 

Slovenia 

and 

the 

65 

66 

67 
68 
69 

70 
71 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
 
audiovisual content. The survey aims to establish how such technical systems are being used 
in the Member States to ensure graduated and age-appropriate access to audiovisual content. 

Altogether 15 Member States72 consider that technical measures aimed at avoiding potentially 
harmful content are generally useful. 

However,  ten  Member  States73  and  Norway  were  hesitant  –  albeit  for  a  great  variety  of 
reasons: efectiveness, feasibility, reliability, transparency, freedom of expression, etc. 

As  to  their  effectiveness,  Portugal  distinguishes  between  computers  that  are  publicly 
accessible (e.g. in schools or libraries), where technical measures are considered useful, and 
personal/family  computers,  where  they  are  deemed  rather  ineffective.  Portugal  also  argues 
that content filtering and parental control systems could give a false sense of security, as often 
even very young children have sufficient technical knowledge to circumvent them. 

Austria  and  Greece  also  have  doubts  as  to  the  technical  feasibility  and  reliability  of 
technical  systems74.  Like  Finland,  Ireland  and  Lithuania,  they  stress  the  importance  of 
parental supervision. Sweden considers that children should learn to deal with reality rather 
than be protected by filters. Luxembourg also considers that the use of technical systems must 
be accompanied by awareness-raising and prevention campaigns. 

The  Czech  Republic  and  Denmark  take  the  view  that  technical  measures  should  allow 
children and parents to choose and use the systems for themselves, and that they should target 
specific age groups (Denmark)75. The Czech Republic stresses the need for transparency as 
regards the inclusion of certain content in a black list and the possibility of having it removed 
from the blacklist. 

Sweden  emphasises  the  need  to  respect  adults'  right  to  information  when  filtering  is 
discussed. The Czech Republic, Estonia and Finland stress that filtering must not be misused 
to censor content, Estonia referring to its Constitution and Finland to freedom of speech on 
the Internet. 

A  wide  variety  of  initiatives  have  been  launched  by  industry  or  public  authorities  in  20 
Member States to develop a filtering and rating system for the Internet: these are ongoing in 
Austria, Belgium (Flemish and French Communities), Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark 
(on  the  basis  of  private  initiatives;  a  voluntary  scheme  has  been  established  whereby  the 
police  work  together  with  Save  the  Children  Denmark  to  maintain  lists  of  addresses  to  be 
blocked; all major Danish Internet providers have put filters on their network connections to 
block access to child pornography), Estonia, Finland (filtering is carried out voluntarily, but 

72 

73 

74 

75 

Belgium  (Flemish,  French  and  German-speaking  Communities),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  France,  Germany, 
Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Spain  and  the  UK.  Poland 
considers that there is insufficient understanding of how filtering software works and unfounded fears 
of difficulties in accessing Internet services. 
Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia 
and Sweden. 
The  Safer  Internet  Programme  has  commissioned  a  benchmarking  study  of  the  effectiveness  of 
available  filtering  solutions  available  in  Europe.  The  first  results  were  published  in  January  2011 
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/projects/filter_label/sip_bench2/index_en.htm). 
Denmark  further  refers  to  an  analysis  carried  out  in  2008  of  online  social  networking  sites  on  the 
Internet  and  the  existing  technical  solutions.  It  found  that  technical  solutions  alone  cannot  protect 
children  and  young  people  and  concluded  that  children  should  have  the  greatest  possible  freedom  of 
choice and scope to explore, while they themselves and their right to privacy are protected.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
there is a legal obligation to filter child pornography), France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland (a 
centralised  content  filter  managed  by  the  National  Centre  for  Technology  in  Education 
(NCTE) has been put in place for schools which blocks access to illegal and harmful websites 
from  schools  in  Ireland  and  works  with  blacklists  that  are  regularly  updated;  hundreds  of 
these  sites  are  automatically  blocked  on  a  weekly  basis),  Italy,  Latvia  (through  the 
participation of various organisations and State bodies), Lithuania  (access  providers have to 
install  and  operate  filtering  software  for  harmful  Internet  content  that  must  have  been 
approved  by  the  Information  Society  Development  Committee,  which  also  lays  down  the 
procedure),  Malta  (the  Malta  Communications  Authority  (MCA)  is  encouraging  all  ISPs  to 
provide  these  filtering  services),  the  Netherlands,  Slovakia,  Spain  (INTECO,  the  National 
Institute  of  Communication  Technologies,  has  produced  a  list  of  free  parental  control 
software, together with a guide to using parental control tools, targeting parents and teachers), 
Sweden and the UK. 

In 16 Member States76 there are obligations, either by law or in relevant codes of conduct for 
ISPs  or  mobile  operators,  to  make  available  and/or  inform  subscribers  about  available 
filtering and rating systems and age verification software: for instance, in Poland, this is 
one of the conditions for ISPs to obtain the ‘UKE Safe Internet Certificate’. In Ireland and the 
UK,  this  is  part  of  the  ISPs’  code  of  practice  and  ethics.  In  Germany,  there  is  such  a  legal 
obligation and parallel efforts are being made by self-regulatory bodies, broadcasters and the 
industry to ensure consistent implementation of youth protection programmes.  

