COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services in view of changing market realities
Date: 2016-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, audiovisual industry, audiovisual production, broadcasting, child protection, distance selling, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, services of general interest

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.5.2016  SWD(2016) 168 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services in view of changing market realities  {COM(2016) 287 final} {SWD(2016) 169 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENT 

1.  CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................................ 3 

2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? ...................................................... 4 

2.1 Conclusions of the ex-post evaluation of the AVMSD under REFIT .......................................... 4 

2.2 Description of the problems and their drivers ............................................................................... 4 

2.2.1 Insufficient protection of minors and consumers in video-sharing platforms .............................. 5 

2.2.2 Lack of a level playing field and internal market weaknesses .................................................... 7 

2.2.3. Rules on commercial communications no longer fit for purpose ............................................. 11 

2.3 What is the EU dimension of the problem? .................................................................................. 13 

2.4 How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ............................................................. 13 

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .................................................................................................... 14 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? .............................................................................................. 14 

5.  WHAT  ARE  THE  VARIOUS  OPTIONS  TO  ACHIEVE  THE  OBJECTIVES  AND  WHAT 
ARE THEIR IMPACTS? ................................................................................................................ 15 

5.1  Options  addressing  the  problem  of  insufficient  minors  and  consumers  protection  in 
video-sharing platforms ....................................................................................................................... 16 

5.2 Options addressing the problem of the lack of a level playing field and internal market 
weaknesses ............................................................................................................................................. 23 

5.2.1 Promotion of European works .................................................................................................. 23 

5.2.2 Protection of minors in on-demand services ............................................................................ 31 

5.2.3 Country of origin principle ......................................................................................................... 37 

5.2.4 Independence of Regulators .................................................................................................... 42 

5.3 Option addressing the problem of the rules on commercial communications no longer 
fit for purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 47 

5.4 Discarded option: Prominence of content of general interest ..................................................... 53 

5.5 Impact of the combination of the preferred options .................................................................... 55 

6.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE EVALUATED OR MONITORED? ........................... 56 

6.1 Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 56 

6.2 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 58 

ANNEXES……………………………………………………………………..………………..…....58 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  CONTEXT 

The  objective  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (AVMSD)1 is  to  create  and  ensure  the 
proper functioning of a single European market for audiovisual media services, while contributing to 
the  promotion  of  cultural  diversity,  providing  an  adequate  level  of  consumer  protection  and 
safeguarding media pluralism.  

The  AVMSD  is  based  on  the  'country  of  origin  principle'  ("COO").  Under  COO  audiovisual  media 
service  providers  are  subject  only  to  the  rules  of  the  Member  State  where  they  are  established.  By 
abiding  by  these  rules  they  can  freely  provide  services  across  the  EU.  As  such,  the  AVMSD  has 
facilitated the cross-border transmission of TV channels and 'Video On-Demand' (VoD) services. The 
AVMSD sets some minimum harmonization standards, which implies that Member States are free to 
enact stricter rules at national level. The AVMSD contains some limited exceptions to the operation of 
of COO.  

The AVMSD applies to television broadcasts and on-demand services if all the following conditions 
are  met  (i)  providers  have  editorial  responsibility,  (ii) providers  have  as  their  principal  business 
purpose the provision of programmes to inform, entertain or educate the general public; and (iii) these 
programmes are comparable, in form and content, to television ("TV-like").   

The AVMSD does not cover activities that are primarily non-economic. 

The  overall  size  of  the  European  audiovisual  sector  in  2014  was  around  EUR  105.8  million2.  It  is 
mainly formed by large companies (for more details on the overall impact of AVMSD on SMEs, see 
ANNEX 3). 

The  audiovisual  media  landscape  is  changing  at  a  rapid  pace  due  to  ever  increasing  convergence 
between  television  and  services  distributed  via  the  Internet.  Consumers  increasingly  access  on-
demand  content  via  smart/connected  TVs  and  portable  devices.  Consumers,  in  particular  the  young 
ones, watch videos, including audiovisual content generated by private users ("UGC"), on the Internet. 
Traditional broadcasting in the EU remains strong in terms of viewership, advertising revenues, and 
investment  in  content  (around  30%  of  revenues).  However,  new  business  models  are  emerging. 
Broadcasters are extending their activities online and new players offering audiovisual content via the 
Internet  (e.g.  on-demand  service  providers  and  video-sharing  platforms)  are  getting  stronger  and 
competing for the same audiences (for more details see ANNEX 6). However, TV broadcasting, on-
demand  services  and  video-sharing  platforms  are  subject  to  different  rules  and  varying  levels  of 
consumer protection. 

The Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy3 calls for a modernisation of the AVMSD to reflect market 
and  technological  developments.  It  requires  the  Commission  to  consider  whether  the  scope  of  the 
AVMSD should be broadened to encompass new services and players currently excluded. In carrying 
out  this  review  the  Commission  should  bear  in  mind  the  objectives  of  the  Directive,  namely  the 
protection of  minors, consumers and promotion of  European works. The overall vision of the DSM 
strategy  is  to  create  an  internal  market  for  digital  content  and  services  and  ensure  that  Europe  is  a 
leader in the global digital economy.  

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 (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) 
2 Yearbook 2015 of the European Audiovisual Observatory (http://www.obs.coe.int/) 
3  Communication 
http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/digital-single-market/docs/dsm-communication_en.pdf   

the  Commission  "A  digital  single  market  strategy 

for  Europe",  6  May  2015,  COM(2015)  192 

final, 

from 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AND WHY IS IT A PROBLEM? 

2.1 Conclusions of the ex-post evaluation of the AVMSD under REFIT4 

The Impact Assessment has been carried out in parallel to the AVMSD ex post evaluation under the 
Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) (see ANNEX 4).  

The overall conclusion is that the AVMSD objectives are still relevant. If the Directive were repealed 
the  audiovisual  internal  market  would  collapse  since  providers  would  no  longer  benefit  from  the 
COO, but would be subject to 28 different regimes and jurisdictions. This would increase their costs 
and  undermine  their  propensity  to  provide  cross  border  services,  particularly  into  smaller  Member 
States. Consumers would lose out because they would have less choice. 

The REFIT evaluation concluded that there is scope for simplification, specifically of the procedures 
that  support  the  application  of  the  COO  principle  (i.e.  the  criteria  determining  jurisdiction  over 
providers  and  the  derogation  and  cooperation  procedures  limiting  freedom  of  reception  and 
retransmission  in  specific  cases).  Some  other  rules  are  no  longer  fit  to  attain  these  objectives, 
primarily  due  to  market  developments  and  changes  in  viewing  patterns.  In  particular,  the  REFIT 
evaluation  has  shown  that  there  is  room  for  improving  and  updating  the  rules  on  commercial 
communications.  

The REFIT evaluation has identified three main sets of problems: 

- 

Insufficient  protection  of  minors  and  consumers  when  consuming  videos  on  video-sharing 
platforms.  

-  Lack  of  a  level  playing  field  between  traditional  broadcasting  and  on-demand  services,  and 
internal  market  weaknesses  stemming  from  the  fact  that  some  of  the  AVMSD  rules  are  not 
sufficiently precise.   

-  Rules on commercial communications no longer fit for purpose 

It  has  also  emerged  from  REFIT  that  there  are  different  accessibility  requirements  of  audiovisual 
media services for people with disabilities. In December 2015, the Commission adopted a proposal for 
a European Accessibility Act5, which sets accessibility requirements for a wide range of products and 
services including audiovisual media services. As such, this Impact Assessment will not address the 
issue of accessibility. 

2.2 Description of the problems and their drivers6 

4 The Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) is the Commission's programme for ensuring that EU legislation remains fit for purpose 
and delivers the results intended by EU law makers. 
5 COM(2015) 615 (http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=2400&furtherNews=yes)   
6 Limitations – robustness of findings  
The Commission has carried a thorough data collection and analysis actively involving all relevant stakeholders in different fora such as ERGA, online 
consultation (details provided in ANNEX 1 and ANNEX 2). The Commission has tried to mitigate to a maximum possible extent the following limitations: 
-  Despite being prompted on a number of occasions by the Commission, the regulators and the contractors hired by the Commission, carrying out 
the public tender studies for this purpose, the industry has been reluctant or unable to deliver precise quantitative data on the compliance costs 
stemming from the AVMSD. It is hard for business to assess what costs stem from the Directive since legislation in this domain has been in place 
for a long time, it has been revised twice and codified once, and in some cases national legislation was already in place. 

-  Data provided by industry was often confidential, the Commission presented this data in aggregated or anonymised format. When this was not 

- 

possible, data was taken into account in the evaluation but not provided (this is indicated when applicable); 
Some data simply does not exist because stakeholders do not generate or gather it. This is the case, for example, for figures on the number of 
viewers and on viewing patterns in on-demand audiovisual media services; 

-  Based  on  the  elements  above,  this  evaluation  is  based  on  the  best  available  data.  Whenever  reliable  quantitative  data  is  lacking,  this  is 

mentioned in the relevant sections 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.1 Insufficient protection of minors and consumers in video-sharing platforms 

Video-sharing platforms (like Youtube) host professionally produced videos and UGC. UGC can be 
violent, gory and pornographic and harmful to children. Children identify video-sharing platforms as 
mostly linked with violent, pornographic and other harmful content risks7. Among the children who 
link risks to specific platforms, 32% mention video-sharing sites such as YouTube, followed by other 
websites (29%), social networking sites (13%) and games (10%)8.  
In the UK, ATVOD9 found that at least 44 000 primary school children accessed an adult website in 
one  month  alone10.  ATVOD  has  found  that  23  of  the  top  25  adult  websites  visited  by  UK  internet 
users provide instant, free and unrestricted access to hardcore pornographic videos. 

Hate  speech  is  also  increasingly  accessible  via  video-sharing  platforms.  Based  on  data  provided  by 
some  national  law  enforcement  or  other  public bodies,  the  Fundamental  Rights  Agency  reported  an 
increase  in  anti-Semitic  incidents  online  in  numerous  Member  States11.  In  the  same  vein,  73%  of 
respondents to an anti-Semitism survey thought that anti-Semitism online had increased over the past 
five years12.  

Video-sharing  platforms  employ  tools  like  Autoplay  (switched  on  by  default  for  all  videos  in 
Youtube)  which  enable  direct  exposure  to  potentially  harmful  content  and  incitement  to  hatred13. 
Exposure  to  harmful  content  or  content  inciting  to  hatred  may  also  be  fostered  via  new  technical 
features such as streaming audiovisual content live on the Internet14.  

The AVMSD, and its rules on protection of minors and hate speech, do not apply to UGC offered on 
video-sharing platforms since these platforms often do not control the selection of the content. These 
platforms  are  subject  to  the  e-Commerce  Directive  (ECD) 15  which  does  not  require  them  as 
intermediaries to monitor content hosted by them nor to take any other pro-active measure. The ECD, 
however, requires platforms to remove illegal content if they are notified of such content, for example 
through  a  court  order. The  rationale  of  this  ex-post  system  called "notice  and  takedown"  lies  in  the 
fact that intermediaries cannot in principle technically control the content before it is posted. The e-
Commerce Directive is therefore focused on illegal content and does not deal with harmful content. 

The main video-sharing platforms do take some pro-active steps to protect minors from such harmful 
content and consumers from hate speech, but assess content against their own standards, which may 
differ from those set in the AVMSD.  

7 The risks associated with social networking sites are more predominantly related to issues such as cyberbulling and face-to-face contacts , EU kids On 
line: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/Intheirownwords020213.pdf 
8 Ibid 
9 Ofcom has designated the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) in 2010 as a co-regulator to take the lead in regulating editorial content for 
video-on-demand services. 
10 2014 report "For adults only? Underage access to online porn".  
11 Anti-Semitism: Overview of data available in the European Union 2004–2014. This study does not make the distinction between audiovisual and other 
types of online content. In AT, anti-Semitic verbal expressions (including on the Internet) or damage to property increased from 9 in 2009 to 57 in 2014 
and that in 2014, the most common complaints the AT Inter Federal Centre received in relation to anti-Semitic incidents concerned complaints related to 
the internet (41). In CZ, media/web anti-Semitic incidents grew from 13 to 209 from 2004 to 2014. In IT, the Observatory of Contemporary Anti-Jewish 
Prejudice  recorded  incidents  of  anti-Semitism  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  internet.  In  the  UK,  The  Community  Security  Trust  recorded  233  anti-
Semitic incidents that involved the use of internet-based social media in 2014 (20 % of the 1,168 incidents), compared with 88 in 2013 and 81 in 2012. 
Of 
the  category  of 
‘threats’http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-antisemitism-update_en.pdf 
12  Promoting  respect  and  diversity  Combating 
the  Annual  Colloquium  on  Fundamental  Rights 
to 
(http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2015-paper-colloquium_en-0.pdf).  This  study  does  not  make  the  distinction  between  audiovisual 
and other types of online content.  
13 In 2015, the video of two US journalists being murdered during a live broadcast spread quickly. When the video was taken down after 10/15 minutes, it 
had already been shared 500 times on Facebook. Due to the Autoplay feature, many users saw the video unwillingly in their news feed. Since the feature 
debuted  on  Twitter 
including  exceptionally  violent  ones 
(http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/snuff-film-unavoidable-twitter-facebook-autoplay-roanoke/402430/).  
14 For  example,Periscope.  Since  January  2016,  Periscope's  broadcasts  are  embedded  into  Tweets.  (https://blog.twitter.com/2016/periscope-broadcasts-
live-on-twitter).  
15 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') 

‘abusive  behaviour’  and  18  were 

intolerance  and  hate  Contribution 

in  June  2015,  many  people 

it  auto-played  all  videos, 

these  233  anti-Semitic 

incidents,  215  were 

the  category  of 

reported 

that 

in 

in 

5 

 
 
                                                 
As  a  result  of  this  different  regulatory  treatment  consumers  and  minors  are  less  protected  when 
watching  videos  on  these  platforms.  For  example,  the  music  video  "College  boy"  of  the  group 
Indochine,  containing  graphic  images  of  violent  bullying  of  a  school  boy,  is  freely  available  on 
YouTube. However, the same video is subject to a watershed on TV in France under the application of 
the  AVMSD16.    In  another  case,  while  YouTube  removed  a  video  of  a  woman  being  forced  by  her 
husband  to  walk  naked  in  the  street17 for  violation  of  YouTube's  Community  guidelines,  the  same 
video  still  appears  on  the  website  Liveleak.com 18.  By  contrast,  access  to  this  type  of  videos  is 
restricted under the AVMSD. 

While a number of harmful activities are carried on the Internet, the specificity of video comes from 
its power to best capture the attention of initially passive users. Thus, seeing violent sexual images, 
violence  or  hate  speech  are  online  risks  that  are  most  likely  to  be  driven  by  audiovisual  images.  It 
must be borne in mind that in 2014, Internet video stood for 64% of total consumer internet traffic. 
This share is expected to increase up to 80% by 201919. The consumption of videos offered by video-
sharing  platforms  is  on  the  rise 20.  Among  minors,  video  viewing  is  one  of  the  earliest  Internet 
activities carried out by young children21.   

In the 2015 public consultation most consumer organisations said that the current rules do not deliver 
sufficient  consumer  protection  as  they  do  not  take  into  account  the  increasing  importance  of  video-
sharing  platforms.  Most  of  the  Member  States  and  regulators  who  called  for  an  extension  of  the 
AVMSD rules to video-sharing platforms expressed a similar opinion. This view is also confirmed by 
ERGA (the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services)22.  

The  impact  of  some  self-regulatory  initiatives  in  this  field  has  so  far  been  limited  in  particular  in 
addressing certain types of harmful content, such as gory and violent videos, and hate speech23. For 
example, the initiative You Rate It24, the only one providing a rating tool for UGC, has not been taken 
up  by  YouTube.  When  it  comes  to  protection  of  minors,  ERGA25 acknowledged  that  self  and  co-
regulation  initiatives  have  an  important  role  to  play  but  said  that  existing  initiatives  have  to  be 

16

 http://www.csa.fr/Television/Le-suivi-des-programmes/Jeunesse-et-protection-des-mineurs/Le-CSA-debat-de-la-diffusion-de-la-videomusique-

use 

and 

2015 

media 

popular 

attitudes, 

College-Boy-du-groupe-Indochine 
17 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3406525/Outrage-man-forces-wife-walk-naked-street-catching-sending-nude-pictures-men.html 
18 http://www.liveleak.com/ 
19 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Methodology, 2014–2019 (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-ip-
next-generation-network/white_paper_c11-481360.pdf) 
20 Today,  400  hours  of  videos  are  uploaded  every  minute  on  YouTube,  equivalent  to  24,000  days’  worth  of  content  uploaded  every  minute  and  65.7 
years’  worth  of  content  uploaded  every  day  (http://www.tubefilter.com/2015/07/26/youtube-400-hours-content-every-minute).  The  amount  of  people 
watching short video clips online in the UK has almost doubled over the period 2007 to 2014 (21% to 39%, the highest increase being among 35-44s 
with 28 percentage points increase). The popularity of multi-platform online video services, such as YouTube, as an information source has been evident 
in recent years – 32% of internet users now cite it as  an important (very or fairly) source for information, rising to 46% of 16-24 year olds (Ofcom's 
Adults’ 
report(http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-lit-
10years/2015_Adults_media_use_and_attitudes_report.pdf). One in three consumers believes it is very important to be able to watch UGC on their TV 
sets at home (http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/consumerlab/ericsson-consumerlab-tv-media-2015.pdf). 
21  For  example  in  the  UK  in  2014  children  aged  12-15  spend  more  time  online  than  watching  television  (17.2  vs.  15.7  hours  per  week 
(http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-use-attitudes-14/Childrens_2014_Report.pdf).  Services  such  as  YouTube  are 
widely 
policy" 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/D64Policy.pdf).  For  example,  in  the  UK  YouTube  has  also 
become increasingly important as a source of content. In 2015 69% of 8-11s and 86% of 12-15s who watch television say they watch YouTube. And 12-
15s who watch both TV and YouTube content in 2015 are more likely to say that they prefer to watch YouTube videos than TV channels (29% vs. 25%) 
(OFCOM, Children and parents: Media use and attitudes report 2015. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/children-parents-
nov-15/childrens_parents_nov2015.pdf). Connected devices such as mobile phones, tablets and games consoles are increasingly used by minors, often 
without adult supervision (Net Children Go Mobile Project). 
22 ERGA brings together the heads of the national independent regulatory bodies in the field of audiovisual services, to advise the Commission on the 
implementation of the AVMSD.  
23 While the majority of countries have self- or co-regulatory schemes in place for audiovisual commercial communications, in the field of the protection 
of  minors  from  harmful  audiovisual  content,  statutory  regulation  prevails.  The  majority  of  codes  in  the  audiovisual  field  lack  specified  targets  and 
objectives which makes their proper evaluation difficult or even impossible. Where monitoring processes are in place they are often not formalised and 
implemented systematically. Complaints are often used as an indicator to measure the performance of a self- or co-regulatory scheme; however they form 
a  relatively  ambiguous  indicator.  The  existence  of  a  legislative  backstop  is  an  important  success  factor  in  promoting  compliance  with  a  self-  or  co-
regulatory code.   Graduated sanctions which  maintain an  element of proportionality are usually considered  to be an effective  approach in enforcing a 
scheme. See ANNEX 5. 
24 http://www.yourateit.eu/ 
25  In  the  (upcoming)  ERGA  recommendations  on  protection  of  minors  in  the  AVMSD  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-
protection-minors-converged-environment) 

recommendations 

children 

among 

Online 

2014, 

("EU 

Final 

Kids 

for 

6 

 
 
                                                 
 
reinforced. There is no EU-wide code covering these issues. For more information on these initiatives 
and their limitations see ANNEXES 8 and 18. 

Based on available evidence, no consumer protection issues were identified in relation to commercial 
communications  online.  In  the  Public  consultation,  a  consumer  organisation  and  two  other 
stakeholders26 pointed to a possible lack of transparency as to the advertising nature of certain content 
on  YouTube.    This  is  a  matter  covered  by  the  Unfair  Commercial  Practices  Directive  (UCPD)27, 
which applies to misleading commercial practices. As regards the advertising of tobacco products, the 
existing prohibition28 ensures the required consumer protection. In general, self-regulatory advertising 
codes apply to advertising on all media (including TV, on-demand, print media, radio, and online)29. 
On  this  basis,  Member  States'  self-regulatory  and  regulatory  bodies  are  taking  ation  in  this  field, 
whether  by  issuing  guidelines  or  by  decisional  practice30.  As  such,  there  is  no  need  to  address  this 
issue in this impact assessment. 

2.2.2 Lack of a level playing field and internal market weaknesses 

2.2.2.1 Lack of a level playing field 

The  AVMSD  foresees  stricter  requirements  for  TV  broadcasting  than  for  on-demand  audiovisual 
media services notably in the fields of promotion of European works and protection of minors.  

Such a different treatment is no longer justified in view of changing consumer habits. An increasing 
number of  consumers watch video on-demand. In the  28 Member States total on-demand consumer 
revenues soared from EUR 919 million in 2010 to EUR 2.5 billion in 2014, an increase of 272% and a 
CAGR in the 5 year period of 28%31. In 2014 there were more than 2 563 VoD services in Europe, 
including catch-up TV services of broadcasters (932 services), branded channels on open platforms32 
(408  services),  VoD  services  providing  access  to  a  catalogue  of  programmes  (1 126  services),  and 
news portals (97 services):  

Figure 1: Total on-demand Consumer Revenues – EUR (M) by year and country – 2010-2014 

26 A broadcaster and a telecom provider. 
27 Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. The UCPD applies to all unfair business-
to-consumer  commercial  practices  occurring  before,  during  and  after  a  commercial  transaction  in  relation  to  a  product.  Under  the  UCPD,  misleading 
(misleading actions and omissions) and aggressive commercial practices are considered unfair and are as such prohibited. In addition, the UCPD lists a 
number of unfair practices which shall in all circumstances be regarded as unfair. 
28 Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative 
provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products prohibits advertising and sponsorship for cigarettes and 
other tobacco products in printed media, information society services and radio broadcasting. Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  3  April  2014  concerning  the  manufacture,  presentation  and  sale  of  tobacco  provides  that  audiovisual  commercial  communications  are 
prohibited for electronic cigarettes and refill containers. 
29 Study on the Effectiveness of self and co-regulation in the context of implementing the AVMS Directive (SMART 2014/0054). An executive summary 
of the study can be found in ANNEX 5. 
30 For  example,  in  the  UK,  the  Committees  of  Advertising  Practice  (CAP)  have  responded  to  concerns  about  advertising  material  in  user-generated 
content  (vlogs)  by  developping  guidance  for  advertisers  and  vloggers  (https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2015/New-vlogging-
advertising-guidance.aspx), based on the advertising rules which apply across media (including online and to social media channels), and which state that 
ads  must  be  obviously  identifiable  as  such.  In  France,  it  has  been  reported  that  the  authorities  plan  to  examine  the  commercial  practices  of  YouTube 
influencers  and  potentially  misleading  commercial  communications  in  their  videos.  http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2016/03/07/publicite-
: 
dissimulee-premieres-sanctions-contre-les-youtubeurs-avant-l-ete_4878086_3234.html.  For 
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2014/11/Mondelez-UK-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_275018.aspx 
: 
https://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2015/5/Procter-and-Gamble-(Health-and-Beauty-Care)-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_288449.aspx 
31  Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in video-on-demand revenues 
: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-data-and-information-costs-and-benefits-audiovisual-media-service-directive-avmsd 
32 The AVMSD does apply to channels on video-sharing platforms (e.g. the YouTube Newswire channel) where an editing team verifies user generated 
content or YouTube channels managed by broadcasters 

on  Mondelez  UK  Ltd 
Ltd 

Procter  &  Gamble 

example, 
and 

rulings 
on 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2700

2400

2100

1800

1500

1200

900

600

300

0

2501 

37% 

35% 

30% 

1821 

13% 

1406 

1038 

919 

AT - Austria

BE - Belgium

BG -
Bulgaria
CY - Cyprus

CZ - Czech
Republic
DE -
Germany
DK -
Denmark
EE - Estonia

ES - Spain

FI - Finland

FR - France

GR - Greece

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

   Source: IHS 

The  lighter  rules  applying  to  on-demand  services  undermine  protection  of  minors  and  cultural 
diversity and distort competition.  

A.  Unequal  level  of  contribution  to  promotion  of  European  works  and  lack  of  effectiveness  of  the 
rules applying to on-demand services 

The  AVMSD  foresees  measures  to  encourage  support  to  European  audiovisual  production  and 
distribution. TV broadcasters must reserve a majority of their transmission time for European and/or 
independent works.  

TV broadcasters must, where practicable, reserve a majority proportion of their transmission time to 
European  works  and  at  least  10  %  of  their  transmission  time  or  of  their  programming  budget  for 
European works created by independent producers. 

The provisions applying to on-demand services are lighter and more flexible. This results in diverse 
implementation  by  Member  States  (see  ANNEX  13)  and  in  video  on-demand  service  providers  not 
contributing significantly to the objective of promoting European works.   

The investment of the main TV groups in original programmes in 15 countries amounted to EUR 15.6 
billion  in  201333,  i.e.  24  %  of  TV  broadcasters  revenues  (EUR  65  billion)34.  In  comparison,  on-
demand providers made a minimal or even no contribution to the production and the promotion of EU 
works.  They  invested  EUR  10  million  in  original  content  i.e.  less  than  1%  of  their  total  revenues 
(EUR 1.5 billion)35.  

As a result, some Member States intend to make on-demand service providers that are not under their 
jurisdiction contribute financially to European works if they target consumers in their territories. For 
example,  Germany  and  France  intend  to  apply  levies  to  on-demand  services  coming  from  other 
Member States and targeting German or French audiences36. This uncoordinated approach calls into 
question the operation of the Directive.  

33 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Investments in original content by 
audiovisual services  
34 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in linear television revenues 
35 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Investments in original content by 
audiovisual services 
36 Both Member States have notified their schemes as state aid to the Commission: Germany: SA.38418 - 2014/C (ex 2014/N) - Filmförderungsgesetz 
[OJ 2014 C 437/57]; France: SA.39586 (2014/N) - Loi de finances rectificative pour 2013). The Germand case in pending and the French notification is 
suspended.  

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Cultural  diversity  is  also  undermined  by  the  limited  contribution  of  on-demand  services  to  the 
promotion of European works objectives.  

B. Differing level of protection of minors 

The  AVMSD  foresees  that  TV  broadcasts  shall  not  include  seriously  harmful  programmes 
(pornography  and  strong  violence)  but  may  include  potentially  harmful  programmes  (erotic  content 
and  mild  violence)  provided  measures  are  put  in  place  to  prevent  children  from  hearing  or  seeing 
them. On-demand service  providers are  required to take  appropriate measures so that minors would 
not  normally  hear  or  see  seriously  harmful  content.  No  restriction  applies  to  potentially  harmful 
programmes provided in on-demand services.  

This  difference  in  treatment  is  no  longer  justified  since  younger  consumers  watch  about  half  less 
television than the average consumer37. Their average TV viewing in 2014 was 2:03 minutes per day. 
A key factor is the rapidly growing availability of portable screens like smartphones and tablets used 
to  access  on-demand  services.  In  the  UK38,  in  2015,  more  than  four  in  ten  5-15s  (44%)  watch  on-
demand  television  content,  rising  to  half  (51%)  of  12-15s.  One  in  five  5-15s  (20%)  who  watch  on-
demand TV content, watch it daily, with around three in four (73%) watching at least weekly. Much 
of this is via portable devices. 

The  above-mentioned  different  regulatory  treatment  has  led  to  a  competitive  disadvantage  for  TV 
broadcasting and to a lower level of consumer protection in on-demand services.  

2.2.2.2 Threats to the integrity of the audiovisual internal market  

A.  Complex rules on COO and derogations  

The COO principle is the cornerstone of the Directive. It has facilitated the growth and proliferation of 
audiovisual media providers offering services across borders. At the end of 2013, 5 141 TV channels 
(no local and windows) were established in the EU. Almost 1 989 of them targeted foreign markets 
(either EU or extra EU). This share has increased from 28 % in 2009 - year of implementation - to 
38 % in 201339. As far as VoD services are concerned, in 2015, on average in Member States, 31 % of 
the VoD services available are established in another EU country (see Section 2.3)40. 

A majority of Member States, regulators and industry participating in the 2015 consultation stressed 
that  the  COO  approach  has  been  effective.  It  also  emerges  from  the  comments  made  by  Member 
States that there is a continued broad support for the COO principle41.  

However, the rules underpinning its operation are too complex and difficult to apply. Most Member 
States  and  regulators  responding  to  the  2015  Public  consultation  have  experienced  problems  in 
determining which Member State has jurisdiction. For example, it can be difficult and time consuming 
to  find  in  which  Member  States  a  satellite  up-link  is  used  or  to  determine  the  country  having 
jurisdiction when operators have broadcast licenses in more than one Member State. In practice, there 
have  been  issues  of  unclear  jurisdiction  regarding  Greece/UK  and  Spain/UK.  Moreover,  in  a  recent 

37 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments): https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/demand-
audiovisual-markets-european-union-2014-and-2015-developments 
38  OFCOM,  Children  and  parents:  Media  use  and  attitudes  report  2015.  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/children-
parents-nov-15/childrens_parents_nov2015.pdf 
39 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Origin and availability of television 
services in the European Union 
40 Yearbook 2015 of the European Audiovisual Observatory (http://www.obs.coe.int/) 
41 DE, UK, ES, IE, FI, EL, LV, SK, BE-VLG, EE, PT, AT, SE, LU, NL. A minority of Member States, however, plead for limited departures to a country 
of  destination  principle,  for  instance  as  regards  the  promotion  of  European  Works.  In  spite  of  their  principled  support  for  the  COO,  FR  and  PL  also 
support a move to country of destination, on an exceptional basis, where services are targeted at a market different from the place of establishment of 
their provider. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
case concerning the restriction of the retransmission of a Russian language channel in Lithuania42, the 
issue as to whether Sweden had jurisdiction over this channel was contentious. 

The procedures allowing Member States to exceptionally derogating from the COO are imprecise and 
uncertain (e.g. they do not specify how the providers' right of defence should be exercised). Different 
procedures apply to TV broadcasting and on-demand services without there being a justification for 
such a difference.  

In  the  last  years,  there  has  been  an  increasing  number  of  situations  where  Member  States  were 
reluctant  to  allow  the  retransmission  of  certain  broadcasts  coming  from  abroad  into  their  territories 
and  resorted  to  these  procedures.  These  cases  concern  several  Russian  language  channels  broadcast 
into  Lithuania  and  Latvia  and  allegedly  containing  incitement  to  hatred.  In  addition,  Sweden 
considered  that  certain  channels  broadcasting  from  the  UK  infringed  its  stricter  national  rules  on 
alcohol advertising43. In other instances, concerns were raised regarding protection of minors44.   

These ineffective and overly complex procedures pose a threat to the integrity of the internal market 
and create legal uncertainty and a lack of predictability (see ANNEX 9).  

B. No EU requirement on regulatory independence 

The independence of audiovisual regulatory bodies is considered to be very relevant for the effective 
enactment  and  application  of  the  AVMSD,  in  particular  in  the  areas  of  audiovisual  commercial 
communications, jurisdiction and protection of minors and for the preservation of free and pluralistic 
media.  Many  respondents  to  the  2015  public  consultation,  in  particular  regulatory  authorities, 
commercial broadcasters as well as NGOs and citizens, mentioned the current problems in relation to 
the  lack  of  independence  of  regulatory  authorities45 with  a  majority  of  respondents  supporting  the 
strengthening of the current rules46. 

However,  the  AVMSD  does  not  set  any  requirement  for  Member  States  to  have  an  independent 
regulatory body. The absence of a formal obligation has contributed to diverse regulatory structures 
and  varying  degrees  of  independence  (See  Section  5.2.4).  Yet,  regulatory  independence  both  from 
political  bodies  and  commercial  interests  is  essential  to  ensure  effective  market  supervision,  proper 
application of the rules of the Directive and to guarantee media freedom and pluralism.  

A  captive  regulator  may  treat  differently  the  various  players  competing  on  the  same  market  clearly 
distorting competition. This is why many EU regulatory frameworks in other domains (i.e. telecom, 
gas,  electricity,  postal  services  and  personal  data  protection)  mandate  regulatory  independence  (see 
ANNEX 12). As examples in the audiovisual field, in the context of the Klubrádió case, the company 
sued the national regulator in Hungary for an economic loss resulting from an alleged unfair treatment 
which led to a delay in the granting of a license47. Liberty Global also lodged a complaint against the 
Hungarian Media regulator that led to the preliminary ruling by ECJ concluding that the Hungarian 
Regulator had illegally requested Liberty Global to obtain a license in order to operate in Hungary48. 

42 This  case  gave  rise  to  the  COMMISSION  DECISION  C(2015)  4609  final  of  10.7.2015  on  the  compatibility  of  the  measures  adopted  by  Lithuania 
pursuant  to  Article  3(2)  of  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. 
43 Sweden submitted a notification to the Commission in this regard which was subsequently withdrawn.  
44 For more details see Second application report (ANNEX to the REFIT document). 
45 The following  regulators: AGCOM, BE CSA, ES CNMC, FR CSA, PL KRRiT, SK RVR and also ADR GVK, VS and WDR, Media Commission 
 Iceland and 13 commercial broadcasters.    
46 In particular Memeber States ( (BE, EE, EL, LU, PL, PT, IE, LV ,NL, SE, SK, UK), regulatory authorities  (IT-R, NL-R, PL-R,ES-R, RO-R, SK-R, 
UK-R DE ARD GVK, DE –VS, DE WDR (all PSB regulators), Cataluña-R, Andalucia-R) and majority of commercial broadcasters.  
47 The  National  Media  and  Infocommunications  Authority  (Nemzeti  Média-  és  Hírközlési  Hatóság,  NMHH)  refused  to  renew  a  license  for  the  use  of 
frequencies for Klubrádió, one of the few remaining radio stations opposing the government. The office did not execute the legally binding judgment of 
the court obliging it to grant the frequencies. Klubrádió sued NMHH for a multi-billion compensation for the lost advertising income alleging that there 
was  causation  between 
is  pending  
fall 
(http://www.financialobserver.eu/ce/nervous-moves-on-the-hungarian-media-market/). 
48 Case C-475/12 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=151525&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1257558    

law  of  NMHH  and 

revenues.  The  case 

their  advertising 

the  breach  of 

the 

in 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The association of commercial broadcasters (ACT) commented on the recent developments in Greece, 
pointing  to  the  negative  impact  on  the  market  of  a  transfer  of  powers  from  the  Regulator  to  the 
Government49.  

There is also evidence that  the  independence  of audiovisual regulatory authorities has an  impact on 
the providers' willingness to establish in an EU Member State and serve audiences in several Member 
States50.  

Moreover, in the audiovisual sector, regulatory authorities lacking independence are not in a position 
to  guarantee  media  freedom  and  pluralism.  In  many  countries  where  independence  of  national 
regulatory bodies is weak, challenges to media freedom and pluralism over the last years have been 
reported51. This was the case for Romania in the period from 2007 to 2012, where the Commission 
identified  problems  with  ensuring  media  freedoms  and  with  the  independence  of  the  audiovisual 
regulatory body52. The same happened in Hungary in 2010, where a number of provisions of a draft 
law  raised  concerns  related  to  media  pluralism.  The  Commission53,  the  European  Parliament54,  the 
OSCE  Representative  on  Freedom  of  the  Media55,  the  Council  of  Europe56 and  other  international 
bodies and NGOs active in the area of human rights and civil liberties, and Member States have all 
raised  concerns  related  to  both  media  freedom  and  the  independence  of  the  regulator.  The  OSCE 
Representative  also  recently  called  for  respect  of  regulator's  independence  in  Latvia  following  the 
dismissal of the Regulator chairman57. 

2.2.3. Rules on commercial communications no longer fit for purpose 

The REFIT evaluation confirmed that some of the rules on commercial communications are too rigid 
in the light of the evolution of the market. 

The AVMSD contains rules that apply to all audiovisual media services (e.g. on product placement, 
sponsorship  and  alcohol  advertising).  However,  it  lays  down  more  rules  that  apply  only  to  TV 
broadcasting. They set a maximum of 12 minutes of advertising per hour on television (i.e. 20% per 
hour), define how often TV films, cinematographic works and news programmes can be interrupted 
by advertisement, and set the minimum duration of teleshopping windows. 

Nowadays,  the  TV  broadcasting  specific  rules  are  too  rigid  in  a  world  where  viewers  are  likely  to 
switch to alternative offers, in particular without advertising. For example, in the USA where there are 
no minutage limitations, viewers overwhelmed with TV advertising, turned to other video offers (e.g. 
video  on-demand)  thereby  disciplining  the  behaviour  of  TV  broadcasters,  who  were  forced  to 
decrease the amount of advertising on their channels58. In the EU, most broadcasters consider that the 
lack of flexibility of the 12 minute and insertion rules and the restrictive character of its exceptions 
prevent them from maximising their revenues around peak periods. The monitoring of advertising in 
Member States has indeed shown that this rule is regularly breached in a number of Member States.  

49 http://www.acte.be/mediaroom/95/31/ACT-statement-on-new-Greek-legislation?type=press_release 
50 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and in 
particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people. 
51 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  
52Progress Reports  http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 
53 The  Commission    noted  that  "the  recently  adopted  Hungarian  Media  Act  raises  specific  concerns  regarding  the  respect  for  the  fundamental  media 
freedoms such as freedom of expression and media pluralism"; see press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-6_en.htm?locale=FR  
54  Weber  Report:  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0203&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0117  and 
Tavares Report: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2013-0229+0+DOC+XML+V0//en 
55 Press release: http://www.osce.org/fom/90823 and  http://www.osce.org/fom/74687 
56

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/media/publications/Hungary/Hungary%20Media%20Acts%20Analysis%20-%20Final%2014-05-

2012%20(2).pdf 
57 http://www.osce.org/fom/167586 
58 http://television.telerama.fr/television/etats-unis-et-maintenant-moins-de-coupures-de-publicite,138319.php  
See 
VIACOM: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/viacom-primetime-tv-advertising-cuts-1201598646/   

in  particular  TNT:  http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turners-chief-creative-cutting-tnt-ad-loads-50-percent-dramatic-overhaul-168893, 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  rigidity  of  the  rules  on  product  placement  and  sponsorship  has  prevented  these  advertising 
formats from delivering their full potential in terms of revenues. Some regulators and Member States 
confirmed  that  the  rules  create  legal  uncertainty  for  stakeholders,  discouraging  them  to  invest  in 
product  placement.  As  a  benchmark,  in  the  US,  where  there  is  no  material  regulation  of  product 
placement,  this  format  represents  almost  5%  of  the  TV  ad  spend  market.  In  the  UK,  it  represents a 
share of only 0.1%59. 

In  their  replies  to  the  public  consultation,  most  broadcasters,  advertisers  and  stakeholders  from  the 
alcohol  sector  consider  that  the  AVMSD  rules  on  alcohol  advertising  work  well.  They  point  to  the 
efficiency  of  most  self-  and  co-regulation  developed  in  this  area.  However,  the  public  health  sector 
underlines that the rules should be reinforced60. 

The study to measure minors' exposure to alcohol advertising61 shows that "on average, a minor in the 
EU saw 200 alcohol impacts and an adult over 450 during one year (2013)". This means that 1.8% of 
all  advertising  seen  by  minors  (under  age  18)  in  2013  was  for  alcoholic  beverages  (as  compared  to 
2.2%. for ads seen by adults). In other words, children are exposed to one impact every two days, and 
at nearly half the rate of adults. 

Member States have been active in this domain in order to protect viewers, and in particular minors, 
from exposure to alcohol advertising: 24 of them have adopted stricter rules in this area and a number 
of  them  have  defined  the  time  before  which  alcohol  advertising  cannot  be  broadcast 62  (i.e. 
watersheds). However, one major pitfall of such watersheds may be a shift of alcohol advertising just 
after  peak  time,  at  a  time  when  minors,  although  less  numerous,  are  still  watching  television  quite 
massively. As the study on minors' exposure to alcohol advertising showed, when the time is not well 
adapted,  minors  may  be  exposed  quite  heavily  to  alcohol  advertising  just  after  the  watershed 63. 
Moreover,  given  the  divergences  among  Member  States  in  peak  viewing  times  for  minors64,  when 
coupled with the COO principle, watersheds appear less efficient. The applicable watershed would be 
the one at the country of origin, while minors might be still watching TV in the country of destination. 

At  the  same  time,  the  majority  of  countries  have  self-  or  co-regulatory  schemes  in  place.  Some  of 
them are very efficient, while for others, there is scope for improvement65. 

As regards commercial communications for HFSS foods66, an evaluation of the Platform for Action 
on Diet, Physical Activity and Health concluded that stakeholders’ initiatives in the field of marketing 
and  advertising  have  made  good  progress.  However,  their  reach  could  be  further  strengthened67. 

59 In the US, TV ad spend for 2014 was $69.4 billion with a mid-level forecast of $3.5 billion for product placement. In the UK, the ad market for 2014 
was worth £3.56 billion, with product placement capturing £3.5 million of this market. Source: OFCOM reply to the survey on cost and benefits of the 
AVMSD 
60 E.g.  Alcohol  Health  Alliance,  Cancer  Research  UK,  Royal  College  of  Physicians,  SHAAP,  Alcohol  Focus  Scotland,  European  Alcohol  Policy 
Alliance, EPHA, UK Institute of Alcohol Studies etc. 
61 Study  on  the  exposure  of  minors  to  alcohol  advertising  on  linear  and  non-linear  audio-visual  media  services  and  other  online  services,  including  a 
content analysis, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-exposure-minors-alcohol-advertising-tv-and-online-services   
62 Two Member States prohibit alcohol advertising on TV channels, while 22 others limit the content of the advertising (e.g. no advertising for spirits), 
the channels (e.g. no alcohol advertising on PSBs) or the timeslots (watersheds during which no alcohol advertising can be broadcast). 
63 For example, the daypart 21:00-23:59 is when minors aged 4-14 in the NL see most alcohol advertisements (27,2 GRP%) as their peak viewing time is 
between 20:00-21:00 (within the watershed), but there is only a slight decrease in viewing after 21:00. Many NL minors aged 4-14 are still watching TV 
after 21:00 when alcohol advertisements can be broadcast. In comparison, in FI where a watershed is also applied between 7:00 and 21:00, the daypart 
21:00-23:59 is also the period when minors aged 4-14 see most alcohol advertisements, although in lesser proportions (7,5 GRP%). This may be due to 
the fact that the peak time for minors 4-14 is between 19:00-20:00 and after 21:00 (after the watershed), their viewing has already decreased substantially 
Source: Study on the exposure of minors to alcohol advertising. 
64 For example, the peak viewing time for minors aged 4-14 is between 19:00-20:00 in AT, FI and UK but between 22:00-23:00 in ES. Source: Study on 
the exposure of minors to alcohol advertising 
65 In  particular,  the  existence  of  a  legislative  backstop  has  been  identified  as  an  important  success  factor  in  promoting  compliance  with  a  self-  or  co-
regulatory  code.  Graduated  sanctions  which  maintain  an  element  of  proportionality  are  usually  considered  to  be  an  effective  approach  in  enforcing  a 
scheme, Study on the Effectiveness of self and co-regulation in the context of implementing the AVMS Directive (SMART 2014/0054). An executive 
summary of the study can be found in ANNEX 5. 
66 Foods  High  in  Fat,  Salt  and  Sugar,  defined  in  the  AVMSD  as  "foods  and  beverages  containing  nutrients  and  substances  with  a  nutritional  or 
physiological  effect,  in  particular  those  such  as  fat,  trans-fatty  acids,  salt/sodium  and  sugars,  excessive  intakes  of  which  in  the  overall  diet  are  not 
recommended" 
67 1st Application Report of  May 2012 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203&from=EN) 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Marketing  of  foods  and  beverages  is  often  a  topic  of  intense  discussion  during  the  Platform 
meetings, and  also  those  of  the  High  Level  Group  on  Nutrition  and  Physical  Activity68,  with  many 
stakeholders advocating for stricter frameworks (for instance, the High Level Group requested on 28 
October 2015 that the WHO Nutrient Profile be used as a basis for dialogue with industry on the issue 
of food marketing to children).  

2.3 What is the EU dimension of the problem? 

The AVMSD is the regulatory framework underpinning the audiovisual single market.  

Since  the  last  revision  of  the  Directive  in  2007  this  market  has  kept  growing.  As  mentionned  in 
Section  2.2.2.2,  at  the  end  of  2013,  38  %  of  TV  channels  established  in  the  EU  targeted  foreign 
markets  and  31  %  of  the  VoD  services  available  in  the  Member  States  are  established  in  another 
Member  State.    The  entry  of  video-sharing  platforms  and  the  corresponding  changing  viewing 
patterns and associated risks is a phenomenon, which affect all the Member States.   

The  upcoming  revision  of  the  AVMSD  is  deemed  to  comply  with  both  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality  by  preserving  the  harmonization  approach  and  cooperation  mechanisms  allowing 
Member  States  to  take  national  specificities  into  account.  The  Directive  minimum  harmonisation 
approach  has  contributed  to  the  completion  of  the  internal  market,  while  respecting  the  subsidiarity 
principle. 

Usually, Member States only adopt stricter or more detailed rules in those areas that are of particular 
importance to them69. This has been the case for protection of minors (see ANNEX 14) and promotion 
of European works (see ANNEX 13) in on-demand services. 

It  is  proposed  to  reduce  the  disparities  between  the  Member  States  by  increasing  the  level  of 
harmonisation  and  create  more  regulatory  convergence.  In  the  field  of  video-sharing  platforms  full 
harmonisation is proposed.  

2.4 How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?  

The  market  for  on-demand  and  online  services  will  continue  to  increase  and  so  the  potential 
competitive disadvantage of TV broadcasting and the lower level of consumer protection.  

From a static point of view, the TV broadcasting market is still the strongest audiovisual market. In 
2013, the linear television revenues  in the EU 28 were EUR 83.6 billion70. In comparison, the total 
consumer  revenues  of  VoD  and  SVoD  services  amounted  to  EUR  2.5  billion  i.e.  3%  of  the  TV 
broadcasters' revenues.  

However, from a dynamic perspective, the domination of TV broadcast is less obvious. Their growth 
rate has decreased from an average annual rate of 2.8% from 2009 to 2013, to only 0.3% in 201371. In 
the  meantime,  as  mentioned  in  Section  2.2.2.1,  the  total  on  demand  consumer  revenues  in  the  28 
Member States increased by 272 % increase at a compound annual growth rate of 28 %. According to 
the  industry,  by  2020,  projections  suggest  that  more  than  20%  of  European  households  will  have  a 

68 http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/high_level_group/index_en.htm  
69 For example, product placement used to be forbidden in the Television Without Frontiers Directive and was liberalised in the revision of the AVMSD 
in 2007. As a result, product placement is allowed in all Member States within the limitations of the current Directive and with only limited stricter rules. 
Only Denmark kept the prohibition of product placement for programmes produced in Denmark. 
70 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in linear television revenues  
71 Ibid 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
specific,  paid  account  with  a  SVoD  provider.  As  a  result  of  this,  the  projected  turnover  of  all  VoD 
services in Europe should increase by 15% annually to 2020, reaching EUR 6 billion72. 

Mobile consumption is deemed to increase in the near future. It is expected that, by the end of 2020, 
the  number  of  smartphones  in  Europe  will  have  doubled,  reaching  800  million,  meaning  that  more 
than  70%  of  mobile  subscriptions  will  be  for  smartphones73.  As  said  above,  by  2019  80%  of  all 
mobile data traffic worldwide will be from video (compared to 64 % today).  

If the status quo were maintained, the problems identified would evolve as follows: 

-  Consumers,  in  particular  minors,  would  be  increasingly  exposed  to  harmful  content  and  hate 

speech on video-sharing platforms.  

-  TV broadcasting would continue to be at an unfair competitive disadvantage to video on-demand 
services. The differences in regulation would hurt competition and promotion of European works.  
-  The  integrity  of  the  audiovisual  internal  market  would  suffer  from  the  unclarity  of  some  of  the 
rules and procedures of the Directive. This would undermine the COO, which is the cornerstone of 
the AVMSD.  

-  Regulators in certain countries would continue lacking independence, which would undermine the 

internal market and media freedom and pluralism.  

-  Rules on commercial communications would remain inadapted to the market evolution.  

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

As indicated above, the DSM Strategy announces the review of the AVMSD with a view to creating 
an audiovisual media framework fit for purpose for the 21st century. 

In the Council Conclusion of 25 November 2014 on European Audiovisual Policy in the Digital Era, 
the  Council  invited  the  Commission  to  "urgently  complete  the  exercise  of  the  review  of  the 
Audiovisual  Media  Service  (AVMS)  Directive  in  the  light  of  the  rapid  technological  and  market 
changes  resulting  from  the  digital  shift,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  outcome  of  this  review  submit  an 
appropriate proposal for the revision of this Directive as soon as possible, in respect of the principle 
of subsidiarity"74.  
The EP resolution towards a DSM urges the Commission to revise the AVMSD75. 

4.  WHAT SHOULD BE ACHIEVED? 

The goal of the revision is to address the problems identified in Section 2.2:  

General objectives 

Specific objectives 

and 

consumer 

Enhance 
minors protection  
Ensure a level playing field, 
preserve the integrity of the 
internal market and enhance 
legal certainty 

Simplify the legislative 
framework 

  Enhance consumer and minors protection, in video sharing platforms 

  Establish more effective and fair rules on promotion of European works 
  Ensure more effective and fair rules on the protection of minors in on-demand 

services 

  Simplify and clarify the procedures to apply the COO rules 
  Ensure regulatory impartiality across the EU 
  Making more flexible and clear the rules on commercial communications 

72 Promoting  growth,  pluralism  and  choice:  The  Country  of  Origin  principle  and  Europe’s  audiovisual  sector  (http://coba.org.uk/about-coba/coba-
latest/2016/coba-launches-country-of-origin-report ) 
73 Ericsson mobility report; http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2014/emr-november2014-regional-appendices-europe.pdf 
74 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/145950.pdf 
75 European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act (2015/2147(INI)) 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
5.  WHAT  ARE  THE  VARIOUS  OPTIONS  TO  ACHIEVE  THE  OBJECTIVES  AND  WHAT  ARE  THEIR 
IMPACTS?  

The present Impact Assessment includes the description of the options and their impacts in the same 
Section. For a detailed description of all the options presented below, see ANNEX 20. 

The options are grouped according to the problem they intend to address: 

 

In the first group (Section 5.1), the options intend to address the insufficient protection of 
minors and consumers in video-sharing platforms (Section 2.2.1): 

In order to partly address the deficit in consumer protection, both Options, A and B, seek to ensure 
that the AVMSD rules apply to certain new types of audiovisual content, such as short video-clips and 
stand-alone video sections embedded in other services.  

Option A, in addition, requires Member States to encourage video-sharing platforms without editorial 
responsibility  to  adopt  self-regulatory  measures  regarding  content  harmful  to  minors  and  inciting  to 
hatred (See Section 5.1.2).  

Options B goes beyond this by imposing on Member States an obligation to ensure that video-sharing 
platforms  put  in  place  appropriate measures  with  a  view  to  protecting minors  from  harmful  content 

15 

PROBLEMSOBJECTIVESOPTIONS2.2.1 Insufficient protection of minors and consumers in video-sharing platforms 2.2.3.  Rules on commercial communications no longer fit for purpose2.2.2 Lack of a level playing field and internal market weaknesses2.2.2.1 Lack of a level playing fieldA. Unequal level of contribution to promotion of European works and lack of effectiveness of the rules applying to on-demand servicesB. Differing level of protection of minorsA.  Complex rules on COO and derogations2.2.2.2 Threats to the integrity of the audiovisualinternal market B. No EU requirement on regulatory independenceEnhance consumer and minors protection Ensure a level playing field, preserve the integrity of the internal market and enhance legal certaintySimplify the legislative frameworkOption B: Obligation of means imposed on video-sharing platforms for protection of minors and hate speech, implemented through co-regulationConsumer and minors protection in video-sharing platformsOption A: Self-regulation for protection of minors and consumers on video-sharing platformsOption B: Maintaining the status quo for TV broadcasters and reinforcing the rules on on-demand service providersPromotion of EU works:Option A: Giving more flexibility to providers in the way they implement the obligations to promote European worksProtection of minors in on-demand services:Option A: Increasing the level of protection of minors for on-demand services, simplifying the notion of harmful content and encouraging EU co-regulation on content descriptorsCommercial communications:Option A: Makingthe AVCCsrulesmore flexibleCOO: Option A: Simplifying and improving the jurisdiction rules and the cooperation proceduresIndependence of Regulators:Option A: Requirement to support Regulators independence. ERGA coordination and advisory role reinforced 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
and all viewers from hate speech. Member States would be encouraged to implement this provision 
via co-regulation (See Section 5.1.3).  

