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 Recommendation 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-
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 
COM(2011) 556 final 

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 Recommendation 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- 

{SEC(2011) 1043 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
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 Recommendation 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- 

1. 

INTRODUCTION  

The objective  of the 1998 and the  2006 Recommendations  on Protection of Minors1 was to 
make  Member  States  and  industry  conscious  of  the  new  challenges  for  the  protection  of 
minors in electronic media, particularly those linked to the uptake and growing importance of 
these 
online  services.  Considering 
developments,  they  were  called  upon  to  promote  and  develop  appropriate  framework 
conditions by other than purely legal means, e. g. through stakeholder cooperation and co- or 
self regulation2.  

that  regulation  cannot  always  keep  pace  with 

In  the  meantime,  changes  in  consumers'  and  particularly  minors'  use  of  media  have  been 
dramatic  and  are  constantly  accelerating.  Media  are  increasingly  being  used  by  minors  via 
mobile  devices,  including  (online)  video  games,  and  there  are  more  and  more  on-demand 
media services on the Internet. As a new phenomenon since the last Recommendation, social 
networking sites have gained huge importance, both for individual users and in societal terms. 
More changes that we might not even think of yet are likely to come.  

These  new  developments  offer  many  opportunities  for  minors,  but  bring  some  challenges 
regarding their protection, considering that parents often have difficulties in carrying out their 
responsibilities  in  relation  to  new  technology  products  and  services  that  are  usually  less 
known  to  them  than  to  their  children.  We  must  therefore  ask  the  question  whether  current 
policies  are  still  suitable  and  adequate  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  protection  for  minors 
throughout Europe.  

1 

2 

L 

1998: Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of 
the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at 
achieving  a  comparable  and  effective 
level  of  protection  of  minors  and  human  dignity  
(98/560/EC, 
270, 
OJ 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998H0560:EN:NOT))  
2006: 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 (2006/952/EC, OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 
72–77 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006H0952:EN:NOT)) 
At the same time it should be ensured that all co- or self-regulatory measures taken are in compliance 
with competition law. 

07.10.1998 

(http://eur-

48–55 

P. 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  order  to  better  assess  what  has  already  been  done  and  what  further  steps  might  be 
necessary, the present report – responding to the call in Point 6 of the 2006 Recommendation 
–  analyses  the  implementation  and  effectiveness  of  the  measures  specified  in  the  1998  and 
2006 Recommendations in the Member States.  

The report has been prepared on the basis of information supplied by the Member States in 
response to a questionnaire. It complements several actions in the Digital Agenda for Europe3.  

More detailed information on the responses and on specific examples of measures taken 
is available in the accompanying Staff Working Paper.  

2. 

FINDINGS 

2.1. 

Tackling illegal or harmful content 

Content  and  service  providers  are  increasingly  making  efforts  to  tackle  discriminating  and 
other illegal or harmful content, particularly through self-commitments / codes of conduct, 
which  exist  in  24  Member  States4.  As  far  as  Internet  content  is  concerned,  some  of  these 
initiatives  foresee  that  websites  may  signal  their  compliance  with  a  code  of  conduct  by 
displaying an appropriate label.  

In addition, efforts are made in the Member States to develop and facilitate access to quality 
and appropriate content for minors, for instance through specific websites for children and 
specific search engines5.  

While  there  is  convergence  in  the  Member  States  that  promoting  self-regulatory 
measures  (codes  of  conduct)  is  useful,  there  is  persistent  concern  that  the  protection 
levels achieved in this field still differ significantly.  

Going  forward,  existing  measures  against  illegal  or  harmful  contents  should  be 
constantly  monitored  in  order  to  ensure  their  effectiveness.  For  instance,  reporting 
points  for  this  type  of  content,  provided  by  the  content  provider  and  to  be  used  by 
children  and  parents  are  being  developed  and  supported  by  functioning  back  office 
infrastructures,  but  all  these  initiatives  lack  common  features  and  economies  of  scale 
that would increase their efficiency. 

2.2. 

Hotlines 

The  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe  calls  on  Member  States  to  fully  implement  hotlines  for 
reporting offensive or harmful online content by 2013.  

3 

4 
5 

EN 

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) 
See Staff Working Paper page 7 and footnote 27. 
See Staff Working Paper pages 7, 8 and footnotes 31, 32. 

corrected 

August 

Europe 

2010 

(26 

for 

– 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Hotlines  are  meanwhile  widely  established  and  used  in  the  Member  States  and  in  Norway. 
Co-funding of hotlines by the European Commission's Safer Internet Programme remains an 
essential support mechanism.  