According  to  the  survey,  parental  control  tools  are  provided  to  consumers  in  24  Member 
States77  and  in  Norway.  In  15  Member  States78  those  tools  are  available  free  of  charge. 
Finland, Poland, Portugal and the UK report that parental control tools are also available upon 
payment.  Greece  and  Ireland  report  that  parental  control  tools  are  only  available  upon 
payment. 

3.8. 

Age rating and classification of content 

The  technical  instruments  mentioned  and  described  above  can  only  promote  graduated  and 
age-appropriate access to audiovisual content on the basis of reasonable and reliable rating 
and classification systems. The survey takes a closer look at whether and how such systems 
exist in the Member States and how they work. 

Altogether, there are legal obligations in 21 Member States79 and in Norway and co- or self-
regulatory obligations in 13 Member States80 regarding the age rating and classification of 

76 

77 

78 

79 

Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic  (not  for  mobile 
operators),  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta,  Poland,  Slovakia  and 
Spain. 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  and  French  Communities),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic  (used 
mainly by mobile operators that offer parents the possibility of blocking harmful content or premium-
rate calls for mobile phone numbers used by their children. Apart from blocking access to erotic or porn 
pages,  the  parental  control  tools  usually  also  block  access  to  gambling  and  lottery  sites),  Denmark, 
Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK. 
Austria, Belgium (French Community), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, 
the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK. 
Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece, 
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Spain and the UK.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
audiovisual content, applicable to audiovisual content in cinemas or on DVDs, television or 
the  Internet.  Denmark  is  envisaging  establishing  a  coordinated  classification  and  labelling 
scheme for films, DVDs, TV and video-on-demand services. This system would extend across 
all technologies and would cover any content that might be "seriously" or "mildly" harmful to 
minors. 

The  rating  or  classification  systems  for  audiovisual  content  (cinema,  television,  on-demand 
services,  DVDs)  in  place  are  considered  sufficient  and  effective  by  12  Member  States81, 
whereas  13  Member  States82  and  Norway  deem  they  should  be  improved.  The  Flemish, 
French  and  German-speaking  Communities  in  Belgium  and  Bulgaria  consider  the  rating 
system  for  audiovisual  content  applied  in  cinemas  and  for  DVDs  as  unsatisfactory.  The 
Flemish,  French  and  German-speaking  Communities  in  Belgium  refer  to  a  lack  of  effective 
controls in cinemas and differences in cinema and DVD ratings for the same content. 

As  regards  the  question  of  consistency/divergence  of  age  ratings  and  classifications,  16 
Member  States83  and  Norway  responded  that  they  have  differences  in  the  age  ratings  and 
classifications  for  the  same  content  in  cinemas,  on  DVDs,  on  television  or  on  the  Internet 
(including  cases  where  there  is  an  age  rating/classification  only  for  some  of  these  media). 
Eight Member States84 responded that they have the same age ratings and classifications for 
the same content in cinemas, on DVDs, on television or on the Internet.  

Ten Member States85 and Norway consider the lack of consistency a problem. Austria, the 
French and the German-speaking Communities in Belgium and Portugal deem that different 
age  rating  and  classification  systems  and  different  age  ratings  are  incomprehensible  for 
consumers.  However,  the  UK  considers  it  appropriate  to  have  different  age  ratings  and 
classification systems, given the different contexts and technologies and deems this is only a 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

Austria,  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Germany,  Greece,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. 
Bulgaria, Belgium (French Community), Cyprus, Denmark (for cinema and DVDs), France, Germany, 
Ireland, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and the UK. Cyprus considers that awareness of 
these  systems  needs  to  be  improved.  Slovakia  points  out  that  it  is  still  too  early  for  an  assessment 
concerning on-demand audiovisual media services, for which ratings have been mandatory only since 
15 December 2009. 
Austria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta, 
Portugal,  Slovenia  and  Spain.  Luxembourg  points  that  a  particular  classification  system  for 
Luxembourg is not necessary, given that most of the content comes from abroad and has already been 
classified  there.  Italy  considers  its  classification  for  cinema  outdated  and  is  currently  reforming  the 
rating system for television and video-on-demand with regard to adult content and conditional access. 
Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community:  possible  differences  between  cinema  and  television,  and 
German-speaking Community), Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark (consistency only between the 
classifications of films and DVDs), Finland, France, Greece, Ireland (classification for cinema, but not 
for  DVDs),  Lithuania  (different  systems/age  groups  for  cinema,  TV  and  Internet),  Malta,  Poland, 
Portugal  (identical  for  cinema  and  DVDs,  but  different  age  ranges  for  TV,  no  classification  for 
Internet), Slovenia, Spain and the UK. In Italy, there are different classifications for audiovisual content 
which  is  not  cinematographical.  Luxembourg  points  out  that,  since  it  does  not  have  its  own 
classification system, the age ratings and classifications for content are taken over from the country of 
origin, which can lead to different age ratings and classifications. 
Cyprus,  Estonia,  Germany,  Hungary  (different  authorities  competent  for  film  distribution  and 
broadcasting,  but  which  generally  come  to  the  same  ratings  and  classifications),  Latvia,  Romania, 
Slovakia and Sweden. 
Austria, Belgium (French and German-speaking Communities), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Finland, Greece, Malta and Portugal. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
problem  if  viewers  are  confused  about  what  they  might  expect  within  a  given  media 
environment. 

Eight  Member  States86  and  Norway  point  out  that  there  are  measures  or  initiatives  being 
considered to introduce greater consistency in this field. 