 

In the second group (Section 5.2), the options intend to address the lack of a level playing field 
and internal market weaknesses (See Section 2.2.2): 

When it comes to the uneven level of contribution to the promotion of European works between TV 
broadcasting and on-demand services, both Options, A and B, seek to achieve a level playing field. 
Option A does so by giving more flexibility to both TV broadcasting and on-demand services. Option 
B  seeks  a  better  balance  between  achieving  a  level  playing  field  and  ensuring  cultural  diversity.  It 
does  so  by  maintaining  the  status  quo  for  TV  broadcasting  but  reinforcing  the  rules  for  on-demand 
services (See Section 5.2.1.3). 

As regards the differing level of protection of minors, Option A strengthens the requirements related 
to the protection of minors on on-demand services. It also seeks to improve the level of information 
made  available to  consumers  as  regards the  harmful  nature of  content  and  to simplify  the  notion  of 
harmful content (See Section 5.2.2.2). 

In  order  to  address  the  complexities  of  the  rules  on  COO  and  derogations,  Option  A  seeks  to 
facilitate the identification of the country having jurisdiction over AVMS providers. This is done, on 
the one hand, by simplifying the rules that determine jurisdiction and, on the other hand, by ensuring 
transparency among Member States as to which of them has jurisdiction over each provider. Option A 
also improves the cooperation mechanisms foreseen in cases of exceptions to the COO. The objective 
is  to  render  the  procedures  more  effective  and  therefore  preserve  the  COO  principle  (See  Section 
5.2.3.2). 

As regards the absence of EU requirement on regulatory independence, Option A seeks to increase 
the  level  playing  field  among  providers  across  the  EU  by  ensuring  that  all  EU  regulators  are 
independent.  It  does  so  by  introducing  a  legal  requirement  of  independence  and  a  minimum  set  of 
features that regulators need to meet (See Section 5.2.4.2).  

 

In  the  third  section  (Section  5.3),  the  option  intends  to  address  the  problem  of  the  rules  on 
commercial communications no longer fit for purpose (See Section 2.2.3): 

Option A (See Section 5.3.2) seeks to address the lack of level playing field caused by the regulatory 
burden on providers when it comes to audiovisual commercial communication (AVCCs) rules while 
encouraging  the  development  and  improvement  of  codes  of  conduct  to  protect  minors  from  alcohol 
advertising and from inappropriate AVCCs for HFSS foods.  

5.1 Options addressing the problem of insufficient minors and consumers protection in video-
sharing platforms 

5.1.1 Status quo option 

The  AVMSD  does  not  apply  to  UGC  in  video-sharing  platforms  (e.g.  YouTube).  Video-sharing 
platforms  are  covered  by  the  ECD,  which  warrants  them  limited  liability  for  illegal  content  under 
certain conditions. 

The  AVMSD  applies  to  television  broadcasts  and  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  for  which 
providers have editorial responsibility. To be covered by the Directive: 
(i) services must have as their principal purpose the provision of programmes to inform, entertain or 
educate the general public and  
(ii) programmes should be comparable, in form and content, to television ("TV-like"). 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most  recently,  the  ECJ  has  clarified  the  "TV  likeness"  and  "principal  purpose"  requirements  in  the 
"New Media Online GmbH" case76. 

Economic outcome 

Existing  costs:  Maintaining  the  status  quo  would  not  entail  additional  compliance  costs 77  or 
administrative78 costs.   

Outcome  on  the  Internal  market:  As  a  result  of  the  ECJ  judgment  in  the  "New  Media  Online 
GmbH" case, short videos can qualify as "TV like". In addition, according to the Court, the AVMSD 
applies  when  the  audiovisual  media  content  is in  content  and  form  independent  of  the  main  service 
offered by a provider (whether it is messaging, UGC, press articles, etc.). This is the case even when 
the main service is of a different nature, e.g. text, and is not merely an indissociable complement to 
that activity, in particular as a result of the links between the audiovisual offer and the offer in text 
form. As a consequence, more on-demand audiovisual media services (e.g. videos of short duration or 
self-standing  video  sections  in  a  newspaper  website)  will  be  covered  by  the  Directive.  This  will 
enhance  legal  certainty,  the  level  playing  field  and  consumer  protection  in  the  Internal  Market.  For 
these reasons, any revision of the AVMSD should include the codification of this judgment79.   

Outcome  on  competitiveness:  Players  being  covered  by  the  Directive  are  at  a  competitive 
disadvantage compared to video-sharing platforms because the latter are subject to a lighter regulatory 
regime (the ECD). This was confirmed in the 2015 public consultation where most respondents from 
the Member States, regulators, and consumer organisations, as well as around half of public service 
and  commercial  broadcasters,  flagged  that  the  current  framework  can  lead  to  the  lack  of  a  level 
playing field.  

Social outcome  

Consumers and minors are not sufficiently protected in video-sharing platforms.    

5.1.2  Option  A:  Self-regulation  for  protection  of  minors  and  consumers  on  video-sharing 
platforms 

1)  The  AVMSD  scope  would  be  adapted  to  cover  all  audiovisual  content  under  the  editorial 
responsibility of a provider including short video clips placed by providers. This would be achieved 
by removing the "TV like" requirement. In addition, it would be clarified that the AVMSD would also 
cover other type of content such as stand-alone video sections in newspapers' websites. This would be 
achieved by codifying the interpretation of the “principal purpose” criterion in the light of the ECJ 
recent case-law in the case of "New Media Online GmbH".  

2)  Member  States  and  the  Commission  would  encourage  video-sharing  platforms  to  adopt  self-
regulatory measures to restrict access to content harmful to minors or inciting to hatred.  

76 Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015, New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat, Case C-347/14 (hereinafter, 
"New media Online GmbH" case). 
77 Substantive compliance costs are the costs incurred by providers in changing the nature of their products and/or production or business processes  
78 Administrative  costs  are  the  costs  incurred  by:  1)  businesses  in  meeting  legal  requirements  and  provide  information  to  the  public  sector  in  order  to 
demonstrate compliance 2) the public sector in enforcing legislation. 
79 Prior to the judgement, there were diverging interpretations as to what is an on-demand service, specifically as regards the following criteria: 
"Principal purpose", with similar services being considered subject to the AVMSD in some countries but not in others.  
"TV-likeness", also being subject to diverging interpretations 

- 
- 

For example, in the UK OFCOM deemed BBC Top Gear on YouTube and BBC Food on YouTube not to be audiovisual media services as the clips were 
not comparable to TV programmes  of the same  "genre" due to the short duration and the style of editing. On the other hand, OFCOM deemed  MTV 
VIVA TV to be an audiovisual media service despite the short duration because OFCOM acknowledged that some genres may be of a shorter nature and 
the  video  extracts  were  compared  to  a  standard  TV  duration  for  these  types  of  programmes.  In  Austria,  the  Verwaltungsgerichtshof  (Administrative 
Court)  referred  to  the  ECJ  the  question  of  whether  short  clips  (from  30  seconds  to  several  minutes)  in  the  video  sub-section  of  an  online  newspaper 
(Tiroler Tageszeitung Online) were "TV-like".   

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Video-sharing platforms would be defined as those that exercise a degree of control, short of editorial 
responsibility,  over  the  presentation  of  audiovisual  content  (including  UGC),  and  whose  principal 
business  purpose  is  the  provision  of  audiovisual  services80.  This  degree  of  control  would  include 
automatic means (such as tagging and sequencing a large amount of audiovisual content), including 
algorithms.  This  would  exclude  services  such  as  mere  hosting,  caching,  cloud  computing,  mere 
conduit, search engines and business services, which are subject to the ECD.  

The  notions  of  content  harmful  to  minors  and  incitement  to  hatred  would  be  the  same  as  the  ones 
applying to audiovisual media services under the AVMSD.  

The Commission would play a facilitating role in encouraging the development of European codes of 
conduct by providing examples of measures that could be adopted by video-sharing platforms (these 
could include some of the examples of on-going initiatives mentioned in ANNEX 8 and 18).  

The  general  provisions  on  self-  and  co-regulation  (Article  4(7))  would  be  reinforced  by  indicating 
new benchmarks for the effectiveness of existing and new codes.  

Economic impacts: 

Substantive compliance costs: When it comes to encouraging video-sharing platforms to adopt self-
regulatory measures, the impact of this Option should not be significant for the large platforms which 
have  already  in  place  community  standards/guidelines  (see  ANNEX  8)  along  with  some  voluntary 
monitoring and reporting systems81 not only for illegal but also for harmful content (e.g. self-harm). 
All large video-sharing platforms apply techniques which employ both software and human element 
to  handle  "content  moderation".  This  means  that  normally  users  flag  content  deemed  inappropriate. 
User  complaints  are  then  processed  by  an  algorithm  prior  to  sending  it  to  a  moderation  team  for 
verification.  
However,  if  they  decide  to  respond  to  the  Directive  call  they  would  have  to  adapt  their  terms  and 
conditions to the AVMSD notions of content harmful to minors and incitement to hatred and put in 
place  more  effective  tools  for  restricting  access  to  harmful  content  (particularly  violent  videos)  and 
curb hate speech.  

Administrative  costs:  Given the purely self-regulatory nature of this option the costs for the public 
authorities  would  be  limited.  To  counter  incitement  to  hatred,  some  Member  States  are  already 
encouraging self-regulation82.  

Impacts  on  the  Internal  market:  The  impact  on  the  Internal  market  would  depend  on  the 
effectiveness of the self-regulatory measures and the number of players that would decide to adhere to 
the codes, including eventually EU codes. The risk is that this option may result in a patchy approach 
with varying levels of protection across the internal market.    

Impacts on competitiveness: The codification of the ECJ recent case-law will ensure that stand-alone 
video sections of a wider service are covered by the AVMSD. The related impact would be limited as 
it derives from the application of the recent case law of the ECJ. Similarly, while the removal of the 
"TV-like" criterion implies a formal change in the AVMSD, the wide interpretation provided by the 
ECJ  already  has  a  similar  effect  in  practice.  However,  this  Option  would  not  provide  an  effective 
solution to the concerns regarding the level playing field as purely self-regulatory measures, without a 
regulatory backstop, have proven insufficient in the past (see Section 2.2.1). In addition, despite the 

80 As defined by Articles 56 and 57 TFEU. 
81 For example, the minimum age to join is 18 (13 with parental consent) for YouTube and 17 for Vine, while "community standards" detail how the 
platforms  handle 
content.  See  https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards#;  http://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/en-
GB/communityguidelines.html;https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311#;  http://www.dailymotion.com/legal/prohibited  
82 Used in AT, DE, EL, HU, IT, PL, FI, DK, BE and NL. 

"abusive" 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ECD requirement to Member States and the Commission to encourage codes of conduct, despite an 
initial  follow-up  –  which  related  primarily  to  codes  of  conduct  related  to  trust  mark  schemes  and 
labels – activities related to the promotion of codes of conduct have since then slowed down. 

Impact on SMEs: Self-regulation for video-sharing platforms may entail compliance costs for SMEs 
but only if they decide to adhere to the codes. The Commission has estimated these costs as ranging 
between 100 000 (incurred for a pilot tool developed to inform parents and children on the content of 
user generated video) and EUR 320 000 (incurred by a major Danish ISP to conduct parental control, 
website, education and information). However, much more developed systems of content moderation 
may imply significantly higher costs. For example, one third of a large platform total employees deal 
with content moderation83.  

Social impacts:  

When  it  comes  to  encouraging  self-regulation  for  video-sharing  platforms,  the  level  of  consumer 
protection would improve on large platforms if they decide to adapt and tighten their self-regulatory 
tools. In smaller platforms, the level of protection may improve considerably but only if they decide to 
participate.  If  the  Commission  manages  to  carry  out  its  coordination  role  effectively,  this  may 
improve  the  present  situation  whereby  there  are  no  codes  of  conduct  at  EU  level.  Impact  on 
fundamental  rights:  As  it  would  rely  on  voluntary  measures,  Option  A  would  not  guarantee  a 
contribution to the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter, including children's 
right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being (Art. 24). 

5.1.3  Option  B:  An  obligation  of  means  imposed  on  video-sharing  platforms  for  protection  of 
minors and hate speech, implemented through co-regulation 

1)  The  "TV  like"  requirement  would  be  removed  and  the  ECJ recent  case-law  in  the  case  of  "New 

Media Online GmbH" would be codified as under Option A. 

2)  Member  States  would  have  to  ensure  that  video-sharing  platforms  put  in  place  appropriate 
measures to: 

-  Protect minors from harmful content; access to which would have to be restricted;  
-  Protect all citizens from content containing incitement to hatred.  

Video-sharing platforms would be defined as those that exercise a degree of control, short of editorial 
responsibility,  over  the  presentation  of  audiovisual  content  (including  UGC),  and  whose  principal 
business  purpose  is  the  provision  of  audiovisual  services84.  This  degree  of  control  would  include 
automatic means (such as tagging and sequencing a large amount of audiovisual content), including 
algorithms.  This  would  exclude  services  such  as  mere  hosting,  caching,  cloud  computing,  mere 
conduit, search engines and business services, which are subject to the ECD.  

The  notions  of  content  harmful  to  minors  and  incitement  to  hatred  would  be  the  same  as  the  ones 
applying to audiovisual media services under the AVMSD. The terms and conditions of the platforms 
would  have  to  be  brought  in  line  if  necessary  with  these  notions  and  other  relevant  rules  of  the 
Directive. 

Member States should not impose on providers any general obligation to monitor content ex ante.  

Member  States  would  require  video-sharing  platforms 
to  develop  co-regulation  providing 
mechanisms (e.g.  age-verification  systems, content description, age rating  systems)  to  achieve these 
objectives. These mechanisms would have to be chosen by the industry which would be subject to an 

83 http://www.whoishostingthis.com/blog/2015/04/15/moderating-facebook/ 
84 As defined by Articles 56 and 57 TFEU. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
obligation  of  means  (i.e.  to  use  all  reasonable  means  to  achieve  the  desired  results).  The  AVMSD 
would  not  mandate  adoption  of  specific  technologies  or  tools.  The  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
platforms should contain an appropriate reference to these mechanisms. 

This would be a maximum harmonization provision under which Member States shall not be able to 
impose more detailed or stricter rules on video-sharing platforms. 

The  Commission  and  ERGA  would  facilitate  exchanges  of  best  practices  on  co-regulatory  systems 
across  the  EU.  If  considered  appropriate,  the  Commission  would  facilitate  the  development  of  EU 
codes on which ERGA might be requested to give an opinion.  

A complaint mechanism for consumers and minors should also be foreseen at national level in case of 
non-compliance. Any sanction should be proportionate and take into account as mitigating factor the 
fact that video sharing platforms lack proper editorial responsibility. 

For the specific purpose of this provision, a video-sharing platform would be under the jurisdiction of 
the Member State in which it, its parent company, one of its subsidiaries or an entity within the same 
group is established within the meaning of Articles 49 to 55 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union.  

Economic impacts 

Substantive  compliance  costs:  Large  video-sharing  platforms,  pursuant  to  their  corporate  policies, 
already take steps (see ANNEX 8) to protect minors and all users85 not only from illegal but also from 
harmful  content  (e.g.  pornography  and  self-harm).  Filtering  and  fingerprinting 86  mechanisms  are 
widely used by  major video-sharing platforms  and they could be used  also to comply with the new 
requirements under Option B without having to incur substantial additional costs. For example, there 
are  several  age  verification  systems  on  the  market,  which  are  widely  used  online  by  VoD  service 
providers. 

Assessing whether content is harmful is generally more complex than assessing whether it is illegal 
because  the  notion  of  harmful  content  is  broader  than  that  of  illegal  content.  It  can  however  be 
expected that by putting in place mechanisms to protect minors, platforms would gain in brand power.  

No precise indications of the costs to implement this provision can be provided. They would depend 
on  the  size  of  the  company  and  on  the  specific  mechanisms  that  the  company  will  decide  to  put  in 
place.  These  mechanisms  are  also  likely  to  evolve  over  time  due  to  technology  advancements.  The 
costs  incurred  at  present  by  the  industry  to  enact  measures  to  protect  citizens  either  according  to 
corporate  policies  or  to  other  arrangements  can  be  used  as  a  benchmark  for  possible  substantive 
compliance  costs.  As  indicated  above,  the  costs  for  putting  in  place  rating  mechanisms  may  range 
between EUR 100 000 and EUR 320 000. More developed systems of content moderation may entail 
higher costs.  

Administrative  costs:  If  the  monitoring  of  video-sharing  platforms  is  done  via  a  complaint  based 
mechanism,  the  related  administrative  costs  for  all  EU  regulators  have  been  estimated  at  EUR 
600 00087.  

85 For example, the minimum age to join services is 18 (13 with parental consent) for YouTube and 17 for Vine, while "community standards" detail how 
the  platforms  handle  "abusive"  content.  See  https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards#;  http://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/en-
GB/communityguidelines.html;  
https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311#;  http://www.dailymotion.com/legal/prohibited 
86 Fingerprint is software that generates a unique signature (a fingerprint) for digital videos by calculating the essential features of the video (known as 
"hash").  The evaluation and identification of potentially harmful video content is then performed by comparing the extracted video fingerprints. 
87 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and in 
particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people. The methodology is based on extracting from the MAVISE 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
If the Member States decide to put in place co-regulatory mechanisms, figures regarding existing self-
regulatory mechanism can be taken as a reference to estimate the associated costs for the industry. For 
example,  the  self-regulatory  systems  in  place  in  the  majority  of  Member  States  on  commercial 
communications are either funded by membership fees or a levy system from the industry and their 
cost ranges from EUR 250 000 to EUR 1 million88.  

Impacts on the Internal market: Option B would prevent fragmentation by introducing a maximum 
harmonization  preventing  Member  States  to  impose  more  detailed  or  stricter  rules  on  video-sharing 
platforms.  

Impacts  on  competitiveness:  The impacts of the codification of the ECJ recent case-law would be 
limited as explained in Option A. Option B would improve the conditions of competition between TV 
broadcasting, video on-demand providers and video-sharing platforms. This option lays down flexible 
and future-proof rules allowing companies scope for innovation and ensuring the continued relevance 
of the rules over time. Impacts  on SMEs: SMEs platforms that do not have already mechanisms in 
place  to  moderate  harmful  content  either  proactively  or  upon  notification  would  incur  important 
compliance costs. The others will have to adapt their standard terms and conditions and become more 
effective.  In  particular,  SMEs  may  need  to  make  new  investments  in  filtering  and  fingerprinting 
technologies  which,  on  the  other  hand,  major  companies  have  already  available.  Yet,  by  putting  in 
place mechanisms to protect minors, SMEs could gain in branding power.  

Social impacts: 

Option  B  would  help  overcome  some  of  the  limitations  of  existing  industry-led  and  self-regulatory 
initiatives  (See  Section  2.2.1)  and  meet  the  AVMSD  objective  of  protecting  consumers,  including 
minors. Option B is likely to address the concerns on the level of protection voiced in the 2015 Public 
consultation  by  most  of  those  who  called  for  an  extension  of  the  rules,  i.e.  a  majority  of  Member 
States  and  regulators  who  replied  to  this  question,  most  consumer  organisations  and  approximately 
half of all broadcasters who replied. These stakeholders want to apply to additional services (including 
platforms) at least the rules on protection of minors and hate speech which are seen as a basic level of 
protection online. On the other hand, a small number of Member States, some regulators as well as the 
Internet, ICT, the  press publishing sector, telecom,  cable, satellite and advertising industries believe 
that  the  AVMSD  rules  on  material  scope  ensure  sufficient  consumer  protection  also  in  light  of  the 
broader  EU  regulatory  framework.    Option  B  will  level  up  the  standard  of  protection  from  harmful 
content  in  video-sharing  platforms  with  the  one  applicable  to  on-demand  services89 (See  Section 
5.2.2). Moreover, it is likely that any improvement of the level of protection for audiovisual content 
pursuant  to  Option  B  will  have  a  positive  spillover  effect  on  other  types  of  content  (such  as 
text/comments functionalities accompanying video content). Impacts on fundamental rights: Option 
B  would  have  a  direct  positive  impact  on  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  enshirned  in  the  EU 
Charter,  such  as:  human  dignity  (Article  1);  right  to  the  physical  and  mental  integrity  of  persons 
(Article 3); non-discrimination (Article 21); children's right to protection and care as is necessary for 
their well-being (Article 24); general consumer protection (Article 38). Given that Option B provides 
for  a  regulatory  backstop,  it  would  ultimately  be  up  to  the  Member  States  (and  not  to  private 
operators) to assess the legitimacy of possible decisions to restrict access to content in specific cases. 

database  the  number  of  platforms  that  would  be  covered  by  the  AVMSD  following  the  extension  of  the  material  scope  i.e.  15.  For  those  where  the 
number of unique viewers per month was available the methodology extrapolates the 184 requests from EU regulators to Youtube in one year, i.e in total 
for all the platforms in the EU 312 complaints. Multiplying this number by an average number of days to process a complaint results in a cost of EUR 0.6 
million.  
88 Sources EASA (European Advertising Standards Alliance). 
89 On traditional TV content potentially harmful to minors is only shown after 10pm and seriously harmful content such as pornography and gratuitous 
violence  is  banned.  In  on-demand  services,  4  MS  forbid  seriously  impairing  content;  and  16  MS  mandate  forms  of  protection  such  as  PIN  codes  or 
content filtering for content for which the AVMSD does not require restrictions i.e. content which is likely to impair the development of minors. 

21 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
Given  that  the  Member  States  are  bound  by  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  rights 90  when 
implementing EU law, there would be a guarantee that: any limitation to the exercise of freedom of 
expression and information as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter is provided by law; respects the 
essence  of  this  freedom;  is  proportionate;  and  only  takes  place  when  it  is  necessary  and  genuinely 
meet the objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and 
freedoms of others. As a consequence, the fundamental right to conduct a business (Article 16 of the 
Charter) would be respected.  

5.1.4 Comparison of options 

Status quo 

Option A 

No administrative costs or  
compliance costs 

Compliance costs: 
Depending on the nature of the 
mechanisms, the costs can vary 
from EUR 100 000 for the EU 
(cost of a user generated rating 
system) to EUR 3.1 million per 
year for the EU91 (cost of a 
moderation system in a large 
platform). 

Costs and savings 

Option B 
Administrative costs : EUR 
600 000 per year for all EU 
Regulators (complaint based 
mechanism).  
Compliance costs:  
-  Depending on the nature 

of the mechanisms, the 
costs can vary from EUR 
100 000 for the EU (cost 
of a user generated 
rating system) to EUR 
3.1 million per year for 
the EU (cost of a 
moderation system in a 
large platform). 
-  Cost of co-regulatory 

structure can vary from 
EUR 250 000 to EUR 
1 million per year and 
per Member States. 

Effectiveness and 
subsidiarity test 

Option B most effectively delivers on the objective of protecting consumers including minors by 
setting out co-regulation. This would be done at a limited additional cost given the fact that most 
platforms  have  already  in  place  similar  mechanisms.  In  a  co-regulatory  system,  the  costs  are 
shared between the industry and regulators.  

The added value of Option B in terms of consumer protection lies in the obligation of means to 
protect  minors  from  harmful  content  on  video-sharing  platforms.  For  hate  speech,  while  this  is 
already  covered  as  illegal  content  by  the  ECD  system  of  notice  and  action,  Option  B  would 
introduce an obligation to adopt proactive measures.   

From a political viewpoint, Option B is the one that most effectively strikes a balance between the 
call from a number of Member States and the European Parliament for enhancing the protection 
of minors and viewers online and the need to preserve and promote freedom of speech, freedom 
to conduct a business and the ability for companies to innovate.  

EU  intervention  under  this  option  remains  proportionate  and  is  mainly  based  on  co-regulation, 
allowing  for  national  specificities  to  be  taken  into  account.  Option  B  it  also  proportionate  as  it 
would leave to the industry leeway to implement a regulatory obligation on a best effort basis.  

Option B is the preferred option. 

90 Article 51 of the Charter provides that the Charter is binding for the Member States only when they implement Union law. 
91 Facebook has 300 people moderating. 
Average FTE cost in EU is 51 630 EUR (cost of a working hour on average in the EU is EUR 30 and the average number of hours worked in the EU is 
and 
http://www.coe-rexecode.fr/public/Indicateurs-et-Graphiques/Indicateurs-du-cout-de-l-heure-de-travail-en-Europe 
1712: 
http://www.jobat.be/fr/articles/ou-travaille-t-on-le-plus-en-europe/) 
The  share  of 
51 630*300*0.2=EUR 3.1 million 

is  20  %:  http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm.  Calculation: 

in  Facebook  worldwide  audience 

the  EU  audience 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Option 

Status quo 

Option A 

Option B 

General objective 
and related impacts 

Safeguard the 
protection of 
minors  and 
consumer 
protection (social 
impacts) 
0 

+  

+ + 

Costs 
(administrative and 
compliance) 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Feasibility 
(technical and 
political) 

Preferred option 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

X 

5.2 Options addressing the problem of the lack of a level playing field and internal market 
weaknesses 

5.2.1 Promotion of European works 

5.2.1.1 Status quo option 

Under the AVMSD, TV broadcasters must, where practicable, reserve a majority proportion of their 
transmission  time  to  European  works  and  at  least  10  %  of  their  transmission  time  or  of  their 
programming budget to European works created by independent producers. An adequate proportion 
of this quota has to be reserved to "recent" independent works. 

On-demand  service  providers,  where  practicable,  must  promote  the  production  of  and  access  to 
European works. The Directive gives the following examples of how this can be done but leaves the 
choice  of  the  measures  to  Member  States:  i)  financial  contribution  to  the  production  and  rights 
acquisition  of  European  works;  ii)  a  share  of  European  works  in  the  catalogues;  and/or  iii) 
prominence of European works in the catalogues.  

Economic outcome 

Existing costs: Maintaining the status quo would result in no additional compliance or administrative 
costs for regulatory authorities or media service providers.  

As  regards  existing  compliance  costs,  most  commercial  broadcasters  estimate  that  compliance  with 
the requirement on the majority proportion of transmission time generates medium/high costs for their 
business.  Some  thematic  and  small  channels  bear  higher  costs  to  comply  with  quotas92.  For  on-
demand  services,  the  costs  vary  depending  on  how  Member  States  have  implemented  Article  13 
AVMSD (see ANNEX 13).  

The  existing  administrative  costs  for  regulators  to  monitor  TV  broadcasting  services  have  been 
estimated  at  220  000  for  all  EU  Regulators93.  In  the  case  of  monitoring  compliance  of  on-demand 

92 The  Second  Report  on  the  application  of  Articles  16  and  17  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  for  the  period  2011-2012  (ANNEX  17)  details  the  main 
difficulties  with  compliance  identified  by  broadcasters.  The  difficulties  faced  by  thematic  and  small  channels  in  complying  with  quotas  could  be 
addressed  through  some  closer  cooperation  between  national  regulators  by  means  of,  for  example,  applying  exemptions  in  a  flexible  and  harmonized 
manner.  
93 According to the survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU 
(AVMSD) and in particular the provisions on cultural diversity,  these costs vary substantially depending on the methods used to monitor compliance. To 
monitor compliance of TV broadcasters, most regulators obtain data directly from operators but often do not carry out a thorough verification of the data. 
In these cases, administrative costs for regulators are limited, and amount to around EUR 500 per year depending on the number of TV broadcasters and 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
services,  only  some  Member  States  have  put  in  place  a  legal  obligation  for  on-demand  service 
providers to communicate data on compliance to national regulators. The cost of monitoring has been 
estimated at 10 000 for all EU Regulators94.  

TV  Broadcasters  and  on-demand  service  providers  have  reported  medium  to  high  existing 
administrative  costs  in  relation  to  reporting  obligations  on  the  promotion  of  European  works.  In 
practice, estimations show that annual administrative costs for all TV broadcasters in the EU are likely 
to vary among Member States and would approximately amount to EUR 200 000 annually95. For all 
EU on-demand services, administrative costs has been estimated at EUR 110 000 annually96. 

Outcome Internal market:  

TV  broadcasters  devote  widely  the  majority  of  qualifying  time  to  European  content.  In  2012, 
European works enjoyed an average of 64.1% of the total qualifying transmission hours97. 

For  on-demand  services,  as  the  Directive  simply  gives  examples  of  how  on  demand  services  may 
promote European works, only 19 Member States have imposed obligations and they have done so in 
varied  ways,  i.e.  through  financial  contribution,  share  and/or  prominence  in  their  catalogues, 
contributing to a high level of fragmentation (see ANNEX 13). 

Outcome  on  competitiveness:  The  different  treatment  between  TV  broadcasting  and  on-demand 
services  has  resulted in TV  broadcasting  services  operating  under  more  constraints  than  on-demand 
services. Looking at the fast-development of on-demand services98 in Europe as well as the worldwide 
medium term growth prospect (see section 2.4), this different treatment can be expected to increase. 
Ultimately,  the  existence  of  larger  constrains  for  TV  broadcasting  could  reduce  their  flexibility  to 
adapt to the viewers demands therefore undermining their attractiveness and thus their competiveness. 

On-demand services also have a greater flexibility and incentives to benefit from the internal market 
by  establishing  themselves  in  a  particular  country  and  distribute  across  Europe99.  The  existence  of 
lower constraints on their editorial policy may have an impact in their choice of establishment, which 
may reinforce their competitive advantage compared to TV broadcasting services100.  

The  results  of  the  2015  Public  consultation  confirm  a  perceived  lack  of  fair  treatment  between  TV 
broadcasting and on-demand services: 61% of the contributors who expressed an opinion believe that 

the hourly wages and time devoted. For those regulators that carry out a thorough verification, annual costs range from EUR 3 000 (e.g. in IE) and EUR 
15 000 (e.g. in ES). For those carrying out internal  monitoring, annual costs are between  EUR 2 000 (in some  Member States such as EE) and EUR 
91 000  (in  others  such  as  FR).  Finally,  some  Member  States  use  specific  software  for  the  collection  and  transmission  of  data  and/or  the  services  of 
independent research companies for verification, which can lead to higher costs. (see ANNEX 16) 
94 In the survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) 
and in particular the provisions on cultural diversity, it is assumed that all Member States impose a legal obligation on on-demand service providers to 
communicate data on compliance to national regulators and that the latter had no monitoring or verification system in place. Since this is not currently the 
case the figures presented are rather an overestimation. See ANNEX 16. 
95According According to the Survey and Data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 
2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and in particular the provisions on cultural diversity, estimations administrative costs for TV broadcasters range from less that 
EUR 1 000 (such as in LV and LT) to more than EUR 20 000 (such as in DE and UK). See ANNEX 16. 
96 According to the survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU 
(AVMSD) and in particular the provisions on cultural diversity, estimations of administrative costs for on-demand service providers would range from 
less that EUR 1 000 (such as in LV and EE) to more than EUR 20 000 (such as in DE and FR). See ANNEX 16. 
97 Second Report on the application of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU for the period 2011-2012 (ANNEX 17). 
98 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in video-on-demand revenues 
"according to HIS research firm, total on-demand consumer revenues in the 28 European countries soared from EUR 919 million in 2010 to EUR 2.5 
billion in 2014, an of 272 % increase and a compound annual growth rate in the 5 year period of 28 %. 
99 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  -  Origin  and  availability  of  On  -
Demand services in the European Union: "hubs" for VoD services established in one Member State but mainly targeting a different Member State are 
emerging across the EU. The main ones being the UK (69 VoD services targeting other Member States), LT (29), CZ (24) and FR (20). 
100 Ibid. The UK (69), LU (29), CZ (24), FR (20), SE (18) and NL (13) are the countries in Europe which harbour VoD services primarily targeting other 
EU countries. Those services are either pan-European and international VoD services which have established their centre of operations in a EU country 
(as in the case of the UK, LU, CZ and NL) or national services are targeting countries in which the language/culture is similar (FR, SE) 

24 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
the  current  rules  are  not  fair.  4  Member  States101 and  4  national  regulators 102 pointed  out  that  the 
asymmetry in TV broadcasters and on-demand services regulation is unjustified. 

In their contributions to the 2015 Public consultation 3 Member States103 and 5 national regulators104 
supported  maintaining  the  status  quo.  On  the  industry  side,  most  on-demand  service  providers  and 
members of the digital/Internet industry (9 out of 17 contributions) would also prefer to maintain the 
status quo. 

On the contrary, some commercial broadcasters (7 out of 30) called for repealing all current rules on 
promotion  of  European  works,  which  would  be  then  only  subject  to  national  rules.  As  for  public 
service broadcasters, the majority (10 out of 16) would favour other options and mainly to reinforce 
rules on on-demand services.   

Social outcome: 

The current rules aim to ensure that consumers have access to European content. As mentioned above, 
the  current  rule  for  TV  broadcasters  resulted  in  European  citizens  being  exposed  to  a  significant 
amount  of  European  works.  This  was  particularly  important  in  a  context  where  viewer  hours  for 
European works have declined (down from 74 % in 2007 to 69 % in 2010)105.  

As regards on-demand services, the low level of requirements imposed by some Member States has 
created gaps in the supply and promotion of European content on those services. Even if, given the 
size  of  the  on-demand  market,  this  impact  is  not  yet  very  high,  the  growth  prospect  on  this  market 
may imply that the negative impact on cultural diversity will be higher in the future.  

5.2.1.2 Option A: giving more flexibility to providers in the way they implement the obligations 
to promote European works 

Member States would allow TV broadcasters either to reserve the majority of their broadcasting time 
to  European  works  or  to  invest  at  least  50%106 of  their  programming  budget  in  European  works. 
Providers would be obliged to choose at least one option. 

In  addition,  Member  States  would  allow  on-demand  services  to  promote  European  works  either 
through  a  share  of  European  works,  their  prominence  in  the  catalogues  or  through  a  financial 
contribution. On-demand service providers would be obliged to choose at least one option. It will be 
up to Member States to decide on the level of requirement for each measure. 

Substantive  compliance  costs:  Option  A  would  generate  no  additional  costs  for  TV  broadcasters 
who would be able to decide to move from a share of their broadcasting time to direct investment only 
if they are able to recoup the costs.  

For  on-demand  services,  the  costs  of  complying  with  the  new  rules  are  difficult  to  assess  as  it  will 
depend  on  the  level  of  requirements  set  at  national  level.  In  those  Member  States  where  a  share  of 
European  works  in  catalogues  is  currently  in  place,  the  minimum  share  of  European  works  in  the 
catalogues varies from 10% to 60% (see ANNEX 13). On average in the EU, the share of EU films in 

101 EL, EE, PT and LV 
102 BE-Fr R, ES-R, FI-R and PL-R 
103 SK, SL and UK 
104 BE-VLG, DE-R, UK-R, SK-R and RO-R. FR and the French regulator favoured maintaining status quo only for TV broadcasting. 
105 Study  on  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  concerning  the  promotion  of  European  works  in 
audiovisual media services (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-promotion-european-works) 
106 Public service media organizations in Europe invest around EUR 16.6 billion in content (Source EBU-MIS based on Member States' data.) and EUR 
15 billion are invested, per year, in content by Europe’s largest commercial broadcasters (http://www.acte.be/) i.e. 31 million in total. As mentioned in 
Section 2.2.2.1 A the investment of the main TV groups in 15 countries in original content, deemed to be European, amounted to EUR 15.7 billion in 
2013.  By setting a share at 50 % at least, we align the situation across the EU on the average.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
75  big  EU  VoD  catalogues  was  27%  in  2015  and  30%  in  16  big  SVoD  catalogues107.  As  regards 
prominence, there are not such quantitative thresholds in the Member States. Recently, the European 
Audiovisual Observatory tried to identify the promotional spaces for each of the services of a sample 
of  on-demand  service  providers  in  DE,  FR,  UK108.  According  to  this  study,  "European  films  were 
allocated  between  21% (in  the  UK)  and  33%  (in  France)  of  promotional  spots109".  As  for  financial 
contributions, 9 Member States have included such obligations for on-demand services and they vary 
from 1% to 12%110 (see ANNEX 13). 

Consequently,  this  option  would  create  zero  or  low  additional  costs  for  on-demand  services 
established in those Member States where there are obligations in place. On the contrary, on-demand 
services established in the 10 Member States where there is no obligation would have to face the cost 
of  complying  with  at  least  one  of  the  promotion  measures  (shares,  prominence  or  financial 
contributions). However, the costs are expected to be limited since on-demand services would opt for 
the less costly measure.    

Administrative costs: The additional administrative costs for regulators when implementing option A 
as  regards  TV  broadcasting  services  would  be  zero.  The  costs  of  supervising  on-demand  services 
would  depend  on  the  choice  made  by  on-demand  service  providers  and  on  the  monitoring  system 
applied by the regulators. In this context it is not possible to estimate precisely the related costs but 
they are likely to be close to the costs incurred under the status quo. 

The additional administrative costs for TV broadcasters, if any, would be marginal as they would have 
to  report  on  their  programming  budget  instead  of  reporting  on  broadcasting  time  if  they  decide  to 
invest a share of their programming budget in European works. In countries where such systems are 
already in place, there would not be any additional costs. 

For  on-demand  services,  due  to  the  existing  significant  differences  in  national  legislation  and  the 
variety of implementation measures in force, the monitoring costs for regulators would vary. In the 10 
Members States where there are no requirements for on-demand service providers (see ANNEX 13), 
administrative costs would increase.  

Impacts  on  the  Internal  market:  Option A is unlikely to result in a wider circulation of European 
works  across  Europe.  It  is  questionable  whether  a  flexible  requirement  for  on-demand  services  (in 
particular,  to  opt  either  for  a  share  or  prominence  of  European  works in  their  catalogues)  would  be 
effective. A share in the catalogue alone would not necessarily lead to more consumption of European 
works. Prominence would only make sense if a diverse catalogue would be available in the first place. 

Impacts on competitiveness: Option A is not expected to significantly impact TV broadcasting. As 
mentioned in the status quo option in 2012, European works enjoyed an average of 64.1% of the total 
qualifying  transmission  hours.  Broadcasters  are  expected  to  stick  to  this  requirement  they  already 
comply with. Under Option A the impact on competitiveness of on-demand services would be limited 
since they would choose the less costly measure to fulfil their promotion obligations. 

Option  A  would,  based  on  the  way  providers  choose  to  implement  these  measures,  address  the 
competitive disadvantages of TV broadcasters compared to on-demand services. In their contributions 
to  the  2015  Public  consultation  4  Member  States111 and  4  national  regulators112 pointed  out  that  the 

107 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments). 
108  Ibid. 
109 In Germany, national films and European non-national films accounted for approximately the same share, whereas, in France in the UK, national films 
represented approximately two thirds of European films and European non-national films one third. 
110 The only exception is France where direct contributions to production can go up to 26% of the turnover 
111 EL, EE, PT and LV 
112 BE-Fr R, ES-R, FI-R and PL-R 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
asymmetry in TV broadcasting and on-demand services regulation is unjustified and rends the current 
rules unfair. This view was also supported by 4 of the 9 public broadcasters that commented on the 
issue  of  fairness.  Impacts  on  SMEs:  More  flexibility  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  small 
channels,  including  eventually  SMEs  and  micro  enterprises  that  would  be  able  to  implement  the 
promotion  measures most appropriate for their business strategies. In any event, TV broadcasts that 
are intended for local audiences and do not form part of a national network (which generally are not 
very large companies) are often exempted (see ANNEX 3). 

Social impacts: 

Under Option A consumers are not likely to be more exposed to European works than they are today. 
If  TV  broadcasters  were  to  choose  to  invest  a  proportion  of  their  programming  budget  in  European 
content, there would be no assurance that it would be shown in peak hours. This would be particularly 
the  case  if  this  proportion  is  low.  For  on-demand  services,  as  explained  above  a  choice  between  a 
share  and  prominence  of  European  works  in  their  catalogues  is  not  expected  to  lead  to  greater 
diversity.  Impacts  on  cultural  diversity:  Given  the  amount  of  flexibility  given  to  providers,  the 
impact on access to information and culture (Article 22 of the Charter) would be negligible. 

5.2.1.3 Option B: Maintaining the status quo for TV broadcasters and reinforce the rules for on-
demand service providers 

For TV broadcasters the status quo would be maintained.  

For  on-demand  service  providers,  Member  States  should  require  them  to  secure  at  least  a  20% 
share113 of European works in their catalogue and give prominence to those works. In addition, on-
demand  service  providers  would  be  required to  report to  the  Commission  on  their  compliance  with 
these obligations. 

A  Member  State  would  be  allowed  to  require a  contribution  (e.g.  levies  and/or  direct investment  in 
content114) to the production of European content from video on-demand service providers established 
in other Member States if:  

- 
- 
- 

they target consumers in its territory,  
the contribution applies only to the revenues generated in that Member State and 
these revenues are not already subject to an equivalent contribution in the Member States of 
establishment.  

Member States would be required to introduce exceptions for low audience and thematic on-demand 
service providers or for small and micro enterprises115. 

Economic impacts: 

Substantive  compliance  costs:  Compliance  costs  for  on-demand  services  would  vary  across  the 
Member  States.  In  the  10  Member  States  where  there  is  no  obligation,  they  would  have  to  face  the 
cost  of  complying  with  the  obligations  to  reserve  at  least  20%  share  in  the  catalogue  and  to  ensure 
prominence.  

113 According the EAO study on on-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments), the average share of EU films 
in 75 big EU VoD catalogues was 27 % in 2015 and 30% in 16 big SVoD catalogues. In order to take into account SMEs which may have less European 
works in their catalogues, the share is set to 20% (see also ANNEX 19). 
114 Levies  are  contributions  that  companies  exploiting  audiovisual  content  must  pay  to  audiovisual  Funds.  The  Funds  use  the  contributions  to  finance 
funding measures. Direct investment is a investment from companies exploiting audiovisual content into audiovisual content production.  
115 This could be done on the basis of the current Contact Committee Guidelines. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As indicated above, the average share of EU films in 75 big EU VoD catalogues was 27 % in 2015 
and 30% in 16 big SVoD catalogues. However, there are great disparities among catalogues of pan-
European on-demand service providers (from almost 0% to to 70%) and among Member States (from 
an  average  of  less  than  10%  to  an  average  of  almost  60%).  Taking  into  account  these  disparities,  a 
share of 20% would ensure some level of cultural diversity while avoiding excessive compliance costs 
for on-demand providers (ANNEX 19). In addition any potential compliance cost would be limited by 
the  fact  that  usually  on-demand  services  business  model  is  based  on  revenue  sharing.  It  means  that 
they  do  not  incur  any  costs  related  to  the  acquisition  of  content  upfront.  They  pay  a  share  of  the 
revenue generated to right holders. 

For on-demand service providers targeting other Member States which impose a financial contribution 
extra-territorially,  the  cost  would  vary  across  the  EU.  Currently,  9  Member  States  have  financial 
contributions (i.e. direct contribution to production) in place and only 4 Member States apply levies 
nationally (i.e. contributions made to a film fund) 116. All things being equal, we estimate that the costs 
for Netflix and i-Tunes to roll out their services in the five biggest EU markets would be respectively 
EUR  5.8  and  8.2  million  per  year  and  per  provider  (see  ANNEX  10).  This  would  stand  for 
respectively 2 % and 0.4% of their turnover117. However, this compliance costs would translate into 
investment in content that service providers may be able to recoup. Another estimation where Member 
States  would  impose  levies  extraterritorially  would  result  in  costs  between  EUR  4.7  million  (in  the 
lower bound) and EUR 11.7 million (in the upper bound) for all providers of on demand services in 
the EU118.  

Administrative costs: Regulators may incur additional costs depending on how Member States have 
implemented  the  current  AVMSD  provisions  so  far.  In  France,  where  on-demand  services  must 
comply  with  requirements  in  terms  of  share  and  prominence  of  EU  works,  the  cost  of  monitoring 
these two obligations has been estimated at EUR 2 000 (see ANNEX 16). 

The  new  requirements  on  on-demand  services  will  be  accompanied  with  reporting  obligations.  For 
providers  of  on-demand  services  established  in  Member  States  where  they  are  not  subject  to  such 
obligations,  the  new  requirement  would  increase  their  administrative  burden.  It  should  be  noted, 
however,  that  reporting  obligations  would  to  some  extent  foster  transparency  in  the  on-demand 
services' business which would be a pre-requisite for assessing what role those players can play in the 
financing of content. 

In Member States imposing financial contributions extraterritorially, there might be limited additional 
costs  for  businesses  to  declare,  pay  and  audit  financial  contributions  if  turnover  is  used  as  a  fiscal 
base119.   

In  their  contributions  to  the  2015  Public  consultation,  the  majority  of  the  Cinema,  Film  and  TV 
industry contributions (17  out of  30); all consumers organizations that expressed an opinion (8); all 
employees  organizations  and  trade  unions  that  expressed  an  opinion  (5);  and  the  majority  of  right 
holders (10 out of 16) favor reinforcing current rules for on-demand services. 5 Member States120 and 
3 national regulators121 call for reinforcing current rules on promotion of European works.  

116 See ANNEX 13. 
117 Netflix turnover in Europe in 2014 amounted to EUR 295 million (http://www.usine-digitale.fr/article/ce-que-pese-deja-netflix-en-europe.N282676) 
and i-Tunes turnover to EUR 2 billion (http://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/high-tech/itunes-europe-2-milliards-d-euros-21-salaries_1576228.html). However, in 
the case of i-Tunes a substantial share of the turnover is deemed to derive from the music activity. 
118 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on cultural diversity (see ANNEX 16). 
119 If turnover is used as a taxation base, the application of the country of destination principle to telecommunications and broadcasting services for VAT 
as from January 1st 2015 might simplify to some extent the process.  As mentioned below, financing obligations for VoD providers generated € 17.4 
million in Germany (2013) and € 16 million in France (2011). 
120 BE-Fr, IT, LV, PL and FR only for on-demand services. 
121 BE-R, HU-R and PT-R. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Impacts on the Internal market: The combined obligation for on-demand services to reserve a share 
for European works in on-demand services catalogues and to give prominence to those works would 
reduce  the  current  fragmentation  resulting  from  the  very  diverse  approaches  adopted  by  Member 
States (see ANNEX 13).  

As regards the possibility for Member States to impose financial contributions services providers may 
have to comply with different legislations. The level of fragmentation would depend on the number of 
Member  States  implementing  financial  contributions  as  well  as  on  the  number  of  service  providers 
potentially concerned122. Allowing flexibility for Member States to impose financial contributions is 
considered as a justified and balanced way to limit forum shopping practices without undermining the 
COO principle and the objectives of the DSM. 

Impacts  on  competitiveness:  For  on-demand  services  established  in  the  15  Members  States  where 
there  is  already  either  an  obligatory  share  of  European  works  or  prominence  requirements  in  place, 
option  B  would  lead  to  more  level  playing  field.  The  flexibility  for  Members  States  to  impose 
financial contributions on on-demand service providers located outside their territory would result in a 
more  level  playing  field  between  on-demand  services  competing  on  the  same  market.  According  to 
many of the contributions to the 2015 Public consultation the strict application of the COO principle 
and the fragmentation on the transposition of Article 13 may have led to "forum shopping" practices 
(i.e. on-demand services establishing themselves in Member States with light regulation on promotion 
of  European  works).  This  has  in  turn  created  competition  distortions  and  has  undermined  the 
effectiveness  of  the  current  rules 123.    This  is  the  position  of  5  Member  States 124 and  1  national 
regulator125; a few public broadcasters (4); some members of the Cinema, Film and TV industry (5); 
and the majority of telecom operators and right holders who expressed and opinion (5 out of 9 and 5 
out  of  7,  respectively).  Impacts  on  SMEs:  Option  B  would  have  a  limited  impact  on  small  on 
demand  players,  including  SMEs.  As  detailed  in  ANNEX  3,  the  audiovisual  sector  is  highly 
concentrated and small on demand service providers would benefit from exemptions.  

Social impacts: 

The  combination  of  share  and  prominence  obligations  on  on-demand  services  would  lead  to 
consumers of on-demand services being more exposed to European works than they are today126. In 
2013,  the  Belgian  CSA  analysed  two  major  VoD  catalogues:  out  of  the  top  50  works,  19  were  EU 
works of which all but 3 had been promoted127. The imposition of financial contributions would have 
a  positive  impact  on  the  creation  of  European  audiovisual  content  as  on-demand  services  providers 
may be required to increase their current contribution to content creation.    

The  imposition  of  financial  contributions  extraterritorially  may  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
provision  of  cross-border  on-demand  services  in  some  territories  where  some  providers  -  most 
probably  smaller  ones  -  may  not  be  able  to  recoup  the  financial  contributions  and  the  related 
administrative  costs.  Option  B  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  small  independent  producers. 

122 195  VoD  players  are  currently  established  in  a  Member  States  and  targets  audience  in  another  Member  States.  As  mentioned  above,  currently  4 
Member  States  have  imposed  levies  for  on-demand  services  established  in  their  territory  and  5  Member  States  have  imposed  direct  investment 
obligations. 
123 In  some  countries,  the  current  approach  has  had  a  detrimental  effect  on  the  financing  of  European  audiovisual  content.  For  example,  in  the  1990s 
certain  operator  established  in  Poland  co-financed  substantially  Polish  films  under  an  agreement  with  the  Polish  government.  This  continued  until  a 
different operator established in Hungary started to broadcast targeting Polish audiences but without any contribution to Polish cinema. This resulted in a 
competitive  disadvantage  as  a  consequence  of  which  investment  in  Polish  films  was  considerably  reduced.  Source:  EFAD's  reply  to  the  Public 
Consultation. 
124 BE-Fr, FR, IE, IT, PL 
125 DE-R 
126 European films accounted to about one-third of films promoted in catalogues of the main VoD providers in Germany, France and UK in October 2015 
while the share of US films among films promoted was in the range of 55%. Also, European films were allocated around  28% of all promotional sports 
available and 60% were allocated to US films (On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 
127
is 

line 
http://www.csa.be/system/documents_files/2159/original/JFF_20131118_presentation_Hearing_Brussels.pdf?1384786651 

prominence 

 Promotion 

-  Why 

matters 

works 

stake: 

EUR 

what 

and 

on 

of 

at 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Impacts  on  cultural  diversity:  The  imposition  of  mandatory  obligations  on  on-demand  services 
providers  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  cultural  diversity  (Article  22  of  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights)  as  on-demand  services  providers  may  be  required  to  increase  their  current 
contribution to content creation. 

5.2.1.4 Discarded option: introduction of sub-quotas for non-national European works 

82%  of  the  respondents  (that  is,  104  out  of  126  of  the  contributions  across  different  categories  of 
stakeholders)  to  the  public  consultation  who  expressed  an  opinion  on  this  issue  are  interested  in 
watching more content produced in another Member State.  

However,  there  was  very  limited  support  to  increase  diversity  by  introducing  sub-quotas  for  non-
national  European  works.  Indeed  out  of  the  25.8%  of  respondents  from  various  categories  of 
stakeholders which chose the option to reinforce the rules on the promotion of EU works, only a very 
marginal  part  –  one  Member  State,  one  regulator  and  two  content  distributors  –  supported  the 
introduction of these sub-quotas. 

In addition, there is no evidence that the industry would be able to recoup the cost of adapting their 
offer  to  the  new  sub-quotas  in  the  absence  of  audience128.  Some  Member  States  have  flagged  their 
opposition to this approach129. This could even reinforce the existing deficit of competitiveness of TV 
broadcasters vis-à-vis on demand services.  

This option has therefore not been impact assessed. 

5.2.1.5 Comparison of options 

Status quo 
Compliance costs: nc 
Administrative costs: 
-  Regulators: for monitoring 
TV broadcasting services: 
EUR 220 000 per year for 
all EU Regulators and for 
monitoring on-demand 
services: EUR 10 000 per 
year for all EU Regulators. 
Service providers: cost of 
reporting is EUR 200 000 
for all EU TV broadcasting 
services per year and EUR 
110 000 for all EU on-
demand services per year. 

- 

Option A 
Compliance costs: nc 
Administrative costs: 
-  Regulators: for monitoring 
TV broadcasting services: 
around EUR 220 000 per 
year for all EU Regulators. 
The cost of supervising on-
demand services is not 
possible to estimate 
precisely but is likely to be 
close to status quo. 
Service providers: cost of 
reporting would be EUR 
200 000 for all EU TV 
broadcasting services and 
EUR 110 000 for all EU 
on-demand services. 