Some of the Member States also referred to the INHOPE Association of Internet hotlines6, 
which  was  founded  in  1999  under  the  former  EC  Safer  Internet  Action  Plan  and  is  now 
funded under the Safer Internet Programme. It covers countries beyond Europe7 and has the 
goal  to  increase  cooperation  in  this  area.  INHOPE  member  hotlines  must  comply  with  the 
INHOPE Code of Practice. Hotlines in 24 Member States are members of INHOPE8.  

A number of hotlines are part of so-called "notice and take-down procedures"9, in which the 
ISPs commit to immediately remove illegal content that members of the public have reported 
via  the  hotline.  19  Member  States10  report  that  notice  and  take-down  procedures  have  been 
developed and are applied.  

However, there are considerable differences in the functioning of hotlines and particularly of 
notice and take-down procedures. This concerns the decision that certain content is illegal, the 
review  of  such  decisions,  tracking  of  its  source  and  of  the  web  hosting  provider  and  in 
particular  the  notification  to  the  competent  authorities11.  Although  this  was  not  part  of  the 
questionnaire, Bulgaria and Slovenia referred to the monitoring of hotlines12.  

The  widespread  establishment  and  networking  of  hotlines  is  encouraging,  but  not 
sufficient.  

In order to foster both their efficiency and more consistency amongst the Member States 
(e.g. best practices of interactions with law enforcement authorities), ways to make them 
better  known  and  more  easily  accessible  for  Internet  users,  including  children,  and  to 
improve  their  functioning  and  develop  synergies  with  other  related  services  (e.g. 
Helplines and Awareness Centres, 116 000/116 111 numbers) should be reflected on.  

Moreover, hotlines should be monitored more closely. 

2.3. 

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) 

In  general  terms,  ISPs  are  increasingly  involved  in  the  protection  of  minors,  despite  their 
limited liability and responsibility under the E-Commerce-Directive13. This applies to their 

6 
7 
8 
9 

10 
11 
12 
13 

http://www.inhope.org/gns/home.aspx 
Hotlines from 35 countries worldwide are members of INHOPE. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 35.  
See Staff Working Paper pages 8, 9. For the limited liability and responsibility of ISPs according to the 
E-Commerce-Directive, see footnote 13 of this Report. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 39. 
See Staff Working Paper page 9. 
See Staff Working Paper page 9. 
According to the E-Commerce-Directive (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 , 17/07/2000 P. 0001 – 
0016)  (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:en:NOT),  ISPs 
have  no  general  obligation  to  monitor  the  information  which  they  transmit  or  store,  nor  a  general 
obligation  actively  to  seek  facts  or  circumstances  indicating  illegal  activity  (Art.  15  (1).  ISPs  benefit 
from a limited liability for the information transmitted (Art. 12 (1)), for the automatic, intermediate and 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
legal obligations regarding illegal content, but particularly to joint voluntary commitments 
and adherence to codes of conduct.  

However,  ISP  associations  generally  have  no  specific  mandate  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors.  Therefore,  signature  and  compliance  with  codes  of  conduct  for  the  protection  of 
minors is generally only optional for members of such associations14.  

In  addition,  only  eight  Member  States15  and  Norway  reported  that  consumers  or  public 
authorities  participated  in  the  development  of  codes  of  conduct  during  the  period  under 
review; and only six Member States16 reported that there are evaluation systems in place to 
assess the effectiveness of the codes.  

Overall, only 11 Member States17 and Norway deem that the self-regulation system and ISPs' 
codes of conduct are well-adapted to the new digital environment. 

ISPs  are  encouraged  to  become  even  more  active  in  the  protection  of  minors.  The 
application of codes of conduct should be more widespread and closely monitored.  

ISP associations are encouraged to include protection of minors in their mandates and 
commit their members accordingly.  

Moreover,  greater  involvement  of  consumers  and  authorities  in  the  development  of 
codes of conduct would help to ensure that self-regulation truly responds to the rapidly 
evolving digital world. 

2.4. 

Social networking sites 

Social  networking  sites  offer  huge  opportunities  for  minors.  Even  though  they  have  gained 
importance  only  relatively  recently,  they  have  already  transformed  the  way  minors  interact 
and communicate with each other.  