Altogether  15  Member  States87  and  Norway  consider  cross-media  and/or  pan-European 
classification systems for media content helpful and feasible. Nine Member States88 do not 
consider  cross-media  and/or  pan-European  classification  systems  for  media  content  helpful 
and/or feasible, due to the different cultures in the Member States. 

3.9. 

Audiovisual media services 

As regards protection of minors, the provisions of the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations also 
apply  —  in  general  terms  —  to  television  broadcasting.  The  Recommendations  refer  to  the 
specific rules in Article 22 of the Television without Frontiers Directive of 3 October 198989. 
The  Recommendations  and  the  Television  without  Frontiers  Directive  —  and  its  successor, 
the Audiovisual Media Services Directive — complement each other. 

86 

87 

88 

89 

Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Finland,  Spain  and 
Sweden. 
Austria,  Belgium  (French  and  German-speaking  Communities),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland, 
Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. Germany points out 
that its national legislation already and increasingly pursues a cross-media approach, with cross-media 
binding age ratings. Austria deems that the ideal solution would be a legally obligatory pan-European 
rating  system  for  retailers  and  content  providers  providing  additional  information  for  parents. 
According to Cyprus, a cross-media and/or pan-European classification system would reduce confusion 
among  stakeholders.  Poland  and  Slovakia  consider  that  it  would  help  create  a  level  playing  field  for 
media  content providers.  Spain  calls  for  a  cross-media  classification  system,  given  that  young people 
can access identical or similar content through different, but often interrelated media, such as television, 
the  Internet,  DVDs,  video  games.  The  Netherlands  refers  to  the  "Kijkwijzer"  system  that  was 
introduced in 2002 by NICAM (the Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media) 
as  a  uniform  cross-media  system  for  classifying  television  programmes,  films,  DVDs  and  mobile 
content. 
Germany,  Belgium  (French  and  German-speaking  Communities),  Greece,  Hungary,  Luxembourg, 
Portugal,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  the  UK.  Portugal  considers  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and  cultural 
identity more important than a pan-European classification system. The French Community in Belgium 
and  Germany  consider  that  better  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  below  the  level  of  a  pan-
European  classification  system  would  be  useful.  The  French  Community  in  Belgium  proposes 
examining  whether  a  common  identification  system  for  and  method  of  describing  content  could  be 
found,  with  an  accompanying  "intensity  factor".  Such  common  indicators  could  then  help  inform 
consumers,  e.g.  through  an  easily  recognisable  logo.  Member  States  could  then  classify  programmes 
according  to  their  own  socio-cultural  characteristics  and  offer  users  filters  for  automatically  pre-
selecting  content.  The  Czech  Republic  mentions  the  PEGI  system  for  video  games  as  a  successful 
example  of  a  pan-European  rating  system,  but  considers  it  difficult  to  achieve  agreements  for 
audiovisual content.  
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down 
by  Law,  Regulation  or  Administrative  Action  in  Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of  television 
broadcasting activities, OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23. Directive as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the 
European 
60)  
(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/consleg/1989/L/01989L0552-19970730-en.pdf). 

the  Council 

Parliament 

30.7.1997, 

202, 

and 

(OJ 

of 

p. 

L 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
The  rules  for  television  broadcasts  (now  named  "linear  audiovisual  media  services"90)  are 
retained by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive that entered into force on 19 December 
2007  (see  above  in  section  background).  At  the  same  time,  this  Directive  introduces  some 
basic rules for the protection of minors in relation to on-demand audiovisual media services 
("non-linear  audiovisual  media  services"91)  that  are  less  strict  than  those  laid  down  for 
traditional television broadcasts.  

This is illustrated by the table below: 

Linear services (TV) 

Non-linear 
(via Internet or « on-demand ») 

services 

Content 
seriously 
must … 

which 
might 
impair  minors 

… not be included in any programme (total ban)  

… only be made available in such a 
way  that  ensures  that  minors  will 
not  normally  hear  or  see  such  on-
demand audiovisual media services  

Article 27(1) of the AVMS Directive 

Article 12 

Content  which  is  likely  to 
impair minors must … 

… be ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or 
by any technical measure (e.g. encryption), that minors 
in  the  area  of  transmission  will  not  normally  hear  or 
see such broadcasts.  

No restrictions 

Article 27(2),(3) 

This  system  of  "graduated  regulation"  takes  account  of  the  fact  that  users  of  on-demand 
audiovisual  media  services  can  decide  what  they  watch  and  when,  whereas  viewers  of 
television  programmes  can  only  switch  the  television  set  on  or  switch  it  off.  The  different 
rules for linear and non-linear audiovisual media services concern essentially the transmission 
of harmful content and the requirements to restrict its availability for minors (Articles 12 and 
27), but also restrictions for commercial communications/advertising with a potential impact 
on minors (Articles 9(1)(g) and 22). 

The  survey  put  particular  focus  on  systems  of  co-/self-regulation,  which  the  Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive welcomes and considers appropriate for the implementation of the 
relevant rules92. 