- 

Costs and 
savings 

Option B 

Compliance costs:  
-  Costs related to the 

application of contributions 
extra territorially: between 
EUR 5.8 and 8.2 million per 
year for one major EU 
provider. For levies only 
costs can vary between EUR 
4.7 and 11.7 million per 
year for all EU providers. 
The cost of complying with the 
20% share is deemed to be 
limited as on-demnad services 
business models are based on 
revenue sharing. The cost of 
complying with prominence 
requirements is not quantifiable. 
Administrative costs: 
-  Regulators: for monitoring 
TV broadcasting services: 
EUR 220 000 per year for 
all EU Regulators. The cost 
of monitoring on demand 
services in the Member 
States with the highest 
requirements is EUR 2 000 

128 As  a  benchmark,  according  to  the  EAO  Yearbook  2015,  cinema  admissions  for  non-national  European  films  amounted  to  less  than  10%  of  total 
admissions in the EU in 2014.   
129 In the context of the 43rd Meeting of the Contact Committee (Brussels, 18th January 2016), DE, EE, FR and LV expressly manifested their opposition 
to a sub-quota of non-national European works, with DE pointing out that it would constitute discrimination on the grounds of nationality. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
per year. 

-  Service providers: cost of 
reporting is EUR 200 000 
for all EU TV broadcasting 
services. Cost of reporting 
for on-demand services 
would be higher than status 
quo but not quantifiable. 

Effectiveness 
and 
subsidiarity 
test 

The  status  quo  for  TV  broadcasters  proposed  under  option  B  has  proven  to  be  efficient  to  promote 
cultural diversity while preserving their capacity to innovate.  

By  reinforcing  the  mandatory  character  related  to  the  share  and  prominence  of  European  works  in 
catalogue, option B will ensure that Member States take measures. In turn this would increase the level 
of  harmonisation  while  still  leaving  flexibility  to  Member  States.  This  would  entail  limited 
administrative and compliance costs. 

The most significant costs result from option B and the possibility to apply financial contribution extra-
territorially. However, financial contributions to audiovisual content creation are very close to cultural 
policy, which is a subsidiarity field. Option B seeks to bring this prerogative back to Member States, as 
intervention  at  EU  level  had  not  resulted  in  increased  harmonization.  This  option  is  therefore  in  full 
compliance  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  In  addition,  allowing  Member  States  imposing  financial 
contributions  on  on-demand  service  providers  where  their  turnover  is  generated  is  the  most  efficient 
way to secure the contribution of those services to cultural diversity while increasing the level playing 
field in each national market.  

Option B is the preferred option. 

Options 

General objectives and related 
impacts 

Establish the 
conditions to 
ensure 
competitiveness 
(impacts on the 
competitiveness) 

Support 
European 
cultural 
diversity (social 
impacts) 

Status 
quo 
Option 
A 

Option B 

0 

+ 

+ 

0 

- - 

+ + 

Costs 
(administrative 
and compliance) 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Feasability 
(technical and 
political) 

Preferred 
option 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

High 

X 

5.2.2 Protection of minors in on-demand services  

5.2.2.1 Status quo option 

TV  broadcasts  must  not  include  seriously  harmful  programmes  (pornography  and  strong  violence). 
They may include potentially harmful programmes (erotic content and mild violence), but should do it 
in a way which prevents minors from hearing or seeing them. On-demand service providers are also 
required  to  take  appropriate  measures  so  that  minors  would  not  normally  hear  or  see  seriously 
harmful content. There are no restrictions for potentially harmful content for on-demand services.  

Economic outcome: 

Existing costs: Maintaining the status quo would result in no additional administrative or compliance 
costs for regulatory authorities or media service providers. Existing administrative costs incurred by 
the  regulators  in  most  Member  States  relate  to  monitoring  and  enforcing  compliance  with  these 
requirements.  For  TV  broadcasting,  this  is  done  on  the  basis  of  complaints  or  on  a  systematic 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
recording of all television programmes130. For on-demand services, the majority of regulators do not 
regularly  monitor  compliance  with  the  rules.  Most  of  them  act  on  the  basis  of  complaints.  Some 
regulators  monitor  these  rules  through  spot  checks.  The  cost  for  reviewing  and  enforcing  the 
provisions  on  the  protection  of  minors  amounts  to  approximately  up  to  EUR  800  000  per  year  per 
regulator131. 

Compliance  costs  for  providers  (this  includes  telecom,  cable,  satellite,  broadcasters  and  on-demand 
services) can be divided into two categories: i) direct costs, such as the costs of classifying audiovisual 
content as harmful to minors (i.e. the costs of applying for a rating as well as the time spent managing 
the  process)  or  of  implementing  technical  control  measures  and  ii)  indirect  costs  e.g.  lost  revenues 
which would otherwise be obtained in the absence of classification. 

For TV broadcasting, the majority of Member States impose the use of techniques based on the time 
at  which  the  content  is  transmitted,  i.e.  watershed-based  restrictions 132 .  As  regards  on-demand 
services, the majority of Member States require the use of technical measures to ensure that minors 
will  not  see  or  hear  harmful  material.  The  use  of  a  PIN  access  code  is  one  of  the  most  common 
measures133.  

Direct costs are difficult to estimate as they are usually absorbed by the provider. Both Pay TV and 
on-demand  service  providers  reported  significant  costs  for  the  provision  of  technical  solutions  to 
control the access and to provide information on harmful content. Costs related to control measures 
increase in relation to the number of new devices on the market such as tablets, smartphones or HDMI 
keys,  which  usually  require  ad  hoc  developments  and  investments.  A  German  service  provider 
reported a cost for age verification mechanisms for 16 + on TV platforms of EUR 1.25 million yearly. 
It also reports a cost for a strict post-ID system for adult content of EUR 1.1 million in total for the 
period 2010-2015. In the public consultation, some TV broadcasters reported a range of direct and/or 
indirect  costs  from  EUR  100  000  to  EUR  2  million  per  year  at  EU  level  for  a  pan-European 
audiovisual  group.  However,  these  costs  cover  measures  that  are  not  necessarily  required  by  the 
AVMSD.   

Some indirect costs can emerge when classifying content as potentially harmful to minors, as it can 
narrow  the  targeted  audience  and  have  an  impact  on  the  number  of  transactions  and  subscriptions 
(VoD  and  SVoD)  or  on  the  attractiveness  of  the  programmes  for  advertisers  (catch-up  TV).  In 
principle, indirect costs for on-demand services could be expected to be lower, because the access to 
potentially harmful content is not restricted by the AVMSD. However, a majority of Member States 
have  adopted  stricter  measures  and  require  some  form  of  protection 134  (e.g.  PIN  codes,  content 
filtering) for potentially harmful content135.  

130 2nd report from the EC on the application of Directive 2010/13/EU  AVMSD. 
131 Information from audiovisual regulators of 3 Member States (FR, DE, IT). Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible 
new  legislative  proposal  concerning  directive  2010/13/EU  (AVMSD)  and  in  particular  the  provisions  on  the  protection  of  minors.  Although  for  the 
German regulator this figure covers both protection of minors and commercial communications. For AGCOM it covers reviewing and enforcing rules 
related to protection of minors. 
132 Such  measures  are  accompanied  by  on-screen  icons,  content  rating/classification  measures  and  in  some  cases  special  warnings  for  viewers.  Some 
countries have also put in place technical means or parental control measures to restrict access to harmful content (see ANNEX 14) 
133 Some  Member  States  also  use  age  verification  mechanisms  and  separate  catalogues  with  parental  control  systems.  These  mechanisms  are  often 
complemented by content rating and content classification schemes. The watershed technique is also used for specific services (see ANNEX 14) 
134 Even if almost all member states use rating systems and apply watershed rules in the framework of the implementation of the Directive, fewer of them 
mention which kind of technical measures should be applied by service providers: 7 Member States specify technical measures which should be applied 
by linear service providers: Austria, Belgium – French-speaking Community, Spain, Finland, France, United Kingdom and Slovenia. 15 member states 
specify technical measures which should be applied by non-linear services: Austria, Belgium – French-speaking Community, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, 
France,  United  Kingdom,  Greece,  Croatia,  Hungary,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  Latvia  and  Slovenia.  The  technical  measures  mentioned  are  mostly  about 
various types of conditional access, which can usually be activated via a parental code, which either blocks the reception of certain types of programmes, 
or filters them (i.e. the programme is not visible on the electronic programme guide). EAO-Analysis of the implementation of the provisions contained in 
the AVMSD concerning the protection of minors (see ANNEX 14) 
135 EAO Iris bonus – The protection of minors in audiovisual media services (see ANNEX 14) 

32 

 
 
                                                 
Outcome on the Internal market: The lack of full harmonisation of the concept of harmful content 
and  the  lack  of  a  harmonised  age  rating  system  has  not  been  a  reason  not  to  provide  cross  border 
access given its limited cost. 

Outcome  on  competitiveness:  Because  of the different levels of requirements of the AVMSD,  TV 
broadcasting  is  under  more  constraints  than  on-demand  services.  This  situation  creates  an  undue 
competitive advantage  for  on-demand  services,  in  particular  with  respect to  Pay  TV  operators,  with 
which they share similarities.  

The results of the public consultation indicate that, with the exception of some telecom operators and 
on-demand service providers, the majority of the respondents believe that this distinction is no longer 
relevant,  effective  or  fair.  Conversely,  a  high  number  of  TV  commercial  broadcasters  consider  this 
distinction  still  relevant.  However,  some  Pay  TV  operators  consider  the  distinction  as  no  longer 
relevant.  

Social outcome: 

The changes in viewing patterns, especially of younger generations, highlighted in Section 2.2.2.1 B 
and the growing convergence between TV broadcasting and on-demand services has led to a situation 
where minors are less protected online than watching the same content on TV. 

5.2.2.2 Option A: increasing the level of protection of minors for on-demand audiovisual media 
services, simplify the notion of harmful content and encouraging of EU co-regulation on content 
descriptors. 

The  rules  on  protection  of  minors  applicable  to  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  would  be 
strengthened  by  requiring  them  to  restrict  access  to  any  kind  of  "harmful  content"  (gratuitous 
violence,  pornography  erotic  and  mildly  violent  content)  136.  The  same  rule  would  apply  to  TV 
broadacsters.  

The  most  harmful  content,  such  as  gratuitous  violence  and  pornography,  shall  be  subject  to  the 
strictest measures providing a high degree of control, such as age verification pin codes or even by a 
"by default" mechanism that would not make this type of content available except when activated by 
an adult.  

In addition Member States would have to ensure that all audiovisual media service providers provide 
sufficient information to consumers about the possible harmful nature of the content in programmes 
by means of co-regulatory systems 137.  

The  Commission  and  ERGA  would  facilitate  exchanges  of  best  practices  on  co-regulatory  systems 
across  the  EU.  If  considered  appropriate,  the  Commission  would  facilitate  the  development  of  EU 
codes on which ERGA might be requested to give an opinion.  

The  general  provisions  on  self-  and  co-regulation  (Article  4(7))  would  be  reinforced  by  indicating 
new benchmarks for the effectiveness of the existing and new codes.  

Economic impacts 

136 Article 12 AVMSD: "Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that on-demand audiovisual media services provided by media service 
providers under their jurisdiction which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors are only made available in such a 
way as to ensure that minors will not normally hear or see such on-demand audiovisual media services". 
137 The  actual  age  rating  systems  will  continue  to  be  defined  at  Member  State  level,  according  to  the  different  national  sensitivities  but  it  will  be 
complemented by content descriptors (words or symbol) which provide guidance to consumers on the harmful nature of the content (for example bad 
language, sex, violence, drugs, discrimination, etc.). Age rating systems as such would not be harmonised.  

33 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Substantive  compliance  costs:  On-demand  service  providers  would  need  to  assess  and  classify  all 
offered programmes to see whether they fall within the scope of "potentially harmful" programmes. 
There  are  on  average  5  764  titles  available  in  VoD  catalogues138.  A  broadcaster  reported  a  EUR 
550 000  cost  per  year  to  implement  classification  and  ratings  for  TV  broadcasting  and  on-demand 
services, and a on-demand operator a one shot cost of EUR 1.1 million cost for launching from scratch 
in a new country based on a catalogue of 5 000 titles139. There could be also additional compliance 
costs as regards technical control mechanisms. However, these compliance costs would be mitigated 
as at national level, Member States already require some form of protection (e.g. PIN codes, content 
filtering)  for  seriously  harmful  content140 and  most  of  them  also  for  "potentially  harmful"  content. 
Programming the most harmful content would be a business decision that TV broadcasters will take if 
they are able to recoup the underlying investment.   

Audiovisual media service providers would have to comply with the new information requirements. 
The associated costs would be mitigated in those Member States where similar mechanisms, such as 
age rating, are in place (see ANNEX 14). The studies available provide information on the costs of 
rating content according to different age groups, but no specific information on the cost of describing 
the harmful nature of the content. However, age rating costs detailed in the above paragraph can be 
used as benchmark as, once the content is classified and labelled (as in the majority of the Member 
States), the additional cost of providing a description of the content is minimal. 

Most Member States use rating systems (all except Denmark, Estonia, Italy and Sweden) and in most 
countries five age groups are defined. Although the age groups may vary, the different classifications 
are all generally based on similar criteria: presence of discrimination, drugs, imitative behavior, coarse 
language, nudity, sex, threatening content and violence. 

Only  in  two  countries,  Finland  and  the  Netherlands,  the  system  is  a  combination  of  legally  binding 
age  rating  and  content  descriptors  indicating  different  categories  of  content  (violence,  sex,  anxiety, 
drug  in  Finland;  violence,  fear,  sex,  discrimination,  drug  and  alcohol  abuse,  coarse  language  in 
Netherlands). 

Despite the costs incurred, some media service providers reported, in the 2015 Public consultation and 
the  data  gathering  on  costs  and  benefits141,  that  a  reliable  system  for  the  protection  of  minors  can 
create  a  competitive  advantage.  Being  identified  as  a  family-friendly  provider  can  be  a  strong 
marketing  argument  and  contributes  to  the  positive  branding  of  the  operator.  Indeed  according  to 
BBFC,  86%  of  parents  in  the  UK  would  encourage/ensure  their  children  to  watch  online  channels 
with clear age ratings. 

Administrative  costs:  There  would  be  additional  administrative  costs for  regulators  for  monitoring 
compliance  with  the  new  rules  by  providers  of  on-demand  services,  in  particular  in  the  9  countries 
where  there  are  no  stricter  rules  in  place  (see  ANNEX  14).  Regulators  already  supervise  the 
implementation  of  appropriate  measures  by  on-demand  services  to  protect  minors  from  seriously 
harmful  content.  They  would  need  to  go  beyond  and  verify  that  those  measures  are  applied  to 
potentially harmful programmes.  

138 According to the 2014 EAO report on the development of the European market for on-demand audiovisual services.  
139 Cost for a EU board submission process, for 5000 titles, including costs per viewable, staffer/contractor overhead and yearly licence fee. 
140 EAO Iris bonus – The protection of minors in audiovisual media services 
141 A data gathering on costs and benefits of the AVMSD was sent to stakeholders via the national Regulators.  
The  survey  gathered  a  total  of  107  replies  with  40  coming  from  commercial  broadcasters  (38  %),  20  public  service  broadcasters  (19  %),  18  VOD 
providers  (17  %),  12  from  national  associations  focusing  on  the  protection  of  minors  (12  %),  10  from  national  associations  representing  independent 
producers (10 %), 4 from consumer association (4 %). One association representing broadcasters and one representing sales houses also participated. 
As regards the geographical spread the Commission received replies from stakeholders established in 19 Member States. 
As most of the information is confidential, it has been used in the Impact Assessment and the REFIT in an aggregated and anonymised way. For this 
reason the replies are not published 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Depending  on  the  compliance  procedures  in  place  at  national  level,  a  single  category  of  harmful 
content  may  imply  an  increase  in  the  number  of  checks  and/or  of  complaints  to  deal  with.  For 
example,  a  voluntary  self-monitoring  body  in  a  Member  State  reported  a  cost  of  EUR  126  000  for 
handling  complaints  (2  612)  in  2014142.  For  on-demand  service  providers,  there  would  be  some 
administrative  costs  in  relation  to  a  potential  increase  of  complaints  due  to  the  wider  scope  of 
application of the provision on the protection of minors. 

Regulators and media service providers would face administrative costs related to the implementation 
of the information requirements, via co-regulation, in those Member States where similar mechanisms 
are not in place. The administrative costs related to the implementation of co-regulation will depend 
on the approach adopted. In an ambitious scenario, this could imply setting up a system based on the 
creation of a specific organisation, rules and processes. The PEGI143 system can give an idea of the 
administrative costs linked to such an approach at EU level144.  

Impacts  on  the  Internal  market:  simplifying  the  definition  of  harmful  content  could  result  in  the 
most  harmful  content  (for  example,  but  not  limited  to,  hardcore  pornography)  being  consistently 
subject to effective access controls, across the EU145. 

Requiring  information  on  content  would  also  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  internal  market  by 
providing more harmonization across Member States and TV broadcasting and on-demand services.  

This would be facilitated by the Commission and ERGA intervention.  

Impacts  on  competitiveness:  Harmonising  the  level  of  requirements  between  TV  broadcasting,  in 
particular  pay  TV  services146,  and  on  demand  services  will  increase  the  level  playing  field.  In  the 
frame  of  the  data  gathering  on  costs  and  benefits,  pay  TV  reported  high  costs  for  the  provision  of 
technical  solutions  to  control  the  access  and  provide  information  on  harmful  content.  Two  of  them 
complained  about  the  lower  set  of  restrictions  applied  to  on  demand  services  while  both  type  of 
services provide similar technical measures to restrict the access to harmful content.  

For on-demand services, the extension of the existing requirements to potentially harmful content is 
likely to have an impact  in  terms  of  their revenues  in particular in the countries where there are no 
stricter rules in place. Less content would be accessible to their widest possible audience. On-demand 
service providers may therefore incur a loss of revenues be it in terms of number of transactions and 
subscription  (VoD  and  SVoD)  or  of  advertising  (catch  up  TV).  Impacts  on  SMEs:  Option  A  may 
generate additional costs for SMEs providers. 

Social impacts: 

In a context where children consume significant quantities of on-demand content (see Section 2.2.2.1 
B), Option A would ensure a higher level of protection. Several surveys have found that consumers 

142 Study  on  Survey  and  data  gathering  to  support  the  Impact  Assessment  of  a  possible  new  legislative  proposal  concerning  directive  2010/13/EU 
(AVMSD) and in particular the provisions on the protection of minors 
143 Pan  European  Game  Information  (PEGI)  is  a  European  video  game  content  rating  system  established  to  help  European  consumers  make  informed 
decisions on buying computer games with logos on games' boxes. PEGI self-regulation is composed by 5 age categories and 8 content descriptors that 
advise the suitability and content of a game for a certain age range based on the games content. 
144 The governance and management consist of a Management Board (made up of 16 representatives of games publishers, the game console manufacture 
and national trade associations), a Council (made up of 19  members recruited from the authorities countries, working as civil servants, psychologists, 
media  specialists  and  legal  advisers  versed  in  the  protection  of  minors  in  Europe.  They  meet  at  least  once  a  year)  an  Experts  Group  (involving  8 
specialists and academics in the fields of media, psychology, classification, legal matters, technology, digital environment) and a Complaints Board (it 
comprises  a  pool  of  independent  experts  from  different  countries  recruited  for  their  skill,  experience  and  field  of  activity.  These  are  parent/consumer 
bodies, child psychologists, media specialists, academics and legal advisers versed in the protection of minors in Europe). PEGI generates own resources 
via the rating fee paid by games publishers and possible fines. 
145 This view was confimed by OFCOM the 2015 Public Consultation. 
146 For free to air broadcasting this possibility could not be used since encryption and PIN codes are difficult to put in place 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
expect seamless protection in online video services147. This is why in the majority of Member States, 
industry has already adopted self-regulatory measures to protect minors also from potentially harmful 
content  even  in  the  cases  where  no  regulatory  measures  are  in  place  regarding  this  type  of  content. 
The possibility for TV brodacsters services to broadcast the most harmful content wil be mitigated by 
the fact that this content shall be subject to the strictest measures, such as encryption and PIN codes. 
In some Member States erotic content which would most probably be considered as pornographic in 
other Member States is subject to encryption and PIN codes without posing a threat to the protection 
of minors. In addition new generation of devices such as Smart TV will add a second possible layer of 
protection148.  Against this backdrop, the majority of ERGA-members supported the idea that the most 
harmful content could be allowed on TV broadcasting services, provided an adequate access control 
mechanism is in place149.  

Requirements on the provision of information would have a positive impact on consumer protection 
by ensuring transparency on the potential harm of content. Impacts on fundamental rights: Option 
A  may  be  perceived  as  an  undue  limitation  to  the  right  of  freedom  of  expression  and  access  to 
information  on  on-demand  services.  Yet  it  still  remains  more  limited  than  for  TV  broadcasters. 
Moreover,  by  way  of  analogy,  in  the  context  of  Article  3  of  the  AVMSD,  the  legislator  made  an 
express  choice  in  Directive  2010/13/EU  to  limit  the  freedom  of  expression  of  audiovisual  media 
services  in  two  specific  circumstances,  namely  for  the  protection  of  minors  and  the  incitement  to 
hatred  based  on  race,  sex,  religion  or  nationality150.  Setting  requirements  on  content  information 
would  have  a  limited  impact  on  freedom  of  expression  as  it  does  not  imply  age  rating  but  only 
transparency measures. 

5.2.2.3 Comparison of options 

Costs and savings 

Status quo 

Option A 

Administrative costs: EUR 800 000 per 
year and per regulator (FR, DE, IT). 
Compliance costs: costs can range from 
EUR 100 000 to a maximum of EUR 2 
million at EU level per year and per TV 
broadcasting service. The costs provided 
by TV broadcasters cover measures that are 
not implemented as a direct result of the 
AVMSD. The costs directly resulting from 
the AVMSD would be lower. 

Administrative costs: not substantial 
Maximum compliance costs: Cost of self-
regulatory schemes for content information up 
to EUR 2 million per year for the EU (proxy= 
budget of two entities in charge of the 
classification of media content  is EUR 2 
million).  
For most on-demand services the costs would 
be limited as some Member States require 
some form of protection (e.g. PIN codes, 
content filtering) for "potentially harmful" 
content151.  

Effectiveness and 
subsidiarity test 

Option A would tackle the current deficit of fair treatment between TV broadcasters and on-
demand services and would improve the level playing field.  

Option  A  would  also  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  internal  market  through  an  increased 
level  of  availability  of  information  at  a  limited  cost  (co-regulatory  mechanisms).  This 
approach  through  co-regulation  would  also  be  more  effective  in  terms  of  protection  of 
minors and would be achieved without impinging on Member States subsidiarity and in line 
with the minimum level of harmonisation feature of the AVMSD.   

147 In 2013, 74% of the French population considered regulation should apply on video content on the internet in order to protect young people against 
inappropriate content (source: CSA, Baromètre de perception de la qualité des programmes). In the UK, the majority of audiences expect comprehensive 
and  broadly  homogenous  rules  on  protection  of  minors  across  all  AV  platforms  (broadcast  TV,  catch-up,  on-demand,  and  other  internet  services). 
(source: Protecting audiences in an online world, Deliberative research report. Prepared for OFCOM by Kantar Media. Fieldwork took place in July and 
August 2014.) 
148 For recollection Smart TVs in 21 EU markets have moved from about 5 million installed devices at the end of 2011 to more than 39 million in 2014 
and are foreseen to reach the level of almost 118 million in 2018. 
149 ERGA report on the protection of minors in a converged environement of 27th November 2015 
150 COMMISSION DECISION C(2015) 4609 final of 10.7.2015 on the compatibility of the measures adopted by Lithuania pursuant to Article 3(2) of 
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 
151 EAO Iris bonus – The protection of minors in audiovisual media services 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Option A is the preferred option. 

Options 

General objectives and related 
impacts 

Establish the 
conditions to 
ensure 
competitiveness 
(impacts on the 
competitiveness) 

Safeguard the 
protection of 
minors and 
consumer 
protection 
(social impacts) 

Costs 
(administrative 
and compliance) 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Feasability 
(technical and 
political) 

Preferred 
option 

Status 
quo 
Option 
A 

0 

+ + 

0 

+ +  

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 

Medium 

Medium 

X 

5.2.3 Country of origin principle 

5.2.3.1 Status quo option 

The AVMSD is based on the COO. In order to determine which Member State has jurisdiction over an 
audiovisual  media  service  provider,  the  AVMSD  focuses  on  a  number  of  criteria  (place  where 
editorial decisions are taken, head office, etc.).  

The  AVMSD  foresees  limited  derogations  (derogation  procedure)  to  the  COO  principle.  For  TV 
broadcasting,  derogations  should  be  based  on  grounds  of  incitement  to  hatred  or  protection  of 
minors.  For  on-demand  services,  there  are  more  grounds,  including  public  policy,  public  security 
(including the safeguarding of national security and defence) the protection of public health and the 
protection  of  consumers.  An  emergency  procedure  is  foreseen  only  for  on  demand  services.  For 
situations  where  there  might  be  circumvention  of  the  stricter  rules  of  another  Member  State  a 
procedure is in place (circumvention procedure).  

The  above-mentioned  procedures  will  be  hereafter  collectively  referred  to  as  "cooperation 
procedures". 

Economic outcome: 

Existing  costs:  Maintaining  the  status  quo  would  result  in  no  additional  costs.  The  COO  avoids 
regulatory  inefficiencies  which  would  result  from  subjecting  one  service  to  multiple  jurisdictions. 
Media  service  providers  incur  low  compliance  costs  as  a  consequence  of  being  subject  to  the 
legislation of the country of establishment only. 

However, given the complexity of the current rules, some Regulators have recently been subject to a 
heavy  administrative  burden.  For  example,  in  a  recent  Lithuanian  case  (ANNEX  9),  extensive 
consultations  and  written  exchanges  between  the  Swedish  and  the  Lithuanian  regulators  took  place. 
Those exchanges could be equaled to a workload of 50-100 hours shared by the two regulators. 

The increased use of the complex cooperation procedures152 has led to costs to regulators and to the 
Commission.  As  a  benchmark,  the  Lithuanian  case  referred  to  above  represented  a  workload  of 
roughly  400  hours  over  three  months  for  the  case  handler,  and  a  total  additional  workload  of 
approximately 200 hours for supervisors and other Commission services involved153. Based on recent 
experience, it would seem reasonable to reckon the number of cases with up to 5 per year. 

152   In  addition  to  the  cases  mentioned  in  section  2.2.2.2  A  there  have  been  3  cases  in  2014  that  have  not  led  to  a  notification  but  which  could  have 
triggered jurisdictional issues. 
153 Based  on  the  cost  of  a  working  hour  on  average  in  the  EU  (EUR  30  -  http://www.coe-rexecode.fr/public/Indicateurs-et-Graphiques/Indicateurs-du-
cout-de-l-heure-de-travail-en-Europe), the total cost for the Commission would be EUR 18 000.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Outcome  Internal  market:  In  spite  of  the  broad  support  for  the  COO  principle154,  Member  States 
acknowledge a need for addressing actual problems in the application of the principle. In particular, 
they  refer  to  the  complexity  of  the  jurisdiction  criteria  and  the  ineffectiveness  of  the  cooperation 
procedures (see ANNEX 9). Maintaining the status quo would mean leaving these application issues 
unaddressed which would fuel opposition to the COO principle as such. A minority of Member States 
plead for limited departures to a country of destination principle.  

Outcome  on  competitiveness:  The  COO  principle  provides  legal  certainty  by  subjecting  media 
service providers  in the EU  to  the legislation of  one Member State only. By keeping administrative 
and  compliance  costs  for  providers  low  and  allowing  for  economies  of  scale,  the  COO  principle  in 
turn facilitates investment in the media sector155. The complexity of jurisdiction rules and derogation 
procedures can undermine the positive impact of the COO principle on the competitiveness of media 
service providers.  

Social outcome: 

The COO ensures diversity and has fostered the availability of content by facilitating the cross border 
provision  of  audiovisual  programmes.  This  is  particularly  true  in  smaller  markets  where  service 
providers  would  otherwise  not  be  interested  in  rolling  out  their  services  and  incurring  the  cost  of 
compliance  with  a  specific  legislation.  In  some  cases,  the  number  of  services  provided  from  other 
Member States is higher than the number of domestic services156. 

While the COO  might potentially lead to different  degrees of consumer protection, consumers have 
only exceptionally complained about the application of the COO principle157. This can be explained 
by  the  fact  that  consumers  are  protected  by  the  consumer  protection  rules  of  the  Directive.  The 
Directive  moreover  foresees  cooperation  procedures  in  case  services  from  other  Member  States 
infringe common key values (derogation/circumvention procedure - see ANNEX 9). For instance the 
derogation  procedure  allows  Member  States  to  take  measures  against  incitement  to  hatred  and 
infringement  of  the  protection  of  minors  rules  on  TV  broadcasting.  However,  to  the  extent  that  the 
cooperation  procedures  are  ineffective,  this  could  affect  the  level  of  protection  of  consumers, 
including minors. 

5.2.3.2  Option  A:  Simplifying  and  improving  the  jurisdiction  rules  and  the  cooperation 
procedures 

This  option  would  entail  (i)  simplifying  the  criteria  to  determine  jurisdiction;  (ii)  ensuring 
transparency  and  legal  certainty  via  the  implementation  of  a  database  of  service  providers  under 
Member  States  jurisdiction;  and  (iii)  revising  the  cooperation  procedures  to  make  them  more 
effective. 
In case of disagreement over which Member State has jurisdiction (in particular when applying the 
cooperation  procedures  foreseen  by  the  Directive),  the  Commission  would  settle  the  matter  after 
requesting an opinion from ERGA.  

The same derogation procedure and grounds for derogating from the COO principle would apply to 
TV broadcasting and on-demand services (i.e. incitement to hatred, protection of minors and public 

154 See section 2.1 above. 
155 In the public consultation, this aspect has been highlighted by DE, LU, SE and the UK, as well as by the satellite industry, public service broadcasters, 
commercial broadcasters, platform operators and publishers. 
156 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  -  Origin  and  availability  of  On  -
Demand services in the European Union.  
157 The  notification  by  Sweden  in  the  framework  of  the  circumvention  procedure  (see  ANNEX  9)  was  triggered  by  concerns  raised  with  the  Swedish 
authorities by a consumer association.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
security). The urgency procedure currently available for on-demand services only would also apply to 
TV  broadcasting  services.  The  cooperation  procedure  would  clarify  the  right  to  be  heard  of 
audiovisual media service providers in relation to measures restricting their freedom to broadcast.   

Economic impacts: 

Substantive compliance costs: Option A would generate no additional compliance costs. 

Administrative costs: This option is likely to contribute to an easier application of the Directive and 
hence reduce the current administrative costs. 

Operating  a  database  of  all  existing  providers  and  sharing  relevant  information  (e.g.  where  the 
majority  of  the  workforce  is  established)  would  entail  administrative  costs  for  regulators.  The 
database could be built on the existing MAVISE database158 and fed through contributions from the 
Member States, through their independent regulators. One full time equivalent could be necessary to 
maintain  the  database 159.  The  costs  of  setting  up  the  necessary  infrastructure  to  receive  relevant 
information  from  the  Member  States  would  be  offset  if  the  existing  MAVISE  database  were  to  be 
used. 

There  would  be  administrative  costs  for  ERGA  which  would  have  to  be  able  to  give  opinions  on 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction160.  Part  of  those  costs  would  be  borne  by  the  Commission,  including  the 
organisation of the meetings, travel and subsistence costs. National regulators would bear the cost of 
working  time  spent  by  national  officials  when  working  for  ERGA.  It  is  difficult  to  anticipate  the 
number of jurisdictional disputes which would require settlement if the current lack of transparency 
regarding jurisdiction, in particular in relation to on-demand service providers, would be remedied by 
an up to date database.  

At the same time, operating a database and empowering ERGA to provide opinions on jurisdiction, 
together with the simplification of jurisdiction rules, are expected to lead to cost savings. These cost 
savings  would  stem  from  the  easier  and  more  reliable  identification  of  the  COO  which  means  that 
complex and time-consuming negotiations between regulators regarding jurisdiction (including on the 
factual  circumstances  on  which  jurisdiction  is  based)  can  be  minimised.  In  the  absence  of  relevant 
data, these cost savings are difficult to quantify.  

Cost savings are also expected for audiovisual media service providers. As far as they are concerned, 
they  would  benefit  from  greater  legal  certainty  resulting  from  a  simplification  of  jurisdiction  rules. 
They would equally benefit from greater transparency and thus a greater predictability of regulators' 
decisions on jurisdiction. 

Compared to the status quo option, option A would add one ground of derogation for TV broadcasting 
and remove a number of grounds for on-demand services. Option A therefore would be a measured 
response  to  Member  State  concerns 161 .  The  alignment  of  the  derogation  procedure  for  TV 
broadcasting and on-demand services would lead to a simpler application which could result in cost 
savings  for  Member  States  and  regulators.  There  is  no  available  data  allowing  for  a  reliable 

158 Mavise is a database on television channels and companies in the European Union and candidate countries. The database consists of a complete survey 
of over 10 000 pan-European, national, regional or local television channels broadcast in Europe and of over 3 000 on-demand audiovisual services. The 
main aims of Mavise are to provide better knowledge of the audiovisual market and more transparency.  
159 Estimation based on confidential information. 
160 Note that in the given context the notion of "jurisdictional disputes" is not to be understood in the meaning of Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction 
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.  
161 In the public consultation, most Member States (DE, IE, FI, EE, EL, LV, UK, SK, BE-VLG, PT) and 14 regulators (UK, DE, ES, FI, NL, SK, PL, HU, 
RO) supported strengthening existing cooperation practices and/or revising the rules on the cooperation procedures. Also public service broadcasters, the 
satellite  industry  and  platform  operators  called  for  strengthening  existing  cooperation  practices  and  revising  the  coordination  procedures.  Commercial 
broadcasters mainly called for maintaining the status quo. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
quantification of those savings. The procedural safeguards, in particular the codification of the rights 
of  defence  of  the  providers  concerned,  would  contribute  to  legal  certainty  and  would  ensure  that 
providers can effectively present their views. They could therefore bring down providers' legal costs 
triggered by taking legal action against decisions of national regulators. 

Impacts  on  the  Internal  market:  Option  A  would  increase  legal  certainty  and  transparency.  The 
alignment of the grounds of derogation would create a more level playing field without restricting free 
circulation  of  services  across  borders.  It  should  be  noted  that  regarding  incitement  to  hatred  and 
protection of minors, the threshold is very high (manifest, serious and grave infringement). Moreover, 
the  Court  of  Justice  has  consistently  interpreted  the  notion  of  "public  security"  narrowly  and 
strictly162. Option A would thus have a positive impact on the functioning of the internal market. 

Impacts  on  competitiveness:  Option  A  would  have  positive  effect  on  competitiveness,  given  the 
increased  legal  certainty.  Impacts  on  SMEs:  Clarification  of  jurisdiction  rules  and  increased 
transparency  would  have  a  negligible  impact  on  SMEs  given  that  the  obligation  is  imposed  on 
Member  States.  However,  there  could  be  an  indirect  negative  impact  on  SMEs  if  Member  States 
decided  to  increase  the  level  of  notification  or  identification  requirements  in  order  to  establish 
jurisdiction.  

Social impacts: 

Simplifying and improving the jurisdiction rules and cooperation procedures would allow for a better 
application  of  the  COO.  The  accrued  legal  certainty  would  avoid  situations  where  Member  States 
decline jurisdiction over audiovisual media service providers in spite of jurisdictional links with them. 
This option would result in a more  effective application of the Directive,  including  the rules  on the 
protection of minors. Aligning the grounds of derogation could lead to an increased level of consumer 
protection  in  TV  broadcasting.  Nothing  would  change  for  on-demand  services  since  the  derogation 
grounds which would be scrapped off have not been invoked or applied.   Impacts  on  fundamental 
rights:  Simplifying  jurisdiction  rules  and  ensuring  transparency  would  have  no  impact  on 
fundamental  rights  although  an  increase  in  transparency  has  an  indirect  impact  on  the  fundamental 
right of information. Improving the cooperation procedures would have a positive impact on the rights 
of the defence and indirectly on the freedom to conduct a business.  

5.2.3.3 Discarded option: extension of the AVMSD to audiovisual media services established in 
third countries 

In the public consultation, a significant number of Member States and regulators refer to the absence 
of a level playing field and distortions of competition163. This would result from the fact that foreign 
providers targeting EU audiences are currently not covered by the scope of the AVMSD. It must be 
borne  in  mind  that  Member  States  are  already  allowed  to  apply  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  to 
foreign  providers  targeting  consumers  in  their  territory.  This  notwithstanding,  the  majority  of 
contributors164 to the public consultation also argued that an extension of the rules on the geographical 
scope to certain foreign providers is necessary.  

Despite these results, no significant negative impacts of the current rules could be identified. Leading 
foreign providers of on-demand services (Netflix, iTunes, Amazon EU Sarl) have set up subsidiaries 
in the EU. Indeed, only 50 paying VoD services (including different linguistic versions of the same 

162 See, for instance, Case C-546/07 Commission v Germany [2010] ECR I-439, paragraph 48; Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651, paragraph 26 see 
ANNEX 9. 
163 5  Member  States  (AT,  BE-Fr,  EL,  PL,  SK)  and  1  regulator  (UK-ATVOD)  underlined  the  importance  of  creating  a  level  playing  field  through  a 
comprehensive legal framework. 
164 Including 9 Member States (AT, BE, EE, EL, IT, PL, PT, FR, SK) and 12 regulators (e.g. UK-ATVOD, BE-CSA, FR, IT, PL, ES, RO) and some 
public service and commercial broadcasters. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
provider)  established  in  the  United  States  target  one  or  more  Member  States165.  Given  the  lack  of 
transparency  of  the  VoD  market,  the  exact  market  share  of  these  foreign  providers  is  not  known. 
However,  at  present  there  seems  to  be  only  one  important  player,  i.e.  Google  Play,  with  no 
establishment  in  the  EU166.  It  follows  that  there  is  a  lack  of  evidence  as  to  the  existence  of  a  real 
problem.  

In addition, the extension of the geographical scope would be difficult to enforce. Member States can 
already  apply  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  to  foreign  providers  targeting  consumers  in  their 
territory.  However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  they  have  made  use  of  this  possibility.  By  contrast,  if 
foreign providers were to be required to register/appoint a representative, this obligation would have 
to be monitored and enforced. If the registration/appointment of a representative turns out not to be 
sufficiently  effective  and  real  (e.g.  a  letterbox  company),  the  rules  would  have  to  be  enforced  in  a 
third country which could be complicated. Firstly, by analogy to international cooperation in the field 
of competition, enforcement by the Commission in a third country may require bilateral international 
agreements  ("dedicated  agreements")  or  AVSMD  provisions  included  in  general  agreements  (e.g. 
Trade Agreements). However, this is likely to be complicated as providers located in the US constitute 
the  major  part  of  the  market  share  of  foreign  providers  targeting  the  EU  and  audiovisual  services 
remain  excluded  from  the  ongoing  TTIP  negotiations.  Secondly,  any  decision  from  a  regulator 
imposing  a  fine  or  seeking  a  change  in  the  behaviour  of  a  service  provider  would  be  difficult  to 
enforce as there would normally be no assets in the EU. In case a foreign provider targets more than 
one Member State, the need for coordination between regulators so as to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction 
would trigger further administrative costs.  

Extending  the  geographical  scope  would  thus  be  disproportionate  and  would  not  represent  a  clear 
added value. 

5.2.3.4 Comparison of the options 

Costs and savings 

Status quo 
Administrative costs: staff costs related to case 
handling EUR 18 000 per case for the 
Commission and EUR 3 000 for the 
Regulators involved in the case. 
Compliance costs: 0 

Option A 

Administrative costs:  

-  Costs of ERGA opinions: nc 
-  Around EUR 51 630 to run the 
MAVISE database for the EU  

Cost savings: not quantifiable 
Compliance costs: 0 

Effectiveness and 
subsidiarity test 

Options A would facilitate the identification of the country of origin and therefore improve 
the functioning of the internal market with cost savings for the regulators, the Commission 
and audiovisual media service providers.  

Option A would increase the protection of consumers and allows quick intervention in case 
of public security threats. In addition, option A would reply to a strong political demand to 
allow Member States to do so. The approval by the Commission would nevertheless act as a 
safeguard against any possible misuse of this possibility mitigating potential impacts on the 
internal market. 

The  cooperation  procedures  have  the  objective  of  allowing  for  subsidiarity  considerations 
and  national  specificities  in  the  application  of  the  COO  principle.  Improving  their 
functioning is therefore contributing to further abide by the subsidiarity principle. 

165 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  -  Origin  and  availability  of  On  -
Demand services in the European Union 
166 Google Play movies and TV was rolled out in the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain at the end of 2012 only.  By contrast, iTunes movies started 
in the UK in 2008, and in France and Germany in 2009. Google Play entered the on-demand market significantly later and has still a low or no presence 
in  most  Member  States.  The  comparatively  late  roll-out  of  Google  Play  in  the  EU,  evolving  usage  patterns  of  mobile  devices  in  particular  with  the 
younger generation and the high penetration rate of Android could offer significant growth potential for Google Play. The impact of Google Play not 
being covered by the geographical scope of the Directive, even if currently not so important, could therefore become increasingly more in the future if 
they decide to remain outside the EU. It will thus remain important for the Commission to keep an eye on the evolution of the market in implementing a 
revised AVMSD.  

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Option A is the preferred option. 

Options 

General objectives and related 
impacts 

Internal market  
(impacts on the 
internal market) 

Establish the 
conditions to 
ensure 
competitiveness 
(impacts on the 
competitiveness) 

Costs 
(administrative 
and compliance) 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Feasibility 
(technical and 
political) 

Preferred 
option 

Status 
quo 
Option 
A 

0 

+ + 

0 

+   

Low 

Low 

Medium 

High 

High 

High 

Low 

High 

X 

5.2.4 Independence of Regulators 

5.2.4.1 Status quo option:  

The AVMSD does not impose an obligation on Member States to create or maintain an independent 
regulatory body. Member States are only required to take appropriate measures to provide each other 
and the Commission with the information necessary for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction and 
applying the cooperation mechanisms.  

Economic outcome: 

Existing  costs:  Maintaining  the  status  quo  would  not  entail  substantive  compliance  costs  for 
audiovisual media service providers or additional administrative and enforcement costs for regulatory 
authorities.  

The  existing  costs  deriving  from  setting  up  an  independent  authority  are  not  as  such,  a  legal 
consequence  of  the  AVMSD  which  does  not  impose  such  an  obligation.  In  any  case,  the  Member 
State's  regulatory  structures  needed  to  implement  the  AVMSD  at  national  level  have  resulted  in 
moderate  to  high  administrative  costs.  The  average  staff  dedicated  per  channel  monitored  by 
regulators across the EU has been estimated at 0.56 person167. 

Outcome Internal market: When regulatory bodies are not efficient or lack independence, this has a 
direct impact on the effective transposition and application of EU legislation and consequently on the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market.  The  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  (2000)23 168  on  the 
independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector as well as a number 
of  studies  and  reports169,  consider  that  the  following  set  of  criteria  would  ensure  an  effective  and 
independent implementation of legislation: 
i) independence from third parties or from external influence;  
ii) transparent decision-making processes and accountability to relevant stakeholders;  
iii) open and transparent procedures for the nomination, appointment and removal of Board Members;  
iv) knowledge and expertise of human resources;  
v) financial170, operational and decision making autonomy;  
vi) effective enforcement powers;  
vii)  the possibility only for judicial power to review the regulatory bodies' decisions.  

167 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people   
168 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=393649& 
169 INDIREG  Final  Report  (http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360)  and  Final  Report  of  AVMS-RADAR,  ERGA  Report  on  the  independence  of  National 
Regulatory Authorities (http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-independence-national-regulatory-authorities. 
170 In line with the INDIREG study, financial autonomy means "that the regulator is equipped with sufficient financial resources". 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The situation of national regulatory bodies in the light of these criteria is as follows:  
-  5 national regulatory authorities171 are not fully separated from ministerial bodies or government.  
-  4  Member  States  do  not  have  any  transparency  provisions 172 and  2  Member  States 173 do  not 

require regulators to motivate their decisions. 

-  A  number  of  countries  do  not  follow  sufficiently  open  and  transparent  procedures  for  the 
nomination, appointment and removal of board members174. 6 countries lack rules on conflict of 
interest for appointments175. There are no rules against conflict of interest with government176 in 6 
countries, and 9 do not have rules on conflict of interest with Parliament and political parties177. 5 
countries neither have rules on the possible conflict of interest with industry (5)178. In 5 countries, 
no specific rules exist to protect Board members against arbitrary dismissal (5)179. 

-  Some commercial broadcasters pointed out to a lack of the requisite knowledge and expertise by 

the staff of several audiovisual regulators in the 2015 public consultation. 

-  Large  budgetary180 differences  exist  between  national  regulatory  authorities  across  the  EU.  The 
regulatory bodies of 10 countries have less than EUR 1 million of budget per year. However, this 
amount can be much higher in other countries181. The same can be said as regards staffing182. In 
this  context,  the  RADAR  study  also  concluded  that  the  level  of  staff  has  been  considered  to  be 
problematic  for  several  regulators 183.  A  more  qualitative  assessment  by  ERGA  gave  a  close 
conclusion184. As regards decision making process, the regulatory powers of some regulators are 
limited by the power of other bodies to overturn their decisions as well as by the power of other 
bodies to give instructions185 to regulators.  

-  5 regulators report that they do not have powers to enforce their decisions autonomously186. 

Failure  to  fully  align  to  each  of  these  criteria  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  lack  of  independence. 
However, they provide a formal framework to ensure the highest possible level of independence and 
hence better ensure an efficient implementation of the AVMSD.   

Some  commercial  broadcasters  replying  to  the  2015  public  consultation  mentioned  recent  decisions 
by several regulators which, according to them, were problematic for their own independence. They 

case  no.  1  BvF  1/11 

cf.  Bundesverfassungsgericht, 

Judgment  of  25  March  2014, 

171  CY,  EE,  FI,  LV,  LT.  Source:  ERGA  Report  on  the  independence  of  National  Regulatory  Authorities  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/erga-report-independence-national-regulatory-authorities)    
172 Some German Länder, DK , ES and FI. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR. Note that in the case of DE, the RADAR Study does not take into 
account  the  most  recent  developments  following  a  judgment  by  the  German  Federal  Constitutional  Court  which  declared  the  current  composition 
unconstitutional; 
and  1  BvF  4/11, 
ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:fs20140325.1bvf000111   
173 Estonia and Luxembourg. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
174 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR and ERGA Report.   
175 AT, BG, DE (some Länder) , DK, RO, UK. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
176 DE (some Länder and ZDF), ES, Pl, RO, SI, UK. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
177 BE (all communities), EE, ES, FR, DE, NL, PT, RO ,SI.  
178 BE, DE (only RBB), EE, ES and FR.  
179 BE (VRM), DK, EE, LU, SE. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
180 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR   
181 France (€ 35 million), several German regional regulators such as the BLM (€ 28 million in 2014) and the LFK (10 million in 2014),or Ireland and 
Poland (more than € 5 million in 2014). In some Member States, the budget for regulators is even higher, but - as they are converged regulators - , it is 
difficult  to  establish  which  part  of  the  budget  is  assigned  to  audiovisual  (e.g.  in  UK-  OFCOM:  €  160  million  in  2014-2015;  In  Spain  -  CNMC:  €  53 
million in 2014). 
182 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR Staff ranges from 2 persons in Iceland to 306 persons in France or 790 in the UK 
183 German speaking community of BE, CY, CZ, EL, HR, IE and RO. 
184 ERGA  members  considered  that  in  10  NRAs  human  resources were  not  adequate  (Belgium-Wallonia,  Belgium-MEDIENRAT,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg and Portugal). 
185 The regulatory power of CvDM of the Netherlands is only limited by the power of other bodies to overturn its decisions, but no other body has the 
possibility to give instructions to the regulator. The decisions of the regulator from the Flemish-speaking Community of Belgium, from Denmark and the 
Netherlands can be overturned by a Ministry, while the decisions of the French-speaking Community and the German-speaking Community of Belgium 
can be overturned by the Government. Limitations to that power to overturn the decisions of the regulator exist only in the German-speaking and French-
speaking  Community  of  Belgium  and  in  Denmark.  The  regulatory  powers  of  11  regulators  are  only  limited  by  the  power  of  other  bodies  to  give 
instruction, but no other body has the power to overturn their decisions. (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, 
Sweden,  United  Kingdom.   ).  6  regulatory  authorities  get  instructions  by  a  ministry  (Cyprus,  Denmark,  Finland,  Ireland,  Sweden,  and  United 
Kingdom.   ).  5  regulators  can  be  subjected  to  instructions  from  the  Government.  Belgium  (all  Communities),  Sweden,  United  Kingdom.  3  regulators 
receive instructions from the Parliament, (Italy, Malta, Romania). 
186 Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden report that they do not have powers to enforce its decisions autonomously; see ERGA report 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
affected  negatively  Public  Service  Broadcasters  (PSB),  commercial  broadcasters  and  sometimes  all 
players187. 

The  absence  of  independence  can  undermine  the  predictability  of  regulation  which,  according  to 
service providers, is a necessary condition for them to establish and serve audiences in other Member 
States188. 

Outcome on competitiveness: The independence of regulatory authorities both from political bodies 
and from commercial interests is essential to ensure an objective supervision of markets189. A lack of 
independence  can  result  in  an  unfair  treatment  between  players  competing  on  the  same  market  and 
have a negative economic impact on service providers (see Section 2.2.2.2 B). 

Social outcome: 

The  current  rules  aim  to  ensure  the  effective  implementation  of  the  AVMSD  in  cross-border  cases 
where  cooperation  between  the  regulatory  authorities  is  required.  In  this  sense,  they  provide  the 
general  public  with  the  assurance  that  the  audiovisual  rules,  protecting  their  interests,  are  observed. 
However,  since  the  way  regulatory  authorities  function  can  differ  significantly  from  one  Member 
State  to  the  other,  it  can  translate  into  different  levels  of  user  protection  across  the  EU.  In  markets 
with weak regulators, consumer rights risk not to be sufficiently protected190. 

Moreover,  regulatory  authorities  lacking  independence  are  not  in  a  position  to  guarantee  media 
freedom and pluralism191 (see Section 2.2.2.2 B). 

5.2.4.2 Option A: The AVMSD would require Member States to have an independent regulatory 
authority  and  set  a  number  of  requirements  to  support  their  independence  and  effectiveness. 
ERGA coordination and advisory role would be reinforced and embedded in the AVMSD 

The  AVMSD  would  set  minimum  mandatory  requirements  for  regulatory  bodies.  Such  requirements 
could  include:  i)  independence  from  third  parties;  ii)  transparent  decision-making  processes  and 
accountability  to  relevant  stakeholders;  iii)  open  and  transparent  procedures  for  the  removal  of 
Board  Members;  iv)  knowledge  and  expertise  of  human  resources;  v)  financial192,  operational  and 
decision  making  autonomy;  vi)  effective  enforcement  powers;  vii)  the  possibility  only  for  judicial 
power to review the NRAs’ decisions. 

These  are  based  on  the  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  (2000)23 193,  a  number  of  studies  and 
reports (see Section 5.2.4.1) and the requirements set by EU law in other legislative frameworks (see 
ANNEX 12) 

The AVMSD would also require that the regulators have competences in all the areas covered by the 
AVMSD.  They  should  exercise  these  competences  impartially  and  transparently  and  in  accordance 

187  In  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia  and  Romania  (Reply  to  the  2015  public  consultation  by  the  Association  of  Commercial  Television  (ACT): 
http://www.acte.be/library/45/54/ACT-Response-to-AVMS-Public-Consultation)  
188 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people. 
189 ERGA statement on the independence of NRAs in the audiovisual sector:  
 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-statement-independence-nras-audiovisual-sector 
190 E.g. reply to the 2015 public consultation by UK Government or FOX International channels. 
191 Recital  94  AVMSD  "In  accordance  with  the  duties  imposed  on  Member  States  by  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  they  are 
responsible for the effective implementation of this Directive. They are free to choose the appropriate instruments according to their legal traditions and 
established  structures,  and,  in  particular,  the  form  of  their  competent  independent  regulatory  bodies,  in  order  to  be  able  to  carry  out  their  work  in 
implementing this Directive impartially and transparently. More  specifically,  the  instruments  chosen  by  Member  States  should  contribute  to  the 
promotion of media pluralism." 
192 In line with the INDIREG study, financial autonomy means "that the regulator is equipped with sufficient financial resources". 
193 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=393649&  

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
with  the  AVMSD  objectives  (media  pluralism,  cultural  diversity,  consumer  protection,  internal 
market, distortion of competition).  

This option shall not prevent supervision in accordance with national constitutional law. 