However,  social  networking  sites  also  bear  a  considerable  risk  potential,  which  can  be 
summarised  by  the  categories  "illegal  content",  "age-inappropriate  content",  "inappropriate 
contact"  and  "inappropriate  conduct"18.  One  promising  way  to  counter  these  risks  is 
guidelines, addressing providers of social networking sites and/or users.  

Only 10 Member States19 referred to such guidelines, and even fewer reported that there are 
evaluation systems in place to assess their effectiveness20; so "soft law" rules currently suffer 
from  rather  patchy  implementation.  This  gap  could  partly  be  filled  by  the  "Safer  Social 
Networking Principles for the EU"21 which 21 social networks have subscribed to.  

temporary  storage  of  that  information  (Art.  13  (1))  and  for  the  information  stored  at  the  request  of  a 
recipient of the service (Art. 14 (1)). 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 46. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 48. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 49. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 50. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 52. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 58. 
See Staff Working Paper page 12. 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/social_networking/docs/sn_principles.pdf. 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Given  the  massive  expansion  of  social  networking  sites,  operators'  control  systems  fall 
short of covering all the potential risks in an efficient and consistent manner.  

Active stakeholder engagement is encouraged, in particular through further awareness-
raising  as  regards  the  risks  and  ways  to  mitigate  them,  wider  use  of  guidelines,  with 
implementation monitoring.  

In  addition,  reporting  points  with  a  well  functioning  back  office  infrastructure  are 
increasingly being deployed on social networks in order to assist children in dealing with 
grooming, cyber-bullying and similar issues, but the solutions are being developed on a 
case-by case basis.  

Moreover,  the  use  of  "privacy  by  default"  settings  for  children  joining  in  social 
networking sites is not widespread.  

2.5. 

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

Most Member States consider the share of harmful content originating in their own territory 
to  be  very  low,  the  share  of  harmful  content  from  other  EU  Member  States  significantly 
higher  and  the  share  of  harmful  content  from  outside  the  EU  the  highest22.  As  regards 
possible  improvements,  some  Member  States  consider  it  would  be  easier  to  achieve  further 
harmonised  protection  at  European  level,  which  they  would  welcome,  rather  than  at 
international  level23.  Despite  this,  it  is  generally  considered  useful  to  encourage  third 
countries  to  take  action  domestically,  and  a  large  majority  of  Member  States  and  Norway 
favour concluding further agreements with third countries24. 

Enhanced  cooperation  and  harmonised  protection  concerning  problematic  Internet 
content  seem  desirable.  Although  this  content  originates  mostly  outside  the  EU,  some 
Member States consider such an approach to be more realistic at European level than 
by involving third countries.  

2.6.  Media literacy and awareness-raising 

All Member States are committed to promoting media literacy and enhancing awareness of  
the risks of online media and of existing protection tools as effective preventive instruments.  

In particular, there are a growing number of relevant initiatives in the Member States taking 
the  form  of  public  private  partnerships.  According  to  feedback  from  Member  States,  the 
European Commission's  Safer Internet Programme and the EU Kids Online project have 
proven valuable frameworks in these fields25.  

Media  literacy  and  awareness-raising  initiatives  are  partly  integrated  into  formal  education 
and  some  efforts  are  being  made  to  sensitise  parents  and  teachers,  too.  However,  an 
assessment  carried  out  by  the  Commission  in  2009  showed  that  even  though  the  topic  is 

22 
23 
24 

25 

See Staff Working Paper footnote 60. 
See Staff Working Paper page 13. 
See  Staff  Working  Paper  page  13  and  footnote  63.  In  terms  of  fighting  online  distribution  of  child 
sexual abuse material, the Safer Internet Programme focuses on international and European cooperation, 
in particular by supporting the INHOPE network of hotlines. 
See Staff Working Paper page 14. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
included in national curricula in 23 European countries, actual delivery of such education is 
fragmented and inconsistent26.  

While increasing integration of media literacy and awareness-raising in school education 
is positive, universal coverage of all children and parents and consistency across schools 
and Member States remain significant challenges. 

2.7. 

Access restrictions to content 

Restricting minors' access to content that is appropriate for their age requires two things: on 
the  one  hand,  age  rating  and  classifying  content  and  on  the  other  hand  ensuring  respect  for 
these ratings and classifications. The latter task falls primarily within parents' responsibility, 
but  technical  systems  -  filtering,  age  verification  systems,  parental  control  systems,  etc.  - 
provide valued support.  

2.7.1.  Age rating and classification of content 

The  age-rating  and  content  classification  systems  for  audiovisual  content  in  place  are  in 
principle  considered  sufficient  and  effective  by  12  Member  States27,  whereas  13  Member 
States28 and Norway deem they should be improved. 