90 

91 

92 

Article  1(1)(e):  ""television  broadcasting"  or  "television  broadcast"  (i.e.  a  linear  audiovisual  media 
service)  means  an  audiovisual  media  service  provided  by  a  media  service  provider  for  simultaneous 
viewing of programmes on the basis of a programme schedule". 
Article  1(1)(g):  ""on-demand  audiovisual  media  service"  (i.e.  a  non-linear  audiovisual  media  service) 
means  an  audiovisual  media  service  provided  by  a  media  service  provider  for  the  viewing  of 
programmes at the moment chosen by the user and at his individual request on the basis of a catalogue 
of programmes selected by the media service provider". 
Article  4(7):  "Member  States  shall  encourage  co-regulation  and/or  self-regulatory  regimes  at  national 
level  in  the  fields  coordinated  by  this  Directive  to  the  extent  permitted  by  their  legal  systems.  These 
regimes  shall  be  such  that  they  are  broadly  accepted  by  the  main  stakeholders  in  the  Member  States 
concerned and provide for effective enforcement." 

EN 

19 

   EN 

  
 
 
                                                 
In  14  Member  States93  television  broadcasters  have  established  a  system  of  co-/self-
regulation  relating  to  the  protection  of  minors.  Those  systems  include  a  code  of  conduct 
regarding the protection of minors from harmful content in 11 Member States94.  

In  Greece,  the  broadcasting  law  requires  TV  and  radio  broadcasters  to  draw  up  multilateral 
self-regulating agreements. The Swedish Media Council is encouraging broadcasters to create 
self-regulating  instruments.  In  the  German-speaking  Community  in  Belgium  a  code  of 
conduct is currently being prepared. In Estonia the broadcasters are preparing to launch a self-
regulation  system  for  the  protection  of  minors  in  the  near  future.  In  Portugal  there  is  no 
integrated  system  of  co-/self-regulation  relating  to  the  protection  of  minors,  but  certain 
individual  measures  have  been  taken,  including  specific  agreements,  e.g.  between  the  three 
mainstream broadcasters, which lay down a classification system for television programmes. 
In Poland, a self-regulatory system was replaced by legal regulation because broadcasters did 
not comply with their self-commitments. In the UK, the regulator Ofcom has established a co-
regulatory  arrangement  with  the  Advertising  Standards  Authority  in  relation  to  television 
advertising,  which  is  being  applied  by  Ofcom  also  in  the  field  of  protection  of  minors.  In 
Hungary, the two commercial television stations with national coverage agreed to draw up a 
common  code  of  ethics  for  afternoon  talkshows,  including  the  principles  of  conduct  of  the 
German code of ethics applied to daytime talkshows. 

As  to  the  legal  nature  and  enforceability  of  the  codes  of  conduct,  in  Bulgaria  and  Spain, 
non-compliance  with  self-regulatory  codes  constitutes  a  breach  of  administrative  law  and 
operators can be penalised accordingly. 

In  14  Member  States95,  on-screen  icons  for  and  acoustic  warnings  before  potentially 
harmful  television  programmes  are  required  by  law,  in  Italy  also  by  codes  of  conduct.  In 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, the UK and the German-speaking and Flemish Communities in 
Belgium  the  law  allows  TV  broadcasters  to  choose  between  on-screen  icons  and  acoustic 
warnings.  In  Austria,  France,  the  French  Community  in  Belgium,  Poland,  Portugal  and 
Slovakia only on-screen icons are required by law, in  Portugal also by codes of conduct. In 
Estonia only acoustic warnings before potentially harmful television programmes are required 
by  law.  In  Ireland,  prior  warnings  for  potentially  harmful  programme  material  are  required, 
but with no further specification. 

Generally,  on-screen  icons  for  and  acoustic  warnings  before  potentially  harmful  television 
programmes are considered useful and effective, which is according to Cyprus and Italy also 
due to the legal possibility to sanction their absence. 

As  regards  reliance  on  such  labelling  and  warning  systems,  the  French  Community  in 
Belgium,  Finland,  Germany  and  Portugal  emphasise  in  this  context  the  importance  of 
parental  responsibility.  Reference  was  also  made  to  the  importance  to  carefully  select  the 
transmission time for potentially harmful programmes ("watershed"). Germany deems that a 
labelling obligation cannot replace other youth protection measures. 

93 

94 

95 

Austria,  Belgium  (French  and  German-speaking  Communities),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany, 
Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Spain. 
Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 
Romania,  Slovenia  and  Spain.  In  the  Czech  Republic,  there  is  no  common  system  for  broadcast 
providers.  Individual  TV  broadcasters  follow  their  own  ethical  codes,  in  which  they  have  also 
committed themselves to protecting minors. 
The  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta,  the 
Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
Broadcasters established in 13 Member States96 use technical filtering devices or software, 
mainly integrated into TV decoders and hard disc recorders, to ensure that minors cannot view 
harmful programmes. In Cyprus and Spain these devices are applicable to subscription-only 
television channels. Germany is discussing an obligation for broadcasters to use age-labelling 
for  potentially  harmful  content  and  for  industry  to  set  up  digital  receivers  and  hard  disc 
recorders to use these labels.  

In  Germany  and  Romania,  there  are  also  pre-locking  systems  in  use,  which  means  that 
viewers have to enter an at least four-digit PIN code to unlock the programme. In Germany 
digital  content  providers  can  pre-lock  potentially  harmful  programmes.  In  Romania  digital 
providers have to use a pre-lock for the transmission of over-18 content. 