The role of ERGA, currently set by a Commission Decision194, would be embedded in the AVMSD and 
include new tasks deriving from the review of the Directive (see Sections 5.1.3, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3). This 
would not imply the creation of an Agency. Existing financing mechanisms would be maintained. 

Economic impacts: 

Substantive compliance costs would not increase. 

Administrative  costs:  Option  A  would  entail  moderate  to  high  administrative  costs  for  Member 
States,  depending  on  whether  their regulatory  authorities  already  fulfill  the  criteria  of  independence 
and  effectiveness,  especially  the  criteria  on  adequate  financial  and  human  resources.  For  some 
Member  States,  this  would  imply  administrative  costs  related  to  adapting  the  legislation  and,  if 
necessary, the structure of the Regulator, its staff and budget. The maximum increase in staff costs has 
been  estimated  at  200  full  time  equivalents  for  the  most  understaffed  regulators195.  However,  the 
reliability  of  this  forecast  is  limited  given  that  the  independence  and  efficiency  of  a  regulatory 
authority derives from a complex combination of the requirements mentioned in the status quo.   

Impacts  on  the  Internal  market:  Option  A  would  contribute  to  raising  the  level  of  regulatory 
independence in the audiovisual sector. This in turn would enhance the effectiveness of the AVMSD 
transposition  across  the  EU  in  particular  in  the  areas  of  audiovisual  commercial  communications, 
jurisdiction  and  protection  of  minors 196.  Moreover,  by  indicating  the  minimum  requirements  for 
independence,  option  A  would  achieve  a  higher  level  of  harmonisation  as  regards  the  structures  of 
regulatory authorities. This view is shared by 74 out of 86 respondents to the 2013 consultation and by 
most  of  the  commercial  TV  broadcasters  who  replied  to  the  2015  public  consultation.  By 
strengthening ERGA's role, there would be more exchanges among regulators on the implementation 
of  the  AVMSD.  This  would  bring  closer  Member  States'  positions  as  regards  the  interpretation  and 
application  of  the  AVMSD.  This  would  indirectly  increase  the  level  of  harmonization  in  the 
application of the AVMSD. 

Impacts  on  competitiveness:  The  introduction  of  proper  independence  requirements  applicable 
across all the EU countries would contribute to guaranteeing legal certainty and a level playing field 
for  all  market  players  in  the  EU197.  Representatives  of  service  providers  that  serve  more  than  one 
Member  State  argued  that  the  willingness  to  establish  in  a  Member  State  and  serve  audiences  in 
several Member States is mostly determined by the high quality and consistency of regulation, and by 
the  independence  of  regulators198.  The  formalisation  of  ERGA  would  enhance  cooperation  between 
the regulatory authorities in the EU and thus enhance legal certainty and level playing field between 
audiovisual  media  service  providers199.  The  replies  to  the  2015  public  consultation  by  some  of  the 

194 C(2014) 462 final 
195 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people. 
196 Results  of  the  2013  public  consultation  on  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies:  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-
consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions  
197 This has been underlined by some broadcasters replying to 2015 public consultation (e.g. COBA, FOX,  VOEP).  
198 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people. The other criteria are taxation levels, availability of a skilled 
workforce, good infrastructure. 
199 Closer cooperation between regulatory authorities in the EU could be an effective tool to address some issues flagged by operators (such as difficulties 
faced  by  thematic  channels  to  comply  with  quotas  obligations  regarding  promotion  of  European  works)  by  way  of,  for  example,  coordinating  the 
application of exemptions.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
broadcasters 200  indicate  that  the  existence  and  opinions/statements  of  ERGA  are  highly  valued. 
Impacts  on  SMEs: An increase of legal certainty and a level playing field for all market players in 
the EU and would have a positive impact on SMEs. 

Social impacts: 

Due  to  the  improved  effectiveness  of  the  AVMSD  transposition,  option  A  is  likely  to  increase 
viewers' protection in the audiovisual sector. It could also contribute to attracting more players to offer 
services in specific markets, contributing thereby to an increased content choice for consumers. The 
reinforcement of ERGA would enhance the existing cooperation between regulatory authorities. This 
would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  cross-border  protection  of  consumers  for  example  in  case  of 
cross-border  infringement  cases.  Impacts  on  fundamental  rights:  Option  A  should  contribute  to 
ensuring freedom of expression and information. This view is shared by the majority of the Member 
States  and  regulators  who  believe  that  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies  have  a  key  role  to  play  in 
safeguarding free and pluralistic media throughout Europe. In order for them to be able to undertake 
this role properly and without unwarranted interference, it is vital that they are independent201. 

5.2.4.3 Comparison of options 

Costs and savings 

Status quo 

Administrative costs: 0.56 person per 
channel monitored by regulators across the 
EU  

Option A 
Administrative costs: not available. A rough 
possibly overestimated extrapolation results 
in a maximum increase of 200-250 FTEs for 
the very understaffed Regulators. Although 
this figure cannot be taken in isolation from 
other independence requirements. 

Effectiveness and 
subsidiarity test 

Options A contributes to a thorough implementation of the AVMSD while ensuring media 
freedom and pluralism. The budget of the most understaffed Regulators would increase. 

Option A would give enforcement powers to the Commission. It would therefore be effective 
in  achieving  the  objective  of  ensuring  regulatory  independence  and  hence  improve  the 
internal market.  

As shown in the last review of the AVMSD, option A is likely to be politically challenging. 
While it is widely supported by the industry and civil society, a number of Member States 
consider that option A would impinge on the subsidiarity principle. 

Option  A  foresees  minimum  requirements  and  remains  proportional  since  it  clarifies  that 
Member  States  would  maintain  their  prerogatives  to  ensure  regulators'  accountability  in 
accordance with their national constitutional law. 

Option A is the preferred option. 

Options 

General objectives and 
related impacts 

Costs 
(administrative 
and compliance) 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Feasability 
(technical and 
political) 

Preferred 
option 

200 E.g.  Fox,VPRT,  
201 78 out of 86 respondents to the 2013 public consultation on independence considered that independence of audiovisual regulatory bodies is relevant 
for the preservation of free and pluralistic media). This view was also shared by the respondents to the 2015 public consultation (some Member States , 
e.g. Ireland and Latvia; regulators: Spanish CNMC and CAA, FR CSA, Dutch CdvM, Romanian NAC, GermanVS; Public service  (EBU, RAI, Circom 
Regional) and commercial broadcasters (CMFE); as well as other respondents (NGOs, citizens or digital companies).   

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Internal 
market  
(impacts 
on the 
internal 
market) 

Establish the 
conditions to 
ensure 
competitiveness 
(impacts on the 
competitiveness) 

Status 
quo 
Option 
A 

0 

0 

Low 

+ + + 

+ + + 

Medium 

Low 

High 

High 

High 

Medium 

Low  

X 

5.3 Option addressing the problem of the rules on commercial communications no longer fit for 
purpose 

5.3.1 Status quo option: 

The  AVMSD  contains  rules  on  commercial  communications  that  apply  to  all  audiovisual  media 
services.  These  are  the  rules  on  the  use  of  sponsorship  and  product  placement  and  on  certain 
qualitative aspects of commercial communications202.  

The AVMSD also lays down more detailed rules that apply only to television broadcasting. They set a 
maximum of 12 minutes of advertising per hour on television (i.e. 20% per hour), define how often TV 
films,  cinematographic  works  and  news  programmes  can  be  interrupted  by  advertisement,  set  the 
minimum  duration  of  teleshopping  windows  and  set  some  requirements  on  the  content  of  alcohol 
advertising spots.  

Economic outcome 

Existing costs: Maintaining the status quo would result in no additional administrative or compliance 
costs.  

According to regulators, the existing requirements have resulted in administrative costs up to EUR 1.2 
million per year per regulatory authority203.  

In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  self-  and  co-regulation  systems  are  in  place  in  the  field  of 
advertising in general. These systems are either funded by membership fees or by a levy system from 
the industry and their cost ranges from EUR 250 000 to EUR 1 million204. 

Outcome  Internal  market:  The  minimum  harmonisation  provided  by  the  AVMSD  has  resulted  in 
fragmentation  and  has  not  brought  legal  certainty  in  the  areas  of  sponsorship,  self-promotion  and 
product placement. For sponsorship announcements and product placement, the main issue concerns 
the  interpretation  of  the  concepts  of  "potential  undue  promotional  character" 205  and  "undue 
prominence"206.  For  self-promotion,  the  difficulty  lies  in  applying  this  notion  to  assess  whether  it 
should be included in the 20% rule. This problem can be particularly acute for anouncements related 
to  programmes  of  other  entities  belonging  to  same  media  group,  which  are  not  strictly  speaking 
considered in the notion of self-promotion.  

202 See Article 9 AVMSD  
203 Depending on the size of the audiovisual market in the country, the staff costs, the use of external services for monitoring. Study on defining a new 
framework for the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. 
204 Sources EASA (European Advertising Standards Alliance) 
205 For example, in Austria, a specific case of a logo wall in a sports broadcast was deemed unduly prominent (BKS decision of 14 December 2011, GZ 
611.009/0007-BKS/2011). In the Flemish Community of Belgium, different praises of a restaurant and a new shop were considered as undue prominence 
(VRM, 2010/026 and VRM, 2010/027). In Germany, a decision highlighted that there is undue prominence only if the product placement is the single 
dominating element to the extent that the actual programme content is no longer recognizable (case no.5 K 1128/11.NW). 
206 In some Member States, these sponsorship announcements are frequently shorter forms of advertising spots. There may also be a lack of or unclear 
identification of the sponsorship agreement. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Outcome on competitiveness: At a moment where online advertising is overtaking TV advertising as 
the preferred media for advertisers, TV broadcasting is subject to rules that are no longer justified (see 
Section 2.2.3 and ANNEX 6). 

In  their  replies  to  the  2015  public  consultation,  advertisers,  some  broadcasters  and  several  Member 
States  and  regulators  claim  that  there  is  no  level  playing  field  between  TV  broadcasting  and  other 
media  services,  and  in  particular  between  TV  broadcasters  and  on-demand  service  providers. 
However, a few broadcasters, mainly from the UK, prefer the status quo option. 

Social outcome: 

Consumer organisations (including those from the health sector) recognise the relevance of the rules 
but  think  that  they  are  neither  fair  nor  effective.  Consumer  organisations  underline  that  the  level  of 
consumer  protection  should  not  be  lowered207.  Even  if  new  offers  in  the  market  have  progressively 
given  consumers  the  opportunity  to  switch  to  services  without  advertising  (see  Section  2.2.3),  they 
still have some concerns about excessive advertising on TV208. They also consider that self- and co-
regulation systems take too long to review complaints while advertising campaigns are fast-paced.  

Advertising  revenues  directly  contribute  to  (commercial)  TV  broadcasters'  capacity  to  invest  in 
audiovisual content. A decrease of TV advertising revenues linked to the limitations imposed by the 
current regulation will have a negative impact on creative industries and cultural diversity. 

5.3.2 Option A: Making the AVCC rules more flexible 

For both TV broadcasters and on-demand services, sponsorship rules would be made more flexible by 
focusing  on  the  principles  of  editorial  independence,  transparency  (clear  indication  that  the 
programme has been sponsored) and no sponsorship for banned products such as tobacco. Similarly, 
product placement would be explicitly allowed and the rules would be relaxed by deleting the "undue 
prominence" criterion and focusing on the principles of editorial independence, transparency (clear 
indication  that  the  programme  contains  product  placement)  and  no  product  placement  for  banned 
products  (such  as  tobacco  or  medicines  on  prescription).  The  prohibition  of  product  placement  in 
children's programmes would remain. 

For  TV  broadcasters,  films  could  be  interrupted  more  often  (once  for  each  period  of  20  minutes) 
except for children's programmes for which the current rule would remain. Isolated spots would be 
allowed. 

As regards quantitative limitations for advertising, TV broadcasters would be allowed more flexibility 
by transforming the 20 % per hour limitation into a daily limitation. 

More  types  of  commercial  messages  would  be  excluded  from  the  advertising  limit  (e.g.  cross-
promotion including announcements for programmes of other broadcasters or other media within the 
same media group). 

As regards qualitative rules, the status quo would remain209. Regarding the provisions on AVCCs for 
alcohol (Article 9(1)e)) and  HFSS foods accompanying or included in programmes with a significant 

207 BEUC's contribution to the public consultation. In addition EURALVA underlines that the quantitative rules are not satisfactory if not respected by 
stakeholders. 
208 In 2014, for example, 57% of UK viewers agreed with the statement “there are already more minutes of advertising in an hour than I am really happy 
with”. However, viewers also appear to understand the relationship which exists between advertising and the funding of content: 72% of UK viewers 
questioned  in  2014  identified  without  prompting  that  advertising  represented  the  primary  source  of  funding  for  the  UK’s  three  main  free-to-air 
commercial television services (ITV/STV/UTV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) which between them account for 24% of UK adult television viewing and just 
under  £1.5bn  (€2.1bn)  in  programme  spend.  Source:  Ofcom's  report  on  UK  audience  attitudes  to  the  broadcast  media  2014  (slides  42  and  43), 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/attitudes-to-media/Annex_1.pdf  
209 See Article 9 AVMSD. 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
children's  audience  (Article  9(2)),  self-  and  co-regulation  would  be  encouraged,  also  at  EU  level  if 
necessary.  Member  States  would  be  encouraged  to  ensure  that  self-  and  co-regulatory  codes  are 
effectively  used  to  reduce  the  exposure  of  children  to  audiovisual  commercial  communications  of 
alcoholic  beverages  and  of  HFSS  foods.  The  Commission  and  ERGA  would  facilitate  exchanges  of 
best  practices  on  co-regulatory  systems  across  the  EU.  If  considered  appropriate,  the  Commission 
would facilitate the development of EU codes on which ERGA might be requested to give an opinion.  

The  general  provisions  on  self-  and  co-regulation  (Article  4(7))  would  be  reinforced  with  new 
benchmarks for the effectiveness of the existing and new codes.  

Economic impacts: 

Substantive  compliance  costs:  The  incremental  costs  for  TV  broadcasting  and  on-demand  service 
providers of the new provisions would be zero210. 

Administrative  costs:  There  would  not  be  any  incremental  administrative  cost  for  regulators. 
Currently,  regulators'  monitoring  and  enforcement  activities  with  respect  to  the  20%  limitation 
amount to up to EUR 1 million211. As regards product placement and sponsorship rules, these costs 
amount respectively up to EUR 2.2 million and EUR 2.1 million per year at EU level212. 

As  an  important  share  of  these  costs  derive  from  the  application  of  subjective  criteria,  such  as  the 
undue  prominence  of  product  placement,  regulators  will  certainly  lower  their  current  costs.  It  is 
however not possible to quantify precisely these cost savings. 

For HFSS foods advertising, codes of conduct are already in place in all Member States except two. 
Similarly,  for  alcohol  advertising,  codes  exist  in  most  Member  States.  Developing  codes  at  Union 
level would imply limited additional costs as they would be mostly absorbed by the current existing 
structures213.  

Impacts on the Internal market: Option A would address the issue of fragmentation brought by the 
lack of certainty about the interpretation of some of the AVMSD concepts in the areas of sponsorship, 
product  placement  and  self-promotion.  This  being  said,  the  AVMSD  is  a  minimum  harmonisation 
Directive.  Member  States  remain  free  to  adopt  stricter  and  more  detailed  rules  for  providers  under 
their  jurisdiction.  Several  Member  States  indeed  have  stricter  rules  already  in  place  as  regards 
quantitative rules, mostly on PSB channels214. It is therefore possible that some Member States would 
maintain stricter rules in this field.  

11 of the Member States that replied to this question support more flexibility but to various degrees. 
Some refer in particular to sponsorship and product placement rules215. Other call also for a deletion 
of the 20% limitation216.   

210 Study on defining a new framework for the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Advertising scheduling is 
a core component of broadcast programming and the quantitative rules imposed by the AVMSD are only a small part of a large number of parameters 
taken into account in TV scheduling strategies aiming at optimising audience and revenue. The costs associated with broadcast programming, including 
IT costs, are “business as usual”, i.e. costs endured even in the absence of the AVMSD. 
211 Ibid, based on the current average value for the monitoring of 1 linear provider established in the EU (PPP adjusted) which is derived from a sample of 
the  regulatory  costs  in  7  MS  which  can  be  considered  as  a  representative  sample  of  different  approaches  to  fulfilling  regulatory  responsibilities  with 
regard to the monitoring and enforcement of the quantitative rules. It is further assumed that regulators focus their regulatory activities on linear services 
which have more than 0,5 % of the audience share. 
212 Ibid 
213 For information, self-regulation organisations' secretariats budget currently range from small (with just one to five members of staff and a budget up to 
EUR 250 000) to large (up to over  100  members of staff with budgets up to and over EUR 1 000 000) and cover the whole advertising field. SROs' 
secretariats mainly receive the complaints, gather any necessary information about the complainant and evidence of the advertiser in order to prepare the 
case for jury. These SROs are either funded by membership fees (18 of them) or a levy system (5) from the industry. 
214 14 Member States have stricter rules than the 12-minute limitation, mostly on PSB channels (11 MS) 
215 NL, UK, PL, FI and ES. 
216 FI and its regulator, DE and its regulators and EE. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Impacts on competitiveness: Most broadcasters agree that product placement and sponsorship rules 
should be clarified and simplified. A simplified set of rules on product placement could result in an 
increase of approximately 10% to 15% of product placement revenues 217, or in a 4% increase of total 
advertising revenues in the EU (i.e. potentially additional revenue of EUR 1.2 million)218. Allowing 
more  flexibility  in  sponsorship  rules  would  allow  broadcasters  to  generate  from  15%  to  50%  of 
additional sponsorship revenues219. This could result in more than EUR 441 million increase of total 
TV advertising spend in the EU (i.e. around 1.5% of current total TV advertising market value)220. It 
must  in  any  case  be  noted  that  it  is  difficult  to  foresee  whether  advertisers  would  increase  their 
advertising budgets or spend their existing budget differently. 

Most broadcasters consider that the insertion rules are no longer relevant or effective. Some argue that 
because of these rules, schedules are not built around viewers' comfort or advertisers' demand, which 
is  counter-productive.  According  to  the  industry,  by  making  the  interruption  rules  more  flexible, 
revenues  could  increase  between  1  and  10 %221.  The  only  other  estimate  available  is  based  on  the 
scenario of abolishing interruption rules. In this case, the overall potential revenue gains could amount 
to 1.35% of advertising revenues coming from cinematographic works and news programmes. This is 
however a conservative estimate since the parameters for calculation do not take into account different 
target groups, time slots etc.222 

If isolated spots were allowed, this would allow for a better optimisation of broadcasters' advertising 
inventory. 

As regards the 20% limitation, the impact of introducing more flexibility would differ depending on 
the  characteristics  of  each  advertising  market223 and  on  the  extent  to  which  Member  States  would 
apply the new rules or maintain the status quo in this area. In the most flexible option of transforming 
the  20%  per  hour  limitation  into  a  daily  limitation,  broadcasters  would  be  allowed  to  broadcast  as 
much advertising as they want during peak times i.e. when they can best maximise their revenues (live 
shows, major events etc.). They could thus optimise their advertising schedules and viewers flow.  

A shift to a daily limit could generate between a 2% and 15% increase of revenues224. For example, 
over the last six months of 2015225, the gross price of a 30-second advertising spot during prime time 

217 EGTA's report on the costs and benefits of compliance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. 
218 Based on the assumption that current revenues on product placement in Europe capture around 0.1% of total ad revenues and only in some cases might 
go above 1%, while in countries such as US where the regulations on product placement are very loose or virtually non-existing at all, the market share 
captured by product placement is around 5%. Such significant direct increase can however hardly be expected in reality (at least short to medium time 
perspective),  mainly  due  to  inherent  differences  between  the  EU  and  the  US  markets.  Study  on  defining  a  new  framework  for  the  monitoring  of 
advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.  
219 EGTA's report on the costs and benefits of compliance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. 
220 Based on an average assumption that  of a given range (30%) of an expected increase in revenues from sponsorship activities, as compared to  the 
current estimation that sponsorship captures around 5% (net value) of total TV revenues in their national markets. Study on defining a new framework for 
the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. 
221 EGTA's report on the costs and benefits of compliance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. 
222 Study on defining a new framework for the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.  
223 Advertising sell-out rates vary widely across Member States, meaning that in some countries, broadcasters do not sell their entire advertising inventory 
while in others; they do and could benefit from additional advertising space. Advertising pressure varies across Member States. Between 2010 and 2013, 
during selected monitoring periods on certain channels, it ranged between 4,9% and 14,1% on average. For commercial broadcasters, this varied between 
15%  and  6,4%.  In  DE,  advertising  spots  represented  on  average  8,6%  of  the  daily  broadcasting  time,  varying  between  14,2%  on  SAT1  and  1.1%  on 
ARD. In the UK, advertising spots represented on average 11.9% of the daily broadcasting, varying between 15% on ITV2, 14,2% on Cartoon Networks 
and 10% on ITV1. In the NL, advertising spots represented on average 9% of the daily transmission time, varying between 12% for SBS6 and Net5 and 
5% on Nederland3. In MT, advertising spots represented on average 4.9% of the daily transmission time, varying between 6,4% on ONE and 4,2% on 
NET. In FR, advertising spots represented on average 5.6% of the daily transmission time, varying between 10.4% on TF1 and 2.4% for Canal+. In IT, 
advertising spots represented on average 8.7% of the daily transmission time, varying between 15% on Canale5, 12.6% on La7 and 3% on RAI2. In AT, 
advertising spots represented on average 7.7% of the daily transmission time, varying between 12.1% on ATV and 2.4% on ORF2. In RO, advertising 
spots represented on average 9,4% of the daily transmission time, varying between 11% on ProTV and Antena1 and 5,1% on TVR1. In DK, advertising 
spots represented on average 14.1% of the daily transmission time, varying between 14.9% on TV3 and 12.9% on TV2. 
224 EGTA's  report  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  compliance  with  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive.  [non-confidential  version],  confirmed  by  a 
broadcaster from a small Member State who replied to the public consultation (MTV Oy), this could mean "an increase of advertising income of about 2 
million euro annually".  
225 http://www.tf1pub.fr/offre/tf1/grille-tarifs/  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
on  TF1  was  EUR  67  330.  It  is  estimated  that  during  important  events  or  programmes,  European 
broadcasters  could  increase  their  advertising  pressure  by  a  few  minutes,  from  12  minutes  to  14-15 
minutes226, taking into account European viewers' lesser propensity to stand long advertising breaks. 
This would mean an increase of around 2,5 minutes of advertising, i.e. 5 more advertising spots of 30 
seconds,  which,  all  things  being  equal,  could  translate  for  a  channel  such  as  TF1  in  an  increased 
revenue of 336 650 EUR i.e. theoretically EUR 122 million annually i.e. 10 % of the turnover of the 
channel in 2014227. However, the potential benefits of more flexibility need to be balanced with the 
fact  that  the  scarcity  of  advertising  spots,  in  particular  at  peak  time,  has  a  positive  impact  on  their 
value.  The  exact  effects  on  market  players  will  largely  depend  on  the  elasticity  of  demand  in  each 
market. By introducing flexibility, broadcasters would be  able to take business decisions adapted to 
the reality of each market in order to balance advertising demand, advertising spot prices and viewers' 
comfort. However, since an increase of the overall advertising volume might trigger a decrease of the 
advertising price228, it is expected that broadcasters will not unduly increase the advertising pressure. 

The  impact  of  excluding  cross-promotion  from  the  20%  limitation  would  depend  on  each  media 
service provider’s business model. In general, the exclusion would mainly benefit broadcasters who 
are part of larger integrated media groups.  

Most commercial broadcasters advocate more flexible advertising rules. However, a few broadcasters 
(mainly  from  the  UK)  deem  that  rules  should  remain  in  their  current  form  in  order  to  keep  the 
advertising market stable. They are supported by some Member States229. 

The printed press industry claims that more opportunities to advertise on TV could imply changes in 
advertisers' media mix, which may be to their detriment230. However, it should be noted that despite 
the  current  limitation,  newspaper  print  advertising  in  Europe  has  dropped  by  23.1  %  between  2010 
and 2014 and by 5 % between 2013 and 2014231. This drop is due to a number of factors, in particular 
to advertising moving online and to other services. The impact woukd be limited as it mainly allows 
broadcasters to better distribute advertising spots during the day. 

Possible  codes  of  conduct  at  EU  level  on  alcohol  and  HFSS  food  advertising  would  complement 
activities  at  national  level  and  are  not  expected  to  decrease  advertising  revenues  for  EU  TV 
broadcasters232 significantly. 

Impacts on SMEs: There will be no significant impact on SMEs (See ANNEX 3). 

Social impacts: 

Overall,  viewers  would  be  potentially  exposed  to  more  advertising  during  peak  time.  Due  to  a 
relaxation of the interruption rules, there could be more frequent and longer advertising breaks. This 

p.14 

226 Based on the average minutes of commercials aired per hour in the USA, Nielsen's Advertising and audiences: State of the media Report, 12 May 
2014, 
http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reports-downloads/2014%20Reports/advertising-and-audiences-report-
may%202014.pdf 
227 http://www.groupe-tf1.fr/sites/default/files/pdf-financiers/annexes_soc_2014_fr.pdf  
228 Study on defining a new framework for the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. See also "An econometric 
analysis of the TV advertising market: final report for Ofcom",  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/report.pdf  
229 UK and FR. 
230 See for example the contributions of EPC, EMMA, ENPA, BDZV VDZ, MLE, NMA, VOEZ and ANSO to the 2015 public consultation. 
231 http://www.wan-ifra.org/sites/default/files/field_message_file/250515%20WPT%202015%20Final.pdf) 
232 The Study on defining a new framework for the  monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive indicates that the 
share of HFSS food advertising varies between 0,8% and 11,2% of total ad revenue for individual TV broadcasters, with an average of 4,56% (based on 
interviews with TV broadcasters). The same study indicates that the share of alcohol advertising for individual TV bradcasters varies between 1 and 2,9% 
of  total  ad  revenue,  with  an  average  of  1,99%  (based  on  interviews  with  TV  broadcasters).  As  a  benchmark,  for  a  big  Member  State,  all  food  and 
beverages advertising (i.e. broader than HFSS foods and drinks) represented 18% of all TV advertising expenditures. Source: Television International 
Key Facts 2015, IP Network  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
may  thus  affect  the  integrity  of  cinematographic  works.  Several  right  holders'  associations  have 
underlined this in their contributions to the public consultation233. 

However,  market  developments  have  led  to  an  increased  amount  of  offerings  to  which  viewers  can 
easily switch, in particular to advertising-free subscription video-on-demand services. This tendency 
has been clearly observed in the US market234 where, despite the fact that there are no limitations as to 
the amount of advertising, broadcasters recently use self-restraint in fear of losing audiences. 

The deletion of a criterion such as "undue prominence" for product placement would expose viewers 
to more commercial messages in programmes235.  

This  being  said,  if  broadcasters  manage  to  retain  the  value  of  advertising  spots  by  marginally 
increasing their number around value-generating programmes at peak-time, an increase in advertising 
revenues would increase the capacity of TV broadcasters to invest in audiovisual content. This would 
have  a  positive  impact  on  the  availability  of  content  for  consumers  and  would  be  beneficial  to  EU 
producers,  especially  when  coupled  with  requirements  on  investment  in  European  works,  including 
the  8  000  EU  independent  producers  with  positive  consequences  for  employment.  Impacts  on 
fundamental rights: Due to an increased capacity to invest in audiovisual content, more flexibility in 
advertising rules would contribute to reinforcing freedom of expression and information (Article 10 of 
the Charter). The possibility to broadcast TV advertising with fewer constraints would contribute as 
well as to the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16). 

5.3.3 Comparison of options 

Status quo 
Maximum administrative costs: EUR 1.2 
million per Regulators, per year 
Compliance costs: nc 

Costs and savings 

Option A 
Maximum savings on administrative costs: 
    20% limitation: EUR 1 million per year 
for the EU 
    Product placement: EUR 2.2 million per 
year for the EU 
    Sponsorship: EUR 2.1 million per year 
for the EU 
Additional Compliance costs: 0 
Maximum economic benefits: 
    Flexibility of 12 minute rule: EUR 122 
million per year for one major TV 
broadcaster 
    Flexibility product placement: EUR 2.2 
million for the EU 
    Flexibility sponsorship: EUR 2.1 million 
for the EU 

Effectiveness and 
subsidiarity test 

Option  A  would  increase  the  competitiveness  of  TV  broadcasters  and  increase  their 
benefits.  TV  broadcasters  will  probably  increase  the  amount  of  advertising  at  peak  time 
only to a limited extent so as to avoid any major fall in the prices of advertising slots. 

By  giving  additional  flexibility  in  this  field  and  maintaining  the  possibility  for  Member 
States to adopt stricter measures, this option is proportionate and fully compliant with the 
subsidiarity principle. 

in  particular  TNT:  http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turners-chief-creative-cutting-tnt-ad-loads-50-percent-dramatic-overhaul-168893, 

233 See for example the contributions of SACD, VS, SAA, VdFS. 
234 http://television.telerama.fr/television/etats-unis-et-maintenant-moins-de-coupures-de-publicite,138319.php  
See 
VIACOM: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/viacom-primetime-tv-advertising-cuts-1201598646/   
235 On the impact of product placement on children, see the study on the impact of marketing through social media, online games and mobile applications 
on children's behaviour  
(http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/behavioural_research/impact_media_marketing_study/index_en.htm 

52 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Options 

Status 
quo 
Option 
A 

General objective 
and related 
impacts 
Establish the 
conditions to 
ensure 
competitiveness 
(impacts on the 
competitiveness) 

0 

+ + + 

Costs 
(administrative and 
compliance) 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

Feasability 
(technical and 
political) 

Preferred 
option 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

X 

5.4 Discarded option: Prominence of content of general interest 

The prominence of content of general interest has been identified as an issue in the frame of the public 
consultation.  However,  the  option  of  including  any  related  provision  in  the  AVMSD  has  been 
discarded at an early stage as no clear consensus on how this issue should be tackled has emerged236. 

Most  recent  market  and  technological  developments  (new  distribution  channels,  the  proliferation  of 
audiovisual  content,  etc.)  have  generated  calls  to  reflect  on  whether  rules  would  be  required  to 
facilitate prominence of content of general interest, i.e. ensuring its findability/discoverability. 

The provision of general interest content constitutes the core element of the mission of public service 
broadcasters in Member States237. It also has a potential impact on commercial broadcasters operating 
(partly or fully) under defined general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of speech 
and cultural diversity. 

Beyond  the  specific  aspect  of  promotion  of  access  to  European  works238,  the  AVMSD  contains  no 
general provision ensuring prominence of content considered by Member States as being of general 
interest.  As  far  as  linear  broadcasting  services  provided  via  electronic  communication  networks  or 
services  are  concerned,  some  Member  States  provide  e.g.  for  requirements  regarding  the  order  of 
channel listings. 

Article  6(4)  of  the  Access  Directive  2002/19/EC  merely  refers  to  but  does  not  regulate  ("without 
prejudice") the ability of Member States to impose obligations in relation to the presentational aspect 
of  electronic  programme  guides  (EPGs)239 and  similar  listing  and  navigation  facilities.  The  Access 
Directive  does  not  mention  any  particular  requirement  or  limitation  in  this  sense,  and  in  any  event 
applies  only  to  the  extent  that  electronic  programme  guides  display  linear  broadcasting  channels 
provided via electronic communication networks or services and information about such channels. 

Even  if  not  stated  by  any  legal  instruments,  Member  States  have  the  possibility  under  national 
legislation  to  introduce  prominence  obligations  on  online  service  providers.  Such  interventions  are 
subject  to  the  Treaty,  including  competition  rules,  the  freedom  of  establishment  and  the  freedom  to 
provide services. 

236 4 out of 20 MS responding to the 2015 Public Consultation asked for introducing findability rules and the large majority of regulators; the industry in 
their  large  majority  opposes  introducing  findability  rules  (see  below).  Introduction  of findability  rules  is  supported  by  the  public  service  broadcasters 
with the objective to ensure their visibility on the new screens. It is also supported by the Associations representing persons with disabilities which are 
seeking for improvement of the accessibility/usage of devices for the disabled (deaf/blind). 
237 Protocol  No  29  on  the  system  of  public  broadcasting  in  the  Member  States  attached  to  the  TEU  and  TFEU  provides  that  "The  provisions  of  the 
Treaties shall be without prejudice to the competence of Member States to provide for the funding of public service broadcasting and in so far as such 
funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each Member State, 
and  in  so  far  as  such  funding  does  not  affect  trading  conditions  and  competition  in  the  Union  to  an  extent  which  would  be  contrary  to  the  common 
interest, while the realisation of the remit of that public service shall be taken into account." 
238 See Art 13(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EC 
239 EPGs  are  menu-based  systems  that  provide  users  of  television,  radio  and  other  media  applications  with  continuously  updated  menus  displaying 
broadcast programming or scheduling information for current and upcoming programming. 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Currently,  some  platforms  reach  commercial  agreements  with  content  providers  including  public 
service broadcasters concerning the prominence of their content. 

The  added  value  of  action  at  EU  level  would  be  to  set  up  and  harmonise  the  limits  to  what  the 
Member States can do in regard of prominence of general interest content240. 

Such  limitation  could  be  conceived  along  the  lines  of  current  limitations  for  must-carry-obligations 
under  Article  31  of  the  Universal  Service  Directive  (USD) 241  where  MS  may  only  impose 
"proportionate obligations on undertakings under their jurisdiction, in the interest of legitimate public 
policy considerations, but such obligations should only be imposed where they are necessary to meet 
general interest objectives clearly defined by Member States in conformity with Union [Community] 
law and should be proportionate, transparent and subject to periodical review…"242  

However,  in  order  to  be  effective,  the  inclusion  of  such  provision  in  the  AVMSD  would  require  a 
major  adjustment  in  terms  of  its  scope 243.  The  AVMSD  would  need  to  apply  beyond  television 
broadcasts  and  specific  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  to  encompass  players  aggregating 
programmes of different media service providers on interfaces allowing users to search, find, organise 
and  select  individual  elements  of  audiovisual  content  for  viewing  and/or  recording.  Such  players 
could include transmission networks, content platforms244, service providers, ISPs/software producers 
and manufacturers. For many of these providers, the only applicable rule of the Directive would be the 
one on access to general interest content (i.e. device manufacturers).  

Moreover,  introducing  a  provision  in  the  AVMSD  would  entail  that  transmission  networks,  content 
platforms,  service  providers  or  manufacturers  would  apply  the  rules  of  the  country  where  they  are 
established. 

In the case of a player established in one Member State rolling out its services in other Member States, 
the content available in the targeted country would have to abide by the provision on prominence of 
content  of  general  interest  from  that  country.   In  a  context  where  OTT  services  are  developing  at  a 
rapid  pace  and  have  a  great  flexibility  for  establishing  themselves  in  a  particular  country  while 
distributing services across Europe, the effectiveness of such a provision would be very low. Indeed 
the notion and the scope of general interest applied in one Member State would be defined according 
to the standards of another Member State. 

Therefore, the AVMSD is not the right legal instrument to deal with this issue. 

240 Regulations  on  findability/  EPG  is  in  place  in  AT,  BE  (FR  and  NL),  BG,  CY,  DE,  FR,  HR,  HU,  IE,  IT,  NL,  PL,  PT,  UK,  See  study  Visionary 
Analytics, table 5.2. EPG-regulation in Member States (forthcoming). 
241As regards the provision of content of general interest ("must carry" obligations), Article  31 of the Universal Service Directive 2002/21/EC (USD) 
allows Member States to impose must carry obligations on undertakings, under their jurisdiction, providing electronic communications networks used for 
the distribution of television broadcasts. Member States are allowed to impose such obligations where a significant number of end-users use the networks 
as their principal means to receive television broadcasts. Moreover, the obligations should be necessary to meet clearly defined general interest objectives 
and shall be proportionate and transparent. 
242 See Recital 43 of the Universal Service Directive 2002/21/EC (USD). 
243 According to the Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU 
(AVMSD) and in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people, this option is likely - to entitle MS to secure 
appropriate  prominence  for  public  interest  content  for  on-demand  and  further  services  currently  not  covered  by  the  AVMSD.  Regulation  could  focus 
either on due prominence of content (for e.g. requiring specific content to be shown on top of search or recommendations pages) or apps. – is likely to 
oblige MS to ensure that prominence obligations shall only be imposed on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.  Such regulation would apply to 
broadcast and IPTV platforms as well as OTT content aggregators. In addition to prominence on ”traditional” EPGs, discoverability clauses could also 
include:  prominence  on  the  default  mode  of  “new  generation”  EPGs  that  can  be  customised  by  the  consumer;  favouring  of  public  interest  content  in 
filtering, search and recommendations engines, etc. ; platforms run by connected TVs and other devices that deliver audiovisual content and services. 
Prominence legislation could also include obligations to pre-install designated apps on newly sold devices. 
244 Typical examples for platforms include general internet search engines (e.g. Google, Bing), specialised search tools (e.g. Google Shopping, Kelkoo, 
Twenga,  Google  Local,  TripAdvisor,  Yelp,),  location-based  business  directories  or  some  maps  (e.g.  Google  or  Bing  Maps),  news  aggregators  (e.g. 
Google News), online market places (e.g. Amazon, eBay, Allegro, Booking.com), audiovisual and music platforms (e.g. Deezer, Spotify, Netflix, Canal 
play,  Apple  TV),  video-sharing  platforms  (e.g.  YouTube,  DailyMotion),  payment  systems  (e.g.  PayPal,  Apple  Pay),  social  networks  (e.g.  Facebook, 
LinkedIn, Twitter, Tuenti), app stores (e.g. Apple App Store, Google Play) or collaborative economy platforms (e.g. AirBnB, Uber, Taskrabbit, Bla-bla 
car). Internet access providers fall outside the scope of this definition. Not all of these are relevant with regard to the provision of audiovisual content. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5.5 Impact of the combination of the preferred options 

There are multiple potential combinations of the different options. The combination of the preferred 
options is deemed to strike the best balance between the need to introduce flexibility with respect to 
the current level of regulation and ensuring adequate consumer protection:  

Options 

General objectives and related impacts 

Internal 
market  
(impacts 
on the 
internal 
market) 

Establish the 
conditions to 
ensure 
competitiveness 
(impacts on the 
competitiveness) 

Safeguard the 
protection of 
minors  and 
consumer 
protection 
(social 
impacts) 

Support 
European 
cultural 
diversity 
(social 
impacts) 

Strengthen 
access to 
information 
and media 
pluralism 
(social 
impacts) 

d
n
a

e
v
i
t
a
r
t
s
i
n
i
m
d
a
(

s
t
s
o
C

)
e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

d
n
a

l
a
c
i
n
h
c
e
t
(

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
s
a
e
F

)
l
a
c
i
t
i
l
o
p

Option B 

N/A  

N/A 

+ + 

N/A 

N/A 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

Medium 

5.1 Insufficient minors and consumers protection in video-sharing platforms 

5.2.1 Promotion of European works 

Option B 

N/A 

Option A 

N/A 

Option A 

++ 

+  

+ + 

+  

Option A 

+ + + 

+ + + 

N/A 

+ + 

N/A 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

High 

5.2.2 Protection of minors in on-demand services 

+ +  

N/A 

N/A 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

Medium 

5.2.3 Country of origin principle 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Low 

High 

High 

High 

5.2.4 Independence of Regulators 

N/A  

N/A 

Medium 

High 

High 

Low 

5.3 Rules on commercial communications no longer fit for purpose 

Option A 

N/A 

+ + + 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Low 

Medium 

Medium    Medium  

On  the  one  hand,  the  industry  will  benefit  from  more  flexible  quantitative  rules  on  commercial 
communications. The increased efficiency of the country of origin principle and the requirements for 
the  independence  of  Regulators  would  improve  the  business  environment  in  which  audiovisual 
players operate. 

On  the  other  hand,  consumers  will  be  guaranteed  a  high  level  of  protection  through  the  limited 
extension  of  the  AVMSD  to  video-sharing  platforms  and  the  reinforcement  of  the  requirements 
applicable  to  on-demand  services  in  terms  of  the  protection  of  minors.  Consumers  will  also  benefit 
from a greater access to European works in on-demand services. 

On  the  one  hand,  the  set  of  preferred  option  comes  with  simplification  and  cost  savings  in  the  area  of 
commercial communications and for the application of the COO. On the other hand the substantial societal 
benefits resulting from the increase in consumer protection leads to additional costs: 

Prefered options 
Insufficient  minors 

5.1 
consumers  protection 
sharing platforms 

and 
in  video-

Additionnal costs 
  Regulators:  EUR  600  000  per  year  for  all  EU 

Regulators (complaint based mechanism). 

  Video-sharing  platforms:  costs  of  mechnisms  to 
protect  minors  from  harmful  content  and  citizens 
from  incitement  to  hatred  vary  from  EUR  100  000 
for the EU (cost of a user generated rating system) to 
EUR  3.1  million  per  year  for  the  EU  (cost  of  a 

Costs savings 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
moderation  system  in  a  large  platform).  These  costs 
would  be  mitigated  by  the  fact  that  major  platforms 
have already put in place such mechanisms. 

  Video-sharing  platforms:  cost  of  co-regulatory 
structure varies from EUR 250 000 to EUR 1 million 
per year and per Member States 

5.2.1 Promotion of European works    On-demand  service  providers:  costs  related  to  the 
application  of  contributions  extra  territorially:  can 
vary  between  EUR  5.8  and  8.2  million  per  year  for 
major  EU  providers.  For  levies  only  costs  can  vary 
between  EUR  4.7  and  11.7  million  per  year  for  all 
EU providers. 
Regulators:  The  cost  of  monitoring  on  demand 
services  in  the  Member  States  with  the  highest 
requirements is EUR 2 000 per year. 

5.2.2  Protection  of  minors  in  on-
demand services 

5.2.3 Country of origin principle 

5.2.4 Independence of Regulators 

Rules 

5.3 
commercial 
on 
communications  no  longer  fit  for 
purpose 

 TV  broadacsters  and  on-demand  services:  cost  of 
self-regulatory  schemes  for  content  information  can 
be up to EUR 2 million per year for the EU (proxy= 
budget  of  two  entities  in  charge  of  the  classification 
of media content  is EUR 2 million). 

  Regulators:  costs  of  ERGA  opinions  is  difficult  of 
quantify  and  the  cost  of  running  the  MAVISE 
database would be EUR 50 000 per year. 

  Regulators:  expected  savings  resulting  from  the 
facilitation  of  the  identification  of  the  country  of 
origin.  

 Regulators:  The  cost  is  not  available.  A  rough 
possibly  overestimated  extrapolation  results  in  a 
maximum  increase  of  200-250  FTEs  for  the  more 
understaffed Regulators. 

  Regulators: savings can be up to 5.3 milion per year 

for the EU. 

  TV broadcatsers: economic benefit resulting from the 
flexibility  of  the  12  minutes  rule  can  go  up  to  EUR 
122  million  for  one  TV  braodacsters.  Economic 
benefits related to product placement and sponsorhip 
can go up to 4.3 million per year for the EU. 

All options take into account, when appropriate, the need of flexibility for the industry by considering 
possible  implementation  via  self  and/or  co-regulation  (scope  of  application,  information  on  harmful 
content).   

Most of the options complement each other. For example, independence of regulators will be of the 
utmost  importance  if  Members  States  decide  to  entrust  them  with  the  application  of  the  new  rules 
regarding video-sharing platforms. Also the potential increase in audiovisual media service providers' 
revenues  deriving  from  the  greater  flexibility  of  quantitative  rules  on  advertising  will  release  a 
potential for an increased contribution to the production of European works. 

The combination of options achieves a more level playing field between the different players in the 
audiovisual  media  market.  This  is  for  instance  realized  by  leveling  up  certain  requirements  for  on-
demand services and video-sharing platforms in relation to the protection of consumer or promotion 
of European works while providing more flexibility to TV broadcasting services on certain rules on 
commercial communications.  

6.  HOW WOULD ACTUAL IMPACTS BE EVALUATED OR MONITORED?  

6.1 Monitoring 

Monitoring  of  the  implementation  will  continue  to  be  assured  by  the  European  Commission  on  the 
basis of: 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Application reports by the Commission, on the Directive as a whole no later than four years 

after the adoption of the Directive and every three years thereafter; 

-  Reports on the application of the provisions related to the promotion of European works every 

2 years (for TV broadcasting and on-demand services); 

-  Monitoring of the implementation of the provisions on video-sharing platforms on the basis of 

an independent study carried out after the transposition; 

-  Monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  provision  on  content  descriptors  for  protection  of 

minors.  

The following list of impact indicators could be used to monitor progress towards meeting the general 
objectives: 

General 
objectives 

Enhanced 
consumer and 
minors 
protection 

Potential indicators 

Number of complaints related to harmful/hate speech on 
video sharing platforms handled by MS appointed 
authority  

Baseline 

0 (2015) 

Potential sources of 
information 
Ad hoc studies 

Turnover in the audio-visual sector in the EU 

Number of TV broadcasting services in the EU 

Number and on-demand services  

Share of cross border provision of TV broadcasting 
services  
Share of cross border provision of on-demand services  

EUR 105.8 billion 
(2014) 
5 141 (2013) 

2 563 (2014) 

38% (2013) 

31% (2014) 

Number of derogation/circumvention procedure 
opened/closed 
Number of on demand services established outside the 
EU and targeting the EU 

0 (2015) and 2 (2015) 

50 in the US (2015) 

EAO report on the 
development of the  
European market 
for on-demand 
audiovisual services 
and EAO Yearbook 
IHS database 
ComScore database 
Nielsen 
ERGA 
Report from the MS 
Ad hoc studies 

Internal market 

Average TV viewing time in the EU 

Video viewing time 

3h43 

N/A245 

TV broadcasters advertising revenues 

EUR 28 billion (2013) 

Online advertising revenues  

EUR 27 billion (2014) 

Advertising revenues from online video 

EUR 2.2 billion (2015) 

Share of European  works on TV broadcasting services 

64.1% (2012) 

Viewing time for European works on TV broadcasting 

69% (2010) 

Share of EU works in VoD catalogues 

27%/30% (75 VoD 
catalogues and 16 SVoD 
catalogues – october 
2015)  

245 The main difficulty currently is to get unduplicated reporting i.e. that visitors to a website aren’t counted more than once across multiple devices and 
thus overestimate viewing figures. For instance, a single user may visit a page while at work, on smartphone during commute, and then again on laptop 
when getting home. Analytic and measurement companies are about to address this issue. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Share of EU films promoted on on-demand services 

33% (2015 in DE, FR 
and UK) 

Share of turnover invested by TV broadcasting services 
in EU original content 

19% (2013) 

Share of turnover invested by on-demand services in 
European/independent works 

Average staff of NRAs per channel 

Number of ERGA opinions 

Number of EU codes conduct 

0.6% 

0.56 

3 (2015) 

0 (2015) 

6.2 Evaluation 

No later than 10 years after adoption, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  an  ex  post  evaluation,  accompanied  where  appropriate  by  proposals  for  its  review,  in 
order to measure the impact of the Directive and its added value. 

The evaluation report will include an assessment of whether the operational objectives of the revised 
Directive  have  been  reached.  A  particular  focus  will  be  cast  on  the  application  of  the  provision  on 
video  sharing  platforms;  "protection  of  minors"  and  MS  implementation  of  the  coreguationl  and/or 
self regulation principles.  The evaluation report will be made public.  

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION..................................................................................... 60 

ANNEX 2 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................................................... 68 

ANNEX 3 – BUSINESS STRUCTURE IN THE AUDIOVISUAL MARKET .................................... 78 

ANNEX 4 – REFIT EVALUATION ..................................................................................................... 79 

ANNEX 5 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE “STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SELF-
AND  CO-REGULATION  IN  THE  CONTEXT  OF  IMPLEMENTING  THE  AVMS  DIRECTIVE” 
(SMART 2014/0054) ............................................................................................................................ 135 

ANNEX  6  -  MAIN  DEVELOPMENTS  AFFECTING  THE  EU  MARKET  FOR  AUDIOVISUAL 
MEDIA SERVICES ............................................................................................................................. 146 

ANNEX 7 - COMPARATIVE TABLE OF SERVICES THAT MAY BE QUALIFIED AS AVMS – 
EPRA  SURVEY  FOR  35TH  EPRA  PLENARY  (31  MAY –  1  JUNE  2012)  UPDATED  IN  2015  IN 
THE ERGA SUB-GROUP ON MATERIAL JURISDICTION ........................................................... 150 

ANNEX  8  -  EXTRACTS  OF  COMMUNITY  GUIDELINES  (AS  OF  10/01/2016)  OF  A  SAMPLE 
OF  INTERNET  PLATFORMS  WHOSE  SERVICES  DO  NOT  FALL  WITHIN  THE  AVMSD 
SCOPE  AND  EXISTING  INTERVENTIONS  BY  INTERNET  PLATFORMS  TO  PROTECT 
CONSUMERS FROM HATE SPEECH AND MINORS FROM HARMFUL CONTENT ............... 152 

ANNEX  9  –  DETAILS  OF  THE  PROVISIONS  AND  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  COUNTRY 
OF ORIGIN PRINCIPLE ..................................................................................................................... 166 

ANNEX  10  -  COST  OF  THE  COUNTRY  OF  DESTINATION  –  PROMOTION  OF  EUROPEAN 
WORKS IN THE 5 BIGGEST MARKETS FOR ON-DEMAND SERVICES ................................... 169 

ANNEX  11  –  COMPLIANCE  OF  NATIONAL  REGULATORS  WITH  INDIREG  CRITERIA  ON 
INDEPENDENCE ................................................................................................................................ 172 

ANNEX 12 – CRITERIA OF INDEPENDENCE OF NRAS .............................................................. 175 

ANNEX  13  –  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  PROVISIONS  ON  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EU 
WORKS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ...................................................................................................... 179 

ANNEX 14 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF MINORS 
AT  NATIONAL  LEVEL  (FROM  THE  2015  EAO  IRIS  BONUS  "COMPARATIVE  TABLES  ON 
THE PROTECTION OF MINORS IN AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA SERVICES) ................................. 200 

ANNEX  15  – 
IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  PROVISIONS  ON  COMMERCIAL 
COMMUNICATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL ................................................................................ 234 

ANNEX 16 – DETAILED ESTIMATES OF SOME COSTS RELATED TO THE PROMOTION OF 
EU WORKS .......................................................................................................................................... 312 

ANNEX  17  -  SECOND  REPORT  ON  THE  APPLICATION  OF  ARTICLES  16  AND  17  OF 
DIRECTIVE 2010/13/EU FOR THE PERIOD 2011-2012.................................................................. 325 

ANNEX  18  -  EUROPEAN  COMMISSION'S  NON-REGULATORY  INITIATIVES  ON  A  SAFER 
INTERNET FOR MINORS .................................................................................................................. 335 

ANNEX 19 – CALCULATION OF THE 20% SHARE OF EUROPEAN WORKS .......................... 338 

ANNEX 20 – DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE OPTIONS ........................................................ 340 

ANNEX 21 – GLOSSARY (LAST ANNEX) ...................................................................................... 353 

59 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG: DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology 
Agenda planning: 2015/CNECT/006 

Organisation  and  timing:  The  IA  was  carried  out  between  May  2015  and  January  2016.  The  IA 
draws from evidence gathered prior to and during this period.  

In October 2015, the Commission published an inception impact assessment246. 

The  IA  has  been  prepared  by  Unit  G.1  "Converging  Media  and  Content"  of  the  European 
Commission,  DG  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology.  It  was  carried  out  in  close 
cooperation  with  other  Commission  DGs  in  the  context  of  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  on  the 
AVMSD  evaluation  and  review  convened  by  the  General  Secretariat  of  the  European  Commission. 
The  following  DGs  participated  to  the  Steering  group:  DG  CNECT,  DG  COMP,  DG  JUST,  DG 
GROW,  DG  TRADE,  DG  EAC,  DG  SANCO,  DG  RTD,  DG  NEAR  together  with  the  Secretariat-
General and the Legal Service. 

Five meetings [possibly to be completed] took place respectively on 12 March, 20 May, 25 November 
2015, 14 January and 15 April 2016. 

1.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.  

The recommendations of the RSB 

1st opinion of the RSB 

Changes in the IA report 

The  problem  statement  was  revised  and  framed 
along  the  lines  of  the  Digital  Single  Market 
initiative. 

The  Section  on  the  material  scope of  application 
has been clarified, including by better explaining 
what is referred to by "video-sharing platforms". 