16  Member  States29  and  Norway  responded  that  they  have  diverging  age  ratings  and 
classifications for different types of media. Ten Member States30 and Norway consider this to 
be  a  problem.  Eight  Member  States31  and  Norway  point  out  that  there  are  measures  or 
initiatives being considered to introduce greater consistency in this field. 

Altogether  15  Member  States32  and  Norway  consider  cross-media  and/or  pan-European 
classification  systems  for  media  content  helpful  and  feasible.  This  is  contradicted  by  nine 
Member States33 which point to the cultural differences. 

This  is  an  area  of  most  extreme  fragmentation  –  the  conceptions  of  what  is  necessary 
and useful diverge significantly between and within Member States. 

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

Overall,  there  seems  to  be  a  consensus  that  technical  measures  alone  cannot  protect  minors 
from harmful content and can only be one element in a bundle of measures. 

Regarding  technical  measures  aimed  at  avoiding  potentially  harmful  content  by  ensuring 
respect for the relevant ratings and classifications, the Member States are divided over their 
usefulness, appropriateness (with a view to the right to information and possible misuse for 

26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

See Staff Working Paper footnote 65. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 81. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 82.  
See Staff Working Paper footnote 83. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 85. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 86. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 87. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 88. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
censorship), technical feasibility and reliability34. In addition, there was a shared emphasis 
on the need for transparency as regards the inclusion of certain content in a black list and the 
possibility of its removal.  

20  Member  States35  report  that  efforts  have  been  made  by  industry  or  public  authorities  to 
develop  a  filtering  and  rating  system  for  the  Internet.  24  Member  States36  and  Norway 
report that parental control tools are used. They are available free of charge in 15 Member 
States and upon payment in four Member States37. 

Moreover,  there  are  growing  efforts  to  inform  subscribers  about  the  available  filtering  and 
rating systems and age verification software, which is an obligation – by law or in relevant 
codes of conduct for ISPs or mobile operators – in 16 Member States38.  

While  most  Member  States  see  scope  for  improving  their  age  rating  and  classification 
systems,  there  is  clearly  no  consensus  on  the  helpfulness  and  feasibility  of  cross-media 
and/or  pan-European  classification  systems  for  media  content.  Still,  in  view  of  the 
increasingly  borderless  nature  of  online  content,  ways  to  better  align  such  systems 
should be explored further.  

Internet-enabled  devices  with  parental  control  tools  are  increasingly  available  but  the 
articulation with  the use of  appropriate  content relies  upon case-by case solutions that 
vary greatly between and within Member States.  

Against this background, it seems worth  reflecting upon innovative  rating and content 
classifications  systems  that  could  be  used  more  widely  across  the  ICT  sector 
(manufacturers, host and content providers, etc.), while leaving the necessary flexibility 
for local interpretations of “appropriateness” and reflecting the established approaches 
to the liability of the various Internet actors. 

2.8. 

Audiovisual Media Services  

As regards co/self-regulation systems for the protection of minors from harmful content, on-
demand  audiovisual  media  services  (where  such  systems  are  in  place  in  eight  Member 
States,  with  seven  having  a  code  of  conduct)  are  lagging  behind  television  programmes 
where  such  systems  are  in  place  in  14  Member  States,  with  11  of  them  having  a  code  of 
conduct in place39. 

The  most  common  techniques  to  signal  to  parents  the  presence  of  harmful  content  and  the 
need for parents to restrict access are on-screen icons and/or acoustic warnings immediately 
prior to the delivery of potentially harmful content. This is true of both television broadcasts 
and on-demand audiovisual media services.  

34 

35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

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 
See Staff Working Paper page 16. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 77. 
See Staff Working Paper page 16 and footnote 78. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 76. 
See Staff Working Paper pages 20-22 and footnotes 93, 94, 99, 100. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Most Member States consider such signals useful, and some require them by law or their use 
is  stipulated  by  codes  of  conduct.  Less  used  are  technical  filtering  devices  or  software, 
including  pre-locking  systems  and  pin  codes.  Age  classifications  and  transmission  time 
restrictions for on-demand audiovisual media services are applied only in a small number 
of Member States40. 

As regards the reliability of labelling and warning systems, some Member States stressed the 
importance  of  parental  responsibility  and  the  fact  that  such  systems  can  only  work  when 
parents ensure their effectiveness by controlling what their children are watching.  