Nine  Member  States97  hold  technical  filtering  devices  or  software  to  be  an  effective  means 
for  the  protection  of  minors.  As  to  the  effectiveness  of  pre-lock  systems,  Germany  and 
Romania  point  to  the  need  to  withhold  the  PIN  code  from  the  minors.  Sweden  considers  it 
doubtful  whether  code  functions  work  satisfactorily.  In  Germany,  particularly  youth 
protection associations provide information about the possibility of pre-locking programmes. 
Given the increasing use of mobiles, smartphones and laptops by children in the Netherlands, 
NICAM (the Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media) is to look into 
the question of whether the parental control functions are known and work properly98. 

3.10.  On-demand (non-linear) audiovisual media services 

In  eight  Member  States99,  providers  of  on-demand  (non-linear)  audiovisual  media  services 
have established systems of co-/self-regulation which, with the exception of Poland, include 
a code of conduct regarding the protection of minors100. In the UK, advertising is co-regulated 
by  the  Advertising  Standards  Authority.  A  system  of  self-regulation  was  operated  by  most 
major  providers  from  2003  onwards,  but  has,  following  implementation  of  the  AVMS 
Directive,  been  converted  into  co-regulation  by  the  Association  for  Television  On-Demand, 
which providers of on-demand audiovisual media services within the scope of the Directive 
are  required  to  notify.  In  Ireland,  following  the  encouragement  in  the  AVMSD,  a  code  of 
conduct is being developed. 

As  to  the  question  how  providers  of  on-demand  (non-linear)  audiovisual  media  services 
ensure  that  content  which  might  seriously  impair  the  development  of  minors  is  not 
heard  or  seen  by  minors,  the  Member  States  referred  to  the  following  methods,  most  of 
which  are  imposed  by  law:  age  classifications101,  combined  with  transmission  time 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Poland,  the 
Netherlands, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Cyprus,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  the  Netherlands,  Poland  and 
the UK. 
Tests 
of 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/projects/filter_label/sip_bench2/index_en.htm 

assessments 

solutions: 

filtering 

mobile 

and 

Bulgaria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  the  Czech  Republic  (only  advertising  covered),  Germany, 
Ireland, Poland, Sweden and the UK. 
In the French Community in Belgium the co-/self-regulation system for on-demand services is identical 
to  the  one  for  linear  services.  In  Bulgaria  all  kinds  of  online  business  communication  fall  within  the 
scope  of  the  National  Self-Regulation  Board's  Code  of  Ethics.  In  Germany,  the  FSM  (multimedia 
voluntary self-regulatory association) code of conduct for providers covers both linear (TV) and non-
linear (on-demand) audiovisual media services. 
Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands (the "Kijkwijzer" system) and Spain. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
restrictions102,  technical  access  restrictions  such  as  filtering,  encryption,  pre-locking/PIN 
codes or other age verification systems103. 

Altogether  11  Member  States104  where  technical  access  restrictions  are  used  consider  them 
effective.  Italy  considers  technical  access  restrictions  to  be  the  only  means  to  balance  the 
protection of minors with the freedom of expression and information for adults. Ireland and 
Slovakia,  where  such  systems  are  very  new,  consider  it  too  early  to  evaluate  their 
effectiveness. In the UK, their effectiveness is still under the scrutiny of the Association for 
Television On-Demand, but the UK expects that PIN codes will not be considered sufficient. 
Poland  considers  that  adults  are  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  how  to  install  the  relevant 
safeguards. 

3.11.  Video games 

It  was  only  with  the  Video  Games  Communication  of  22  April  2008  that  the  issue  of  video 
games  and  their  potential  risks  for  minors  was  addressed  at  European  level.  The  survey 
among the Member States aimed to update the replies they gave to the survey conducted in 
preparation for the Communication. A particular focus is put on preventive measures in the 
field of media literacy and awareness raising, including the integration of relevant measures 
in school education and measures addressing the under-age retail sale of video games. 

Asked how they promote the protection of minors playing video games, most of the Member 
States referred to PEGI (the Pan-European Games Information System) and PEGI Online. 

Ten  Member  States105  and  Norway  consider  the  current  measures  to  protect  minors  from 
harmful  video  games  to  be  effective  or  even  very  good  (Finland,  Germany  and  the  UK); 
Germany regards the youth protection standards of its own national system106 as higher than 
the PEGI standards. 

A total of 17 Member States107 and Norway consider the functioning of the age rating system 
in place in their countries as satisfactory. 

Ten  Member  States108  consider  the  current  measures  to  protect  minors  from  harmful  video 
games  to  be  ineffective  or  only  partially  effective.  15  Member  States109  and  Norway 
consider  further  action  concerning  video  games  necessary.  The  Czech  Republic  deems  it 

102 
103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

Finland, Germany, Italy. 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia (providers are 
required  to  cover  harmful  pictures  and  to  replace  rude  words  with  a  noise),  Lithuania,  Romania  and 
Spain. 
Bulgaria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain. 
Germany,  Denmark,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Malta,  Portugal,  Slovakia  and  Sweden.  The  UK 
points out that there are few data available to provide empirical evidence of effectiveness.  
"USK  system"  ("Unterhaltungssoftware  Selbstkontrolle"  —  organisation  for  the  voluntary  monitoring 
of entertainment software). 
Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. 
Austria  (considers  their  effectiveness  hindered  by  the  inconsistent  application  of  protection  systems, 
due  to  different  laws  on  the  protection  of  minors  applicable  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  and 
advocates  harmonisation  in  this  field),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia, 
Finland, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Germany, 
Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
necessary to make parents more familiar with the content rating of video games through e.g. 
an  advertising  campaign  and  awareness-raising  activities  carried  out  under  the  "Safer 
Internet" Programme. 