The provision on  accessibility has been removed 
and  a  clear 
the  European 
  The 
Accessibility  Act  has  been  added. 
interaction  with  the  E-commerce  Directive  has 
been clarified. 

reference 

to 

(1)  Clarify  the  context  and  the  scope  of  the 
initiative.  The  report  should  better  focus  the 
review  of  the  Audio-Visual  Media  Services 
Directive  on  the  issues  highlighted  in  the 
Digital  Single  Market  initiative  and  strengthen 
the  links  with  the  outcome  of  the  evaluation 
exercise  (specifying  which  aspects  will  be 
covered by this initiative as opposed to others). 
As  regards  the  scope  of  the  intervention,  the 
report  should  make  it  more  explicit  what  type 
the  Directive 
of  on-line  platforms/services 
should  cover  and  discuss  to  what  extent  such 
typology  can  avoid  the  problems  linked  with 
the  insufficiently  clear  definition  of  the  'TV-
like'  character  present  in  the  Directive.  The 
relation  and  coherence  with  existing  or 
separately  proposed  legislation–  for  instance, 
the 
the  e-Commerce  Directive  and 
with 
proposals  on  the  accessibility  of  public  sector 
bodies'  websites  or  on 
the  European 
Accessibility  Act  –  should  be  discussed  and 
clarified in order to  avoid  any risk of  overlaps 

246 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_cnect_006_cwp_review_avmsd_iia_en.pdf 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The problem statement was backed up with more 
evidence,  where  available.  This  was  to  a  great 
extent  done  by  moving  evidence  from  the  status 
quo analysis to the problem statement. 

The  problem  definition  has  been  re-structured 
along the three main issues: 

1.  Insufficient  protection  of  minors 
consumers in video-sharing platforms. 

and 

2.  Lack  of  a  level  playing  field  and  internal 

market weaknesses. 

3.  Rules  on  commercial  communications  no 

longer fit for purpose. 

The provision on  accessibility has been removed 
and  a  clear 
the  European 
Accessibility Act has been added. 

reference 

to 

issue  of 

The 
the  national 
independence  of 
regulators  has  been  clarified  in  the  problem 
definition. 

Redundant options have been eliminated in order 
to focus on the essential. 

Tables  consolidating the various costs have been 
added at the end of each set of options. 

and legal uncertainty.  

the 

(2)  Refine  the  problems  and  provide  better-
structured  evidence.  The  problem  description 
should  be  consolidated  and  supported  with 
relevant  evidence,  currently  spread  throughout 
the whole document. The report should introduce 
a  hierarchy  of  problems  –  with  those  related  to 
the  implementation  of  the  Country  of  Origin 
principle being key – and better identify some of 
them,  e.g.  the  problem  related  to  the  uneven 
playing field in advertising and the promotion of 
European  works  or 
independence  of 
regulators.  For  the  latter,  the  problem  should  be 
more  rooted  in  the  internal  market  basis  and 
supported with more explicit evidence (e.g. court 
rulings,  ERGA  opinions  etc.).  The  issues  related 
to accessibility of audio-visual content should be 
discarded  at  an  early  stage  as  they  are  being 
tackled  by  the  Accessibility  Act  initiative.  The 
problem drivers should include the fact that some 
of  the  current  tools  (e.g.  rules  on  product 
placement)  are  outdated  or  not  effective.  The 
issue  of  independence  of  the  national  regulators 
should  be  introduced  clearly  in  the  problem 
definition  to  better  justify  its  inclusion  in  the 
options. 
(3)  Better  define  the  options,  strengthen  the 
analysis  of  their  impacts  and  improve  their 
comparison.  The  presentation  of  options  should 
be 
the  clarified 
problem  definition.  The  differences  between  the 
options  should  be  expressed  more  pronouncedly, 
allowing for a more conscious analysis of impacts 
which  should  be  coherent  with  the  existing 
evidence.  For  instance,  the  report  should  clarify 
how 
is 
expected to work in practice and how effective it 
is  likely  to  be,  given  the  alleged  malfunctioning 
of  the  current  soft-law  solutions.  The  feasibility 
of  the  options  should  also  be  analysed,  building 
on 
partial 
only 
current  obligations  on 
implementation  of 
European  content).  The  comparison  of  options 
should  consolidate  the  various  cost-estimates  to 
enable  a  more  explicit  balancing  of  costs  and 
benefits,  thus  sanctioning  the  choice  of  the 
preferred options. As the review of the AVSMSD 
is  a  REFIT  initiative,  the  simplification  and 
burden reduction elements should be brought out 
and  cost-savings  quantified  as  far  as  possible  – 
and where this is not the case, explained why. 

the  proposed  non-regulatory  regime 

experience 

improved, 

following 

from 

(e.g. 

the 

2nd opinion of the RSB 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
the  Directive 

Further clarify the context and the scope of the 
initiative.  The  scope  of  the  initiative  has  been 
clarified  on  the  one  hand  by  limiting  the  on-line 
extension  of 
to  video-sharing 
platforms  only  and  excluding  upfront  problems 
dealt  with  by  other  legislative  initiatives.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  scope  is  less  clear  as  regards  the 
removal  of  the  debateable  'TV-like'  criterion  and 
the  previously  planned  extension  of  rules  on 
to  video-sharing 
commercial  communications 
platforms.  The 
the  "TV-like" 
removal  of 
requirement and the associated codification of the 
21 Oct 2015 ECJ judgement should not be part of 
the baseline, but re-introduced in the options. The 
reasons 
the 
extension  to  commercial  communications  should 
be  clearly  spelled  out.  The  report  also  misses  an 
analysis of the international aspect of the revision 
as regards the consequences of shifting  coverage 
for some services from the e-Commerce Directive 
to  the  AVMSD  in  the  context  of  e.g.  TTIP 
negotiations (obligation to protect internet service 
providers 
to 
transmission or storage of information). 

for  not  considering  anymore 

liability  with 

respect 

from 

links  with  the  evaluation 
Strengthen  the 
results. The streamlined problem description left 
behind  some  of  the  issues  identified  in  the 
evaluation:  this  applies  to  the  contentious  'TV-
like' requirement for assessing the applicability of 
the  AVMSD  and  consumer  protection  issues 
linked  to  the  advertising  of  HFSS  foods  and 
alcohol. 

Better  specify  the  options  and  enhance  the 
analysis  of their  impacts. The proposed options 
have  been  rationalised  in  line  with  the  revised 
problem definition. However, they have also been 
changed in substance, omitting several important 
issues  identified  in  the  evaluation  study  (see 
above).  As  regards  the  soft-law  option  aiming  at 
protection  of  minors  in  the  on-line  environment, 
the  report  should  reassess  its  effectiveness  given 

Even  if  mainly  based  on  the  codification  on  a 
recent  ECJ  judgement,  it  is  now  again  calrified 
that the proposal will include the  removal of the 
"TV like" requirement. 

the 

platforms, 

video-sharing 

in  Directive  2003/33/EC  of 

The  reasons  for  not  considering  anymore  the 
extension  of  some  of  the  rules  on  commercial 
communications  to  video-sharing  platforms  have 
been  be  spelled  out:  the  Unfair  Commercial 
Practices  Directive  (UCPD) 247  applies  to  all 
misleading  commercial  practices.  As  regards 
commercial communications for tobacco products 
existing 
in 
prohibition 
the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26 
May  2003  on  the  approximation  of  the  laws, 
regulations  and  administrative  provisions  of  the 
Member  States  relating  to  the  advertising  and 
sponsorship  of  tobacco  products  ensures  the 
required  consumer  protection.  Advertising  self-
in  general 
also 
regulatory 
indiscriminately  to  advertisements  on  all  media 
(including  TV  and  on-demand,  print,  radio,  and 
online).  In  addition,  there  have  been  recent 
developments  in  some  Member  States,  where 
regulatory  authorities  have  issued  guidelines  on 
these matters. 
The impacts of "TV like" requirement have been 
brought back in the options. 

codes 

apply 

Strengthening  the  rules  on  alcohol  television 
advertising  has  been  limited  to  a  re-enforcement 
of  self-co  regulation,  given  that  there  is  not 
sufficient  evidence  available  to  warrant  the  need 
to go further. 

The  encouragement  to  develop  codes  of  conduct 
to  protect  minors  from  inappropriate  AVCCs  for 
HFSS foods has been spelled out. 
The  lack  of  effectiveness  of  the  soft-law  option 
aiming  at  protection  of  minors  in  the  on-line 
environment  has  been  better  explained.  The 
assessment  of  the  impact  on  the  internal  market 
introducing  a  maximum 
clarifies 
harmonization  preventing  Member  States 
to 
impose  more  detailed  or  stricter  rules  on  video-
sharing platforms. 

that  by 

247 Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. The UCPD applies to all unfair business-
to-consumer  commercial  practices  occurring  before,  during  and  after  a  commercial  transaction  in  relation  to  a  product.  Under  the  UCPD,  misleading 
(misleading actions and omissions) and aggressive commercial practices are considered unfair and are as such prohibited. In addition, the UCPD lists a 
number of unfair practices which shall in all circumstances be regarded as unfair. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
to 

the 

and 

have 

further 

analyse 

been  made 

the  reported  uncertain  results  of  the  existing 
latent 
schemes 
fragmentation  risks  resulting  from  potentially  28 
different  national 
regimes.  Some  quantified 
options (such as the requirement to secure a 20% 
share  of  European  works  in  Video-on-Demand 
Providers' catalogues could be explained) 
Stress  the  REFIT  aspects  of  the  initiative. 
Improvements 
the 
presentation  of  costs/cost  savings  of  the  options, 
nevertheless  the  comparisons  should  be  done 
against  the  baseline  options  and  –  as  this  is  a 
REFIT  initiative  –  the  overall  costs/cost  savings 
should  be  summarised  and  simplification/burden 
reduction  aspects  should  be  brought  out.  The 
scale used to assess the overall impact should be 
explained:  the  costs  of  the  preferred  options  to 
promote European  content and for the protection 
of minors for VoD and platforms are qualified as 
"medium"  while 
and 
stakeholders  views  point  to  significant  costs 
(promotion  of  European  content,  extension  of 
protection of minors provisions to VoD). 

anecdotal 

evidence 

The choice of a 20% share of European works in 
Video-on-Demand Providers' catalogues has been 
explained in ANNEX 19. 

A  table  summarizing  additional  costs  and  costs 
savings has been added at the end of the IA. 

The  assessment  of  the  costs  of  the  preferred 
options  to  promote  European  content  has  been 
backed  up  by  providing  more  details  on  VoD 
providers' business model (revenue sharing). 

It  has  been  highlighted  that  the  costs  for  the 
protection  of  minors  of  the  preferred  option  for 
limited  as  many 
VoD  providers  would  be 
Member  States  have 
set  higher 
requirements.  Moreover,  the  option  dealing  with 
addressing  the  lack  of  level  playing  field  as 
regards  protection  of  minors  has  been  reinforced 
by proposing a full alignement. 

already 

2.  Evidence  used.  The  Commission  gathered  qualitative  and  quantitative  evidence  from 

various sources. The following elements constituted the evidence base: 

  REFIT analysis (see ANNEX 4) 

  Stakeholder consultations (see ANNEX 2).  

  The  findings  of  the  Commission's  monitoring  of  the  AVMSD  pursuant  to  Article  33248 of  the 
Directive  (1st  Application  report  for  the  years  2009-2010 249 ;  2nd  Application  report  on  the 
AVMSD250 for the years 2011-2013; reports on Articles 16 and 17251). 

  Policy  recommendations  from  other  EU  institutions,  namely  the  EP 252,  the  Council 253,  the 

European Economic and Social Committee254 and the Committee of the Regions255.  

248 Article 33 of the  AVMSD invites the Commission to submit regularly  a report on the application of the Directive to the European Parliament,  the 
Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. 
249 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203 
250 The  2nd  Application  report  covers  the  period  2011-2013.  Developments  related  to  the  year  2014  are  also  reported  where  appropriate.  The  2nd 
Application report will be published as an Annex to this SWD.  
251 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/avmsd-reports-european-works 
252 Three Own-initiative reports adopted by the European Parliament. A) The January 2015 (still to be adopted) "Towards a Digital Single Market Act" 
(2015/2147(INI)); B)the July 2013 "Connected TV" report (Rapporteur MEP Petra Kammerevert (S&D, DE)) calling on the Commission to evaluate the 
  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-
extent 
0329&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0212 B) The March 2014 report, "Preparing for a Fully Converged Audiovisual World" (Rapporteur MEP Sabine 
Verheyen  (EPP,  DE))  which  calls  for  a  review  of  the  AVMSD,  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-
0232&language=EN&ring=A7-2014-0057. 
253 Most recently, the Council conclusions adopted under the Italian Presidency of the EU in 2014 inviting the Commission to "Urgently complete the 
exercise of the review of the AVMSD in the light of the rapid technological and market changes resulting from the digital shift, and on the basis of the 
outcome of this review submit an appropriate proposal for the revision of this Directive as soon as possible, in respect of the principle of subsidiarity." 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/145950.pdf 
254 Opinion  adopted  by  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  in  September  2013  on  the  Green  Paper  "Preparing  for  a  Fully  Converged 
Audiovisual World: Growth, Creation and Values, http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.28469 

the  AVMSD, 

is  necessary 

to  which 

to  revise 

it 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Data  gathering  on  AVMSD  cost  and  benefits256.  The  survey  was  developed  in  the  form  of  a 
questionnaire by a Task force of Member States' audiovisual regulators convened in the spring of 
2015 by the European Commission. The questionnaire was submitted to Member States' regulators 
within the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA257), as well as to 
the  industry  in  relevant  sectors  and  to  consumer  organisations.  The  questionnaire  was  sent  in 
May/June 2015. The deadline for replies was 30 September 2015.  The questionnaire asked what 
have  been  the  benefits  and  downsides  of  certain  AVMSD  rules  possibly  accompanied  by 
quantitative  evidence  in  terms  of  annual  revenues/direct  and  indirect  costs  of  compliance.  It 
covered rules on: 
1.  Commercial communications 
2.  European works 
3.  Protection of minors 
4.  The country of origin principle 

The reference period for the quantitative questions was 2010 to 2014, inclusive. 

The survey gathered a total of 107 replies with 40 coming from commercial broadcasters (38 %), 
20 public broadcasters (19 %), 18 VoD providers (17 %), 12 from national associations focusing 
on  the  protection  of  minors  (12  %),  10  from  national  associations  representing  independent 
producers (10 %), 4 from consumer association (4 %). One association representing broadcasters 
and one representing sales houses also participated. The stakeholders who replied are established 
in 19 Member States.  

  Studies  and  opinions  of  the  European  Regulators  Group  for  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
(ERGA).    In its 2015 Work Programme, ERGA committed to deliver analyses and reports on 4 
main  topics:    the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory  authorities;  material  jurisdiction  in  a 
convergent audiovisual world; protecting minors in a converged environment; tackling the issue of 
territorial  jurisdiction  in  the  EU  context.  Each  topic  was  dealt  with  by  sub-groups  comprising 
ERGA members. The first three reports were adopted via written procedure (in line with Article 
11 of the ERGA Rules of Procedure) in December 2015. The report on territorial jurisdiction will 
be adopted in the course of 2016.  

  Publicly-tendered  studies 258  on  alcohol  advertising  exposure,  independence  of  audiovisual 

regulators, self- and co-regulation and standardisation:  

   Study on Alcohol advertising exposure, to assess whether rules on audiovisual commercial 
communication  for  alcoholic  beverages  have  afforded  minors  the  level  of  protection 
required259.  

   Study  on  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulators,  updating  a  previous  study  on 
independence of regulatory authorities. It will update on recent changes and developments in 
Member States and candidate countries as regards the independence and efficient functioning 

255 At its Plenary Session of 12-14 October 2015, the Committee of the Regions adopted an own-initiative opinion on the "Review of the Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive" – link to be published 
256 As most of the information is confidential, it has been used in the Impact Assessment and the REFIT in an aggregated and anonymised way. For this 
reason the replies are not published. 
257 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-decision-establishing-european-regulators-group-audiovisual-media-services 
258

 http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:212396-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML&ticket=ST-1292379-

SKem8OGQ1reJn1IxAZqVGszP2zjXhYuZOoStsF8rBu0ZCOZKgO05NbMy9k6hQrTzIimWUTdcKGfvm49lhwu7y5m-Jj71zxYb8yr5J3R6eCTiGK-
TqeqixAzhASPjqjbmnf8X5hXPzlpiWbUx9btUwoJzMau 
259 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-exposure-minors-alcohol-advertising-tv-and-online-services 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
of the audiovisual media services regulatory bodies. The draft final report was delivered to the 
Commission in October 2015 and published260 on 8 December 2015. 

   Study  on  Self-regulation  that  will  review  existing  self-regulation  approaches  in  a  range  of 
Member States and aim at providing information about relevant evidence of existing schemes 
and their effectiveness. The Final report is due in Q2 2016. 

   Study  on  standardisation  that  aims  at  collecting  data  regarding  the  complete  standards 
landscape  in  the  area  of  TV  sets  with  added  Internet  connectivity.  Furthermore,  it  will  also 
cover national and industry specification requirements and the cost of adapting them. It should 
also provide an overview of the reasons for applying diverging standards and give an outline 
of research needs that exist in the sectors with a view to overcoming fragmentation challenges. 
The Final report is due in Q2 2016. 

  4 Studies on survey and data gathering to support the impact assessment of a possible new 
legislative proposal concerning the AVMSD commissioned in the context of Framework Contract 
EAC-22-201261. These studies cover the following areas: commercial communication, protection 
of  minors,  cultural  diversity  and  media  freedom/public  interest  and  access  for  persons  with 
disabilities. The draft final reports of the study will be provided to the Commission in Q2 2016.  

  Two  reports  of  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory  (EAO)  ("Study  on  data  and 
information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD)"262  
and "on-demand markets in the European Union – 2014 and 2015 developments"263) provided in 
the context of Framework Contract  PN/2011-27/A6. These two reports focus on 

-  Measurement of audiences  
-  Online advertising in the EU  
-  The EU Subscription video-on-demand market in 2014  
-  The visibility of films in on-demand services  
-  proportion of European fiction works on a sample of TV channels 
-  on-demand  audiovisual  services  including  their  revenues  and  investment  in  orginal 

- 

programming 
linear  audiovisual  services 
programming 

including 

their  revenues  and 

investment 

in  orginal 

  Desk research and literature review done in-house by DG CONNECT and by the contractors. 

The main sources used are:  

MAVISE264 
IRIS Merlin265 
Eurostat 
EPRA database266 

Number of linear and non-linear service providers.  
Changes in media legislation in MS. 
General social and economic statistics. 
Annual reports of national regulators. 
National legislation in MS, synthesis, analytical reports. 

EU infringement cases267  Data on infringement cases related to AVMSD. 
Freedom of press index 
AVMSDatabase268 

Data on media freedom.  
National legislation transposing specific AVMSD Articles 

260 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-audiovisual-media-services 
261 http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:279501-2014:TEXT:EN:HTML 
262 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-data-and-information-costs-and-benefits-audiovisual-media-service-directive-avmsd 
263 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/demand-audiovisual-markets-european-union-smart-20120028 
264 http://mavise.obs.coe.int/  
265 http://merlin.obs.coe.int/  
266 http://www.epra.org/articles/media-legislation and http://www.epra.org/organisations  
267 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-proceedings/infringement_decisions/?lang_code=en  

65 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
National 
services databases269 

audiovisual 

Data on market share of audiovisual service providers 

3.  External  expertise.  The  Commission  drew  from  external  expertise  in  particular  in  the 

context of the studies mentioned above. 

4.  Consultation strategy/process and stakeholders consulted.  

The  Commission  has  engaged  extensively  with  all  relevant  stakeholders  in  a  view  of  assessing  the 
state of the audiovisual media market, and to determine how to improve conditions for establishing a 
Digital Single Market. Stakeholders were consulted in the following occasions:  

 

 

In  2013,  the  Commission  published  the  Green  Paper270 "Preparing  for  a  Fully  Converged 
Audiovisual  World:  Growth,  Creation  and  Values"  and  invited  stakeholders  to  share  their 
views  on  the  changing  media  landscape  and  borderless  Internet  in  particular  on  market 
conditions, interoperability and infrastructure, and implications for EU rules. The outcomes of 
the Green Paper are reflected in the feedback document and executive summary of the replies 
published by the Commission in September 2014271. 
In 2013, the Commission launched a Public consultation272 on the independence of audiovisual 
regulatory bodies. The Commission sought the views of stakeholders on the need to strengthen 
cooperation between regulatory authorities and reinforce their independence. 

  A Public consultation on "Directive 2010/13/EU on Audiovisual Media Services (AVMSD) - 
A media framework for the 21st century" was launched on 6 July and ran until 30 September 
2015. The public consultation, available in the 24 official languages of the EU, sought inputs 
on  the  functioning  and  impact  of  the  AVMSD  to  date  (feeding  into  the  evaluation  of  the 
Directive) and on policy options for its future.273  

  Data  gathering  on  AVMSD  costs  and  benefits  sent  to  Member  States  regulators  within  the 

ERGA as well as to industry and consumer organisations. 

  Policy exchanges and opinions of the Member States representatives gathered in the Contact 

Committee set up via the AVMSD274. 

  Discussions with Member States audiovisual regulators within the ERGA275.  
 

Interviews with relevant stakeholders held in the context of the studies on alcohol advertising 
exposure, independence of audiovisual regulators, self- and co-regulation and standardisation 
as well as in the context of the Impact Assessment studies. 

  Structured  dialogue  with  representatives  of  the  affected  industry  (SMEs  and  large 
organisations) and consumers (“Media talks”). In the Media Talks, the Commission discussed 
specific domains of the AVMSD with relevant stakeholders. Media Talks took place in June 
and September 2015, as well as regularly throughout 2013 and 2014. 

  Recommendations,  reports  and  policy  discussions  with  other  EU  institutions,  namely  the 
European Parliament276, the Council277, the European Economic and Social Committee278 and 
the Committee of the Regions279. 

268 http://avmsd.obs.coe.int/cgi-bin/search.php 
269 For example, http://www.tns.lt/, http://www.tns.lv/, http://www.finnpanel.fi/, http://www.agtt.at/, http://www.kek-online.de/. 
270 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/consultation-green-paper-preparing-fully-converged-audiovisual-world-growth-creation-and-values  
271 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/publication-summaries-green-paper-replies  
272 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions  
273 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-framework-21st 
274 The Agendas and minutes of the AVMSD Contact Committee meetings are available online at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/avmsd-contact-
committee 
275 Relevant ERGA documents, including the annual work programmes as well as the agendas and minutes of the Plenary meetings, are available online 
at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/audiovisual-regulators 
276 Two  Own-initiative  reports  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament.  A)  The  July  2013  "Connected  TV"  report  (Rapporteur  MEP  Petra  Kammerevert 
(S&D,  DE)) 
the  AVMSD,  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0329&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0212  B)  The  March  2014 
report, "Preparing for a Fully Converged Audiovisual World" (Rapporteur MEP Sabine Verheyen (EPP, DE)) which calls for a review of the AVMSD, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0232&language=EN&ring=A7-2014-0057. 

the  Commission 

to  which 

necessary 

evaluate 

calling 

extent 

revise 

the 

on 

to 

to 

is 

it 

66 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
The  consultation  strategy  followed  a  participatory  and  circular  approach  and  strived  for 
triangulation.  In  the  consultation  process  public  events  were  combined  with  more  targeted 
consultations to achieve the required breadth and depth of stakeholder inputs.  

While  the  2013  public  consultations  were  of  a  broader  nature,  the  questions  in  the  2015  Public 
consultation were more focused on possible changes to the AVMSD. However, all main options were 
considered, in order to enable the Commission to either confirm or contradict previous findings. The 
questions took into account concerns or views expressed in previous occasions as well as the state of 
the art in the market and in viewing patterns. 

A  circular  approach  was  followed  as  much  as  possible.  For  example,  meetings  of  the  Contact 
Committee,  ERGA  and  Media  talks  with  stakeholders  were  held  ahead  of  the  launch  of  the  Public 
consultation.  After  the  Public  consultation  deadline,  the  Contact  Committee  discussed  the  Public 
consultation in two occasions. The data gathered from the sources above were analysed respectively: 
in house, by external contractors, and in cooperation with other Commission DGs.  

Moreover, stakeholders were consulted in multiple occasions by different parties, for example, by the 
Commission via the Public consultation, by relevant national regulators via the ERGA questionnaire 
and by external contractors in the context of the studies. This circular approach enabled a satisfactory 
triangulation of data, i.e. its reliability has been confirmed via findings coming from other sources. 
Also,  whenever  the  same  stakeholder  provided  information  in  different  contexts,  the  Commission 
compared these pieces of information so as to assure their coherence and reliability. 

277 Most recently, the Council conclusions adopted under the Italian Presidency of the EU in 2014 inviting the Commission to "Urgently complete the 
exercise of the review of the AVMSD in the light of the rapid technological and market changes resulting from the digital shift, and on the basis of the 
outcome of this review submit an appropriate proposal for the revision of this Directive as soon as possible, in respect of the principle of subsidiarity." 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/145950.pdf.  The  Conclusions  of  the  Culture  Council  in  November  2013 
invited the Member States to ensure the independence of audiovisual regulators and to strengthen cooperation amongst regulators.   
278 Opinion  adopted  by  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  in  September  2013  on  the  Green  Paper  "Preparing  for  a  Fully  Converged 
Audiovisual World: Growth, Creation and Values, http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.28469 
279 At its Plenary Session of 12-14 October 2015, the Committee of the Regions adopted an own-initiative opinion on the "Review of the Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive" – link to be published 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
ANNEX 2 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

SYNOPSIS REPORT 

Report on the Contributions to the Public Consultation on Directive 2010/13/EU on Audiovisual 
Media Services (AVMSD) - A media framework for the 21st century 

I.  INTRODUCTION  

06 July-30 September 2015  

The Public Consultation280 on Directive 2010/13/EU on Audiovisual Media Services281 (AVMSD) - A 
media framework for the 21st century, took place from 06/07/2015 to 30/09/2015.  

The  public  consultation  is  part  of  the  evaluation  of  the  AVMSD  under  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and 
Performance  Programme  (REFIT)  of  the  Commission's  Better  Regulation  Framework.  Its  objective 
was to gather evidence and views on the functioning of the AVMSD on policy options for its revision, 
announced in 2016 by the EU Digital Single Market strategy. 

The AVMSD has paved the way towards a single European market for audiovisual media services. It 
has harmonised the audiovisual rules of the Member States and facilitated the provision of audiovisual 
media services across the EU on the basis of the country of origin principle. 

Since  2007,  when  the  regulatory  framework  was  revised  for  the  last  time,  the  audiovisual  media 
landscape has changed significantly due to media convergence. The review of the AVMSD is featured 
in  the  Commission  Work  Programme  for  2015,  as  part  of  the  Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance 
Programme  (REFIT).  In  its  Communication  on  a  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe282,  the 
Commission announced that the AVMSD would be revised in 2016. The Commission identified the 
following issues to be considered in the evaluation and review of the AVMSD:  

1.  Ensuring a level playing field for audiovisual media services; 
2.  Providing for an optimal level of consumer protection;   
3.  User protection and prohibition of hate speech and discrimination; 
4.  Promoting European audiovisual content;  
5.  Strengthening the single market; 
6.  Strengthening media freedom and pluralism, access to information and accessibility to content for 

people with disabilities. 

II.  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

1. Main conclusions from the summary and analysis of contributions in each of the consultation 
sections (including potential distinction(s) among stakeholder groups) 

The main elements that have been observed overall, across stakeholders' categories when it comes to 
Policy options for the future: 

  Convergence of views across stakeholders regarding the need for possible changes of the rules on 
the scope of application of the Directive, as well as on the independence of national regulators. 

280 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-framework-21st 
281 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. Official Journal of the European Union, L 
95, 15 April 2010 
282 COM (2015) 192 final, 6 May 2015. 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  Support  across  stakeholders  for  maintaining  the  status  quo  as  regards  the  country  of  origin 
principle;  must-carry/findability;  accessibility  for  persons  with  disabilities;  major  events  for 
society, short news reports and right of reply. 

  No clear consensus among stakeholders on commercial communications, protection of minors and 

promotion of European works. 

2.  Summary  analysis  of  trends  identified  across  different  consultation  sections  (including 
potential  distinction(s)  among  stakeholder  groups  and  potential  linkage  between  answers  across 
topics). 

Some  general  trends  were  observed  in  the  replies  received.  There  is  a  call  from  a  fair  share  of 
representatives  of  the  broadcasting  sector  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  either  by  regulating  new 
services  and/or  warranting  more  flexibility  of  existing  rules.  Consumer  organisations'  call  for 
strengthening  the  AVMSD  rules  aimed  at  protecting  viewers,  particularly  vulnerable  ones.  The 
internet,  telecom  and  ICT  industries  call  for  refraining  from  new  regulation,  in  order  to  preserve 
innovation. The content industry calls for strengthening the rules aimed at promoting European works, 
across all audiovisual media services.  

III.  OVERVIEW OF RESPONDENTS TO THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION  

The Public consultation drew a total of 438 replies. 376 replies were given by organisations whereas 
62 replies were given by individuals.  

The  central  governments  of  BG,  CZ,  CY,  HR,  HU  and  MT  did  not  participate  to  the  Public 
consultation.  
Breakdown of respondents per stakeholder category283  

Survey Category 

Commercial broadcasters & thematic channels 

European-level representative platform or association 

Free and pay VOD operators 

Individual 

IPTV, ISPs, cable operators including telcos 

National administration 

National regulator 

National representative association 

Non-governmental organisation 

Public service broadcasters 

Regional authority 

Research body/academia 

Small or medium-sized business 

Other 

Micro-business 

Pay TV aggregators 

Press or other 

TOTAL 

Number of 
Respondents 

% 

27 

47 

4 

62 

15 

32 

20 

76 

79 

14 

4 

4 

6 

48 

0 

0 

0 

438 

6% 

11% 

1% 

14% 

3% 

7% 

5% 

17% 

18% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

283 Based on the categories chosen by the respondents amongst those listed in the Public consultation questionnaire  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Breakdown of respondents per country 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia  

Czech Republic  

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Iceland  

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg  

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

United Kingdom 

Pan-European  

Other 

Number of Respondents 

23 

29 

2 

1 

9 

7 

3 

19 

25 

32 

2 

6 

1 

4 

24 

5 

4 

1 

11 

4 

20 

8 

7 

4 

2 

24 

14 

2 

49 

49 

47 

Not all respondents replied to all questions. In particular, the sections of the PC dedicated to Events of 
major importance for society; Short news reports; and Right of reply gathered a considerably lower 
number of replies than the other sections of the PC. 

IV.  Consultation topics   

1.  Ensuring a level playing field for audiovisual media services 

1.1 Services to which the AVMSD applies  

While  a  majority  of  stakeholders  across  sector  consider  the  rules  still  relevant,  a  majority  of  them 
consider the rules not to be fair. Stakeholders are split when it comes to the effectiveness of the rules.  

As regards options for the future, 5 Member  States and 1 regulator support maintaining the status 
quo. 2 MS and 5 regulators support the adoption of guidance at EU level. 1 MS calls for amending the 
ECD.  

70 

 
 
 
13  MS  and  9  regulators  (11  if  we  include  also  EFTA  regulators)  call  for  extending  the  scope  of 
application  of  the  AVMSD  to  new  type  of  services  (services  that  are  not  "TV-like"  and/or  services 
that are not under the editorial responsibility of a provider). 

Public service and commercial broadcasters overall call for removing the "TV-like" requirement. A 
fair  share  of  them  calls  for  extending  the  scope  of  application  beyond  services  that  are  under  the 
editorial responsibility of a provider.  The others call for maintaining the status quo.  

Internet  companies,  cable,  satellite,  telecoms,  press  and  publishing  sector,  advertisers  and  one 
NGO promoting fundamental rights call for maintaining the status quo.  

Consumer  organisations  advocate  for  an  extension  of  the  AVMSD  scope  beyond  "TV-like"  and 
services under the editorial responsibility of a provider.  

The views of citizens are equally split amongst those calling for maintaining the status quo and those 
calling for an extension of the scope of application of the rules.   

Main  conclusion:  The  option  of  extending  the  scope  of  application  of  the  AVMSD  is  the  one  that 
proportionately gathered the largest share of support from stakeholders. There is however no unitary 
pattern  as  to  what  an  extension  would  entail.  Some  parts  of  the  industry  are  particularly  vocal  in 
calling for maintaining the status quo. 

1.2 Geographical scope of the AVMSD 

Concerning  the  geographical  scope  of  the  AVMSD,  views  are  split.  Even  though  most  of  the 
stakeholders consider the current regulation still relevant, its effectiveness and fairness are debated.  

5 Member States and 5 regulators are in favour of maintaining the status quo. 9 Member States and 
12 regulators support an extension of the geographical scope to third country providers targeting EU 
audiences,  underlining  the  importance  of  creating  a  level  playing  field.  Of  those  in  favour  of  an 
extension, 4 Member States and 8 regulators support linking the extension of the geographical scope 
to providers' significant market presence in the EU. 

Public Service Broadcasters are mainly open to consider an extension of the geographical scope to 
taken  into  account  today's  digital  and  online  environment.  Commercial  broadcasters  are  equally 
open to an extension but only if the Commission has evidence of problems with the current approach.  

The majority of advertising  companies supports maintaining the status quo. According to them, an 
extension of the geographical scope would be difficult to enforce.  

NGOs and consumer organisations raised concerns regarding a perceived lack of level playing field 
resulting from the current approach. At the same time, a few organisations pinpointed to the fact that 
an extension of the geographical scope would increase the legal burdens and multiply the regulatory 
requirements,  negatively  affecting  the  EU  audiovisual  market.  A  number  of  ICT,  Digital  and 
Internet  companies  support  maintaining  the  status  quo  because  they  reckon  that  changes  in  the 
geographical  scope  will  potentially  pose  threats  to  media  pluralism  and  innovation,  making  the 
European market less attractive and less competitive.  

The satellite  industry supports maintaining the  status quo and points out that  the Directive  already 
applies  to  third-country  service  providers  using  a  satellite  uplink  situated  in  or  appertaining  to  a 
Member State. As  a result,  they  claim  that the AVMSD covers a very wide  scope  of European  and 
non-European channels.  

Main  conclusion:  The  majority  of  respondents  across  stakeholders'  categories  favour  the  need  for 
possible  changes  of  the  geographical  scope  but  there  is  no  consensus  as  to  how  to  go  about  an 
extension. 

2.  Providing for an optimal level of consumer protection (Commercial communications) 

71 

 
 
 
Although the majority of respondents across stakeholders' categories consider that the existing rules 
are still relevant, their effectiveness and fairness is very much debated. 

Among Member States, none is in favour of maintaining the status quo while 7 regulators support 
this option. 8 Member States and 2 regulators are in favour of more flexibility in general while some 
others (7 Member States and 5 regulators) would like to reinforce rules to protect vulnerable viewers, 
especially in the areas of alcohol and fatty foods. 10 Member States and 6 regulators also favour other 
options,  going  in  different  directions  (either  keeping  some  of  the  current  rules  while  clarifying  and 
simplifying other provisions, or introducing rules on signal integrity, or further extending some of the 
current rules to on-demand services or other online services). 

Public service broadcasters mainly favour another option, with some calling for simplification and 
clarification,  for  the  extension  of  the  rules  on  audiovisual  commercial  communications  to  other 
players  and  for  rules  on  signal  integrity.  Commercial  broadcasters  are  mainly  calling  for  more 
flexibility,  especially  on  the  quantitative  advertising  rules  (12-minute  advertising  limitation, 
interruption rule, rule on isolated spots) and on sponsorship and product placement rules. Yet, a few 
broadcasters would prefer maintaining the status quo. 

Advertisers favour either the status quo or more flexibility while the food and drink industry favours 
the  status  quo,  especially  on  alcohol  advertising  and  fatty  food  advertising.  They  consider  that  the 
current  framework,  complemented  by  self-  and  co-regulation,  functions  properly.  Consumer 
organisations  (representing  viewers  and  the  public  health  sector)  favour  tighter  rules  to  protect 
vulnerable consumers, in particular on alcohol and fatty food advertising (e.g. via watersheds, stricter 
rules  on  product  placement  and  sponsorship  for  these  products  or  even  a  possible  ban).  Internet, 
telecoms  and  cable  operators  call  for  maintaining  the  status  quo  or  for  more  flexibility  in  general. 
Among citizens, the views are varied and are also almost equally split between the different options. 

Main  conclusion:  No  clear  consensus  emerged  amongst  respondents  across  stakeholders  categories 
when it comes to the preferred policy option on commercial communications. The respondents' views 
are almost equally split between the four options. However, those options are not necessarily mutually 
exclusive and could be combined to a certain extent. 

3.  User protection and prohibition of hate speech and discrimination 

3.1 General viewers' protection under the AVMSD 

As regards protection of minors and the current distinction between the rules applicable broadcasting 
and on-demand, views are split. 8 Member States consider that the distinction between broadcasting 
and on-demand content provision is not anymore relevant, effective and fair. 6 Member States have 
expressed the view that it is still relevant. The majority of Regulators (10) consider these rules to be 
no longer relevant. 7 Regulators believe that these rules are still relevant. 

When it comes to the question of the effectiveness of the AVMSD in protecting children, the majority 
of Member States (7) and Regulators (8) who replied consider that the AVMSD has not been effective 
in protecting minors. 

9 MS and 12 regulators did not provide an opinion on the AVMSD rules on incitement to hatred. 2 
MS consider the AVMSD rules on incitement to hatred still relevant, effective and fair. 4 MS consider 
that further grounds for prohibition of incitement to hatred should be introduced in the Directive. The 
following are mentioned: incitation  to violence; sexual orientation; religion; marital status; political 
beliefs;  language;  state  of  health;  disability;  physical  or  genetic  characteristic;  social  status; 
nationality;  gender.  1  MS  also  calls  for  aligning  those  grounds  to  Article  9  of  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental rights. 4 MS consider that the rules for suspension under Article 3 should be reviewed in 
order to strengthen the protection from content inciting to hatred. 1 MS suggested that a revision of 
the directive should give consumers the right to know who the ultimate beneficiaries of audiovisual 
media services are i.e. who is trying to influence their decisions. 

72 

 
 
 
2  regulators  believe  that  hate  speech  should  be  dealt  with  on  all  platforms.  1  regulator  calls  for 
aligning the grounds to Article 9 of the EU Charter of Fundamental rights. Another regulator opposes 
modifications  to  the  AVMSD  while  another  one  suggests  introducing  transparency  as  regards  the 
beneficiaries of audiovisual media services.  

Most  industry  stakeholders  (public  service  and  commercial  broadcasters,  telecom  operators,  VOD 
providers,  Internet  and  ICT)  and  consumer  organisations  did  not  express  an  opinion  regarding  the 
existing rules on incitement to hatred.  

3.2 Protection of minors  

No  Member  States  and  only  1  Regulator  are  in  favour  of  maintaining  the  status  quo.  4  Member 
States and 10 regulators favour more self- and co-regulation. 7 MS and 14 Regulators are in favour of 
more  harmonisation,  although  their  comments  to  do  follow  a  unitary  pattern  (they  refer  to  either 
harmonisation  of  classification,  or  common  definitions/clarifications  of  key-concepts).  8  Member 
States  and  9  Regulators  call  for  removing  the  distinction  between  linear  and  on-demand  services 
(levelling up). 6 Member States and 6 regulators call for extending the AVMSD rules on protection of 
minors to other online content.  

A limited number of Member States  and 7  regulators  also favour other  options or a combination of 
various  options.  They  however  follow  different  directions.  They  refer  to:  ensuring    a  higher  level 
protection of minors when it comes to their exposure to pornographic, racist or anti-Semitic content;  
matching  the  regulation  for  linear  and  non-linear  services  by  levelling  up  the  rules;    and  continue 
working  with  industry  to  encourage  self-regulation  for  other  platforms;  applying  the  rules  on 
protection  of  minors  to  all  audiovisual  media  services  including  those  not  under  editorial 
responsibility by means of graduated protection; removing the distinction between broadcast and on-
demand services and allow a more graduated approach to potentially harmful content. 

Commercial  broadcasters  mainly  favour  self  and  co-regulatory  measures  (8)  and  the  extension  of 
the scope of the AVMSD (7). Amongst Public  Service  Broadcasters, some (8) favour self and co-
regulatory  measures,  others  (7)  call  for  extending  the  scope  of  the  AVMSD,  or  (7  )  suggest 
(standalone or combined) other options.  

Internet  companies,  Telecoms,  VoD  mainly  advocate  for  maintaining  the  status  quo  or  favour 
complementing the AVMSD with self- and co-regulatory measures. 

Consumer  organisations  (representing  minors)  favour  further  harmonisation  and  call  for  an 
extension of the AVMSD to Internet platforms. 

Views expressed by citizens vary and equally split among the options with no clear trend. 

Main  conclusion:  No  clear  consensus  emerged  amongst  respondents  across  stakeholders  categories 
when it comes to the preferred policy option on protection of minors. 

4. Promoting European audiovisual content  

Some Member States (4) and regulators (6) support maintaining the status quo. They all agree that 
current  regulation  for  the  promotion  of  EU  works  is  sufficient  and  should  not  be  amended.  Other 
Member States (7) and National regulators (6) call for introducing more flexibility for Member States 
and service providers in their choice or implementation of the measures on the promotion of European 
works to adapt to their respective markets. Several Member States (6) and a few National regulators 
(3) call for reinforcing existing rules. Most of them support, in particular, strengthening regulation on 
non-linear  services  by  clarifying  and  harmonizing  provisions  under  Article  13  in  order  to  avoid 
distortions of competition among players.  Finally, some Member States (5) and National regulators 
(3)  suggest  other  options.  Some  of  them  favour  more  flexibility  in  regulation  while  others  call  for 
reinforcing current rules and exploring solutions focused on the supply side.  

73 

 
 
 
Public  service  broadcasters  generally  back  other  options,  namely  to  adapt  rules  for  on-demand 
services  to  reflect  recent  changes  in  the  audiovisual  market.  Some  commercial  broadcasters  call  for 
more flexibility while other favour repealing the rules as they believe the current market of European 
works is already successful.  

The  digital/Internet  industry  and  VOD  operators  support  maintaining  the  status  quo.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Cinema,  Film  and  TV  industry  primarily  favours  reinforcing  the  existing  rules  and 
some call for the imposition of financial contribution on on-demand services.  

Telecom operators call in general for more flexibility and support measures based more on marked 
dynamics rather than on quota systems. The majority of right holders support reinforcing the rules and 
most of them believe measures mentioned on Article 13 should be made mandatory. 

Views expressed by citizens are also split among the options with no clear trend.  

Main conclusion: There is no clear consensus amongst respondents across stakeholders' categories as 
regards policy options on promotion of European works.  

5. Strengthening the single market  

The majority of respondents across stakeholders' categories consider that the current approach is still 
relevant,  but  there  are  doubts  about  its  effectiveness  (in  particular  as  regards  the  functioning  of  the 
cooperation procedures) and fairness.  

12  Member  States  and  15  Regulators  support  maintaining  the  country  of  origin  principle 
accompanied  by  stronger  cooperation  practices  and/or  simplified  jurisdiction  criteria.  A  further  4 
Member States express principled support for the country of origin principle. 5 Member States and 5 
Regulators  ask  for  moving  to  a  different  approach  whereby  providers  would  have  to  comply  with 
some rules (e.g. on protection of European works) of the countries where they deliver their services. 4 
Member States and 4 Regulators favour other options.  

Public services broadcasters mainly call for maintaining the country of origin principle together with 
strengthening  existing  cooperation  practices/revising  the  rules  on  cooperation  and  derogation 
mechanisms.  To  a  lesser  extent  they  ask  for  additional  safeguards  to  avoid  undermining  the 
effectiveness of national rules. Commercial broadcasters mostly call for maintaining the status quo, 
while  showing  some  support  for  stronger  cooperation  practices/mechanisms  and  simplified 
jurisdiction  criteria.  The  satellite  industry  supports  the  country  of  origin  principle  and  calls  for 
strengthening  existing  cooperation  practices/revising  the  rules  on  cooperation  and  derogation 
mechanisms. 

Advertisers favour maintaining the status quo and, to a lesser extent, ask for strengthening existing 
cooperation practises. Internet, telecoms and cable operators mainly call for maintaining the status 
quo  or  other  options.  Consumer  organisations  (representing  viewers  and  the  public  health  sector) 
mostly  argue  for  (limited)  departures  from  the  country  of  origin  principle  towards  a  country  of 
destination  principle.  Citizens  mainly  favour  maintaining  the  status  quo  together  with  revising  the 
rules on cooperation and derogation mechanisms and simplifying the jurisdiction rules. 

Main conclusion: Regarding the set of questions on strengthening the internal market, there is strong 
support for maintaining the country of origin principle across various stakeholders categories. 

6.  Strengthening  media  freedom  and  pluralism,  access  to  information  and  accessibility  to 
content for people with disabilities 

6.1 Independence of regulators 

Most of those who replied to this question considered that the current provisions of the Directive are 
relevant  and  fair  but  not  effective.  Consequently,  the  majority  of  respondents  across  stakeholders' 

74 

 
 
 
 
categories  supported  the  reinforcement  of  the  AVMSD  rules  on  independence  of  the  audiovisual 
regulatory  bodies.  Those  respondents  favored  either  laying  down  an  obligation  to  ensure  the 
independence of audiovisual regulatory bodies or providing for a set of criteria that regulators need to 
meet to ensure their independence.  The latter option gathered a slightly larger support.      

5  Member  States  and  6  regulators  considered  that  the  provisions  in  the  Directive  are  relevant, 
effective and fair, while 6 Member States and 7 regulators pointed out that Article 30 AVMSD is not 
effective.  A  majority  of  public  service  broadcasters  considered  that  the  rules  are  relevant,  effective 
and  fair.  A  large  majority  of  commercial  broadcasters  considers  that  the  rules  of  the  Directive  are 
relevant but only a small minority of them considers that they are relevant, effective and fair. 

4  Member  States  and  6  regulators  called  for  maintaining  the  status  quo.    6  Member  States  and  9 
regulators from 6 Member States supported the option to impose an obligation on the independence of 
regulatory authorities. 6 Member States and 9 regulatory authorities from 7 Member States supported 
laying  down  minimum  mandatory  requirements  for  regulatory  authorities.    2  Member  States  and  1 
regulator supported other options.   

Most  public  service  broadcasters  called  for  maintaining  the  status  quo.  Most  commercial 
broadcasters  called  for  strengthening  of  the  current  rules  (by  laying  down  in  the  AVMSD  an 
obligation of the independence of regulatory authorities (9) and laying down criteria of independence 
(13)).     

VOD  operator,  digital  and  Internet  companies  generally  called  for  maintaining  the  status  quo, 
although  some  called  for  strengthening  the  rules.  Cinema,  film  and  TV  producers,  consumer 
organisations and NGO promoting fundamental rights mostly called for strengthening the current 
rules.  Most of the citizens who replied to this question favoured reinforcing the rules.  

Main  conclusions:  The  majority  of  respondents  across  stakeholders'  categories  supported  the 
reinforcement of the AVMSD rules on independence of the audiovisual regulatory bodies. 

6.2 Must Carry/Findability (Prominence of content of general interest)  

A large majority of Member States (20) and regulators (15) who replied called for maintaining the 
status  quo.  4  Member  States  and  9  regulators  call  for  introducing  a  provision  on  prominence  of 
content of general interest in the AVMSD. 

Public  service  broadcasters  advocate  for  including  a  rule  on  discoverability  of  content  of  general 
interest in the AVMSD. Commercial broadcasters mainly call for a broader coverage of "content of 
public  interest"  than  provided  by  public  service  broadcasters.  Telecom  providers  generally  call  for 
maintaining the status quo and oppose new rules on findability at EU or at national level.  

The  Internet  sector  calls  for  maintaining  the  status  quo,  stressing  that  Internet  platforms  are  not 
gatekeepers and that users retain control over the content they access. The press calls for ensuring a 
level  playing  field  -  for  instance  by  ensuring  non-discrimination  on  platforms  -  via  an  intervention 
outside the AVMSD. Amongst citizens, views vary.  

Main  conclusions:  As  regards  findability,  the  option  of  maintaining  the  status  quo  is  the  one  that 
proportionately  gathered  the  largest  share  of  support  from  stakeholders,  followed  by  the  one  of 
introducing findability rules in the AVMSD. The remaining options received a fair share of support 
from  stakeholders.  Those  options  are  however  not  necessarily  mutually  exclusive  and  could  be 
combined. 

6.3 Accessibility for people with disabilities 

A majority of respondents across stakeholders' categories expressed the view that the current rules are 
effective in providing fair access to audiovisual content to persons with hearing and vision disabilities.  

75 

 
 
 
 
As regards options for the way forward, while the Member States were split as regards maintaining 
the status quo (6) or laying down in the AVMSD requirements  for accessibility (6), the majority of 
regulators  who  replied  (6)  called  for  laying  down  in  the  AVMSD  requirements  for  accessibility.  2 
regulators favoured maintaining the status quo. 1 Member State and 7 regulators called for self-/co-
regulatory measures in this field. 

Public  service  broadcasters  and  commercial  broadcasters  called  for  maintaining  the  status  quo. 
Disability  and  consumer  organisations,  as  well  as  the  ICT  and  Internet  industry  called  for 
harmonising accessibility requirements at the EU level.  

Main conclusions: Most respondents across stakeholders' categories opted for maintaining the status 
quo, while around a quarter of respondents called for strengthening the rules.  

6.4 Events of major importance for society 

An  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  across  stakeholders'  categories  consider  that  the  current 
rules are still relevant, effective and fair.  

As regards the way forward, a majority of Member States (7) and regulators (18) who replied call 
for maintaining the status quo.  

Whereas a slight majority of the public service broadcasters (11) who replied supports maintaining 
the status quo, 7 of them chose other option.  

A  majority  of  those  commercial  broadcasters,  cable  operators  and  VOD  operators  supports 
maintaining the status quo.  A  minority share of the industry  calls for abolishing the system of lists. 
Others  call  for  simplifying  the  notification  procedure.  Some  others  call  for  requiring  the  Member 
States to draw up lists.   

A  number  of  health-related  NGOs  and  national  agencies  calls  for  addressing  problems  related  to 
alcohol  advertising,  as  the  AVMSD  allows  sport  events  listed  as  "of  major  importance"  to  be 
sponsored by alcohol producers. 

Main conclusions: A majority of respondents across stakeholders' categories call for maintaining the 
status quo as regards events of major importance for society.  

6.5 Short news reports 

A  majority  of  respondents  across  stakeholders'  categories  find  the  current  rules  to  be  relevant, 
effective and fair.  

A  majority  of  the  Member  States  (11)  and  regulators  (12)  who  replied  called  for  maintaining  the 
status quo.  

Public  broadcasters  (8)  were  mainly  in  favour  of  the  status  quo.  A  majority  of  the  commercial 
broadcasters  (20)  who  replied  to  this  question  called  for  maintaining  the  status  quo.  Some 
commercial broadcasters however call for removing the current rules.  

Whereas the Internet, telecoms and cable operators primarily did not take a position on this issues, 
those who replied called for maintaining the status quo.  

Those stakeholders supporting other option called for either: extending the rules to on-demand 
audiovisual media services; harmonising the rules at EU level; or clarifying certain aspects of the 
existing rules.  

Main conclusions: A majority of respondents across stakeholders' categories call for maintaining the 
status quo as regards short news reports. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
6.6 Right of reply  

The  majority  of  respondents  across  stakeholders'  categories  consider  that  the  current  rules  are  still 
relevant, effective and fair.  

8 Member States and 9 regulators (11 regulators, if EFTA countries are considered) are in favour of 
maintaining the status quo. 2 Member States  and 6 Regulators called for extending the scope of the 
rules to on-demand audiovisual media services and online intermediaries.  

Whereas  a  slight  majority  of  Public  service  broadcasters  called  for  maintaining  the  status  quo,  a 
number of them are in favour of extending the scope of the rules to non-linear services, in line with 
Council of Europe Recommendation (2004)161 on the right of reply in the new media environment. A 
large majority of commercial broadcasters call for maintaining the status quo.  

Telecom  operators,  cinema,  print  and  publishers  stakeholders  are  in  favour  of  maintaining  the 
status quo.  

Whereas a majority of NGOs called for maintaining the status quo, a few of them advocated for an 
extension  of  the  right  of  reply  to  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services.  Citizens  mainly  favour 
maintaining the status quo, although a few of them indicate difficulties with pursuing complaints. 