The variety of actions carried out in this field reflects the distinctions made in the AVMS 
Directive but also the difficulty to come to consensual policy responses to this challenge.  

Universally available technical means for offering children a selective access to content 
on the Internet, such as parental control tools linked to age-rated and labelled content 
are  very  diverse;  the  solutions  developed  for  linear/TV  broadcasting  (e.g.  transmission 
times)  often  seem  ill-adapted  to  Internet  and  other  on-demand  audiovisual  media 
services. 

2.9. 

Video games 

A total of 17 Member States and Norway consider the functioning of their age rating systems 
to  be  satisfactory41.  With  the  exception  of  Germany,  Member  States  rely  on  PEGI  (Pan-
European Games Information System)42 and PEGI Online43.  

As regards online games, PEGI Online is considered to be a good solution in principle, but a 
number of Member States are concerned by the still limited participation of industry in this 
system. 

Evaluation  systems  for  the  assessment  of  possible  favourable  or  adverse  effects  of  video 
games  on  minors'  development  or  health  are  in  place  in  only  five  Member  States44  and 
Norway. 

As regards possible further measures to protect minors from harmful video games, the ones 
mentioned most were media literacy and awareness-raising, in particular to better signal the 
risks  from  video  games,  and  to  promote  existing  protection  tools.  However,  only  in  eight 
Member States and in Norway are such measures integrated into school education.  

The replies given by the Member States furthermore confirm the need for more action on the 
retail sale of video games in shops in order to deal with the "underage" sale of video games. 
There  have  been  relevant  awareness  raising  measures  in  six  Member  States  and  Norway45 
only and in only four Member States46 retailers have implemented relevant codes of conduct. 

40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

See Staff Working Paper pages 20-22. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 107. 
http://www.pegi.info/en/ 
http://www.pegionline.eu/en/ 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 118. 
See Staff Working Paper pages 24, 25 and footnote 119. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 120. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
While  age  rating  systems  (notably  PEGI)  function  well  in  most  Member  States,  the 
reported  challenges  include  their  limited  application  to  online  games  and  "underage" 
sales of games in the retail market. In addition, more awareness-raising measures (e.g. 
media literacy at schools) would have useful preventive effects.  

2.10.  Right of reply in online media 

16 Member States47 provide for a right of reply covering online newspapers / periodicals; in 
13 Member States48, it covers Internet-based news services; in 17 Member States49, it covers 
online television services; in 15 Member States50, it covers online radio services and in nine 
Member States51, it covers other online services.  

Member States assess the level of protection from an assertion of facts52 in online media and 
the effectiveness of the respective system(s) in place in about equal measure as sufficient and 
effective and as unsatisfactory. 

The  introduction  of  a  right  of  reply  covering  online  media  in  the  Member  States  is 
inconsistent and differs for each type of online medium.  

Moreover, there is scope for improving the effectiveness of the systems in place. 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

As  a  positive  general  result,  the  survey  of  Member  States  on  the  various  dimensions  of  the 
1998  and  2006  Recommendations  shows  that  all  Member  States  are  conscious  of  the 
challenges for the protection of minors online and are increasingly making efforts to respond 
to them. A policy mix, with a significant component of self-regulatory measures, seems best 
suited  to  address  in  as  flexible  and  responsive  a  way  as  possible  the  convergence  between 
platforms (TV, PC, smartphones, consoles, etc.) and audiovisual content. 

However, the detailed assessment of the policy responses that Member States have developed 
presents  a  landscape  made  of  very  diverse  –  and  in  a  number  of  cases,  even  diverging - 
actions  across  Europe.  This  is  in  particular  true  of  tackling  illegal  and  harmful  content, 
making social networks safer places and streamlining content rating schemes. 

Quite  often,  the  regulatory  or  self-regulatory  measures  also  lack  ambition  and  consistency 
with similar measures put in place in other Member States, or they are simply not effectively 
implemented  in  practice.  A  patchwork  of  measures  across  Europe  can  only  lead  to  internal 
market fragmentation and to confusion for parents and teachers who try to identify the “do's” 
and “don't” to protect and empower children who go online. 

47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

See Staff Working Paper footnote 128. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 129. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 130. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 131. 
See Staff Working Paper footnote 132. 
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. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This report and the detailed responses gathered in this survey of Member States53 demonstrate 
that further action at European level may build on the best practices of the Member States and 
reach economies of scale for the ICT sector that will help children to safely reap the benefits 
of the constantly evolving digital world. 

53 

Staff Working Paper  

EN 

10 

   EN