As  to  the  question  what  should  be  done  to  improve  the  protection  of  minors  from  harmful 
video  games,  12  Member  States110  refer  to  awareness-raising  measures  concerning  the 
possible risks of video games and the existing protection tools. 

In 22 Member States111 and in Norway measures have been taken to improve awareness and 
media literacy with regard to video games (see also section 3.7.). Eight Member States112 and 
Norway report that such measures are integrated in school education; initiatives of this nature 
partly took place as single actions, not on a continuous basis (Finland) or only on an informal 
basis  (Ireland).  Sweden  intends  to  include  media  awareness  in  all  curricula,  but  not  as  a 
separate subject or topic. Austria advocates the extension of media literacy measures. Cyprus 
is launching media literacy campaigns in schools, covering video games. Lithuania takes the 
view  that  school  education  on  information  technologies  might  only  insufficiently  draw 
attention to the detrimental effect of video games. The UK reports that video games might be 
part of ICT or other courses, but are not part of the national curriculum. 

Awareness-raising  measures  are  deemed  to  be  sufficient  ("in  general",  "with  a  view  to 
minors" and "with a view to parents and teachers") in 11 Member States113 and insufficient in 
11  other  Member  States114  and  in  Norway.  Sweden  and  Romania  see  deficits  in  awareness-
raising targeted at parents and teachers.115 

Concerning  further  measures  in  the  field  of  video  games,  the  UK  reports  that  steps  have 
been  taken  to  extend  the  number  of  games  that  would  be  covered  by  statutory  measures. 
Finland and Poland refer specifically to the retail sale of video games. 

Regarding online  games, including those referred to  as "casual games" ("easy" games that 
can  be  played  speedily  and  are  often  offered  for  free  to  users,  as  they  are  financed  by 
advertising),  12  Member  States116  and  Norway  consider  the  level  of  protection  achieved  as 
satisfactory and six Member States117 as unsatisfactory. In Bulgaria there are no established 
standards for online games. Cyprus and Poland point out that there are no access barriers in 
place for online games, such as filtering or age verification systems. Slovakia does not have 

110 

111 

112 
113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania 
and Slovenia. 
Austria, Belgium (only Flemish community), Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, 
Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovakia, Sweden and the UK. Bulgaria refers to activities aimed at raising awareness of and explaining 
the PEGI system; the UK referred to awareness-raising campaigns on video games, including industry 
members,  third  sector  and  trade  bodies  and  additional  statutory  measures,  which  are  currently  being 
extended. 
The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovakia. 
Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania 
and Portugal. 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg  (mentions 
increased efforts in this field), Malta, Portugal. 
See 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/docs/forum_oct_2009/assessment_report.pdf 
Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Sweden and 
the UK. 
Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Poland. 

also: 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
enough information to evaluate the protection standards for online games. In Germany, online 
games  are  covered  by  the  relevant  cross-media  regulation  that  is  applicable  to  any  online 
content.  Germany  is  of  the  opinion  that  providers  of  online  games  should  take  even  more 
responsibility. 

Denmark, Portugal and Sweden deem PEGI Online to be working well, but deplore the fact 
that  this  system  is  not  used  widely  enough.  Austria  regrets  that  providers  do  not  seem  very 
motivated to implement self-regulation systems, such as PEGI online. 

Evaluation  systems  for  assessing  any  possible  favourable  or  adverse  effects  of  video 
games on minors' development or health are in place in five Member States118 and in Norway. 

Regarding the retail sale of video games in shops, awareness-raising measures have been 
taken in six Member States119 and in Norway, aimed at informing retailers and ensuring that 
they  enforce  the  ratings.  Finland  considers  that  the  retail  sector  needs  information  on  age 
limits and their enforcement. Poland is considering requiring stores selling video games to set 
up a special section where over-18 games would be sold. Latvia deems more enforcement and 
preventive  measures  by  the  police  authorities  necessary.  Estonia  sees  the  introduction  of 
specific  legal  requirements  for  video  games  as  necessary.  Austria,  Cyprus  and  Hungary 
propose to make PEGI mandatory by law for all video games, including online games. Ireland 
announces that it will examine this. Poland advocates better parental control. Malta points out 
that  there  should  be  collaboration  between  those  who  run  the  system  and  the  regulatory 
authorities in order to improve the effectiveness of any measures implemented. 

Video games retailers in four Member States have implemented a code of conduct to address 
the risk of games being sold to minors below the age specified in the ratings120.  