Main conclusions: A majority of respondents across stakeholders' categories call for maintaining the 
status quo as regards the right of reply. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 – BUSINESS STRUCTURE IN THE AUDIOVISUAL MARKET 

 

The audiovisual sector mainly comprises large companies: 

- 

- 

 

 

The turnover of the 50 leading European television group was EUR 87 bn in 2014 e.g. more 
than 80 % of the EU audiovisual market (EUR 105.8 bn)284. The rest of the audiovisual sector 
is  made  of  US  groups  and  a  myriad  of  local  TV  channels.  As  regards  on-demand  services 
more specifically, there are mostly subsidiaries of big audiovisual groups.  

Similarly,  it  is  more  common  to  find  that  the  majority  of  the  workforce  works  for  large 
companies. This is the case in 12 Member States out of the 16 for which employment data are 
available.  In  those  countries,  large  companies  account  for  an  absolute  majority  (more  than 
half) of the workforce. Large companies in France employed upwards of 7 out of 10 people 
(71.5 %)  within  the  programming  and  broadcasting  activities  workforce  in  2010,  while  the 
share of large companies in the total workforce peaked at 78.5 % in Germany. Upwards of 80 
%  of  the  value  added  generated  in  Spain,  Poland,  Italy,  France,  Romania  and  the  United 
Kingdom was attributed to large companies, their share of sectoral value added peaking in the 
United Kingdom (90.8 %).285 

The AVMSD foresees exemptions for small broadcasting services when it comes to rules that do 
not directly relate to the protection of the vulnerable. Under Article 26 AVMSD, Member States 
have adopted exemptions of the quantitative rules on commercial communications (interruption 
and  minutage  rules)  on  television  broadcasts  intended  solely  for  the  national  territory.  Under 
Article 18, requirements on the promotion of EU works do not apply to television broadcasts that 
are intended for local audiences and do not form part of a national network. The exemptions of 
the  requirements  on  the  promotion  of  European  works  for  small  broadcasting  services  are 
implemented in the frame of Guidelines issued by the Contact Committee. 

Given  the  highly  concentrated  structure  of  the  audiovisual  market  and  the  fact  that  small 
operators are normally exempted from the rules with the highest economic impact, the effect of 
the AVMSD on SMEs is deemed to be small. The preferred option foresees that  that Member 
States  would  be  required  to  waive  the  requirements  on  the  promotion  of  EU  works  for  low 
audience and thematic on-demand service providers or for small and micro enterprises. 

284 European Audiovisual Observatory yearbook 2015 
285 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Programming_and_broadcasting_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 4 – REFIT EVALUATION 

1. 

Introduction 

Purpose of the evaluation  

This Staff Working Document (SWD) provides the results of the ex post evaluation under the 
Regulatory  Fitness  and  Performance  Programme  (REFIT) 286  of  the  Audiovisual  Media 
Services Directive (hereinafter "AVMSD").  
In line with the "Better Regulation" requirements287, the evaluation assesses the effectiveness, 
efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added-value  of  the  AVMSD,  and  pinpoints  areas 
where  there  is  potential  for  simplification,  without  undermining  the  objectives  of  the 
Directive. 
The  Commission  Communication  “A  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  for  Europe 288 ” 
announces that the  Commission  will  examine  the  functioning  of  the rules  currently  in  force 
and will review the AVMSD in 2016289.  

Pursuant  to  this  commitment,  this  evaluation  has  been  carried  out  in  parallel  to  the  Impact 
Assessment  on  policy  options  for  the  future  of  the  AVMSD.  The  conclusions  of  this 
evaluation will – where relevant – feed into that Impact Assessment. 

This  evaluation  also  provides  the  necessary  evidence  base  for  meeting  the  reporting 
obligations  set  out  in  Article  33  of  the  AVMSD  and  Articles  16  and  17  (Reports  on  the 
promotion of European Works) 290. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  focuses  on  the  objectives,  domains  and  measures  set  out  in  the  AVMSD. 
National transposition measures are not part of the scope of this evaluation. 

This evaluation covers the period from December 2007, when the Directive resulting from the 
last revision entered into force (requiring the Member States to transpose the rules at national 
level by December 2009), to December 2015. The period between 1989, when the Television 
without Frontiers Directive291 entered into force, and 2007 is not covered by this evaluation. 

2. 

Background  

2.1 Situation prior to Directive  

The EU regulatory framework in this domain is in place since 1989 and was originally only 
applicable to broadcast services. The rationale behind the adoption of a regulatory framework 

286 The Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) is the Commission's programme for ensuring that EU legislation remains 
fit for purpose and delivers the results intended by EU law makers. 
287 The AVMSD REFIT evaluation is announced in the Commission Staff Working Document "REFIT: Initial results of the mapping of the 
acquis" (SWD(2013) 401 final) and is part of the Commission's 2015 Work Programme (Annex 3 (COM2014) 910 final of 16.12.2014). 
288 COM(2015) 192 final of 6 May 2015 
289 The Digital Single Market strategy says that “the Commission will review the Audiovisual Media Services Directive with a focus on its 
scope and on the nature of the rules applicable to all market players, in particular measures for the promotion of European works, and the 
rules on protection of minors and advertising rules.” 
290 The AVMSD requires the Member States to report to the Commission and the Commission to report to Parliament and Council on the 
state of play of the Directive according to Article 33 (Application report), and Articles 16 and 17 (Reports on the promotion of European 
Works). 
291 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. 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
for  television  broadcasting  services  at  EU  level  served  two  primary  and  interconnected 
objectives: 

(1)  Facilitate  the  free  movement  of  television  broadcasting  services  within  the  internal 
market;  

(2)  Ensure  the  protection  of  fundamental  public  interest  objectives,  through  minimum 
harmonisation of existing regulations. 

In  addition, the regulatory  framework contributed  to  the fulfilment of wider complementary 
cultural, social, and economic aims while contributing to the protection of fundamental rights 
and pluralism. 

The regulatory framework was amended twice (respectively in 1997292 and 2007) to adapt to 
technological and  market developments. The Directive currently in force is the result of the 
2007 revision and its subsequent codification in 2010.  

The  last  review  of  the  regulatory  framework  in  2007  aimed  to  modernise  and  simplify  the 
rules  for  broadcasting  services  and  introduce  minimum  rules  for  on-demand  audiovisual 
media services. The Commission aimed at adopting future-proof rules, as it expected that the 
revised  Directive  would  regulate  the  internal  market  for  broadcasting  and  other  audiovisual 
media services approximately over the years 2009-2016293.  

2.2 Baseline 

At the time the last revision was proposed in 2005294, the Commission observed that the 1997 
Directive  had  been  overtaken  by  technological  and  market  developments  and  had  to  some 
extent  become  outdated.  This  was  reflected  in  the  Impact  Assessment295 accompanying  the 
2005 legislative proposal. 

In 1989, non-national satellite commercial television was in its infancy and ICT-based fixed-
line  methods  of  service  provision  were  not  ready  for  the  market.  In  13  of  the  new  Member 
States  (following  the  1994  and  2004  enlargements)  there  were  no  commercial  channels 
available  nationally.  By  1997,  trans-frontier  satellite  commercial  television  was  a  common 
phenomenon and terrestrial commercial television held a greater share of viewing than public 
service  broadcasters  in  most  Member  States.  In  2005,  trans-frontier  satellite  commercial 
television had become as popular as or even more popular than local terrestrial broadcasting 
(with cable systems re-transmitting both). 

This  evolution  was  accompanied  by  exponential  changes  in  channel  capacity,  increased 
market penetration of multichannel homes and an increasing number of platforms. Cable and 
satellite television multiplied the number of available pan-European channels. This enhanced 
the choice available to consumers,  including  children.  Children increasingly controlled their 
own  viewing  with  risks  of  harm,  as  age  verification  procedures  and  filtering  were  in  place 
only in a minority of channels and households. 

292 Directive  97/36/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  June  1997  amending  Council  Directive  89/552/EEC  on  the 
coordination  of  certain  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member  States  concerning  the  pursuit  of 
television broadcasting activities 
293 Section 3.1 of SEC(2005) 1625/2  
294 Ref. Commission proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive 89/552/ECC, COM(2005) 646  
295 SEC(2005) 1625/2, Commission Staff Working Document – Annex to Commission proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive 
89/552/ECC, COM(2005) 646  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In light of these developments, the revision of the Directive aimed at the following objectives. 

1)  Taking full advantage of the internal market for new services 

Removing obstacles to free movement of audiovisual media services in the internal market 

In  2005,  23  out  of  25  Member  States  had  in  force  national  laws  applicable  to  on-demand 
services  for  a  number  of  AVMSD  domains  (particularly  advertising  and  protection  of 
minors296) with often diverging requirements297. This had potentially negative impacts on the 
internal  market  and  on  business  competitiveness.  The  Commission  considered  that  laying 
down minimum rules for these services at EU level would have provided legal certainty and 
allowed  businesses  to  benefit  from  the  AVMSD  Country  Of  Origin  (COO)  principle 298. 
According  to  COO,  which  already  applied  to  broadcasting  services  since  the  regulatory 
framework was first in force, audiovisual media service providers have to abide only by the 
rules of the Member State with jurisdiction over them but can operate in all Member States. 
This  does  not  prevent  Member  States  from  establishing  higher  standards  at  national  level. 
However, a receiving Member State with stricter rules than those laid down by the AVMSD 
cannot  restrict  the  reception  of  services  from  another  Member  State  on  the  basis  of  those 
stricter rules. Exceptions apply in specific circumstances defined in the AVMSD. 

Other  services,  such  as  video-sharing  platforms  that  did  not  exercise  editorial  responsibility 
over the content or websites where the audiovisual content was secondary to the main service, 
were deliberately left out of the scope of application of the AVMSD rules. The objective was 
to enable Internet services to further develop in the EU. 

Level playing field for audiovisual media service providers 

The Commission observed that on-demand audiovisual media services were offering identical 
or  similar  content  as  traditional  television  without  being  subject  to  the  same  regulatory 
treatment299.  According  to  the  2005  Impact  Assessment,  maintaining  the  status  quo  would 
have  aggravated  unjustifiable  differences  in  the  regulatory  treatment  between  the  various 
forms of distribution of identical or similar content based on the delivery modes. At the same 

296 According to section 3.2.1 of the 2005 Impact Assessment, when it comes to cultural diversity, although only one Member State provided 
at  the  time  rules  on  promotion  of  European  productions  for  on-demand  services  (France  had  parafiscal  provisions  in  place  according  to 
Article 113, LOI n° 2004-669)  and only one provided for rules on promotion of independent productions for non-linear services (the UK, as 
specified  in  its  reply  to  the  Commission’s  questionnaire)  the  lack  of  minimum  harmonisation/coordination  of  future  policies  of  Member 
States  in  the  area  created  a  risk  of  fragmentation  of  the  internal  market.  Business  models  would  consolidate  at  national  level  around 
uncoordinated  national  policies.  In  the  case  of  absence  of  a  relevant  provision  in  this  field,  the  issue  would  be  left  to  the  country-of-
destination principle with negative impact in terms of legal uncertainty relating to likely future national rules and obstacles for the free cross 
border movement of media service providers. This resulted in particular from the fact that the Electronic Commerce did not affect measures 
promoting  cultural  and  linguistic  diversity.  Additionally,  if  the  issue  were  not  to  be  addressed  at  EU  level,  there  would  have  been  an 
unjustified competitive advantage (lack of level playing field) for non-linear (on-demand) services vs. traditional linear services and linear 
services close to non-linear business models.  
297 See section 3.2.1 of the 2005 Impact Assessment  
298 The 2005 Impact Assessment observed that on-demand services were subject to the eCommerce Directive which allowed the Member 
States to derogate from the country of origin principle in view of public policy objectives such as “protection of minors”, “fight against any 
incitement to hatred” or “protection of consumers”. As a consequence, on-demand audiovisual media services could legitimately be subject 
to different rules on contents delivered in different Member States. The costs of not having an efficient country of origin principle in the area 
of non-linear services would be significant if nothing is done to remedy this situation. Furthermore, the eCommerce Directive did not deal 
with public policy issues such as protection of minors and respect for human dignity. As a result, a possible regulatory framework providing 
minimum rules for the delivery of audiovisual media services would not introduce a new layer of regulation, but provide basic harmonization 
for what is left open by the eCommerce Directive. 
299 This created a twofold problem. Firstly, there was unequal treatment of linear services on different platforms between traditional 
broadcasting and new delivery platforms. Secondly, there was lack of harmonisation at EU level for providers of non-linear services, with a 
risk of ineffectiveness of national rules for objectives of general interest and an un-level playing field for competing on-demand services 
operators established in different Member States.  

81 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
time, on-demand services were deemed to deserve lighter touch regulation than broadcasting 
services as users enjoy a higher degree of choice and control over the content and of the time 
of viewing than on traditional TV. 

2)  Ensuring minimum harmonisation of rules in support of certain public interests 
It  was  deemed  necessary  to  regulate  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  at  EU  level  for 
clearly  defined  public  interest  domains  including  protection  of  minors,  human  dignity  and 
safeguard of essential public interests in the area of commercial communications. 

3)  Contributing to cultural diversity 

As  the  promotion  of  European  works  was  considered  essential  to  contribute  to  cultural 
diversity it was deemed necessary to adopt EU rules in this domain for on-demand services.  

4)  Better regulation by reducing unnecessary regulatory burden 

New  advertising  techniques  created  opportunities  for  commercial  communications  in 
broadcasting  services,  enabling  them  to  better  compete  with  on-demand  services.  Product 
placement  had  the  potential  to  generate  substantial  additional  resources  for  providers.  The 
regulatory framework had to be aligned to this new context, namely via more flexibility with 
respect  to  the  rules  for  broadcasting  services.  This  called  for  allowing  (in  certain 
circumstances) product placement and introducing more flexibility to the quantitative rules. 

5)  Facilitating access to information within the internal market  

In the field of broadcasting services, the Commission identified a problem in the absence of 
EU-level rules  guaranteeing  access  to  short  extracts  of  events  of  high interest to  the  public. 
Actual or potential uncoordinated national rules were putting the internal market at risk.  

In  addition  to  the  above  considerations,  the  2007  revision  aimed  at  maintaining  the  general 
and specific objectives of the regulatory framework related to the internal market as well as 
cultural and social goals which were deemed to be still valid for the future.  

Since  the  2007  revision,  there  have  been  significant  changes  in  the  market  and  viewing 
patterns (Annex 3 provides the detailed figures and sources): 

  TV viewing is still the prevalent mode of consumption of audiovisual content but younger 

consumers, in particular, increasingly watch content on-demand and online. 

  Audiovisual content is offered as part of a large number of services. Not all such services 
are in the scope of the AVMSD rules. For example, services hosting audiovisual content 
in the form of user generated content (UGC) are excluded. 

  Consumers  often  watch  audiovisual  content  offered  in  innovative  and  namely  shorter 
formats  (e.g.  short  video  clips),  particularly  on-demand  and  more  in  general  online. 
Between 2013 and 2015, the number of minutes spent on a video online has decreased in 6 
Member  States 300 .  The  decrease  in  those  Member  States  ranged  from  -5%  to  -
36%301.Online advertising is set to overtake TV advertising. 

  There are uneven rules regarding contribution to content financing between broadcasters, 

on-demand service providers and new online market players. 

2.3 Description of the Directive and of its objectives 

300 DE, ES, FR, GB, IT and NL 
301  On-demand  Audiovisual  Markets  in  the  European  Union  (2014  and  2015  developments):  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/demand-audiovisual-markets-european-union-2014-and-2015-developments 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The AVMSD pursues the general objective to create an internal market for audiovisual media 
services guaranteeing free circulation of services, a level playing field and conditions of fair 
competition  whilst  ensuring  at  the  same  time  a  high  level  of  protection  of  objectives  of 
general  interest,  inter  alia  the  protection  of  minors  and  human  dignity  as  well  as  promoting 
the rights of persons with disabilities. 

The  AVMSD  also  pursues  a  number  of  specific  objectives:  protect  consumers/viewers 
including human dignity and the physical, mental and moral development of minors; ensure 
cultural  diversity  by  promoting  European  audiovisual  production  and  distribution;  promote 
media pluralism, freedom of expression and information; and foster business competitiveness. 

As mentioned in section 2.1, the Directive is based on the Country Of Origin principle (COO) 

As  the  AVMSD  has  a  bearing  on  the  market  as  well  as  on  values  and  citizens'  rights,  it 
provides  minimum  harmonisation  rules.  It  does  not  impinge  on  the  competence  of  Member 
States to define stricter requirements according to national circumstances and traditions (e.g. 
rules regarding content harmful to minors). 

83 

 
 
 
Intervention logic – 2007 revision 

84 

 
 
3. 

Evaluation questions 

Pursuant to the Commission Better Regulation Framework, the AVMSD has been evaluated against 
the  following  criteria:  relevance,  EU  added  value,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The 
evaluation addresses specifically the following questions: 

Relevance:  In  a  converging  media  environment,  to  what  extent  have  the  AVMSD  rules  proved 
relevant to the needs of the EU audiovisual market and to consumers/viewers?  

Effectiveness: To what extent have the general and specific objectives of the AVMSD been met? If 
not, what factors hindered their achievement? 

EU added  value: What is the additional value resulting from the AVMSD, compared to what could 
be achieved by MS at national and/or regional level? To what extent do the issues addressed by the 
AVMSD require action at EU level? 

Efficiency: Did the AVMSD deliver good value for money, including for SMEs? Could the general 
and  specific  objectives  have  been  achieved  at  a  lower  cost?  Is  there  scope  for  streamlining  and/or 
simplifying the procedures laid down in the AVMSD? 

Coherence:  How  well  does  the  AVMSD  work  together  with  other  EU  regulatory  and  policy 
initiatives? To what extent does the AVMSD take into account potential interactions or conflicts with 
other EU initiatives? 

The questions listed above are answered throughout the report.  

This  evaluation  covers  the  Directive  in  its  entirety.  It  is  structured  around  the  main  domains 
harmonised by the AVMSD, as each domain pursues one or more AVMSD objectives. 

The link with the general and specific objectives is as follows: 

Under the general objective: 

  The  rules  on  material  and  geographical  scope  of  application  and  on  Country  Of  Origin 

(COO). (Chapter 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3). 

Under the specific objectives: 

  Protection of consumers/viewers is pursued mainly by the rules on protection of minors, the 
ban  on  incitement  to  hatred,  the  rules  on  commercial  communications,  the  provisions 
encouraging the use of self and co-regulation, and the right of reply (see sections 6.4; 6.5; 
6.6; 6.10; 6.11). 

  Cultural diversity and the promotion of European audiovisual production and distribution are 

pursued by the rules on promotion of European works (see section 6.7). 

  The  promotion  of  media  pluralism,  freedom  of  expression  and  access  to  information  are 
pursued by the rule on cooperation  amongst  Member  States in particular via  independent 
regulators, the provision encouraging accessibility of services to persons with a visual or 
hearing  disability,  the  rules  on  events  of  major  importance  for  society  and  short  news 
reports (see sections 6.8; 6.9; 6.10). 

The  system  of  graduated  regulation  pursues  the  overall  objective  of  fostering  business 
competitiveness with a lighter touch regulation for on-demand services and stricter and more detailed 
rules  for  broadcast  services  on  grounds  that  the  user  has  more  control  and  choice  in  on-demand 
services.  The  system  applies  to  the  rules  on  protection  of  minors,  commercial  communications, 
promotion  of  European  works,  right  to  information  (short  news  reports  and  events  of  major 
importance  for  society)  and  right  of  reply.  This  matter  is  therefore  considered  across  a  number  of 
sections: 6.4, 6.6, 6.7, 6.10, 6.11. 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Under each "domain subchapter", the five evaluation criteria are being assessed, thereby allowing for 
a granular analysis and for drawing – if appropriate - different conclusions for each different AVMSD 
domains. 

4. 

Method 

The REFIT  evaluation  has  been carried out on  the basis  of data collected from different  sources. A 
more detailed insight is provided in Annex 1.  

The evaluation took place between March and December 2015 and drew from the following main data 
sources: 

  Stakeholder consultations:  

o  Three  public  consultations:  2013  Green  Paper  Public  consultation  on  media 
convergence302; 2013 Public consultation on independence of audiovisual regulators303 and 
2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD304 (the synopsis report is in Annex 2);  

o  Policy  discussions  with  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  the  Contact  Committee305 

meetings;  

o  Discussions with regulators within the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media 
Services (ERGA)306 leading to the adoption by ERGA of  specific recommendations on the 
material  and  geographical  scope  of  the  AVMSD,  protection  of  minors  (also  based  on  an 
"inventory paper") and the independence of regulators307 ;  

o  Structured dialogues with representatives of the affected industry and consumers (“Media 

talks308”). 

  Recommendations,  reports  and  policy  discussions  with  other  EU  institutions,  namely  the 
European Parliament309, the Council310, the European Economic and Social Committee311 and the 
Committee of the Regions312. 

  Data  gathered  on  the  AVMSD  costs  and  benefits  via  a  questionnaire  sent  to  Member  States' 

regulators within ERGA and to industry313. 

302 The  2013  Public  consultation  on  the  "Green  Paper  on  a  Converging  media  world"  (http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/consultation-green-
paper-preparing-fully-converged-audiovisual-world-growth-creation-and-values) 
303 The  2013  Public  consultation  on  regulatory  bodies  competent  for  audiovisual  media  services  and  on  possible  options  for  strengthening  their 
independence  (http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions) 
304 The  Public  consultation  ran  from  6  July  to  30  September  2015.  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-
audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-framework-21st 
305 In the Contact Committee established pursuant to Article 29 AVMSD. 
306  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-decision-establishing-european-regulators-group-audiovisual-media-services  At  the  end  of 
2015, ERGA delivered to the Commission recommendations on the AVMSD review.  
307  ERGA  report  on  material  jurisdiction  in  a  converged  environment  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-material-jurisdiction-
converged-environment);  ERGA  report  on  protection  of  minors  in  a  converged  environment  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-
protection-minors-converged-environment);  ERGA  report  on  the  independence  of  national  regulatory  authorities  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
agenda/en/news/erga-report-independence-national-regulatory-authorities). 
308 In the "Media Talks", the Commission discussed specific domains of the AVMSD with representatives of the relevant stakeholders. Media Talks took 
place in June and September 2015, as well as regularly throughout 2013 and 2014.  
309 The European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act (2015/2147(INI)) calls on the Commission to review 
the AVMSD as regards a number of aspects of the Directive. The July 2013 "Connected TV" report (Rapporteur MEP Petra Kammerevert (S&D, DE)) 
calls 
AVMSD,  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0329&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0212  B)  The  March  2014 
report,  "Preparing  for  a  Fully  Converged  Audiovisual  World"  (Rapporteur  MEP  Sabine  Verheyen  (EPP,  DE))  calls  for  a  review  of  the  AVMSD, 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2014-0232&language=EN&ring=A7-2014-0057. 
310 Most recently, the Council conclusions adopted under the Italian Presidency of the EU in 2014 inviting the Commission to "Urgently complete the 
exercise of the review of the AVMSD in the light of the rapid technological and market changes resulting from the digital shift, and on the basis of the 
outcome of this review submit an appropriate proposal for the revision of this Directive as soon as possible, in respect of the principle of subsidiarity." 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/145950.pdf.  The  Conclusions  of  the  Culture  Council  in  November  2013 
invited the Member States to ensure the independence of audiovisual regulators and to strengthen cooperation amongst regulators.   
311 Opinion  adopted  in  September  2013  on  the  Green  Paper  "Preparing  for  a  Fully  Converged  Audiovisual  World:  Growth,  Creation  and  Values, 
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.ten-opinions.28469 
312 At its Plenary Session of 12-14 October 2015, the Committee of the Regions adopted an own-initiative opinion on the "Review of the Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive" – link to be published 
313 A data gathering on costs and benefits of the AVMSD was sent to stakeholders via the national Regulators.  

Commission 

necessary 

evaluate 

extent 

which 

revise 

the 

the 

the 

on 

to 

to 

to 

is 

it 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
  Evidence  gathered  through  publicly-tendered  studies 314  on  alcohol  advertising  exposure, 

independence of audiovisual regulators, self- and co-regulation and standardisation. 

  Commission's  monitoring  of  the  AVMSD  pursuant  to  Article  33 315  of  the  Directive  (1st 
Application  report  for  the  years  2009-2010316;  2nd  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD317 for  the 
years 2011-2013; Articles 16 and 17318). 

  Literature review (e.g. reports of the European Audiovisual Observatory319 (EAO)) followed by an 
analysis  carried  out  in-house  by  the  European  Commission  Directorate  General  (DG)  for 
Communications Networks, Content and Technology (DG CONNECT) in close cooperation with 
other  Commission  DGs  in  the  context  of  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  on  the  AVMSD 
evaluation and review convened by the General Secretariat of the European Commission. 

Time-wise,  the  data  gathering  was  characterised  by  continuity.  The  Commission  acknowledged  the 
need to assess the state of play in terms of market and societal developments in 2012, following the 
1st  AVMSD  Application  report  for  the  years  2009-2010.    The  Commission  started  stakeholder 
consultations  in  the  Contact  Committee,  in  ERGA  and  via  the  "Media  talks".  Two  Public 
consultations  were  launched  in  2013  (see  above)  and  a  third,  more  targeted  one,  in  2015.  The 
reporting  obligations  according  to  the  Directive  also  were  the  opportunity  to  gather  data  and 
information  on  the  state  of  implementation  over  time.  The  Commission’s  questionnaires  in  this 
context were drafted taking into account the main needs that could be identified at that stage in terms 
of data. 
Method-wise,  the  data  gathering  followed  a  participatory  and  circular  approach  and  strived  for 
triangulation. While the 2013 public consultations were of a broader nature, the questions in the 2015 
Public  consultation  were  more  focused  on  possible  changes  to  the  AVMSD.  However,  all  main 
options were considered, in order to enable the Commission to either confirm or contradict previous 
findings. The questions took into account concerns or views expressed in previous occasions as well 
as the state of the art in the market and in viewing patterns. 
The  questions  in  the  ERGA  questionnaire  were  developed  by  a  Task  force  of  Member  States' 
audiovisual  regulators  and  focused  on  the  practical  aspects  of  the  AVMSD  application.  Regulators 
took into account the difficulty to measure the costs and benefits of the AVMSD in certain fields. 
The  data  provided  by  the  EAO  were  tailored  to  the  needs  of  this  evaluation  and  were  delivered 
pursuant to an evaluation-specific contract with the Commission. 
A  circular  approach  was  followed  as  much  as  possible.  For  example,  meetings  of  the  Contact 
Committee,  ERGA  and  Media  talks  with  stakeholders  were  held  ahead  of  the  launch  of  the  Public 
consultation.  After  the  Public  consultation  deadline,  the  Contact  Committee  discussed  the  Public 
consultation in two occasions. The data gathered from the sources above were analysed respectively: 
in house, by external contractors, and in cooperation with other Commission DGs.  

The  survey  gathered  a  total  of  107  replies  with  40  coming  from  commercial  broadcasters  (38  %),  20  public  service  broadcasters  (19  %),  18  VOD 
providers  (17  %),  12  from  national  associations  focusing  on  the  protection  of  minors  (12  %),  10  from  national  associations  representing  independent 
producers (10 %), 4 from consumer association (4 %). One association representing broadcasters and one representing sales houses also participated. 
As regards the geographical spread the Commission received replies from stakeholders established in 19 Member States. 
As most of the information is confidential, it has been used in the Impact Assessment and the REFIT in an aggregated and anonymised way. For this 
reason the replies are not published 
314

 http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:212396-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML&ticket=ST-1292379-

SKem8OGQ1reJn1IxAZqVGszP2zjXhYuZOoStsF8rBu0ZCOZKgO05NbMy9k6hQrTzIimWUTdcKGfvm49lhwu7y5m-Jj71zxYb8yr5J3R6eCTiGK-
TqeqixAzhASPjqjbmnf8X5hXPzlpiWbUx9btUwoJzMau 
315 Article 33 of the  AVMSD invites the Commission to submit regularly  a report on the application of the Directive to the European Parliament,  the 
Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. 
316 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203 
317 The  2nd  Application  report  covers  the  period  2011-2013.  Developments  related  to  the  year  2014  are  also  reported  where  appropriate.  The  2nd 
Application report is in Annex 7.  
318 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/avmsd-reports-european-works 
319
(http://www.obs.coe.int/en/publications/2015 

the  Yearbook 
(http://www.obs.coe.int/en/shop/yearbook) and ad-hoc reports prepared for the European Commission in the context of REFIT. Whenever an EAO report 
is the source of data throughout this document, this will be appropriately referenced.  

publication, 

available 

 Public 

on-line 

reports 

year 

per 

of 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
Moreover, stakeholders were consulted in multiple occasions by different parties, for example, by the 
Commission via the Public consultation, by relevant national regulators via the ERGA questionnaire 
and by external contractors in the context of the studies. This circular approach enabled a satisfactory 
triangulation of data, i.e. its reliability has been confirmed via findings coming from other sources. 
Also,  whenever  the  same  stakeholder  provided  information  in  different  contexts,  the  Commission 
compared these pieces of information so as to assure their coherence and reliability. 
The evaluation process was assisted by a Steering Group composed of the representatives of selected 
Directorates General (DGs) including DG CNECT, DG COMP, DG JUST, DG GROW, DG TRADE, 
DG  EAC,  DG  SANCO,  DG  RTD,  DG  NEAR  together  with  the  Secretariat-General  and  the  Legal 
Service.   
The  Steering  Group  steered  and  monitored  the  progress  of  the  exercise,  ensuring  the  necessary 
quality,  impartiality  and  usefulness  of  the  evaluation.  Being  composed  of  members  from  different 
functions  and  having  the  necessary  mix  of  knowledge  and  experience,  the  Steering  Group  brought 
together  a  range  of  different  perspectives  and  provided  the  necessary  input,  in  particular  where  the 
evaluation touched different policy areas.  
Limitations – robustness of findings  

The data collection and analysis carried out has a number of intrinsic limitations, whose impact was 
mitigated to a maximum possible extent: 

  Measuring the effectiveness of the AVMSD rules that aim to protect values (e.g. human dignity 
and the physical, mental and moral development of minors) is by definition a challenging exercise 
whose results should be interpreted with caution; 

  Despite being prompted in a number of occasions by the Commission, the national regulators and 
the  contractors  carrying  out  publicly  tendered  studies  for  this  purpose,  the  industry  has  been 
reluctant or unable to deliver precise quantitative data on the compliance costs stemming from the 
AVMSD;  given  that  legislation  in  this  domain  has  been  in  place  for  a  long  time,  it  has  been 
revised twice and codified once, and in some cases national legislation was already in place, it is 
hard for business to assess what costs and lost revenues stem from the Directive; 

  When the industry did provide data, this was in some cases covered by business confidentiality. 
When  possible,  the  Commission  presented  this  data  in  aggregated  or  anonymised  format.  When 
this  was  not  possible,  data  was  taken  into  account  in  the  evaluation  but  not  provided  (this  is 
indicated when applicable); 

  The EU audiovisual sector is primarily made of large companies and data on the specific impact of 
the  AVMSD  on  SMEs  is  not  available,  also  in  light  of  the  considerations  made  above. 
Accordingly,  when  the  evaluation  refers  to  the  impact  on  the  AVMSD  rules  on  business, 
particularly  on  business  competitiveness,  this  should  be  intended  as  referring  in  most  cases  to 
large companies;  

  Some data simply does not exist because stakeholders do not generate or gather it. This is the case, 
for  example,  for  figures  on  the  number  of  viewers  and  on  viewing  patterns  in  on-demand 
audiovisual media services and in other services offering audiovisual content; 

  The evaluation takes into account that the economic and cultural landscape as well as the state of 
development of the audiovisual media market differ significantly amongst the Member States; 
  Given  the  multiplicity  of  the  tools  used  to  consult  relevant  parties,  the  results  obtained  are  of 
different  nature.  While  the  2015  Public  consultation  proposed  a  number  of  questions  to 
stakeholders, the discussions within ERGA went more in-depth on some issues, as regulators had 
a platform for regular and organised discussions; 

  The evaluation takes into account the inherent limitations of the findings of Public consultations. 
Firstly,  as  in  all  surveys,  the  answers  received  reflect  the  views  of  a  sample  of  relevant 
stakeholders  and  not  those  of  the  entire  population  who  has  a  stake  in  this  domain.  Secondly, 
stakeholders' views convey an individual rather than a holistic perspective. 

88 

 
 
 
Based on the elements above, this evaluation has been carried out on the basis of the best available 
data.  Whenever  reliable  quantitative  data  is  lacking,  this  is  indicated  as  appropriate  and  possibly 
counter balanced with qualitative data and considerations. 

5. 

Implementation state of play (results) 

The implementation of the AVMSD by the Member States is monitored by the European Commission 
on the basis of Article 33320 of the Directive. Article 33 AVMSD requires the Member States to report 
to the Commission and the Commission to report to Parliament and Council on the state of play of the 
Directive every three years at the latest.   

Current state of play 

Following  the  last  revision,  the  Member  States  were  required  to  transpose  the  AVMSD  at  national 
level by 2009. Whereas to date all Member States have notified full transposition measures, issues of 
protracted  implementation  did  occur.  By  the  end  of  2011,  full  transposition  was  notified  to  the 
Commission only from 20 Member States321. 

In 2005, the EU audiovisual market was rapidly changing, also due to the development of the Internet. 
In  2004,  Internet  penetration  had  stabilized  at  about  65%  by  household,  with  mobile  phone 
penetration  at  about  85%.  In  2005,  the  EU  enjoyed  better  domestic  broadband  penetration  than  the 
United States, with wider 3G deployment.  

This  evolution,  together  with  the  demand  for  premium  content  and  the  continuous  search  for  new 
sources  of  revenue,  had  enabled  the  development  of  IPTV  and  other  Internet-based  methods  of 
delivery.  The  need  for  new  revenues  was  one  of  the  sources  of  the  emergence  of  triple-play:  the 
convergence of broadband, telephony, and video. However, in 2005, there were still obstacles to IPTV 
growth,  such  as  a  lack  of  consumer  awareness  and  acceptance  of  IPTV  as  a  viable  alternative  to 
incumbent  channels  of  delivery  and  the  strong  market  position  and  economies  of  scale  of  the 
incumbents. As a result, in 2005, audiovisual revenues linked to the development of Internet were still 
limited.  

As already mentioned, in 2005, transfrontier satellite commercial television was as popular as or even 
more  popular  than  local  terrestrial  broadcasting  (with  cable  systems  re-transmitting  both).  This 
evolution  was  accompanied  by  exponential  change  in  channel  capacity,  especially  via  digital  cable 
and  satellite,  increased  market  penetration  of  multichannel  homes  (using  sports  and  feature  film 
premium  content),  and  an  increasing  number  of  platforms.  Consumer  choice  increased.  Cable  and 
satellite television multiplied the number of pan-European channels available.  

Video  on  Demand  (VoD)  was  making  inroads  into  the  audiovisual  market,  whether  delivered  by 
cable, fibre or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL). However, in 2005, VoD still generated limited revenues 
(ca. US 60 million). As regards advertising markets in 2005, television and the Internet were gaining 
ground, both within Europe and on a global scale.  

In  2014, the overall size of the European audiovisual sector was around EUR 105.8 million322. This 
implies  an  increase  of  0.9%  as  compared  to  2010.  This  increase  primarily  comes  from  on-demand 
audiovisual media services, whereas physical video registered a significant decrease. 

320 Article  33  AVMSD  also  specifies  that  the  application  report  shall  also  assess  the  issue  of  television  advertising  accompanying  or  included  in 
children’s programmes, and in particular whether the quantitative and qualitative rules contained in this Directive have afforded the level of protection 
required. 
321 Ref. 1st Application report on the AVMSD 
322 EAO Yearbook 2015: http://www.obs.coe.int/ 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The EU audiovisual sector mainly comprises large companies which account for an absolute majority 
(more than half) of the workforce in 10 of these. For example, large enterprises in France employed 
upwards of 7 out of 10 people (71.5 %) within the programming and broadcasting activities workforce 
in  2010,  while  the  share  of  large  enterprises  in  the  total  workforce  peaked  at  78.5  %  in  Germany. 
Upwards  of  80  %  of  the  value  added  generated  in  Spain,  Poland,  Italy,  France,  Romania  and  the 
United Kingdom was attributed to large enterprises, their share of sectoral value added peaking in the 
United Kingdom (90.8 %)323. 

By  contrast,  in  the  relatively  small  EU  Member  States  of  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg  and 
Slovenia,  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  employed  the  whole  of  the  programming 
and  broadcasting  activities  workforce  in  2010.  In  those  Member  States  it  was,  however,  more 
common to find that the majority of the workforce was engaged by large enterprises324.  

As already remarked, in light of the composition of the EU audiovisual market and the lack of data 
regarding  specifically  SMEs,  references  to  the  impact  on  the  AVMSD  rules  on  business,  and 
particularly  on  business  competitiveness,  contained  in  this  evaluation  should  be  intended  as 
concerning in most cases large companies.  

At the end of 2013, 5 141 TV channels (excluding local channels and windows325) were established 
in  the  EU.  Almost  1989  of  them  (about  38%  of  the  total  established  channels)  targeted  foreign 
markets (either EU or extra EU). This share has increased from 28% in 2009 - year of implementation 
-  to  38%  in  2013326.  On  average,  31%  of  the  VoD  services  available  in  the  Member  States  are 
established in another EU country327. 

The market for on-demand and online services is on the rise. In 2014, there were more than 2 563 
VoD  services  in  Europe,  including  catch-up  TV  services  offered  by  broadcasters  (932  services), 
branded channels on open platforms (408 services), VoD services providing access to a catalogue of 
programs (1 126 services) and news portals (97 services)328. 

From  a  static  viewpoint,  the  TV  broadcasting  market  is  still  the  strongest  part  of  the  audiovisual 
market.  
In  2013,  revenues  from  linear  television  in  the  EU28  were  EUR  83.6  bn.  In  comparison,  total 
consumer  revenues  of  VoD  services  amounted  to  EUR  2.5  bn  i.e.  3%  of  the  TV  broadcasters' 
revenues.  However,  from  a  dynamic  perspective,  the  domination  of  TV  broadcast  is  less  obvious. 
Their growth rate has decreased from an average annual rate of 2.8% from 2009 to 2013, to only 0.3% 
in 2013329.  

In the EU28, total on-demand consumer revenues soared from EUR 919 million in 2010 to EUR 2.5 
billion in 2014, an increase of 272% and a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in the 5 year period 
of 28%330.  

As regards television viewing time, the observed trend of stability between 2012 and 2014 (between 
03:44 and 03:43) may hide an effective decrease in viewing time for live TV to the benefit of catch up 

323 Eurostat statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-xplained/index.php/Programming_and_broadcasting_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2  
324 Ibid 
325 Adaptations of a channel to the specificities of the target country in particular as regards advertising.  
326 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Origin and availability of television 
services  in  the  European  Union  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-data-and-information-costs-and-benefits-audiovisual-media-
service-directive-avmsd) 
327 EAO Yearbook 2015 
328 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  -  Origin  and  availability  of  On  -
Demand services in the European Union 
329 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in linear television revenues 
330Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in video-on-demand revenues. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
services331.  It  should  be  noted  that  television  audience  measurement  increasingly  goes  beyond  the 
tracking of live viewing to include time-shifted viewing. In most countries, viewing is tracked during 
6 or 7 days after the live transmission.  

As  regards  viewing  time  online  and  on-demand,  mobile  consumption  is projected to  increase  in the 
near  future.  The  number  of  smartphones  in  Europe  is  expected  to  double  by  2020,  reaching  800 
million.  This  will  mean  that  more  than  70%  of  mobile  subscriptions  will  be  for  smartphones332.  It 
must be borne in mind that in 2014, Internet video stood for 64% of total consumer internet traffic. 
This share is expected to increase up to 80% by 2019333. The consumption of videos offered by video-
sharing platforms is on the rise334. 

According to the industry, by 2020, projections suggest that more than 20% of European households 
will have a specific, paid account with a SVoD provider. As a result of this, the projected turnover of 
all VoD services in Europe should increase by 15% annually to 2020, reaching EUR 6 billion335.When 
looking  at  online  video  advertising  revenue,  it  is  expected  to  grow  in  Europe  by  more  than  75% 
between  2015  and  2018  up  to  EUR  4.1  bn  with  Google  and  Facebook  representing  50  %  of  the 
market336.  

The 1st Application report for the years 2009-2010 concluded that the AVMSD had overall struck the 
right balance amongst the objectives pursued and well served the interests of citizens and businesses. 
The  report  nonetheless  1)  flagged  issues  around  consumer  protection  (particularly  protection  of 
minors) in audiovisual commercial communications and 2) called for assessing whether the AVMSD 
still attains its consumer protection objectives in a converging media world. 

The 2nd Application report for the years 2011-2013 is published as Annex 7 of this evaluation report. 
The report demonstrates the AVMSD's effectiveness in ensuring the development and free circulation 
of  audiovisual  media  services  in  the  EU.  The  report  however  flags  the  following  issues:  1) 
complexities  in  determining  jurisdiction  and  for  applying  procedures  limiting  freedom  of  reception 
and  retransmission  in  specific  case;  2)  diversity  in  the  approaches  undertaken  by  Member  States  to 
promote European works on VoD services, putting the effectiveness of the procedures supporting the 
COO  principle  to  the  test  in  this  specific  field;  and  3)  concerns  around  the  application  of  rules  for 
certain types of commercial communications. 

In the field of promotion of European works in broadcasting services, Member States shall provide the 
Commission every 2 years a report on the application of this Article 16 and Article 17 – promotion of 
European  works  in  broadcasting  services.  The  Member  States  have  up  to  now  complied  with  this 
reporting  obligation.  The  Commission  shall  inform  the  other  Member  States  and  the  European 
Parliament of the reports, which shall be accompanied, where appropriate, by an opinion. The latest of 
these Commission reports is published as an Annex to this evaluation report (Annex 8). This report 
shows that the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 AVMSD have been overall correctly implemented by 
Member  States.  The  current  rules  on  promotion  of  European  works  have  led  to  strong  shares  of 

331 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 
332 Ericsson mobility report; http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2014/emr-november2014-regional-appendices-europe.pdf 
333 Cisco  Visual  Networking  Index:  Forecast  and  Methodology,  2014–2019  (http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/ip-ngn-
ip-next-generation-network/white_paper_c11-481360.pdf) 
334 Today, 400 hours of videos are uploaded every  minute on YouTube, equivalent to 24,000 days’  worth of content uploaded every  minute and 65.7 
years’  worth  of  content  uploaded  every  day  (http://www.tubefilter.com/2015/07/26/youtube-400-hours-content-every-minute).  The  amount  of  people 
watching short video clips online in the UK has almost doubled over the period 2007 to 2014 (21% to 39%, the highest increase being among 35-44s 
with 28 percentage points increase). The popularity of multi-platform online video services, such as YouTube, as an information source has been evident 
in recent years – 32% of internet users now cite it as  an important (very or fairly) source for information, rising to 46% of 16-24 year olds (Ofcom's 
Adults’ 
report(http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-lit-
10years/2015_Adults_media_use_and_attitudes_report.pdf). One in three consumers believes it is very important to be able to watch UGC on their TV 
sets at home (http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/consumerlab/ericsson-consumerlab-tv-media-2015.pdf). 
335 Promoting  growth,  pluralism  and  choice:  The  Country  of  Origin  principle  and  Europe’s  audiovisual  sector  (http://coba.org.uk/about-coba/coba-
latest/2016/coba-launches-country-of-origin-report ) 
336 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 

attitudes, 

media 

2015 

and 

use 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
transmission  of  European  works,  independent  productions  and  recent  independent  productions.  The 
64.1%  average  of  European  works  achieved  in  2011  and  2012,  well  above  the  obligatory  majority 
proportion set out in Article 16, reflects a generally sound application of this provision throughout the 
EU.  Member  States  also  met  comfortably  the  requirement  regarding  the  share  of  independent 
productions  set  down  in  Article  17.  With  33.1%  in  2011  and  34.1%  in  2012  the  average  of 
independent  productions  was  significantly  above  the  required  10%  laid  down  by  Article  17.  At  the 
same time, the share of independent productions differs significantly among Member States. The EU 
average share of recent independent productions was 60.6% in 2011 and 61.1% in 2012.   

However, the report also shows some shortcomings. It identifies the main reasons for non-compliance 
reported by Member States. An often repeated argument was the difficulty for small and specialized 
channels to comply with the obligatory shares. Additionally, monitoring methods of compliance vary 
greatly among Member States and not all Member States have put in place verification systems of the 
data provided by broadcasters. 

On promotion of European works in on-demand services, Member States were required to report to 
the Commission no later than 19 December 2011, and every 4 years thereafter, on the implementation 
of Article 13(1) – measures to promote European works in on-demand services. Member States have 
up to now complied with this flexible provision, while considering that there is a general lack of data 
regarding shares of European works in on-demand catalogues. Also on the basis of this information 
the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council. In addition to this report, 
the Commission more recently proactively analysed and reported337 on the diverse approaches taken 
across the Member States on promotion of European works in on-demand services. 

Although  the  AVMSD  does  not  impose  an  obligation  regarding  the  independence  of  audiovisual 
regulatory bodies, the Commission regularly monitored the state of play as regards the independence 
of national regulatory bodies, through independent studies - first the INDIREG study of 2011338 and 
then its update – the RADAR study of 2015339. 

6. 

Answers to the evaluation questions 

6.1 Material scope of application 

The  AVMSD  applies340 to  television  broadcasts  and  to  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  for 
which providers have editorial responsibility. To be covered by the Directive: 

(i)  services must have as their principal purpose the provision of programmes to inform, entertain or 
educate the general public; and  

(ii) programmes should be comparable, in form and content, to television ("TV-like").  

Relevance of the current rules 
The rules defining the AVMSD's scope of application are overall relevant. The 2007 revision brought 
new on-demand audiovisual media services into the AVMSD scope and as such aligned the Directive 
to  the  market  developments  emerging  at  that  time.  In  the  2015  Public  consultation,  a  majority  of 
respondents  belonging  to  various  stakeholders'  categories  stated  that  the  rules  are  still  relevant. 
However, some aspects of the definition of “audiovisual media services", which were relevant during 

337 A document presenting a summary of those approaches has been published by the European Commission in July 2014, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
agenda/en/news/promotion-european-works-practice 
338 http://ec.europa.eu/archives/information_society/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/regulators/final_report.pdf 
339 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-audiovisual-media-services 
340 Article 1(1) AVMSD 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
                                                 
the first years of application of the Directive after the 2007 revision, are no longer fully relevant in 
light of recent market and legal developments: 
  The  Directive  applies  to341 programmes  "the  form  and  content  of  which  are  comparable  to  the 
form  and  content  of  television  broadcasting"  which  has  primarily  meant  an  exclusion  of  short 
clips. Audiovisual content is however increasingly offered in innovative (shorter) formats (e.g. 
short video clips) online. As said above, while the number of videos viewed tends to increase, the 
time spent on one given video tends to decrease342. Most recently, the ECJ343  clarified that videos 
that  are  short  in  length  can  qualify  as  audiovisual  media  service  under  the  AVMSD  (when  the 
content  offered  competes  for  the  same  audience  as  television  broadcasting).  A  majority  of 
respondents  belonging  to  various  stakeholders'  categories  also  affirmed  in  the  2015  Public 
consultation that the "TV-like" criterion has become outdated. 

  The  Directive  does  not  apply  to  audiovisual  material  offered  by  services  whose  "principal 
purpose"  is  not  to  provide  programmes,  to  inform,  educate  or  entertain,  to  the  general  public. 
However,  services  such  as  newspapers'  video  sections344 or  social  media  and  messaging  apps 
hosting professional video content are increasingly present on the market. Also, the consumption 
of online news videos is on the rise - not necessarily on newspapers' websites but also on social 
media345 and this often coincides with a fall in audiences for traditional TV bulletins346. In 2014, 
the number of children who read or watched news online almost tripled as compared to 2010347. 
Most recently, the ECJ348 clarified that the AVMSD applies when the audiovisual media content is 
in  content  and  form  independent  of  the  main  service  offered  by  a  provider  (whether  it  is 
messaging,    audiovisual  content  generated  by  private  users  i.e.  "user  generated  content"  (UGC), 
press articles, etc.). This is the case even when the main service is of a different nature, e.g. text, 
and is not merely an indissociable complement to that activity, in particular as a result of the links 
between the audiovisual offer and the offer in text form. 

In  light  of  this,  the  rules  defining  the  AVMSD's  scope  of  application  are  overall  relevant,  although 
most recent developments call for further reflection.  

Effectiveness 

The inclusion in the scope of on-demand services along with traditional broadcasting services in the 
context of the 2007 revision provided a minimum level of consumer protection on these services. In 
this light, the AVMSD rules on material scope have proven to be effective in an environment where 
consumption of TV content was primarily taking place on traditional TV or via on-demand services. 

Furthermore,  by  excluding  from  the  application  of  the  rules  audiovisual  material  that  is:  i)  merely 
incidental to other type of content; and ii) that is not under the editorial responsibility of a provider, 
the  Directive  (also  in  conjunction  with  the  EU  eCommerce  Directive)  contributed  to  avoid 

341 Article 1(1) (b) AVMSD 
342 This is confirmed in the Google Consumer Barometer 2014 which also indicated that when asked about the length of the videos watched during their 
most recent online video session, 49% of European Internet users declared having watched videos shorter than five minutes. According to the IHS study 
(to be checked whether it can be referenced), in Italy online long-form constitutes just one minute out of 17 minutes of on-demand viewing time per-
person per-day. Online short-form grew by one minute in 2014 to reach six minutes per person, equating to 37% of non-linear TV viewing time. 
343 Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015, New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat, Case C-347/14 (hereinafter, 
"New media Online GmbH" case).  
344 The online versions of the main European newspapers all have dedicated video sub-sections that in some cases even offer news bulletin breaking news 
(e.g. the Guardian, Repubblica, Spiegel Online, El Pais, etc). 
345 The 2015 Reuters Institute Media report reports a significant increase in online news video views, notably in Spain (+10), Denmark (+8) , UK (+5) 
and Italy (+5). The trend is most pronounced amongst the under 35s. 
346 According to the University of Oxford (Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015, University of Oxford. in 8 EU countries (FR, DE, DK, FI, IT, ES, 
IE) two-thirds of smartphone users (66%) use the device to access news every week. 70% of smartphone users have a news app installed on their phone. 
Also,  in  those  countries,  print  newspapers  are  only  the  third  or  fourth  source  of  news.  A  significant gap  separates  print  newspapers  from  TV  and  the 
Internet  as  sources  of  news  (which  scored  respectively  first  and  second  except  in  IE,  DK  and  FI  where  online  is  already  the  first  source  of  news). 
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Reuters%20Institute%20Digital%20News%20Report%202015_Full%20Report.pdf 
347 EU Kids Online 2014, Children's online risks and opportunities  
348 In the New Media Online GmbH case 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
overregulation of online services. This fulfilled the objective to foster the online market and unlock 
the potential of convergence of different types of media content. 

However,  the  most  recent  developments  in  the  market,  technology  and  viewing  patterns  put  into 
question  the  effectiveness  of  the  rules  on  material  scope  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  and  an 
appropriate level of viewers' protection. 

Specifically,  the  following  developments  led  to  a  perceived  uneven  playing  field  and  a  lack  of 
consumer protection: 

  Audiovisual  content  is  increasingly  offered  by  players  who  are  not  regulated  under  the 
AVMSD: as said above, in 2014, around 2 563 Internet-based, OTT and VOD television providers 
were  established  in  the  EU.  Video  sharing  platforms349 and  social  media  increasingly  include  in 
their offers audiovisual material (be it UGC, advertising or original content). These services often 
fall outside the scope of the AVMSD either because the providers do not control the selection and 
organisation of the content350 or because their principal purpose is not to offer audiovisual content. 

  Viewing patterns, including those of children, are changing. While TV viewing is still strong, 
EU  audiences  increasingly  watch  and  share  audiovisual  content  online 351 including  on  social 
media352. Consumer spending on digital video and this trend is related to the increasing popularity 
of connected TV and the soar in mobile usage353. In the UK, the amount of people watching short 
online clips has almost doubled over the period 2007 to 2014 (21% to 39%, the highest increase 
being among 35-44s with 28 percentage points increase). The popularity of multi-platform online 
video services, such as YouTube, as an information source has been evident in recent years – 32% 
of internet users now cite it as an important (very or fairly) source for information, rising to 46% 
of 16-24 year olds354. In the EU, 92% of Europeans in the 15-24 age group use the Internet on a 
daily basis (or almost daily), compared with 80% of 25-39 year-olds and 65% of 40-54 year-olds. 
In 2013, the share of internet users who participated in social networking was 89 % for 16-24 year 
olds compared with 27 % for 55-74 year olds355.  

When  it  comes  to  minors,  video  viewing  is  one  of  the  earliest  Internet  activities  carried  out  by 
young children. For example in the UK children aged 12-15 spend more time online than watching 
television (17.2 vs. 15.7 hours per week)356. Watching video clips is the second prevalent online 
activity  amongst  minors  aged  4-17,  after  listening  music  and  watching  films  and  cartoons357. 
Services  such  as  YouTube  are  widely  popular  among  children358.  Connected  devices  such  as 

349 Today 300 hours are uploaded every minute on YouTube and 3.25 billion of hours of videos are viewed each month by 900 million of unique visitors, 
http://www.statisticbrain.com/youtube-statistics/ 
350 These services are subject to the e-Commerce Directive (ECD) which does not require intermediaries to monitor content hosted by them. Under the 
ECD, intermediaries are exempted from liability for the illegal content hosted when they do not have knowledge of it. However, when illegal content is 
identified, intermediaries should take expeditious action to disable access to or remove it to avoid liability. The rationale of this ex-post system called 
"notice and takedown" (NTD) lies in the fact that intermediaries cannot in principle technically control the content before it is posted.  The e-Commerce 
Directive does not deal with harmful content. 
351
consumers  believes 

to  watch  UGC  on 

at  home. 

their  TV 

important 

is  very 

to  be 

three 

 One 

able 

sets 

in 

it 

http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2``015/consumerlab/ericsson-consumerlab-tv-media-2015.pdf 
352 Watching videos is one of the  most popular Facebook activities. Facebook generates 8 billion video views a  day, up from 4 billion a day in April 
2015, http://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-play-videos-catching-on-beyond-facebook-1447106795. At the beginning of 2015 users posted 75% more videos 
than a year before, http://adage.com/article/digital/facebook-users-posting-75-videos-year/296482/ 
353
in 

the  coming  years,  Ericsson  mobility 

soar  by  55%  annually 

time  on  mobile 

 Video  viewing 

is  expected 

report; 

to 

http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2015.pdf 
354

 Ofcom's  Adults’  media  use 

and 

attitudes,  2015 

report:  http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-lit-

on-demand 

10years/2015_Adults_media_use_and_attitudes_report.pdf 
355 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Internet_use_statistics_-_individuals 
356 Ofcom report on children and parents: media use and attitudes report: seven in ten children aged 5-15 have access to a tablet computer at home, one-
third  watch 
. 
of  watch 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-use-attitudes-14/Childrens_2014_Report.pdf   
357 Study on the exposure of  minors to alcohol advertising on linear and non-linear audio-visual  media services and other online  services, including a 
content analysis, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/study-exposure-minors-alcohol-advertising-tv-and-online-services  
358 Close to 40% of boys aged 9–12 regularly watch video on video-sharing platforms; nearly a third – 29% – of 11- to 12-year-olds has a profile on a 
media-sharing platforms such as YouTube, Instagram or Flickr (As reported in Page 30 of "EU Kids Online 2014, Final recommendations for policy" 
http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/D64Policy.pdf) 

programmes 

television 

computer 

services 

tablet 

20% 

and 

TV 

on 

a 

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
mobile  phones,  tablets and  games  consoles  are  increasingly  used  by  minors,  often  without  adult 
supervision359. More than half of YouTube views come from mobile devices360. 

In  all  Member  States,  young  viewers  watch  on  average  50%  less  television  than  the  average 
viewer.  The  difference  between  time  spent  by  the  general  audience  and  by  young  viewers  has 
increased over 2011-2014361.  

A majority of Member States, regulators, consumer organisations and a fair share of broadcasters who 
replied  to  the  2015  Public  consultation,  cite  these  developments  when  underlining  that  the  rules  on 
material scope do not ensure a level playing field for audiovisual media services. On the other hand, a 
small  number  of  MS,  some  regulators  as  well  as  the  Internet,  ICT,  the  press  publishing  sector, 
telecom,  cable,  satellite  and  advertising  industries  believe  that  the  AVMSD  rules  have  fostered  the 
free  circulation  of  audiovisual  media  services  within  the  EU,  created  a  level  playing  field  and 
opportunities for new entrants to reach the consumers. 

As to the effectiveness of the rules on consumer protection, there are a number of concerns:  

When it comes to audiovisual media content under the editorial responsibility of a service provider, 
there  are  gaps  in  the  level  of  protection  guaranteed  across  the  EU.  Some  Member  States  have 
excluded from the scope of application of the AVMSD some programmes due to their short duration 
and editing style362. In other cases, online versions of newspapers were not deemed to constitute an 
audiovisual media service363. 

As  regards  services  without  the  editorial  responsibility  of  the  UGC,  which  is  not  subject  to  the 
AVMSD  rules,  despite  initiatives  being  undertaken,  there  are  concerns  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors, incitement to hatred and the protection of viewers on advertising.   

The  EU  has  undertaken  a  number  of  non-regulatory  initiatives  (e.g.  self-regulation  and  funding)  to 
protect minors online (see Annex 9 for more details). Moreover, the largest video-sharing platforms 
use  software  and  human  intervention  with  a  view  to  protecting  viewers  from  hate  speech  and 
protection of minors from harmful content. However, the criteria for content deemed "inappropriate" 
(a term most commonly used by video-sharing platforms) are defined by the platforms themselves, in 

359 According to the Net Children Go Mobile Project, in 2013 24% of children aged 9 to 16 years owned a desktop, 43 % a laptop, 46 % a smartphone 
and 20 % a tablet. 33 % used a desktop daily, 46 % a laptop, 41 % a smartphone and 23 % a tablet. Last 55 % of them have a daily use of internet in their 
own bedroom.  
360 https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html 
361 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 
362 For example the UK regulator (OFCOM) deemed BBC Top Gear on YouTube and BBC Food on YouTube not to be audiovisual media services as the 
clips were not comparable to TV programmes of the same "genre" due to the short duration and the style of editing. 
363 See Ofcom's Sunvideo decision (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/video-on-demand-services/sun-video-decision-appendices/ 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
their  terms  of  service/Community  guidelines364.  Examples  of  initiatives  that  are  being  undertaken 
include:   

1.  Moderation of content already posted on the platforms based on flagging by the users. Users 
flag  content,  which  is  deemed  inappropriate  according to the  terms  of  service;  an  algorithm 
sorts  out  the  complaints  prior  to  sending  to  a  moderation  team  for  verification;  if  deemed 
inappropriate, the content is removed.   

2.  Age  verification.  For  example,  to  access  certain  YouTube  paid  content,  users  need  to 
authenticate  themselves.  This  requires  them  to  have  an  active  user  account,  declaring  to  be 
13+.   

3.  Video  fingerprinting  technologies,  identifying  and  preventing  the  same  or  similar  content 

from being re-uploaded;  

4.  Systems allowing the users to give feedback on the content.  
5.  Parental controls offered by the platforms or devices.  

While  today  some  video-sharing  platforms  on  a  voluntary  basis  take  steps  to  protect  minors,  they 
verify content against their own standards, which may differ from those set in the AVMSD. 

For  example,  the  music  video  "College  boy"  of  the  group  Indochine,  containing  graphic  images  of 
violent bullying of a school boy, is freely available on YouTube. However, the same video is subject 
to a watershed in France in application of the AVMSD365.  In another case, while YouTube removed a 
video  of  a  woman  being  forced  by  her  husband  to  walk  naked  in  the  street 366 for  violation  of 
YouTube's Community guidelines, the same video still appears on the website Liveleak.com367.  

In this context, chances that minors are exposed to harmful content exist.  

Children  identify  video-sharing  platforms  as  mostly  linked  with  violent,  pornographic  and  other 
harmful content risks368. Among the children who link risks to specific platforms, 32% mention video-
sharing sites such as YouTube, followed by other websites (29%), social networking sites (13%) and 
games (10%)369.  
In the UK, ATVOD370 found that at least 44 000 primary school children accessed an adult website in 
one  month  alone371.  ATVOD  has  found  that  23  of  the  top  25  adult  websites  visited  by  UK  internet 
users provide instant, free and unrestricted access to hardcore pornographic videos. 

Video-sharing  platforms  employ  tools  like  Autoplay  which  enable  direct  exposure  to  potentially 
harmful  content372.  Potential  exposure  to  harmful  content  or  content  inciting  to  hatred  may  also  be 
fostered by new social media features such as live streaming373. 

A  majority  of  Member  States,  regulators,  consumer  organisations  as  well  as  a  fair  share  of  public 
service  and  commercial  broadcasters  who  replied  to  the  2015  Public  consultation  and  the  ERGA 

364 Online platforms have in place community guidelines which prohibit racism, calls to violence, or other forms of abusive and discriminatory content. 
Any user can report, or flag, content for review and possible removal. Guidelines are updated over time. Amongst the latest updates is Facebook's ban of 
content "praising terrorists" or Twitter's ban of indirect threats of violence in addition to direct threats. Online platforms devote substantial resources to 
"moderating"  UGC  content  (one  third  of  total  Facebook  employees  are  in  charge  of  content  moderation  and  YouTube  also  relies  on  the  support  of  a 
network of external organisations). 
365

 http://www.csa.fr/Television/Le-suivi-des-programmes/Jeunesse-et-protection-des-mineurs/Le-CSA-debat-de-la-diffusion-de-la-videomusique-

College-Boy-du-groupe-Indochine 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3406525/Outrage-man-forces-wife-walk-naked-street-catching-sending-nude-pictures-men.html 
367 http://www.liveleak.com/ 
368 The risks associated with social networking sites are more predominantly related to issues such as cyberbulling and face-to-face contacts , EU kids On 
line: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20III/Reports/Intheirownwords020213.pdf 
369 Ibid 
370 Ofcom has designated the Authority for Television On Demand (ATVOD) in 2010 as a co-regulator to take the lead in regulating editorial content for 
video-on-demand services. 
371 2014 report "For adults only? Underage access to online porn".  
372 In 2015, the video of two US journalists being murdered during a live broadcast spread quickly across social media. When the video was taken down 
after 10/15 minutes, it had already been shared 500 times on Facebook. Due to the Autoplay feature, many users saw the video unwillingly in their news 
feed.  Since  the  feature  debuted  on  Twitter  in  June  2015,  many  people  reported  that  it  auto-played  all  videos,  including  exceptionally  violent  ones 
(http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/snuff-film-unavoidable-twitter-facebook-autoplay-roanoke/402430/).  
373 Since January 2016, Periscope's broadcasts are embedded into Tweets.  https://blog.twitter.com/2016/periscope-broadcasts-live-on-twitter). Facebook 
currently offers live streaming features to a limited set of users. http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/05/facescope/#.by07nt:88lu. 

96 

 
 
 
                                                 
recommendations  on  material  scope374 cite  these  developments  when  underlining  that  the  rules  on 
material  scope  do  not  ensure  a  sufficient  level  of  consumer  protection.  On  the  other  hand,  a  small 
number of Member States, some regulators as well as the Internet, ICT, the press publishing sector, 
telecom,  cable,  satellite  and  advertising  industries  believe  that  the  AVMSD  rules  guarantee  a 
satisfactory level of consumer protection.  

In conclusion, whereas the AVMSD rules on material scope have proven to be effective over the first 
years  from  the  revision,  their  effectiveness  has  by  now  diminished  in  light  of  the  most  recent 
developments in the market and viewing patterns. 

Impacts on the Internal market: 

There is fragmentation in the internal market due to diverging interpretations by Member States as to 
what is an on-demand service. The Member States have leeway in interpreting the definitions and this 
may  lead  to  different  results  also  in  light  of  market  developments.  Diverging  interpretations  at 
national level concern specifically the following criteria: 

- 

- 

"Principal  purpose",  with  similar  services  being  considered  subject  to  the  AVMSD  in  some 
countries but not in others375. 
"TV-likeness", also being subject to diverging interpretations376. 

The lack of uniform interpretation of the rules on material scope across the EU is also perceived by 
most  regulators  and  broadcasters  as  well  as  by  a  number  of  Member  States  as  shown  in  the  2015 
Public  consultation.  This  fragmentation  has  led  to  shortcomings  in  the  level  of  legal  certainty  and 
coherence across the Union,  prompting  a Member  State to seek clarification  from the ECJ  on some 
aspects of the AVMSD scope of application criteria in the New Media Online case, mentioned above.  

EU added value  
The  2007  revision  has  contributed  to  increase  the  level  of  harmonisation  in  a  context  of  diverging 
national legislation applicable to on-demand audiovisual media services. However, as highlighted in 
the  2nd  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD,  the  EU  added  value  of  the  rules  on  material  scope  is 
reduced by complexities around the application of the AVMSD definitions to on-demand services (see 
the  Effectiveness  sub-section).  As  a  conclusion,  the  EU  added  value  of  the  rules  lays  in  the 
harmonisation  they  provided,  although  some  problems  were  observed  with  the  interpretation  of  the 
definitions of the services falling within the material scope of the Directive.  

Efficiency  
The last revision of the AVMSD brought additional administrative377 and compliance378 costs due to 
the  inclusion  of  on-demand  services  in  the  scope  of  application.  Those  costs  are  indicated  in  the 
Efficiency sub-sections in sections 6.4; 6.5; 6.6; 6.7, that focus on specific AVMSD domains. 

374 At Page 28 of the ERGA recommendations on material scope it is mentioned that "Statutory regulations on editorially responsible providers alone is 
not sufficient in itself to guarantee effective protection of minors without considering the role that other actors play, in particular the growing importance 
that  technical  protection  tools  provided  by  certain  intermediaries."  (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-material-jurisdiction-
converged-environment) 
375 For example, while the UK regulator found that that audiovisual content provided by online versions of newspapers did not constitute an audiovisual 
media  service  (Ofcom's  Sunvideo  decision  (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/video-on-demand-services/sun-video-decision-appendices/), 
regulators in Sweden and Austria adopted a different approach considering services of this kind as audiovisual media services (for Sweden, see Swedish 
Broadcasting Commission's decisions no 12/00777, 778, 779 and 780 and for Austria see the reference for a preliminary ruling in on the New Media 
Online GmbH case). 
376 For example, in the UK OFCOM deemed BBC Top Gear on YouTube and BBC Food on YouTube not to be audiovisual media services as the clips 
were not comparable to TV programmes of the same "genre" due to the short duration and the style of editing. On the other hand, OFCOM deemed MTV 
VIVA TV to be an audiovisual media service despite the short duration because OFCOM acknowledged that some genres may be of a shorter nature and 
the  video  extracts  were  compared  to  a  standard  TV  duration  for  these  types  of  programmes.  In  Austria,  the  Verwaltungsgerichtshof  (Administrative 
Court)  referred  to  the  ECJ  the  question  of  whether  short  clips  (from  30  seconds  to  several  minutes)  in  the  video  sub-section  of  an  online  newspaper 
(Tiroler Tageszeitung Online) were "TV-like".   
377 Administrative costs are the costs incurred by: 1) businesses in meeting legal requirements and provide information to the public sector in order to 
demonstrate compliance 2) the public sector in enforcing legislation. 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  both  broadcasters  and  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services,  EU-level  harmonisation  and  the 
application  of  the  COO  principle  ensure  legal  certainty  and  thus  cost  savings  (see  section  6.3  on 
COO). 

As  indicated  by  three  media  service  providers  in  the  2015  Public  consultation  and  in  the  ERGA 
questionnaire,  being  subject  to  the  AVMSD  rules  in  particular  on  protection  of  minors  may  give  a 
competitive  advantage  to  operators.  Being  identified  as  family-friendly  contributes  to  the  positive 
branding  of  an  operator.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  British  Board  of  Film  Classification  (BBFC) 
which reported that 86% of parents in the UK would encourage or make sure that their children watch 
online channels with clear age ratings379. 

At the same time, the current exclusion of services offering audiovisual content has  the potential to 
put  those  who  are  currently  in  the  scope  (both  broadcast  and  on-demand  services)  at  a  competitive 
disadvantage.  This  was  corroborated  by  the  contributions  of  a  significant  number  of  stakeholders 
across sectors in the context of the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD. 

Coherence  
The  AVMSD  qualifies  as  lex  specialis  vis-à-vis  the  e-Commerce  Directive  (ECD)380and  is  without 
prejudice  to  the  ECD  system  of  limited  liability 381 .  The  AVMSD  rules  defining  the  scope  of 
application for on-demand audiovisual media services are hence coherent with the ECD, including the 
rules limiting liability for illegal activities for information society services acting as intermediaries382 
set out in the ECD. The ECD and AVMSD adopt a similar approach. According to both Directives, 
operators are not required to abide by rules regarding information and/or content over which they have 
no control – provided that the conditions set out in the law are met. 

6.2. Geographical scope  

The  AVMDS  applies383 to  audiovisual  media  services  transmitted  by  service  providers  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  Member  State.  The  AVMSD  lays  down  specific  criteria  to  determine  whether  a 
service falls under a Member State's jurisdiction. These criteria take into account, for instance, where 
the place of the head office is located, where editorial decisions are taken or where a significant part 
of  the  workforce  operates.  As  a  subsidiary  jurisdiction  criterion,  the  AVMSD  refers  to  the  Member 
State where a satellite up-link is situated or where satellite capacity is used. If an audiovisual media 
service provider falls under the jurisdiction of a third country, the AVMSD and its rules do not apply. 
Member  States  remain  free  to  take  whatever  measures  they  deem  appropriate  with  regard  to 
audiovisual media services which do not fall within the AVMSD geographical scope, provided these 
measures comply with Union law and the international obligations of the Union384. 

Relevance of the current rules 
In the 2015 Public consultation on  the  AVMSD, a  majority385 of respondents belonging  to  different 
categories  of  stakeholders  groups  flagged  that  the  relevance  of  the  AVMSD  rules  on  geographical 

378 Compliance costs are costs created by the obligation to pay fees or duties; and costs created by the obligation to adapt the nature of the product/service 
and/or production/service delivery process to meet economic, social or environmental standards (e.g. the purchase of new equipment, training of staff, 
additional investments to be made). 
379
 BBFC 

Research 

Findings 

Online 

Music 

Video 

study: 

rating 

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Music%20Video%20Rating%20Pilot%20%20-%20Presentation%20of%20findings.pdf 
380 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') 
381 Recital 25 AVMSD.  The ECD provides that online intermediaries may not be subject to a general obligation to monitor content and are not liable for 
the illegal content they transmit or store if, upon obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal activities (e.g. via a Court order or administrative 
notice) they act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the information concerned. 
382 Services of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature implying neither knowledge of nor control over content  
383 Article 2 AVMSD 
384 Recital 54 AVMSD 
385 With the exception of Internet and satellite industries which consider the rules to be still relevant.  

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
scope has been put to the test by technology and market developments. Those respondents argue that 
the Internet allows services to target viewers in the EU without having an establishment in the Union 
and thus to bypass EU regulation.  

These  concerns  notwithstanding,  the  number  of  services  targeting  the  EU  from  third  countries  is 
currently  very  small.  According  to  the  EAO,  about  50  paying  VoD  services  (this  number  includes 
different linguistic versions of the same service) established in the United States target one or more 
Member States386. In addition, most leading foreign providers of on-demand services (Netflix, iTunes, 
Amazon)  have  all  set  up  subsidiaries  in  the  EU  and  are  therefore  subject  to  the  AVMSD.  This 
confirms that the AVMSD rules are still relevant. 

In light of the above, the current rules defining the geographical scope continue to be relevant. 

Effectiveness 
In  the  2015  Public  consultation,  a  majority  of  respondents  belonging  to  various  categories  (in 
particular  Member  States,  regulators,  Public  service  broadcasters  and  consumer  organisations) 
highlighted that, due to the exclusion of foreign providers, the current rules on geographical scope do 
not ensure a level playing field and are not sufficiently effective in terms of consumer protection387. 
On  the  other  hand,  ICT,  digital,  Internet  companies  and  satellite  operators  who  replied  to  the  2015 
Public consultation do not see issues regarding the effectiveness of the AVMSD rules on geographical 
scope.  

In  the  context  of  the  2nd  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD,  two  Member  States  reported  cases 
where on-demand services provided from outside the EU offered adult content without the necessary 
safeguards for protecting minors388. Also, given that an important satellite operator is established on 
its  territory,  one  Member  State  reported  several  issues  about  incitement  to  hatred  and  respect  of 
human dignity with channels from third countries since 2012. However, given that these channels use 
a satellite up-link/satellite capacity in a Member State, they would be covered by the AVMSD.  

The Internet undoubtedly makes it easier to deliver audiovisual content at global scale. The number 
and geographical spread of providers targeting EU viewers without being established in the EU may 
therefore grow over time389. However, the currently very small number of services targeting the EU 
from  third  countries  does  not  suggest  the  existence  of  a  problem  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  the 
current rules. In view of the size of the problems reported, seeking to address them by changing the 
geographical scope would be disproportionate. In this regard it should be noted that, already under the 
current rules, Member States, if they so wish, can apply their national rules to providers established 
abroad. 

In  light  of  the  above,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  AVMSD  rules  on  geographical  scope  are  still 
effective in ensuring a level playing field and sufficient consumer protection. 

EU added value  

386 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  -  Origin  and  availability  of  On  -
Demand services in the European Union   
387 Some consumer organisations identify the source of the ineffectiveness of the rules in the lack of criteria related to the targeting of the consumer. 
388 More  precisely  DE  reported  a  wide  range  of  pornographic  content  offered  from  abroad,  for  which  there  are  no  sufficient  arrangements  in  place  in 
terms  of  protecting  young  people  (Source:  2013  annual  report  of  jugendschutz.net).  UK  experienced  service  providers  leaving  EU  jurisdiction,  and 
subsequently removing measures which had been in place to protect minors whilst subject to EU regulation (see the jurisdictional debate and conclusion 
in  the  appeal  by  Playboy  TV  UK/Benelux  limited:  after  its  assets  were  sold  to  a  non  EU  owner  and  editorial  responsibility  passed  to  that  owner,  the 
access control system that UK Regulator had required Playboy TV to implement was removed). 
389 While there are no figures or forecasts on respectively the current and future number of EU viewers targeted by services falling outside the AVMSD 
geographical scope, the example of "Google Play Movies and TV" can be used as a case study. This service, falling outside the AVMSD geographical 
scope, has the potential to grow in scale and impact in the EU in light of the increasing mobile usage in particular by the youth and the high penetration 
rate of Android. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  AVMSD  rules  on  geographical  scope  have  proven  their  worth  as  gate-keeper  of  the  internal 
market  to  determine  what  audiovisual  media  services  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  an  EU  Member 
State  and  as  such  can  benefit  from  the  COO  principle.  This  was  confirmed  by  a  majority  of 
contributors  to  the  2015  Public  consultation,  across  various  stakeholder  groups,  who  acknowledged 
the benefits of the rules on geographical scope for the internal market.  

Efficiency 
The costs of enforcing legislation on operators who have no EU establishment and do not even use a 
satellite  up-link/capacity  in  the  EU  would  be  high,  while  most  of  the  relevant  players  are  already 
established in the EU. Imposing on all Member States the obligation to enforce the AVMSD rules to 
players  whose  impact  on  the  market  has  so  far  not  been  significant  is  likely  to  result  in  a  negative 
cost-benefit  ratio.  If  foreign  providers  were  to  be  required  to  register/appoint  a  representative,  this 
obligation  would  have  to  be  monitored  and  enforced.  If  the  registration/appointment  of  a 
representative were to turn out not to be sufficiently effective and real (e.g. a letterbox company), the 
rules  would  have  to  be  enforced  in  a  third  country  which  could  be  complex.  Firstly,  by  analogy  to 
international  cooperation  in  the  field  of  competition,  enforcement  by  the  Commission  in  a  third 
country  may  require  bilateral  international  agreements  ("dedicated  agreements")  or  AVSMD 
provisions  included  in  general  agreements  (e.g.  Trade  Agreements).  However,  this  is  likely  to  be 
complicated  as  providers  located  in  the  US  constitute  the  major  part  of  the  market  share  of  foreign 
providers  targeting  the  EU.  Secondly,  any  decision  from  a  regulator  imposing  a  fine  or  seeking  a 
change in the behaviour of a service provider would be difficult to enforce as there would normally be 
no  assets  in  the  EU.  In  case  a  foreign  provider  targets  more  than  one  Member  State,  the  need  for 
coordination  between  regulators  so  as  to  avoid  conflicts  of  jurisdiction  would  trigger  further 
administrative  costs.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  when  considering  that  the  current  rules  allow 
Member States, if they so wish, to apply their national rules to providers established abroad.  
In conclusion, and although quantitative data is not available, it can be reasonably assumed that the 
rules have been cost-efficient from the elements outlined above.  

Coherence  
As highlighted by a number of contributors to the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD, the rules 
on the geographical scope – in their essential role to promote the smooth functioning of the internal 
market – are part of the logic of completing the Digital Single Market.  

This  confirms  that  the  current  AVMSD  rules  on  geographical  scope  are  coherent  with  other  EU 
initiatives and activities. This includes the ECD.  

It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  EU  General  Data  Protection  Regulation  on  which  a  political 
agreement was reached in December 2015 and which will most likely come into application in 2018, 
will  apply  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  of  data  subjects  residing  in  the  EU  by  controllers  not 
established  in  the  EU.  The  underlying  logic is that  Union  data  protection  rules  should  still  apply  in 
relation to data of EU residents, even if data is processed outside the Union. Some contributors to the 
2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD mentioned that a similar logic, according to which consumer 
protection  is  ensured  whenever  the  consumer  is  targeted  regardless  of  geographical  location  of  the 
service, would be best-suited to the AVMSD. However, given the very small numbers of providers of 
audiovisual media services targeting one or more Member States without being established in the EU, 
the situation differs from the field of data protection. 

6.3 Country of origin  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
According  to  the  COO  principle,  a  provider  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Member  State  must  only 
comply  with  the  rules  of  that  Member  State,  while  being  able  to  provide  its  services  in  any  other 
Member States.390 

Member States may restrict the reception and the retransmission of services freely circulating within 
the  EU  only  in  limited  cases  and  following  the  procedure  laid  down  in  the  AVMSD. 391  For 
broadcasting, restrictions are limited to cases of incitement to hatred and infringement of the rules on 
protection  of  minors.  For  on-demand  services,  restriction  grounds  include  the  protection  of  public 
health  and  public  security.  The  relevant  procedure  includes  a  first  cooperation  phase  where  the 
Member  State  concerned  contacts  the  transmitting  Member  State  to  try  to  reach  an  amicable 
settlement. 

Member  States  may  adopt  stricter  or  more  detailed  rules  in  any  of  the  fields  coordinated  by  the 
AVMSD. However, a receiving Member State with higher standard levels cannot restrict the reception 
of services from another Member State which complies with the AVMSD requirements as transposed 
in the national law  of  the  Member State of jurisdiction. If a Member State  has chosen to do so  and 
encounters issues with a television broadcast mostly or wholly directed towards its territory, it can use 
the  circumvention  procedure. 392  That  procedure  entitles  the  receiving  Member  States  to  adopt 
appropriate  measures  against  the  broadcaster  concerned  provided,  among  other  things,  that  the 
broadcaster  in  question  has  established  itself  in  the  Member  State  of  jurisdiction  in  order  to  avoid 
stricter rules which would otherwise be applicable to it. 

Relevance of the current rules 
The 2nd AVMSD Application report393 and the majority of respondents to the 2015 Public consultation 
from all participating stakeholders' categories show that the COO principle is of continued relevance. 
The  COO  principle  is  critical  for  the  internal  market  as  it  provides  legal  certainty  and  fosters 
investments, media pluralism and availability of content. 
EffectivenessAt the end of 2013, 5141 TV channels (no local and windows394) were established in the 
EU.  Almost  1989  of  them  (about  38%  of  the  total  established  channels)  targeted  foreign  markets 
(either  EU  or  extra  EU).  This  share  has  increased  from  28%  in  2009  -  year  of  implementation  -  to 
38% in 2013395. As far as VoD services are concerned, in the Member States, on average 31 % of the 
VoD services available, are established in another EU country.  

The above mentioned figures show that the COO principle has accompanied the increase in the cross 
border provision of audiovisual media services. . It has also had a positive impact on cultural diversity 
and on the availability of content396 in particular in smaller markets According to the industry, in the 
10 smallest markets (by population), 75% or more of services are available via non-domestic licenses 
supported by the COO principle397.  This was confirmed by an overwhelming majority of respondents 
from all stakeholder categories in the 2015 Public consultation. 

The effects of the COO principle derive from the attribution of jurisdiction to one Member State only 
which  thereby  avoids  regulatory  inefficiencies  resulting  from  subjecting  one  service  to  multiple 
jurisdictions. This limits the costs borne by service providers to one country. This also may facilitate 
investment in the media sector398. This was confirmed by the majority of respondents across various 

390 Article 3 AVMSD 
391 Article 3 AVMSD 
392 Article 4 AVMSD  
393 Sections 2.2 and 4 of the 2nd AVMSD Application Report. 
394 Adaptations of a channel to the specificities of the target country in particular as regards advertising.  
395 EAO Refit data: Note A1: Linear Audiovisual Media Services 
396 For example, Sony Entertainment Television broadcasts in Germany with a licence from the UK. It has a roster of European drama from across the 
EU, with recent programmes including such series as Gran Hotel (ES),  Un village français (FR), les hommes de l'ombre  (FR), Anna Pihl (DK),  Clan 
(BE)  and  the  tunnel  (UK/FR).  Source:  Promoting  growth,  pluralism  and  choice  –  The  country  of  origin  principle  and  Europe's  audiovisual  sector 
(http://coba.org.uk/our-sector/coba-latest/2016/coba-launches-country-of-origin-report 
397 Ibid 
398 In the framework of the public consultation, this aspect has been highlighted by DE, LU, SE and the UK, as well as by the satellite industry, public 
service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, platform operators and publishers. 

101 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
categories (majority of Member States, public service broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, satellite 
operators and representatives of the internet industry) in the 2015 Public consultation. 

However,  some  problems  in  the  application  of  jurisdiction  criteria  and  of  the  derogation/ 
circumvention procedures have contributed to reducing the effectiveness of the COO principle. This 
recently  prompted  the  Commission  to  provide  to  Member  States  clarifications 399  regarding  the 
application of the derogation and circumvention procedures. 

Some Member States have indeed experienced problems in the transposition into national law of the 
jurisdiction criteria. Issues related, for instance, to the subsidiary jurisdiction criteria based on using 
a  satellite  up-link/satellite  capacity  in  a  Member  State  or  the  transposition  of  the  rule  that  services 
intended exclusively for reception in third countries are not covered by the AVMSD. The application 
of  the  jurisdiction  criteria  revealed  uncertainties  and  disagreements  between  Member  States  on 
jurisdiction  over  a  Russian  language  channel  in  the  context  of  the  application  of  the  derogation 
procedure400.  Similar  jurisdiction  issues  arose  in  an  earlier  decision  of  the  Commission  regarding 
notifications  of  serious  infringements  of  the  rules  on  protection  of  minors401.  In  the  2015  Public 
consultation, the difficulty to identify the service providers was quoted as source of problems related 
to the application of jurisdiction criteria. 

Regarding  the  derogation  procedure,  certain  Member  States  experienced  difficulties  in  the 
transposition  into  national  law  of  permissible  derogations  from  the  freedom  of  reception  and 
retransmission regarding the substance and/or the procedure. There have also been problems regarding 
the  application  of  the  derogation  procedure,  notably  in  the cases  of  alleged  hate  speech  on  Russian 
language channels retransmitted in Latvia and Lithuania402, with concerns on the respect of procedural 
requirements. The absence of an urgency derogation mechanism for TV broadcasts, as opposed to the 
urgency procedure in place for on-demand services has been raised in the 2015 Public consultation. A 
Presidency discussion paper prepared by the Latvian Presidency underlines that, unlike for on-demand 
services,  the  AVMSD  does  not  allow  for  a  quick  reaction  in  emergency  situations  for  television 
broadcasting.403 According to the outcome of the Education, Youth, Culture and Sport the meeting on 
18/19  May  2015,  "the  procedure  to  be  followed  by  member  states  when  they  are  the  target  of 
unacceptable content  coming from another member state should be streamlined and accelerated, in 
particular in certain cases of services of non-EU origin licensed in one member state yet targeting the 
audience of another member state. Effective cooperation among audiovisual regulatory authorities is 
crucial in this respect."404 

Except  for  one  case, the  circumvention  procedure  has  not  been  used in  practice405.  The  only  case 
notified to the Commission concerned alcohol advertising in Sweden406 and is mentioned in the 2nd 
Application report on the AVMSD. The case highlighted certain procedural problems. 

399.A comprehensive document regarding the application of respectively the derogation and the circumvention procedure was presented and discussed at 
the 42nd meeting of the Contact Committee on 4 December 2015. 
400 See Commission Decision of 10.7.2015, C(2015) 4609 final, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=24517 
401 Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television, Extasi TV. 
402 In 2015, Lithuania notified to the Commission measures to restrict the retransmission of a Russian language channel, broadcast from Sweden, on the 
basis of instances of incitement to hatred. The Directive is silent as regards the procedure to be followed at national level and does not provide many 
details  about  the  procedure  before  the  Commission.  This  prompted  the  need  for  Lithuania  to  readopt  a  national  decision  and  send  a  supplementary 
notification to the Commission. In July 2015, the Commission decided that the notified measures are compatible with EU law. C(2015) 4609 final.  In 
October 2015, Latvia notified the Commission of two alleged instances of incitement to hatred in a Russian language channel broadcast from Sweden 
and  informed  the  Commission  that  it  is  seeking  an  amicable  settlement  with  Sweden.  On  the  basis  of  the  information  submitted  by  the  Latvian 
authorities,  there  were  again  doubts  regarding  respect  of  the  broadcaster's  right  to  be  heard  to  which  the  Commission  services  drew  the  Lithuanian 
authorities' attention. 
403 "Future European Audiovisual Policy in the framework of Digital Single Market: The functioning of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive in the 
context of the current geopolitical situation", 30.04.2015, Council document no. 8351/15. 
404 Council document no. 8965/15. 
405 A  number  of  respondents  to  the  2015  Public  consultation  said  that  stricter  national  rules  seem  to  be  ineffective  as  they  can  be  circumvented,  with 
subsequent delocalisation and resulting distortions of competition (e.g. through loss of advertising revenues) both vis-à-vis providers within the EU and 
third-country providers targeting the EU. 
406 In December 2014, Sweden notified the Commission of envisaged measures (fines) in relation to two broadcasters broadcasting to Sweden from the 
UK for alleged circumvention of stricter Swedish rules on alcohol advertising. Sweden subsequently withdrew the notification. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  effectiveness  of  the  COO  principle  is  linked  to  the  degree  of  harmonisation  between  national 
laws. Particularly for rules on the promotion of European works (section 6.7), there are significant 
divergences  in  national  transpositions.  The  concerns  of  3  Member  States  to  ensure  that  service 
providers active on given national markets contribute their fair share to the support of local cultural 
production are also reflected in  the levy schemes adopted (but not applied to date) in Germany  and 
France  which  subject  certain  foreign  VoD  providers  targeting  their  respective  markets  to  a  levy 
obligation.  Both  Member  States  have  notified  their  schemes  as  state  aid  to  the  Commission.  The 
Commission's assessment is ongoing407. 

EU added value  

The EU added-value of the COO principle was confirmed by a majority of stakeholders from various 
categories (and specifically an overwhelming majority of Member States and industry players) in the 
2015 Public consultation. According to most stakeholders, the main advantage of COO principle lies 
in the legal certainty it provides as it requires providers to abide by the legislation of the country of 
establishment  only.  This  in  turn  facilitates  investment  in  the  media  sector  and  fosters  diversity  and 
consumer choice as well as media pluralism. 

Efficiency 
The rules underpinning the operation of the COO principle are too complex and result in a difficult 
application  of  the  Directive  and  hence  an  unnecessary  administrative  burden.  This  view  was 
confirmed  by  many  respondents  to  the  2015  Public  consultation,  who,  for  example,  see  scope  for 
rendering the cooperation and circumvention procedures simpler and less time-consuming. 

Example: In 2015, Lithuania notified to the Commission measures to restrict the retransmission of a 
Russian language channel, broadcast from Sweden, on the basis of instances of incitement to hatred. 
This  case  triggered  extensive  consultations  and  written  exchanges  between  the  Swedish  and  the 
Lithuanian Regulators in order to ascertain which Member States has jurisdiction over the channel.  

This situation can in part be attributed to the imprecision and complexity of the procedures supporting 
the COO principle (ANNEX 7). The exchanges mentioned above could be equaled to a workload of 
50-100  hours  shared  by  the  two  regulators.  As  a  benchmark,  this  case  represented  a  workload  of 
roughly  400  hours  over  three  months  for  the  case-handler,  and  a  total  additional  workload  of 
approximately 200 hours for supervisors and other Commission services involved408.  

In light of the above, it can be concluded that the application of the COO principle could benefit from 
simplified and more precise rule and procedures.  

Coherence 
The COO principle is coherent with the internal market logic of the EU treaties as it ensures the free 
provision  of  audiovisual  media  services  across  the  EU.  It  is  equally  coherent  with  the  EU  Digital 
Single market initiatives409. In addition, it is coherent with the ECD, including as regards the grounds 
for derogation from the freedom to provide services410. 

407 To a lesser extent concerns about the application of the COO principle have also been raised in connection with the protection of minors. Both the 
promotion of European works and the protection of minors are characterised by a comparatively low level of harmonisation which leaves a significant 
degree of flexibility to the Member States. It follows that the concerns raised mainly relate to a lack of harmonisation 
408 Based  on  the  cost  of  a  working  hour  on  average  in  the  EU  (EUR  30  -  http://www.coe-rexecode.fr/public/Indicateurs-et-Graphiques/Indicateurs-du-
cout-de-l-heure-de-travail-en-Europe), the total cost for the Commission would be EUR 18 000.  
409 This latter point was also highlighted by a number of contributors to the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD 
410 Article 3 ECD  

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.4 Protection of minors  

The  AVMSD  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  audiovisual  media  services  do  not  contain  any 
incitement  to  hatred  based  on  race,  sex,  religion  or  nationality.  On  protection  of  minors,  TV 
broadcasts  shall  not  include  seriously  harmful  programmes  (pornography  and  strong  violence)  but 
may  include  potentially  harmful  programmes  (erotic  content  and  mild  violence)  if  children  will  not 
normally hear or see them411.  
For on-demand, service providers are required to take appropriate measures so that minors would not 
normally  hear  or  see  seriously  harmful  content.  There  are  no  restrictions  for  potentially  harmful 
content412. 

Relevance of the current rules  
The existing framework does not match the most recent developments in the market and in children's 
viewing patters that were highlighted in the Effectiveness sub-section under section 6.1 on Material 
scope413. In light of this, the AVMSD rules, while being relevant during the first years of application 
of  the  Directive,  seem  no  longer  fully  relevant  in  light  of  the  increasing  exposure  of  minors  to 
audiovisual  media  content  online,  whether  covered  by  the  AVMSD  (but  subject  to  a  lower  level  of 
protection) or outside its scope. 

Moreover,  when  it  comes  to  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services, the  majority  of  Member  States 
have adopted stricter measures than those required by the AVMSD (see Annex 5). This puts to the test 
the relevance of the AVMSD rules on protection of minors in on-demand audiovisual media services. 
4  Member  States  forbid  seriously  impairing  content  on  VoD  services  (while  the  AVMSD  only 
requires restrictions). 16 Member States mandate varying forms of protection (e.g. PIN codes, content 
filtering) for content for which the AVMSD does not require restrictions (i.e. content which is likely 
to  impair  the  development  of  minors).  VOD  providers  have  flagged  this  issue  in  the  2015  Public 
consultation. 
As  also  highlighted  in  the  ERGA  report  on  protection  of  minors 414,  certain  concepts  and  rating 
systems for both broadcast and on-demand services are not harmonised at EU level415. This is the case 
for:  the  age  threshold  for  a  person  to  be  considered  a  "minor";  while  for  "content  likely  to  impair" 
there are similarities across the Member States, the concept of "content likely to seriously impair" is 
not even translated in formal definitions in the Member States and is assessed on a case-by-case basis; 
content categories (e.g. violence; sex; offensive language) are not harmonised at EU level; although 
labelling and rating content are widespread, there are different classification systems for audiovisual 
products at national level416. 

411 Article 27 AVMSD provides that "1.Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their 
jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes 
that involve pornography or gratuitous violence. 
2.The measures provided for in paragraph 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development 
of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not 
normally hear or see such broadcasts. 
3.In addition, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are 
identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration." 
412 Article 12 AVMSD provides that "Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that on-demand audiovisual media services provided by 
media  service  providers  under  their  jurisdiction  which  might  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or  moral  development  of  minors  are  only  made 
available in such a way as to ensure that minors will not normally hear or see such on-demand audiovisual media services." 
413 Some figures on children's viewing patterns were already provided in the sub-section Effectiveness in section 7.1 (Material scope).  
414 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-protection-minors-converged-environment 
415 Although it is unlikely that fragmentation of rating systems constitutes a negative incentive for businesses from offering services cross-border. 
416 This  is  confirmed  by  a  European  Commission  2011 Report  on  the  application  of  the  Council  Recommendations  of  24th  September  1998  and 20th 
December  2006.  The  Report  concluded  that  there  was  an  extreme  fragmentation  about  age-rating  and  content  classification  systems  for  audiovisual 
content  and  there  was  clearly  no  consensus  on  the  helpfulness  and  feasibility  of  cross-media  and/or  pan-European  classification  systems  for  media 
content. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  the  2015  Public  consultation,  stakeholders  (both  Member  States  and  industry)  affirmed  that 
minimum  harmonisation  and  flexibility  on  protection  of  minors  should  be  maintained  as  it  ensures 
that national sensitivities towards harmful content can be taken into account. 

Effectiveness 

Clear-cut conclusions on the effectiveness of the Directive's rules on protection of minors applicable 
to  on-demand  services  are  difficult  to  draw  as  most  Member  States  do  not  proactively  monitor 
compliance but act primarily upon complaints and only few of them carry out on-the-spot checks417. 

Whereas  in  the  2015  Public  consultation  a  fair  share  of  respondents  from  various  stakeholder 
categories (with the exclusion of consumer organisations) declared the rules to be effective, there are 
indications that the AVMSD has not been entirely effective when it comes to protection of minors in 
on-demand services. 

Firstly,  developments  in  the  market  and  viewing  patterns  diminish  the  effectiveness  of  the  rules  on 
protection of minors, as highlighted in section 6.1 under material scope.  

A  majority  of  Member  States,  regulators  and  unanimously  by  consumer  organisations  in  the  2015 
Public consultation418 stated that the AVMSD rules are not effective in protecting minors because they 
do not apply to all online content, including video-sharing platforms.  

A deficit of effectiveness of the rules may also occur due to the lighter regulatory treatment given to 
on-demand services, as expressed by most Member States, regulators, Public service and commercial 
broadcasters in the 2015 Public consultation and by ERGA in its recommendations on protection of 
minors.  Those  stakeholders  believe  that  by  not  requiring  sufficient  protection  in  on-demand 
services419, the AVMSD is ineffective. 

An additional factor that might reduce the effectiveness of the Directive is, as already mentioned, the 
fact  that  most  Member  States  do  not  proactively  monitor  compliance  with  the  rules.  As  a 
consequence,  the  Member  States  may  not  be  aware  of  or  disregard  relevant  developments  that  may 
inform future policies. 

EU added value  
The EU added-value of the rules primarily lies in: 
  The  minimum  level  of  protection  provided  by  broadcasting  and  on-demand  services  across  the 
Union.  The  2007  revision  in  particular  brought  harmonisation  (and  hence  legal  certainty)  in  a 
context where there were dissimilar rules on protection of minors in place for on-demand services 
in a large number of Member States420. 

  The  respect  of  the  subsidiarity  principle  in  warranting  flexibility  to  Member  States  to  tailor 

national laws to cultural and historical specificities and to certain national challenges. 

Efficiency 
It is difficult to draw clear conclusions on the cost-benefit ratio of the rules, given that 1) costs may 
vary depending on the level of protection required by national laws; 2) clear and comparable data on 
the  costs incurred  by  the  providers  are  lacking and  3)  as  mentioned in  section  4  under  Limitations-
Robustness  of  findings,  qualitative  elements  are  very  prominent  in  the  assessment  of  the  impact  of 
rules on consumer protection. Moreover, it is possible to identify scope for cost-efficiency also when 
looking  not  only  at  legal  obligations  but  also  at  the  possibility  to  leverage  self  and  co-regulation 
arrangements. 

417 2nd Application report on the AVMSD. The reasons for this lack of proactive monitoring are unknown, and they possibly differ across Member States. 
418 On this point, the views of the industry in the context of the 2015 Public consultation were however split  
419 On the other hand, consumer organisations are split on this point. BEUC for example pointed to the need to analyse this issue on a case-by-case basis. 
420 Section 3.2.1, SEC(2005) 1625/2, Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment accompanying the Commission proposal for a Directive 
amending Council Directive 89/552/ECC, COM(2005) 646  

105 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  rule  strictly  restricts  minors'  access  to  any  kind  of  harmful  content  and  compliance  costs421 for 
broadcasters did not increase since the last revision in 2007, as those providers were already subject to 
this rule.  

In on-demand services, the level of protection is lower than on TV broadcasting. This lower standard 
is  no  longer  justified  since  younger  consumers  watch  about  half  less  television  than  the  average 
consumer422.  Lower requirement does not imply lower costs as on-demand services have in any case 
incurred  costs  to  implement  technical  solutions  to  control  access  and  ensure  transparency  regarding 
seriously harmful content across a high volume of diverse devices (e.g. tablets, smartphones or HDMI 
keys,  which  usually  require  ad  hoc  development  and  investments).  Against  this  backdrop,  the  rule 
applied to  on-demand  services  has  been  less cost-efficient  than  the  rule  applied to  TV  broadcasting 
services.  

In  addition,  the  differential  regulatory  treatment  between  on-demand  services  and  traditional 
broadcasting under the AVMSD, may give the former a competitive advantage, in particular vis-à-vis 
Pay TV services, with which they share similarities423.  

Finally,  as  indicated  by  three  media  service  providers  in  the  2015  Public  consultation  and  in  the 
ERGA  questionnaire,  being  subject  to  the  AVMSD  rules  on  protection  of  minors  may  give  a 
competitive  advantage  to  operators.  Being  identified  as  family-friendly  contributes  to  the  positive 
branding  of  an  operator.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  British  Board  of  Film  Classification  (BBFC) 
which reported that 86% of parents in the UK would encourage or make sure that their children watch 
online channels with clear age ratings424. 

Coherence  
The  provisions  of  the  AVMS  Directive  on  protection  of  minors  are  coherent  with  other  EU-level 
initiatives  aiming  at  ensuring  a  level  of  protection  of  children  in  media  services,  in  particular  the 
Recommendation 2006/952/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 
on the protection of minors and human dignity, the Communication- European Strategy for a Better 
Internet for Children of 2012, and the self-regulatory initiative "CEO coalition to make the Internet a 
better  place  for  kids".  The  AVMSD  rules  on  protection  of  minors  are  also  compatible  with  the  UN 
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) that was ratified by all the EU Member States. The 
AVMSD rules area also coherent and complement self-regulatory initiatives such as codes of conduct 
on  minors'  protection  at  national  level  in  9  Member  States  or  other  self-regulatory  systems  in  12 
Member States. 

6.5 Ban on hate speech  

Article 6 AVMSD requires Member States to "ensure by appropriate means that audiovisual content 
provided by media service providers under their jurisdiction do not contain any incitement to hatred 
based on race, sex, religion or nationality". 

Relevance 

421 Overall,  there  are  no  comprehensive  figures  on  direct  compliance  costs  given  that  these  costs  are  primarily  absorbed  by  the  providers.  Direct 
compliance costs stem from the requirements to comply with the following rules. When it comes to protecting minors from potentially harmful content 
on broadcasting, the majority of Member States impose the use of techniques based on the time at which the content is transmitted, i.e. watershed-based 
restrictions.  For  on-demand  services,  the  majority  of  Member  States  require  the  use  of  technical  measures  to  ensure  that  minors  will  not  see  or  hear 
harmful content. The use of a PIN access code is one of the most common measures required.  
422 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments): https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/demand-
audiovisual-markets-european-union-2014-and-2015-developments 
423 Most of their revenues come from subscription and they usually provide measures to prevent access of minors to certain type of content. According to 
the EAO "trends on the Pay-TV and on-demand markets confirm this direct competition: the growth of SVOD services may be coming at the expense of 
the Pay-TV industry". 
424

Video 

rating 

Research 

Findings 

study: 

Online 

Music 

 BBFC 

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Music%20Video%20Rating%20Pilot%20%20-%20Presentation%20of%20findings.pdf 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  AVMSD  rules  are  relevant  to  the  purposes  of  protecting  consumers  and  human  dignity.  Those 
respondents  (4  Member  States  and  industry  representatives)  to  the  2015  Public  consultation  who 
specifically  expressed  an  opinion  on  the  matter425 confirmed  the  continued  relevance  of  the  rules. 
However, 4 Member States426 indicated that the list of grounds under which hate speech is banned in 
Article 6 is excessively limited427.  

In light of the public consultation and in the absence of any significant implementation issues, the rule 
on hate speech seems relevant. 

Effectiveness 

The effectiveness of Article 6 could be affected by the divergence of national rules. However, to date, 
there have been a limited number of cross-border cases regarding hate speech on TV broadcasting428. 
For on-demand services, it is hard to draw conclusions as not all Member States collect quantitative 
data  in  this  domain.  Where  data  has  been  collected,  no  cases  of  cross-border  relevance  were 
reported429. In this light, it can be concluded that the AVMSD rules have been effective, and that the 
divergence of national rules did not substantially affect the effectiveness of  the Directive  given  that 
there were no cross-border cases. 

EU added value 
In 5 Member States430, the grounds for prohibiting hate speech match precisely those of Article 6, i.e. 
hate  speech  only  on  grounds  of  race,  sex,  religion  or  nationality.  In  the  other  23  Member  States, 
further  grounds  are  foreseen.  In  particular,  most  Member  States  prohibit  also  hate  speech  based  on 
sexual  orientation431 and  disability432.  The  EU  added  value  of  the  rule  lies  in  the  provision  of  a 
minimum  guarantee  against  incitement  to  hatred  based  on  race,  sex,  religion  or  nationality.  It  also   
provides the grounds for the EU to act. In addition, the derogation procedure, an important corollary 
of the COO principle (see section 6.3) that allows Member States to temporarily restrict the freedom 
of reception, builds on the grounds for prohibition of incitement to hatred as harmonised via Article 6.  

Efficiency 

The  costs  of  monitoring  hate  speech  in  AVMSD  essentially  stems  from  the  application  of  national 
law.    The  AVMSD  as  such  does  not  imply  any  additional  administrative  or  compliance  cost  while 
delivering the minimum guarantee mentioned above.  

Coherence  

The AVMSD rules are coherent with a number of international instruments including the Charter of 
the United Nations (Article 51), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms, the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation 
of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems. 

425 The  2015  Public  consultation  did  not  set  out  specific  questions  regarding  the  ban  on  hate  speech.  There  is  a  general  question  on  whether  general 
consumers/viewers' protection under the AVMSD is still relevant and in this context some respondents pointed specifically to the relevance of the rules 
on hate speech.  
426 FR, BE-Vl, IE, LV 
427 Those Member States suggesting adding new grounds, i.e. FR: incitement to violence; BE-Vl: sexual orientation , religion , marital status, political 
beliefs,  language  ,  state  of  health  ,  disability,  physical  or  genetic  characteristic,  social  status,  nationality;  IE:  gender  identity;  LV:  disability,  age  and 
sexual orientation. 
428  Al  Manar  (Hezbollah)  and  Sahar  1  (Iran), 
  Prohibition  of  the  channels  by  French  Court  decision  of  13  December  2004,  see 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-05-98_en.htm.;  OJ TV -  Ban of Kurdish broadcaster Roj TV by Germany - Preliminary ruling by the ECJ 
(Joined Cases C-244/10 and C-245/10); Al-Aqsa TV- Prohibition of the channel by the French CSA on 28 October 2010, see http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-10-1407_en.htm;    Planeta,  approval  by  the  Commission  of  a  ban  of  a  Russian  channel  broadcasted  from  the  UK/SE  into  LT,  Commission 
Decision of 10.7.2015, C(2015) 4609 final. 
429 See the overview of data regarding the efficiency of implementation of Article 6 AVMSD in the 2015 study carried out for the European Parliament 
relating to hate speech and blasphemy. "The European legal framework on hate speech, blasphemy and its interaction with freedom of expression", Study 
for LIBE Committee, September 2015, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/fr/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2015)536460.  
430 BG, CY, IT, MT, UK for VoD 
431 BE-French community; BE-German community; CR; DA; FI; FR; GR; IRL;  LT; NL; PT; RO; SE; UK 
432432 AT; BE French community; BE-German community; CR; FI; FR; GR; LV; NL; PL; PT; UK 

107 

 
 
 
                                                 
Article  6 is however  not  fully  coherent  with  Article  21433 of  the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  rights, 
which  prohibits  discrimination  under  broader  set  of  grounds  that  those  for  which  hate  speech  is 
prohibited in audiovisual media services.   
Article  6  is  neither  fully  coherent  with  the  grounds 434 laid  down  in  the  Framework  Decision  on 
combating  hate  crime  2009/913/JHA  on  combatting  certain  forms  and  expressions  of  racism  and 
xenophobia by means of criminal law. 