Beyond  the  information  given  by  the  Member  States,  one  initiative  is  worth  mentioning:  In 
the  Netherlands,  "buro240a"121  is  monitoring  the  enforcement  of  age  ratings  for  different 

118 

119 

120 

121 

Denmark,  Finland,  Hungary,  Latvia  and  Luxembourg.  Several  studies  on  the  effects  of  video  games 
have been conducted in Finland. UK points out that academic research is monitored on a regular basis.  
Austria, Finland, Germany, Poland, Sweden and the UK. The Austrian Trade Commission has provided 
information leaflets on PEGI for retailers, and on the Safer Internet Day 2009 saferinternet.at conducted 
a test on how the rating systems are applied. Most of the retailers in Germany have trained their staff to 
comply with the age ratings. Sale to under-age children is classed in the German youth protection act as 
an administrative offence punishable with a fine of up to €
 50 000. The UK mentions in this connection 
that regular training is provided by trade associations and regulators. In Finland, Poland and Sweden, 
such  measures,  which  include  staff  training,  are  organised  by  games  producers'  and  retailers' 
associations.  In  Finland,  the  Board  of  Film  Classification  and  the  Finnish  Games  and  Multimedia 
Association  have  carried  out  joint  spot  checks  on  retailers  regarding  compliance  with  the  ratings  and 
have publicised the results of the checks to the general public. Denmark points out that there is no law 
prohibiting the sale of labelled computer games to children and young people, but that Danish industry 
associations urge their members to exercise care and good marketing practice in this and other areas. 
Denmark points out that many retail chains have, however, introduced internal codes. 
Austria,  Poland,  Sweden  and  the  UK.  In  the  UK  the  code  is  issued  and  maintained  by  the  Video 
Standards Council. In Austria, some individual companies have voluntarily upgraded their cash register 
to give visual signals when scanning 16+ or 18+ games so as to prompt the sales person to check the 
age  of  the  purchaser.  The  implementation  of  a  retailers'  code  of  conduct  would  be  welcomed  by 
Romania and is envisaged by Cyprus.  
http://www.buro240a.nl 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
media  in  retail  shops.  This  includes  awareness  raising  initiatives,  "mystery  shopping" 
campaigns in video games shops122 and particularly trainings for retailers' staff123. 

As  regards  a  pan-European  code  of  conduct  for  the  retail  sale  of  video  games,  the 
Interactive  Software  Federation  of  Europe124  through  PEGI  S.A.  developed  a  "PEGI  Retail 
Code" and recommends the game publishers in the PEGI contracts (by which they acquire the 
PEGI label) to apply it. However, the ISFE has no power to enforce its application in relation 
to the retailers. In addition to that, the games publishers often do not have a direct relationship 
with the retailers, but sell their games to a wholesale distributor. A further problem is the lack 
of  a  pan-European  retailers  association;  the  "Global  Entertainment  Retail  Association-
Europe" covers only six European countries125. 

Latvia and Romania referred to possible negative effects of excessive use of video games. 

3.12.  Right of reply in online media 

For television programmes, the 1989 Television without Frontiers Directive already provided 
for  a  right  of  reply  or  equivalent  remedies  in  relation  to  broadcasters126.  The  2006 
Recommendation then suggested that Member States consider "the introduction of measures 
regarding the right of reply or equivalent remedies in relation to online media". However, as 
this was not included in the 2007 Audiovisual Media Services Directive, there is no obligation 
on the Member States. The survey aimed to find out the current state of play in this field. 

As  to  the  relevance  of  a  right  of  reply  in  online  media,  13  Member  States127  answered  that 
concrete problems concerning the right of reply, in particular problems involving cross-border 
aspects, have not occurred in the past two years. 

Differentiated by the types of media, in 16 Member States128 there is a right of reply against 
providers  of  online  newspapers/periodicals,  in  13  Member  States129  against  Internet-

122 

123 

124 
125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

According  to  their  information  given,  at  the  recent  campaign,  while  in  general  compliance  rates  are 
increasing, the compliance rate in video shops was only at 28%, with a decreasing tendency. Buro240a 
considers  that  this  is  due  to  the  increasing  amount  of  age  rated  video  games  and  to  the  growing 
competition  of  age  rated  physical  video  games  to  online  games,  which  would  be  putting  pressure  on 
retail shops to sell as much as possible.  
On 28 October 2009, the Dutch minister of Justice signed a covenant with the management of big retail 
companies,  cinema  distributors  and  DVD  rental  companies.  The  purpose  of  this  covenant  is  that  the 
companies ensure the compliance with age classifications for games and films. 
ISFE (http://www.isfe-eu.org) 
GERA  (http://www.gera-europe.org/ourmembers.html):  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  the 
Netherlands and UK. 
Article 23(1), now Article 28(1) AVMS: "Without prejudice to other provisions adopted by the Member 
States under civil, administrative or criminal law, any natural or legal person, regardless of nationality, 
whose legitimate interests, in particular reputation and good name, have been damaged by an assertion 
of incorrect facts in a television programme must have a right of reply or equivalent remedies. Member 
States shall ensure that the actual exercise of the right of reply or equivalent remedies is not hindered by 
the imposition of unreasonable terms or conditions. The reply shall be transmitted within a reasonable 
time  subsequent  to  the  request  being  substantiated  and  at  a  time  and  in  a  manner  appropriate  to  the 
broadcast to which the request refers." 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Ireland,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Romania, 
Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK. 
Belgium (Flemish Community), Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. 
Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal and Spain. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
based  news  services,  in  17  Member  States130  against  online  television  services,  in  15 
Member States131 against online radio services and in nine Member States132 against other 
online services133. 

Relevant  obligations  are  applicable  in  12  Member  States134  by  law,  in  six  other  Member 
States135  through  co-  or  self-regulation.  In  five  Member  States136,  the  right  of  reply  or 
equivalent remedies also applies to social networking sites (e.g. Facebook, MySpace). 

The level of protection from an assertion of facts137 in a publication or transmission, in online 
services and on social networking sites and the effectiveness of the respective system(s) in 
place is assessed as sufficient and effective by nine Member States138. 

Eight  Member  States139  consider  it  necessary  to  improve  the  situation,  and  Bulgaria  and 
Romania regard the situation as unsatisfactory. 

3.13. 

Further questions 

•  Link  between  public  fears  concerning  harmful  and  illegal  Internet  content  and  the 

development of the Internet 

Altogether  20  Member  States140  do  not  see  any  indications  that  the  development  of  the 
Internet  in  their  countries  has  been  slowed  down  by  public  fears  concerning  harmful  and 
illegal content which can be accessed over the Internet. In this context, Austria, Cyprus, the 
Czech  Republic,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Romania  point  out  that  Internet  use  is 
steadily increasing in their countries. The Czech Republic and Slovakia consider that, for the 
development of the Internet, affordability of the Internet connection for the various sections of 
society is more crucial than public fears concerning harmful and illegal Internet content. The 
UK  suggests  that  public  fears  concerning  harmful  and  illegal  content  are  not  the  most 
significant  factors  affecting  take-up  of  the  Internet.  It  postulates  that  parents  may  be 
insufficiently  concerned  about  the  lack  of  application  of  parental  controls,  although  they 
should  be  aware  of  their  availability.  The  UK  suggests  that  concerns  about  fraud,  theft  and 
privacy  seem  greater  and  have  more  impact  on  use,  if  not  on  take-up.  It  considers  that  the 

130 

131 

132 
133 
134 

135 

136 
137 

138 

139 
140 

Belgium  (Flemish  and  German-speaking  Communities),  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland, 
Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Spain, 
Sweden and the UK. 
Belgium  (Flemish  and  German-speaking  Communities),  Cyprus,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Belgium (Flemish Community), Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Spain. 
France referred to a right of reply in general terms against "public online communication services". 
Austria,  Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Malta, 
Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Slovenia.  
Estonia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden (the right to reply is addressed in the 
Ethical  Press  Rules  to  which  the  major  publishers"  and  journalists"  associations  subscribe.  The  rules 
only apply to online newspapers/magazines that are associated with a paper publication) and the UK. 
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Spain. 
In  the  sense  of  2006  Recommendation,  Annex  1  –  Indicative  Guidelines  for  the  Implementation,  at 
national level, of measures in domestic law or practice so as to ensure the right of reply or equivalent 
remedies in relation to on-line media. 
Belgium  (Flemish  Community),  the  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK. 
Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland and Slovenia. 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
main reason for non-take-up of Internet is some people's perception that there are no benefits 
for them.  

•  Initiatives for monitoring online chat groups, in particular to protect minors from abuse 

Cyprus, Estonia, Germany and Portugal report that monitoring of online chat groups by public 
authorities does not take place. Germany points out that the monitoring of online chat groups 
falls within the power of the providers, who have to obey the general legal requirements. 

Austria, Romania, Sweden  and the UK mention public initiatives in this field. Bulgaria, the 
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden point out that many websites for children and young 
people  have  moderated  online  chat  services.  In  Hungary,  the  public  "Safe  Browsing 
Programme" also offers a solution against harassment in chat rooms. In Luxembourg there are 
online chat groups which are monitored more or less actively, but this is done at the initiative 
of the providers, as there is no such legal obligation. 

Estonia rejects Internet monitoring and puts the focus on enhancing the awareness of minors 
and their parents; this is intended to help them recognise the dangers of grooming and teach 
them  how  to  behave  in  an  emergency.  Portugal  deems  monitoring  online  chat  groups  a 
violation of privacy and makes it subject to a court warrant or police powers. 

•  Involvement  of  consumer  associations,  voluntary  associations  and  non-governmental 

organisations in implementation of the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations 

As  to  the  involvement  of  consumer  associations,  voluntary  associations  and  non-
governmental organisations in  implementation of the 1998 and 2006 Recommendations,  the 
Member States made rather general reference to a dialogue with these groups on the issue of 
protection  of  minors.  Only  Austria,  Germany,  Poland  and  Portugal  related  this  exchange 
directly to the implementation of the Recommendations. The Czech Republic mentioned that 
providers of online services were involved in transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services 
Directive, some of whose provisions are in line with both Recommendations. 

•  Scientific  approaches  regarding  violence  or  other  harmful  content  and  their  impact  on 
minors; voluntary agreements in this field between broadcasters and content providers 

A  total  of  18  Member  States141  replied  that  efforts  in  their  country  with  respect  to  the 
protection  of  minors  have  been  accompanied  by  scientific  boards  and  specific  studies 
regarding  violence  or  other  harmful  content  and  their  impact  on  minors.  Broadcasters  and 
online  content  providers  in  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Portugal,  the  UK  and  Norway  had 
concluded voluntary agreements in this field.  

Final remarks 

As this Staff Working Paper is intended as a neutral survey of policy issues to accompany a 
Commission  Report,  it  is  inappropriate  for  it  to  draw  conclusions,  which  would  inevitably 
have  a  more  political  character.  Readers  should  therefore  refer  to  the  Report  on  the 

141 

Austria,  Belgium  (French  Community),  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Greece,  Hungary, Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg, Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Sweden  and 
the UK. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
Recommendations on Protection of Minors in order to find out which issues are priorities for 
the Commission and how it plans to address them. 

EN 

28 

   EN