6.6 Commercial communications  

The AVMSD contains rules applying to all audiovisual media services. These concern sponsorship435 
and product placement436 as well as alcohol437 and tobacco438 advertising. 

The  AVMSD  also  lays  down  detailed  rules  applying  only  to  television  broadcasting.  These  set  a 
maximum of 12 minutes of advertising per hour439 for traditional broadcasting (so-called "12-minutes 
rule"), define how often TV films, cinematographic works and news programmes can be interrupted 
by advertisement440 and set the minimum duration of teleshopping windows441. 

Relevance of the current rules 
The  rules  on  audiovisual  commercial  communications  contribute 442  to  the  overarching  AVMSD 
objectives of supporting the internal market and ensuring consumer protection. 

The relevance of the AVMSD rules restricting advertising for alcohol and  fatty foods443 (qualitative 
rules) remains unquestioned444 by all stakeholders.  
However, in the frame of the 2015 Public consultation the majority of TV broadcasters questionned 
the AVMSD quantitative rules (e.g. the 12 minutes/hour cap on advertising) and other rules such as 
those on product placement, sponsorship and self-promotion. 

It  also  appears  that  in  recent  years,  quantitative  rules  appear  to  be  less  relevant  due  to  media 
convergence with users watching content on TV as well as mobile devices. In addition, viewers are 
more likely to switch to alternative offers, in particular without advertising. For example, in the USA 
where there are no minutage limitations, viewers overwhelmed with TV advertising, turned to other 
video offers (e.g. video on-demand) thereby disciplining the behaviour of TV broadcasters, who were 
forced to decrease the amount of advertising on their channels445. 

Moreover, television advertising in the EU has been shrinking in 2013 as compared to 2012446, while 
the total size of online advertising market in the EU in 2013 increased by 11.6% compared to 2012. 

433 Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social 
origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or 
sexual orientation shall be prohibited. It also provides that within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific 
provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. 
434 Article 1 (1) (a) AVMSD mentions race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin 
435 Article 10 AVMSD 
436 Article 11 AVMSD 
437 Article 9(1)((e) for all AVCC and  stricter content requirements in Article 22 for television advertising 
438 Article 9(1)(d) AVMSD 
439 Article 23 AVMSD 
440 Article 20 AVMSD 
441 Article 20(2) AVMSD 
442 This gathered strong support in the 2015 Public consultation. Member States and regulators believe the rules are relevant (because they strike a good 
balance amongst consumer protection and content funding) and so do consumer organisations and industry stakeholders. 
443 Foods and beverages containing nutrients and substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, in particular those such as fat, trans-fatty acids, 
salt/sodium and sugars, excessive intakes of which in the overall diet are not recommended. 
444 In the 2015 Public consultation, various stakeholders including consumer organisations (also from the health sector) acknowledged the relevance of 
the rules 
445 http://television.telerama.fr/television/etats-unis-et-maintenant-moins-de-coupures-de-publicite,138319.php  
See 
VIACOM: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/viacom-primetime-tv-advertising-cuts-1201598646/   
446 In  2013,  advertising  represented  33%  of  TV  broadcasters'  revenues  (OBS  -  Refit  exercise:  contribution  of  data  and  information  by  the  European 
Audiovisual  Observatory).  It  therefore  constitutes  a  very  important  source  of  funding,  especially  for  commercial  channels.  TV  broadcasters  have 
however experienced a 0,5 % decrease in advertising revenues (From EUR 28, 15 billion in 2012 to EUR 28,03 billion in 2013) . Spend in all types of 
online video advertising has on the contrary increased by 39% (  Compared to 2013, totalling EUR 1.47 billion in 2014 in 18 EU countries). 

in  particular  TNT:  http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turners-chief-creative-cutting-tnt-ad-loads-50-percent-dramatic-overhaul-168893, 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Internet  is  likely  to  become  the  main  advertising  platform  within  the  next  two  years,  given  its 
rapid  development  (+8,4%  vs.  2012)  and  its  market  share  in  2013  (27,4%)447.  In  Europe,  online 
display  advertising  is  the  most  dynamic  form  of  advertising  with  video  ads  accounting  for  16%  of 
online advertising448.  
In  2013,  advertising  on  TV  broadcasting  represented  33%  of  TV  broadcasters'  revenues449.  While 
those revenues increased by a 1.3% CAGR for the period 2009-2013, TV broadcasters experienced a 
decrease of 0.5 % in 2013.  

In the meantime,  the  total  size of the online advertising market in the  EU in 2013 has increased by 
11.6%  compared  to  2012.  Online  is  the  second  medium  in  Europe  for  ad  spends,  just  behind  TV 
advertising, though it surpassed TV advertising in 2014 in a number of Member States450. However, 
within the total advertising market the share of advertising revenue for on-demand services covered 
by the AVMSD remains modest. For example free-to-view UK online TV services such as ITV Player 
and All 4 generated just GBP 240 million in advertising in 2014, equivalent to 5.6% of the total TV 
advertising and sponsorship market in the UK. In France, the revenues from advertising on catch-up 
TV services amounted to EUR 80 million in 2014451 which represents 0.7% of the revenues generated 
by French TV broadcasters in 2013452. 

However, to fully grasp the potential of this market, audiovisual services that are outside the scope of 
the  AVMSD  should  be  taken  into  account.  According  to  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory, 
online video advertising revenues are expected to grow up to EUR 4.1 billion by 2018 with a market 
share of almost 60% for Facebook and YouTube. Advertising in those services is however not subject 
to the AVMSD rules.  

Effectiveness 
The  effectiveness  of  the  quantitative  rules  on  the  free  circulation  of  services  within  the  internal 
market is hampered by the fragmentation and gold plating of national rules.  

Firstly, for sponsorship announcements and product placement, national interpretations diverge on the 
notion  of  "potential  undue  promotional  character"  and  of  "undue  prominence" 453 .  Also,  it  is 
particularly  complex  to  distinguish  self-promotion  from  advertising  when  calculating  the  12-minute 
limitation which also creates divergence between national laws.  

When it comes to the 12-minute limitation454, at present, 13 Member States have stricter rules though 
those  rules  apply  in  most  cases  (10  Member  States)  to  public  service  broadcasters'  channels.  The 
ceiling455 of  the  12-minutes  rule  was  regularly  exceeded  in  a  number  of  Member  States.  This  is 

447 Source: European Audiovisual Observatory/WARC 
448 However, if limited to advertising in on-demand services covered by the AVMSD, growth remains far more modest. In the UK, despite the growth of 
advertising revenues from on-demand services, "free-to-view online TV services such as ITV Player and All 4 generated just £240m in advertising in 
2014, equivalent to 5.6% of the total TV advertising and sponsorship market in the UK ". 
449 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) -  Trends in linear television revenues 
450 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments)  
451 Etude CNC l’économie de la télévision de rattrapage en 2014 
452 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) -  Trends in linear television revenues 
453 In some Member States, these sponsorship announcements are frequently shorter forms of advertising spots. There may also be a lack of or unclear 
identification of the sponsorship agreement. 
454 BG, DK, DE, IE, FR, IT, LV, NL, AT, PT, RO, SK, UK 
455 1st  and  2nd  AVMSD  application  reports,  based  on  Framework  contract  SMART  2008/0001  "Monitoring  of  the  compliance  by  audiovisual  media 
service providers in the Member States with the provisions of Chapter IIa (Article 3e-3g) and Chapter IV of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive"  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
primarily  due  to  divergent  national  interpretations  of  various  notions  as  mentioned  above 456 . 
Consumers still have concerns about excessive advertising on TV457.  

As to the effectiveness of qualitative rules, 24 Member States have adopted stricter rules for alcohol 
advertising  (involving  channels,  advertised  products  or  time  slots) 458 .  2  Member  States  prohibit 
alcohol advertising on TV channels, while 22 others limit/ban specific content in the advertising (e.g. 
no  advertising  for  spirits),  channels  (e.g.  no  alcohol  advertising  on  public  service  broadcasting)  or 
timeslots (period of the day during which no alcohol advertising can be broadcast).  
The  Commission's  publicly  procured  study  on  minors'  exposure  to  alcohol  advertising459 shows  that 
on average, during one year (2013), a child in the EU saw 200 alcohol impacts460 and an adult over 
450 on television. A number of consumer organisations in favour of volume restrictions461 highlight in 
the 2015 Public consultation that when specific protection measures are in place in an adequate form, 
they can have a beneficial impact. For example, in the Netherlands, where alcohol advertising cannot 
be broadcast between 06:00 and 21:00, the average number of impacts for alcohol advertising seen by 
minors  aged  4-14  during  peak  hour 462 was  lower  than  those  in  Germany,  the  UK  or  the  Czech 
Republic463 which do not apply watersheds. However, one pitfall of such scheduling limitations may 
be a shift of alcohol advertising just after peak time, at a time when minors, although less numerous, 
are still watching television quite massively. As the study on minors' exposure to alcohol advertising 
showed,  when  the  time  is  not  well  adapted,  minors  may  be  exposed  quite  heavily  to  alcohol 
advertising  just  after  the  watershed 464 .  Moreover,  the  analysis  of  a  sample  of  commercial 
communications  revealed  that  advertising  frequently  associates  alcohol  with  sociability  and  depict 
drinking  with  humorous  tone.  However,  although  the  study  showed  that  25%  of  the  analysed 
advertisements could contain one of the elements described in the AVMSD, the study also highlighted 
that the advertisements were focused on associations that are possible to create within a few seconds 
(for  example  by  portraying  drinking  among  young,  trendy  people)  but without  creating  causal links 
between the product and its effects, to which the AVMSD refers. As regards on-demand and online 
services,  preventive  measures  have  been  put  in  place  by  the  industry,  although  minors  have  the 
perception to have been exposed to alcohol advertising.  

In  the  2015  Public  consultation,  consumer  organisations 465 pointed  to  the  blurring  lines  between 
broadcast  and  on-demand  services;  to  the  voluntary  character  of  some  rules 466  and  the  lengthy 

456 The  Commission  has  taken  steps  to  address  these  issues.  In  exchanges  of  letters  with  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  drew  attention  to  the 
implementation issues above and to possible ways of addressing them. In one specific case, this led to an infringement case (Case C-281/09, Commission 
v.  Spain)  on  the  application  of  the  definition  of  an  advertising  spot.  In  this  light,  already  in  the  1st  implementation  report  on  the  AVMSD,  the 
Commission considered it appropriate to update the Commission's 2004 interpretative communication on certain aspects of the provisions on televised 
advertising in the "Television without frontiers".  This  update was however postponed in light of the consultations that took place via the 2013 Green 
Paper on Media convergence and the subsequent decision to carry out an evaluation of the AVMSD under REFIT.  
457 In 2014, for example, 57% of UK viewers agreed with the statement “there are already more minutes of advertising in an hour than I am really happy 
with”457. However, viewers also appear to understand the relationship which exists between advertising and the funding of content: 72% of UK viewers 
questioned  in  2014  identified  without  prompting  that  advertising  represented  the  primary  source  of  funding  for  the  UK’s  three  main  free-to-air 
commercial television services (ITV/STV/UTV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) which between them account for 24% of UK adult television viewing and just 
under  £1.5bn  (€2.1bn)  in  programme  spend.  Source:  Ofcom's  report  on  UK  audience  attitudes  to  the  broadcast  media  2014  (slides  42  and  43), 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-research/attitudes-to-media/Annex_1.pdf  
458 http://ec.europa.eu/archives/information_society/avpolicy/docs/reg/tvwf/contact_comm/35_table_1.pdf  
188 Study on the exposure of  minors to alcohol advertising on linear and non-linear audio-visual  media services and other online services, including a 
content analysis, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/news/study-exposure-minors-alcohol-advertising-tv-and-online-services   
460 Impact is a measure of how often a spot is viewed: it yields the absolute number of times a spot was seen over a given timeframe. 
461 E.g. STAP, ACTIVE, EUCAM, Lithuanian tobacco and alcohol control coalition and viewers' association AUC, IOGT NTO 
462 Between 17:00 and 20:59 
463 6,6 GRP%  in NL compared to 36,7 in CZ, 24,1 in DE and 14,1 in the UK. GRP: Gross Rating Points are a measure of advertising impact and GRP% 
can be interpreted as the total number of times an advertising spot was seen as a percentage of the target group. 
464 For example, the daypart 21:00-23:59 is when minors aged 4-14 in the NL see most alcohol advertisements (27,2 GRP%) as their peak viewing time is 
between 20:00-21:00 (within the watershed), but there is only a slight decrease in viewing after 21:00. Many NL minors aged 4-14 are still watching TV 
after 21:00 when alcohol advertisements can be broadcast. In comparison, in FI where a watershed is also applied between 7:00 and 21:00, the daypart 
21:00-23:59 is also the period when minors aged 4-14 see most alcohol advertisements, although in lesser proportions (7,5 GRP%). This may be due to 
the fact that the peak time for minors 4-14 is between 19:00-20:00 and after 21:00 (after the watershed), their viewing has already decreased substantially 
Source: Study on the exposure of minors to alcohol advertising. 
465 A majority of the consumer organisations that participated to the Public consultation argued that the AVMSD rules on commercial communications 
are not effective. In particular, the associations protecting the consumers from the health consequences of alcohol deem that the AVMSD rules should 
restrict the volume of alcohol advertisements rather than their content. 

110 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
procedures to review complaints in self-regulation arrangements; the focus on restricting the content 
of  alcohol  advertising  rather  than  on  restricting  the  volume  of  advertisement467;  the  links  between 
alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sport events. Stakeholders in different industries468 also ascribe 
the ineffectiveness of the rules to the fragmentation due to divergent national legislations. 

Moreover, as also affirmed by 6 Member States, 4 regulators and by most broadcasters469 in the 2015 
Public consultation, some of the AVMSD rules do not ensure a level playing field in times of media 
convergence and in light of the shift of advertising revenues online. Media services compete for the 
same advertising market but are not all subject to the same regulatory constraints (some because they 
are  on-demand  services  subject  to  lighter  AVMSD  rules  than  broadcasting,  others  because  they  are 
not  regulated  by  the  AVMSD).  The  consequences  of  this  differential  treatment  are  even  more 
remarkable when millennials are targeted470. 

EU added value  
The  AVMSD  rules  on  commercial  communications  harmonise  some  concepts  (for  example,  the 
definition  of  advertising  spots)  and  introduce  minimum  rules.  This  facilitated  the  circulation  of 
audiovisual media services across the Union. For example, product placement used to be forbidden in 
the Television Without Frontiers Directive and was liberalised in the revision of the AVMSD in 2007. 
As  a  result,  product  placement  is  now  allowed  in  all  Member  States  within  the  limitations  of  the 
current  Directive  and  with  only  limited  stricter  rules 471 .  This  brought  legal  certainty  as  to  the 
possibility for programmes which include product placement to circulate across the EU. This confirms 
the EU added value of the rules.  

Efficiency 
As  regards  quantitative  rules,  while  they  generated  administrative  costs  for  regulators  (up  to EUR 
1.2  million  per  year  for  one  regulatory  authority  as  regards  all  audiovisual  commercial 
communication-related activities and overall up to EUR 1 million  for all EU regulators as regards the 
quantitative  rules  very  specifically472)  and  compliance  costs  for  broadcasters473,  their  effectiveness 
appeared to be sub-optimal. 

While an objective of the last reform was to liberalise product placement, previously not allowed, the 
current  AVMSD  restrictions  for  product  placement  have  not  allowed  this  advertising  format  to 
unleash its full potential in terms of revenues. Some regulators and Member States474 confirmed that 
the  rules  have  led  to  legal  uncertainty  for  stakeholders,  discouraging  them  to  invest  in  product 
placement.  As  a  benchmark,  in  the  US  market,  where  there  is  no  material  regulation  of  product 
placement,  this  format  represents  almost  5%  of  the  TV  ad  spend  market.  In  the  UK,  it  represents a 
share of only 0.1%475.  If product placement rules were simpler, product placement revenues could see 

466 As regards commercial communications for foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) accompanying or included in children's programmes, Member 
States and the Commission must encourage the development of codes of conduct. 
467 As highlighted by associations protecting consumers from alcohol abuse 
468 Some public service and commercial broadcasters as well as advertisers who point in particular to the rules on self-and cross-promotion 
469 In particular the contributions of some public service broadcasters; of advertisers, also flagging issues around surreptitious advertising in UGC; of the 
Internet and telecom industries, underlining issues around product placement in YouTube UGC content. 
470 According to UK Digital Upfronts 2015, Enders Analysis, "YouTube again emphasised its reach among 16-34s at a time when TV viewing among 
millennials is in steady decline. (…) This was at the   heart of Google's pitch to brands last, but there was a more specific pitch this time [:] (…) brand 
advertisers seeking to reach 16-34s should move 24% of TV ad budgets to YouTube to optimize reach and efficiency". 
471 Only Denmark kept the prohibition of product placement for programmes produced in Denmark 
472 Study on Defining a framework for the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
473  Data  on  administrative  and  compliance  costs  to  be  provided  in  the  IA  study  on  commercial  communications  and  in  the  analysis  of  ERGA 
questionnaire. As regards substantive compliance costs for TV broadcasters,  most of the respondents to the survey on costs and benefits reported low 
costs to their business. This may be explained in particular by the fact that Member States have stricter rules than those in the Directive (in some cases 
they  were  in  place  even  before  the  adoption  of  the  Directive).  In  addition,  according  to  preliminary  results  from  the  Impact  Assessment  study, 
quantitative rules (both for volume and interruptions) have led to low costs of compliance for audiovisual media service providers in terms of resources 
and equipment/ technology. 
474 Ofcom, EL, NL 
475 In the US, TV ad spend for 2014 was $69.4 billion with a mid-level forecast of $3.5 billion for product placement. In the UK, the ad market for 2014 
was worth £3.56 billion, with product placement capturing £3.5 million of this market. Source: OFCOM reply to the survey on cost and benefits of the 
AVMSD. 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
a  10%-15%  increase476.  Indeed,  most  broadcasters,  in  their  replies  to  the  2015  Public  consultation, 
agreed that product placement rules should be clarified and simplified.  

As  regards  the  hourly  limitation,  most  broadcasters  consider  that  the  scarce  flexibility  of  the  12-
minutes rule and its exceptions prevent them from  maximising revenues around peak periods477. As 
mentioned  above,  this  limitation  is  regularly  overpassed.  According  to  a  large  commercial 
broadcaster, further liberalisation of insertion rules holds a potential of up to 6‐8% additional revenue 
(rough estimate). Most members of the association of television and radio sales houses estimate that 
more relaxed rules would generate a 1%-10% revenues increase. A large UK commercial broadcaster 
estimates a total loss of £3.3million in one year on their main channel as a consequence of the rules. 

As regards sponsorship, more flexible rules could result in an increase in revenues up from 15% to 
50%,  according  to  some  members  of  the  audiovisual  advertising  sales  houses  (EGTA).  Most 
broadcasters, in their replies to the 2015 Public consultation, agreed that sponsorship rules should be 
clarified and simplified.  
It  can  thus  be  concluded  that  quantitative  rules  do  not  have  a  positive  cost-benefit  ratio.  Costs 
stemming from some quantitative rules could be lower if rules were simpler or more flexible. 

Also, at a moment where online advertising is overtaking TV advertising as the preferred media for 
advertisers,  TV  broadcasters  are  subject  to  stricter  rules.  In  their  replies  to  the  2015  Public 
consultation,  advertisers,  some  broadcasters  and  several  Member  States  claimed  there  is  no  level 
playing  field  between  TV  broadcasters  and  other  media  services,  and  in  particular  between  TV 
broadcasters and on-demand service providers. This is even more relevant in those fields where these 
services  compete  for  the  same  advertising  market,  i.e.  when  it  comes  to  attracting  the  attention  of 
millennials.478 On  the  other  hand,  a  few  broadcasters,  mainly  from  the  UK,  see  the  benefits  of  the 
status quo.   

When  it  comes  to  qualitative  rules,  the  costs  have  not  been  raised  as  an  issue  in  the  Public 
consultation mostly because the protection of the most vulnerable consumers cannot be questioned.  

Coherence 
There  is  a  general  coherence  amongst  existing  EU  rules  in  the  field  of  audiovisual  commercial 
communications. If an online service does not fall under the definition of an on-demand audiovisual 
media  service  under  the  AVMSD,  it  will  be  regulated  under  the  ECD479 as  an  information  society 
service.  Outside  the  domains  covered  by  the  AVMSD  that  regulate  specific  aspects  of  unfair 
commercial practices, the Unfair Commercial practices Directive480 (UCPD) applies. The AVMSD is 
complementary  to  the  ECD  and  the  UCPD.  The  AVMSD  is  also  in  complementarity  with  the 
numerous self- and co-regulatory initiatives in the field of advertising at Member States and EU level. 
Most of these initiatives build on the AVMSD but also go beyond its remit (e.g. they address online 
marketing beyond audiovisual commercial communications).  

476 See egta report on the costs and benefits of compliance with the Audiovisual Media Services Directive "greater flexibility and less detail in product 
placement rules would result in significant growth, with an average of 10% to 15% increase in product placement revenues." 
477 Most  broadcasters  who  replied  to  the  2015  Public  consultation  consider  that  the  insertion  rules  are  no  longer  effective.  Because  of  these  rules, 
schedules are not built around viewers' comfort or advertisers' demand, which is counter-productive. 
478 According to UK Digital Upfronts 2015, Enders Analysis, "YouTube again emphasised its reach among 16-34s at a time when TV viewing among 
millennials is in steady decline. (…) This was at the heart of Google's pitch to brands last, but there was a more specific pitch this time [:] (…) brand 
advertisers seeking to reach 16-34s should move 24% of TV ad budgets to YouTube to optimize reach and efficiency".  
479 The  e-Commerce  Directive  (ECD)  provides  that  Member  States  shall  ensure  that  commercial  communications  which  are  part  of,  or  constitute,  an 
information  society  service  shall  be  clearly  identifiable  as  such.  This  provision  is  identical  to  the  one  in  the  AVMSD  (Article  9(1)(a)).  However,  the 
AVMSD, as lex specialis to the e-Commerce Directive, provides for additional requirements that apply to both TV broadcasting and on-demand services 
(which are a subset of information society services). 
480 Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. The UCPD applies to all unfair business-
to-consumer  commercial  practices  occurring  before,  during  and  after  a  commercial  transaction  in  relation  to  a  product.  Under  the  UCPD,  misleading 
(misleading actions and omissions) and aggressive commercial practices are considered unfair and are as such prohibited. In addition, the UCPD lists a 
number of unfair practices which shall in all circumstances be regarded as unfair. This is a sort of umbrella under which all commercial communications 
fall. 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6.7 Promotion of European works 

TV broadcasters must, where practicable, reserve to European works a majority of their transmission 
time and at least 10 % of their transmission time or of their programming budget for European works 
created by producers who are independent of broadcasters.481  

On-demand  services  providers,  where  practicable,  must  promote  the  production  of  and  access  to 
European works. However, the Directive gives examples of how this can be done in practice, leaving 
the choice of measures to Member States. The examples mentioned in the Directive are: i) financial 
contribution to the production and rights acquisition of European works; ii) a share in the catalogues 
and/or  ii)  prominence  of  European  works  in  the  catalogues. 482 Member  States  have  chosen  very 
different  ways  for  implementation  ranging  from  relatively  loose  requirements  to  a  complex  set  of 
obligations sometimes combining all three mentioned examples (see Effectiveness sub-section).  

Relevance of the current rules 
The AVMSD rules on promotion of European works are still relevant in light of the rapid growth of 
the  on-demand  and  the  Internet  industry  which  boosts  availability  and  opens  up  new  ways  of 
accessing content483. 
However,  in  the  2015  Public  consultation  on  the  AVMSD,  some  media  and  entertainment  services, 
telecom operators, commercial broadcaster and operators from the digital and internet related industry 
while acknowledging the relevance of the rules, expressed the opinion that it should be primarily the 
demand by the audiences, rather than legal obligations, that should guide commercial broadcasters (as 
opposed  to  public  service  broadcasters  who  have  to  fulfil  a  public  service  mandate)  when  taking 
decisions on content offerings. 

Effectiveness 
For  TV  broadcasting,  the  First  and  Second  Report  on  the  application  of  rules  on  promotion  of 
European works confirm that the majority of service providers comfortably fill the required quota for 
European works  and independent works.  Compliance  with  the AVMSD rules resulted in driving up 
the proportion of European works that were transmitted. In 2007, European works stood for 62.4 % of 
TV  broadcasting  service  transmission  time 484 .In  2011  and  2012  the  average  transmission  time 
dedicated to European works by all reported channels was 64.1%485.  

As regards quotas for independent productions, the EU-average proportion by all reported channels in 
all  Member  States  was  33.1%  in  2011  and  34.1%  in  2012  while  the  EU-average  compliance  rates 
amounted to 80% for 2011 and 82% for 2012486. 

As mentioned above, the current rules for TV broadcasters have resulted in European citizens being 
exposed  to  European  works,  on  average  64.1  %  of  the  average  transmission  time.  This  was 
particularly important in a context where viewer hours for European works have declined (down from 
74 % in 2007 to 69 % in 2010)487.  

481 Article 16 AVMSD 
482 Article 13 AVMSD 
483 This  was  already  acknowledged  in  the  1st  AVMSD  Application  report.  It  was  mentioned  that  several  major  US  operators  are  in  the  process  of 
launching their services in the EU and the emergence of those new platforms will undoubtedly increase competitive pressure on the creation, financing 
and retail of EU works. 
484 Programming time should be understood as followed: broadcaster’s transmission time “excluding the time allocated to news, sports events, games, 
advertising, teletext services and teleshopping” 
485 Second Report on the application of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU for the period 2011-2012 (pending publication). However, as already 
highlighted, the share is mostly made up of national works, on average up to 88 % in 2010. 
486 Second Report on the application of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU for the period 2011-2012 (pending publication). 
487 Study on the promotion of European works: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-promotion-european-works 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For on-demand services, the effectiveness of the AVMSD rules on promotion of European works is 
reduced by a number of factors: 

-  The AVMSD  does not  impose clearly defined obligations on the promotion of  European 
works in on–demand services. This has led to significantly diverging approaches and thus 
fragmentation  in  the  level  of  obligations  imposed  across  Member  States 488 .  Annex  4 
provides an overview of the diverse national approaches adopted. Fragmentation and lack 
of data regarding shares of European works in on-demand catalogues489 (14 Member States 
do not require providers to share these figures) hampers the circulation of services across 
the Union. It also created gaps in the supply and promotion of European content on those 
services.  

-  Whereas  in  some  Member  States  on-demand  services  are  required  to  either  fill  a 
mandatory share or give prominence to European works in their catalogues490, on-demand 
providers'  investments  in  content  production  are  lower  than  those  of  broadcasters491 and 
on-demand  catalogues  may  contain  a  lower  share  of  European  works  than  broadcasters' 
programmes do492. 

-  Some  VoD  service  providers  are  established  in  one  Member  State  but  mainly  target  a 
different  Member  State493 because  they  often  choose  to  establish  themselves  in  countries 

488 According to the Commission report " Promotion of European works in practice" (2014) measures adopted by Member States to promote European 
works in on-demand services are the following:  
(i) Several Member States have implemented Article 13 AVMSD by imposing on VOD providers the obligation to reserve a share of European works in 
their catalogue. This is required either as a standalone obligation (e.g. Cyprus, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia) or in combination with other joint or 
alternative  obligations  (e.g.  France,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Italy,  Poland,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Spain).  The  required  shares  in  the  catalogues  vary 
considerably between Member States (10-60%). Some Member States have also opted for a gradual raise of the share, at least during a transitory period 
(e.g. Malta, Croatia, France, Italy).  
(ii) Some Member States implement Article 13 by requiring VOD providers to use tools that give prominence to European works. Most Member States 
who opted for this measure apply it jointly with other measures. Examples of specific promotion tools imposed by Member States include: indicating the 
country of origin in the catalogue (e.g. Romania, Poland); providing possibilities for searching for European programs (Poland); placing information and 
materials promoting European programs (Poland), including in the home/front page (France); highlighting European works, including works completed 
within the last five years (Estonia); using trailers or visuals (France). 
 (iii) Several Member States have introduced obligations on VOD players to contribute financially to the production and rights acquisition of European 
works. Some Member States combine them with other measures either as joint obligations together with a share in the catalogue (e.g. Croatia, Spain), 
together  with  promotion  tools  (e.g.  French  Community  of  Belgium),  or  together  with  a  share  in  the  catalogue  and  prominence  tools  (France).  Other 
Member States combine financial obligations with other measures in an optional way, e.g. as a choice between a share in the catalogue and a financial 
contribution (e.g. Italy, Slovenia, Czech Republic), or between prominence tools and financial contributions (Estonia). The extent of the obligation varies 
between  Member  States;  it  is  usually  1%  to  5%  (mostly  around  2%)  of  the  total  yearly  turnover,  while  in  one  Member  State  this  can  go  up  to  26% 
(France).  
489 This was indicated in the First Commission report on the application of Articles 13, 16 and 17 AVMSD (covering the period 2009-2010), published on 
24 September 2012. , http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0522 as well as in the 2014 Report "Promotion of European 
works in practice". The 2nd Application report on the AVMSD also makes reference to this.  
490 On average in the EU, the catalogues of VoD and SVoD services include 35% of European works. EAO  Origin of Films in VoD catalogues in the EU 
-  Region of Origin and Age of films in selected VoD and SVoD catalogues. Also, in 2013 the Belgian CSA analysed two major VoD catalogues: out of 
the top 50 works, 19 were EU works of which all but 3 had been promoted. Source:  Promotion of EUR works on line - Why prominence matters and 
what is at stake. On the other hand, according to "A report on the scale of provision of programmes meeting the definition of a ‘European work’ on On 
Demand  Programme  Services  during  the  period  1st January  2012  to  31st  December  2012"  by  the  ATVO,  for  most  on  demand  services  consulted  the 
proportion of the catalogue which met the definition of a European work exceeded 60% and for almost half of all services it exceeded 70%. In those 
Member States where rules on promotion of EU works are in place for on-demand services, the minimum share of European works in catalogues varies 
from 10% to 60% (see Annex 9 – national rules). As regards prominence, there are not such quantitative thresholds in the Member States. Recently, the 
European Audiovisual Observatory tried to identify the promotional spaces for each of the services of a sample of on-demand service providers in DE, 
FR, UK (EAO The visibility of films on on-demand platforms). According to this study, "European films were allocated between 21% (in the UK) and 
33%  (in  France)  of  promotional  spots.  In  Germany,  national  films  and  European  non-national  films  accounted  for  approximately  the  same  share, 
whereas, in France in the UK, national films represented approximately two thirds of European films and European non-national films one third". As for 
financial contributions, 10 Member States have included such obligations for on-demand services and they vary from 1% to 12% (see Annex 4). 
491 According  to  the  EAO,  in  2013  on  demand  services  located  UK,  FR,  IT,  DE,  ES,  SE  and  NL  invested  EUR  10.1  million    in  audiovisual  content 
production as compared to EUR 15 billion invested, per year, by Europe’s largest commercial broadcasters. EAO Refit exercise Note B3 
492 On average in the EU, the catalogues of VoD and SVoD services include 35% of European works. EAO  Origin of Films in VoD catalogues in the EU 
-  Region of Origin and Age of films in selected VoD and SVoD catalogues. Also, in 2013 the Belgian CSA analysed two major VoD catalogues: out of 
the top 50 works, 19 were EU works of which all but 3 had been promoted. Source:  Promotion of EUR works on line - Why prominence matters and 
what is at stake. On the other hand, according to "A report on the scale of provision of programmes meeting the definition of a ‘European work’ on On 
Demand  Programme  Services  during  the  period  1st January  2012  to  31st  December  2012"  by  the  ATVO,  for  most  on  demand  services  consulted  the 
proportion of the catalogue which met the definition of a European work exceeded 60% and for almost half of all services it exceeded 70%. 
493 EAO  report  on  the  development  of  the  European  market  for  on  demand  audiovisual  services  (page  48).  According  to  the  European  Audiovisual 
Observatory there are 195 VoD services established in EU countries which on top of their country of establishment target primarily another EU country. 
The United Kingdom (69), Luxembourg (29), the Czech Republic (24), France (20), Sweden (18) and the Netherlands (13) are the countries in Europe 
which harbour VOD services primarily targeting other EU countries. Those services are either pan-European and international VoD services which have 
established their centre of operations in a EU country (as in the case of the UK, LU, CZ and NL) or national services are targeting countries in which the 
language/culture is similar (FR, SE) 

114 

 
 
 
                                                 
with  the  most  favourable  regulatory  treatment  ("forum  shopping").  Thus  on-demand 
providers  do  not  contribute  to  the  promotion  obligations  (particularly  investment  in 
creative production and distribution) in the Member States they target, when different from 
their country of establishment. This is the case for Be-Fr, FR and IT.  

The differences in the rule applied to TV broadcasting and on-demand services have led to an unequal 
level  of  contribution  to  promotion  of  European  works.  The  investment  of  the  main  TV  groups  in 
original  programmes  in  15  countries  amounted  to  EUR  15.6  billion 494  in  2013,  i.e.  24%  of  TV 
broadcasters  revenues  (EUR  65  billion)495 while  on-demand  providers  made  a  minimal  or  even  no 
contribution  to  the  production  and  the  promotion  of  EU  works.  They  invested  EUR  10  million  in 
original content i.e. less than 1% of their total revenues (EUR 1.5 billion)496.  

In light of the above, it can be concluded that the rules on the promotion of European works for TV 
broadcasting  services  have  contributed  to  the  development  of  a  European  audiovisual  industry.  The 
rule applied to on-demand services may have not been as effective.   

Moreover, the differential regulatory treatment between broadcasting and on-demand services might 
create  undue  competitive  advantages/disadvantages  for  operators.  On  the  one  hand,  fast  developing 
on-demand services497 are subject to light touch regulation and, due to the lower constraints on their 
editorial policies, are able to engage in "forum shopping". On the other hand, TV broadcasters do not 
enjoy as much flexibility – in a context of declining viewing hours for European fiction – which puts 
at risk their attractiveness and competitiveness. The results of the 2015 Public consultation confirmed 
a  perceived  lack  of  fair  treatment  between  TV  broadcasters  and  on-demand  services  in  this  regard: 
61% of the contributors in this context (from Member States and industry) who expressed an opinion 
believe that the current rules are not fair. 

EU added value 
The AVMSD harmonises concepts such as the definition of "European work"498 and the obligations to 
be met by TV broadcasters499 as regards promotion of European works and independent productions. 
It should also be considered that the obligation to promote European works "where practicable", that 
was meant to ensure flexibility in the modulation of measures, has resulted in practice in exemptions 
and  remarkable  differences  in  the  national  transposition  of  the  rules.  The  minimum  harmonisation 
overall confirms the EU added value of the rules.  

Efficiency 
For  TV  broadcasting,  administrative  costs  mainly  depend  on  the  system  put  in  place  by  national 
regulators  to  monitor  compliance500 and  on  the  number  of  channels  operating  in  the  Member  State. 

494 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in linear television revenues  
495 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Investments in original content by 
audiovisual services 
496 Ibid 
497 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  -  Trends  in  video-on-demand 
revenues: according to HIS research firm, total on demand consumer revenues in the 28 European countries soared from EUR 919 million in 2010 to 
EUR 2.5 billion in 2014, an of 272 % increase and a compound annual growth rate in the 5 year period of 28 %. The worldwide medium term growth 
prospect for on-demand services is also promising. PWC Global entertainment and media outlook 2015-2019 Global electronic home video revenue is set 
to rise from US$15.28bn in 2014 to US$30.29bn in 2019. Total electronic home video OTT/streaming revenue in particular is seeing a CAGR of 19.0% 
as online video and streaming 5 services are beginning to attain a significant foothold in many markets 
498 Although some stakeholders argued in the 2015 Public consultation that this notion is unclear  
499 In  practice,  for  TV  broadcasters  in  2010,  out  of  27  Member  States  21  have  introduced  mandatory  shares.  Among  them,  10  Member  States  have 
defined  to  what  extent  a  lower  proportion  will  be  accepted.  7  Member  States  adopted  a  fully  flexible  approach  incorporating  the  wording  "where 
practicable" - or expressions to a similar effect - into national legislation [2011 Study on the implementation of the provisions of the Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive concerning the promotion of European works in audiovisual media services (Attentional study) page 24)] 
500  Administrative  costs  for  regulators  depend  on  the  monitoring  method  chosen.  Some  Member  States  use  specific  software  for  collecting  and 
transmitting data and/or rely on independent companies for the verification, which can generate high costs. Second Report on the application of Articles 
16 and 17. In the ERGA questionnaire, broadcasters reported medium to high administrative costs stemming from reporting obligations in this domain.   

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For  compliance  costs  in  particular  for  commercial  broadcasters 501  can  be  high  as  compared  to 
producing  and/or  acquiring  European  content  from  other  Member  States  than  foreign  content  from 
third countries502. The Second Report on the application of Articles 16 and 17 (Annex 6) shows that 
small  and  thematic  channels  could  face  additional  difficulties  in  fulfilling  mandatory  quotas. 
However, it should be noted that, according to Article 18 the obligations on Articles 16 and 17 do not 
apply to television broadcasts that are intended for local audiences and do not form part of a national 
network. As regards channels with a low audience share (below 0.3%), national authorities can grant 
these channels individual exemptions from the reporting obligation. 
For on-demand services, compliance costs depend on national implementation. Whereas monitoring 
the application of the rules may be particularly costly503 and reporting obligations for providers may 
be medium-high504, this does not necessarily translate in (an increased) availability of or investments 
on European content (see sub-section on Effectiveness). 

Coherence 
The rules are coherent with the MEDIA sub-programme of Creative Europe, which aims to  support 
European  film  and  other  audiovisual  industries.  To  this  end,  MEDIA  provides  funding  for  the 
development,  promotion  and  distribution  of  European  works  in  Europe  and  beyond.  The  AVMSD 
rules  are  also  coherent  with  the  EURIMAGES  initiative  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  promoting  the 
European  audiovisual  industry  by  providing  financial  support  to  European  co-productions  (feature 
films,  animations  and  documentaries).  In  doing  so,  EURIMAGES  encourages  cooperation  between 
professionals in different European countries. 

The AVMSD rules on promotion of European works are also coherent with the UNESCO Convention 
on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions which establishes a series of 
rights  and  obligations,  both  at  national  and  international  level,  with  a  view  to  protecting  and 
promoting  cultural  diversity.  The  AVMSD  rules  also  underpin  where  appropriate  Cultural 
Cooperation  Protocols  to  trade  agreements  with  EU  partners  as  a  mean  to  implement  the  above-
mentioned  UNESCO  Convention.  These  Protocols  warrant  preferential  treatment  to  co-produced 
audiovisual works by extending to them the classification as European works for the purposes of the 
AVMSD. This is done under conditions which are defined in the Protocols themselves and reflect the 
modulation  of  this  mechanism  according  to  differing  situations  and  characteristics  in  terms  of 
development of audiovisual industries and cultural exchanges with the countries concerned505. 

The upcoming reform of the EU copyright rules will also take into account objectives related to the 
availability  and  promotion  of  European  works.  The  Communication  on  Copyright  adopted  by  the 
Commission  on  9  December  2015  highlights  that  legal  offers  of  European  works  online,  including 
European audiovisual works506, have yet to realise their full potential. The Copyright reform aims to 
ensure  wide  availability  of  creative  content  across  the  EU  and  make  sure  that  EU  copyright  rules 
continue  to  provide  a  high  level  of  protection  for  rights  holders  while  striking  a  good  balance  with 

501 The responses to the ERGA questionnaire indicate that most commercial broadcasters surveyed experienced medium/high costs stemming from the 
requirement on the majority of transmission time to be reserved for European works. Costs are lower for public service broadcasters as they have been 
traditionally subject to strict national rules.  
502 Second Report on application of Articles 16 and 17  
503 Supervising on demand services is a costly exercise due to (i) the high number of on demand service providers, at least in certain countries: almost 
2.563 video-on-demand (VOD) established in the MS (in some countries, this figure could go up to 515); and (ii) catalogues of on demand players evolve 
on a daily basis. A common problem across the Member States is the lack of relevant data. Most Member States rely on data supplied by the operators 
without  further  control/systematic  cross-checking  and/or  random  controls.  The  frequency  of  requesting  such  data  also  differs:  many  foresee  yearly 
reporting  obligations  for  the  providers  while  others  rely  on  longer  reporting  periods,  e.g.  coinciding  with  the  reporting  obligation  laid  down  by  the 
Directive i.e. all four years. Random checks are only carried out in few Member States. Several countries indicated that they are discussing or planning to 
develop a specific software system for monitoring. (Study on "Promotion of European works in practice" from 2014). Compliance costs for on-demand 
services vary depending on the national rules (Report on Promotion of European works in practice – 2014) 
504 VoD service providers have reported medium to high administrative costs in relation to reporting obligations on the promotion of European works (ref 
ERGA questionnaire).  
505 Two  Protocols  on  cultural  cooperation  are  attached  respectively  to  the  EU-CARIFORUM  Economic  Partnership  Agreement  and  to  the  EU-South 
Korea Free Trade Agreement.  
506 There  are  obstacles  to  the  cross-border  distribution  of  European  audiovisual  works  including  online.  When  content  is  available,  it  is  difficult  to 
discover. Furthermore, users often cannot access content distribution services available in other Member States. 

116 

 
 
 
                                                 
other public policy goals such as ensuring cultural diversity in terms of wider access to a variety of 
cultural works across the EU. 

6.8 Independence of regulators and cooperation amongst regulators 

According  to  Article  30  AVMSD,  Member  States  shall  take  appropriate  measures  to  provide  each 
other  and  the  Commission  with  the  information  necessary  for  the  application  of  the  Directive,  in 
particular  in  particular  through  their  competent  independent  regulatory  bodies.  Article  30  of  the 
AVMSD does not lay down any obligation for Member States to ensure neither the creation nor the 
independence of national regulators. However, it considers that independent regulators play a role in 
the cooperation amongst Member States for an effective application of the AVMSD. Also, according 
to  the  EU  treaties  and  relevant  case  law507,  Member  States  should  adopt  national  laws  enabling  the 
impartial application of the objectives of EU law. 

Relevance of the current rules 
In the 2015 Public consultation, an overwhelming majority of respondents across various stakeholder 
categories508 confirmed the relevance of having independent, well-resourced and suitably empowered 
regulators.  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  2013  Public  consultation  on  independence  of 
regulators 509  expressed  the  same  opinion.  In  the  ERGA  recommendations  on  independence  of 
regulators, a vast majority of audiovisual regulators across the EU consider independence to be a pre-
requisite  for  carrying  out  their  role.  This  shows  that,  by  not  laying  down  requirements  for 
independence of regulators, the currently rules are not relevant.  

The current rules are also not relevant to the AVMSD objective to preserve free and pluralistic media 
and the functioning of the democratic systems in the EU and in the Member States. This was affirmed 
by public service broadcasters and human rights/media freedom NGOs in the 2015 Public consultation 
and in the 2013 Public consultation on independence of regulators. 

In  light  of  the  above,  there  is  scope  for  improving  the  relevance  of  the  current  AVMSD  rules  on 
independence of regulators to ensure an effective transposition and application of the Directive.  

Effectiveness 
There are structural weaknesses in a number of audiovisual regulators across the EU, combined with 
very diverse regulatory structures and potentially varying degrees of independence. 
Since  the  adoption  of  the  AVMSD,  all  Member  States  have  progressively  created  a  regulatory 
authority for the implementation of the AVMSD510. While most regulators fulfil what are considered 
the main criteria for independence511, important features for regulatory independence are missing in a 
number  of  Member  States 512 .  The  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  (2000)23 513  on  the 
independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector as well as a number 

507 Article 4(3) TEU establishing the principle of loyal cooperation and as confirmed by the case law of the ECJ (e.g. case C- 52/75 Commission v Italy) 
Member States need to ensure the effective application of EU law. See also Recital 94 AVMSD. 
508 In particular a majority of national regulators, public service and commercial broadcasters, human rights/media freedom NGOs and the Internet and 
ICT industries. Not many Member States governments/ministries expressed an opinion on this topic. 
509 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions 
510 Estonia, Spain (at federal level), Hungary and Slovenia merged regulatory bodies and in Luxembourg an audiovisual regulator have been established 
since the INDIREG Report of February 2011. In 2010, the Hungarian National Media and Infocommunications Authority (NMHH) has been created; in 
2011  the  Slovenian  Agency  for  communication  networks  and  services  (AKOS;  in  2013  the  Estonian  Technical  Surveillance  Authority,  the  Spanish 
National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC), in Luxemburg – Autorité luxembourgeoise indépendante de l'audiovisuel (ALIA).    
511 As set out by the 2011 INDIREG study : http://www.indireg.eu/ 
512 The INDIREG and RADAR studies pointed to doubts over the independence of regulatory authorities of Hungary, Romania, Malta, Estonia but also 
other  NRAs  established  a  number  of  years  ago.  ERGA  observed  that  five  EU  MS  (Cyprus,  Estonia,  Finland,  Latvia,  Lithuania)    do  not  seem  to  be 
entirely independent (legally because they are under the trusteeship of a Ministry  or part of a ministerial body ; or functionally because of budget control 
or issued guidance from the government.   
513 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=393649& 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
of  studies  and  reports514 ,  consider  that  the  following  set  of  criteria  would  ensure  an  effective  and 
independent implementation of legislation: 
 i) independence from third parties or from  external influence;  
ii) transparent decision-making processes and accountability to relevant stakeholders;  
iii) open and transparent procedures for the nomination, appointment and removal of Board Members;  
iv) knowledge and expertise of human resources;  
v) financial515, operational and decision making autonomy;  
vi) effective enforcement powers;  
vii)  the possibility only for judicial power to review the regulatory bodies' decisions.  

Failure  to  fully  align  with  each  of  these  criteria  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  lack  of  independence. 
However, they provide a formal framework to ensure the highest possible level of independence.  At 
present, the situation across the EU is as follows:  

-  As regards (i), 5 national regulatory authorities516 are not fully separated from ministerial bodies 

or government.  

-  As regards (ii), 4 Member States do not have any transparency provisions at the moment517 and 2 

Member States518 do not require regulators to motivate their decisions. 

-  As regards (iii), a number of countries do not follow the procedures considered to guarantee the 
independence  of  the  regulators.519 As  regards  rules  on  conflict  of  interest  for  appointments,  no 
such rules exist in 6 countries520, there are no rules against conflict of interest with government521 
in  6  countries,  and  9  do  not  have  rules  on  conflict  of  interest  with  Parliament  and  political 
parties.522 A small number of countries neither have rules on the possible conflict of interest with 
industry  (5)523.    In  a  few  countries,  no  specific  rules  exist  to  protect  Board  members  against 
arbitrary dismissal (5). 524 

-  As  regards  (iv),  some  commercial broadcasters  pointed  out  to  a  lack  of  the  requisite  knowledge 

and expertise by the staff of several audiovisual regulators in the 2015 public consultation. 

-  As regards (v), large budgetary525 differences exist between national regulatory authorities across 
the EU. The regulatory bodies of 10 countries have less than EUR 1 million of budget per year. 
However, this amount can be much higher in other countries526. The same can be said as regards 
staffing527.  In  this  context,  the  RADAR  study  also  concluded  that  the  level  of  staff  has  been 
considered  to  be  problematic  for  several  regulators528.  A  more  qualitative  assessment  by  ERGA 
gave  a  close  conclusion529.  As  regards  decision  making  process,  the  regulatory  powers  of  some 

cf.  Bundesverfassungsgericht, 

Judgment  of  25  March  2014, 

514 INDIREG  Final  Report  (  http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360)  and  Final  Report  of  AVMS-RADAR,  ERGA  Report  on  the  independence  of  National 
Regulatory Authorities (http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-independence-national-regulatory-authorities 
515 In line with the INDIREG study, financial autonomy means "that the regulator is equipped with sufficient financial resources". 
516 CY, EE, FI, LV, LT. Source: ERGA Report.   
517 Some German Länder, DK , ES and FI. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR . Note that in the case of DE, the RADAR Study does not take into 
account  the  most  recent  developments  following  a  judgment  by  the  German  Federal  Constitutional  Court  which  declared  the  current  composition 
unconstitutional; 
and  1  BvF  4/11, 
ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:fs20140325.1bvf000111  
518 Estonia and Luxembourg. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
519 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR, p. 43-60 and ERGA Report p 17-21.   
520 AT, BG, DE (some Länder) , DK, RO, UK. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
521 DE (some Länder and ZDF), ES, Pl, RO, SI, UK. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
522 BE (all communities), EE, ES, FR, DE, NL, PT, RO ,SI.  
523 BE, DE (only RBB), EE, ES and FR.  
524 BE (VRM), DK, EE, LU, SE. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
525 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR   
526 France (€ 35 million), several German regional regulators such as the BLM (€ 28 million in 2014) and the LFK (10 million in 2014), Netherlands (€ 6 
840 million in 2013) or Ireland and Poland (more than € 5 million in 2014). In some Member States, the budget for regulators is even higher, but - as they 
are converged regulators - , it is difficult to establish which part of the budget is assigned to audiovisual (e.g. in UK- OFCOM: € 160 million in 2014-
2015; In Spain - CNMC: € 53 million in 2014). 
527 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR Staff ranges from 2 persons in Iceland to 306 persons in France or 790 in the UK 
528 German speaking community of BE, CY, CZ, EL, HR, IE and RO . 
529 ERGA  members  considered  that  in  10  NRAs  human  resources   were  not  adequate   (Belgium-Wallonia,  Belgium-MEDIENRAT,  Bulgaria,  Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg and Portugal). 

case  no.  1  BvF  1/11 

118 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
regulators are  limited  by the power of other bodies to overturn their  decisions as  well as by the 
power of other bodies to give instructions530 to regulators.  

-  As  regards  (vi),  five  regulators  report  that  they  do  not  have  powers  to  enforce  their  decisions 

autonomously531. 

-  As regards (vii), no particular issue has been identified532.   

The negative impact of these factors on the achievement of various AVMSD objectives has been 
observed in several respects:  

  Some commercial broadcasters replying to the 2015 public consultation mentioned the recent 
examples  of  decisions  by  several  regulators,  which  seemed  to  be  problematic  for  their  own 
independence and which  affected negatively Public Service Broadcasters (PSB), commercial 
broadcasters and sometimes all players533. 

  The  lack  of  specific  requirements  in  Article  30  was  evident  in  the  Pre-accession  negotiation 
process,  as  the  Commission  could  not  rely  on  a  binding  legal  instrument  to  require  the 
independence of newly created audiovisual regulators534. The Commission’s Country Reports 
pointed  to  problems  with  conflict  of  interest  and  the  political  nature  of  the  nomination  and 
appointment procedures in Bulgaria535 and Romania536. 

  The  shortcomings  of  Article  30  AVMSD  were  pointed  out  by  an  independent  study 
commissioned by the Commission, the INDIREG Study on "Indicators for independence and 
efficient functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies"(2011). The Final Report 
showed  that  in  some  EU  countries  the  legal  framework  does  not  guarantee  an  independent 
exercise  of  powers  by  the  regulators;  in  other  EU  countries  regulators  are  only  formally 
independent  but  this  is  not  the  case  in  practice.  The  study  found  that  compliance  with  legal 
requirements is often not sufficient to deliver on objectives. There are subtle and indirect ways 
to  exert  influence  on  regulators,  especially  for  governments,  and  these  are  difficult  to 
measure537.The  final  Report  of  the  most  recent  RADAR  study  of  2015  (updating  the  2011 
INDIREG Study) confirms the findings of the 2011 study. 

 

In  2013,  the  Final  Report  of  the  High  Level  Group  on  Media  Freedom  and  Pluralism 538 
highlighted the shortcomings of Article 30. The report recommended, inter alia, that regulators 
should  be  independent  and  appointments  should  be  made  in  a  transparent  manner,  with  all 

530 The regulatory power of CvDM of the Netherlands is only limited by the power of other bodies to overturn its decisions, but no other body has the 
possibility to give instructions to the regulator. The decisions of the regulator from the Flemish-speaking Community of Belgium, from Denmark and the 
Netherlands can be overturned by a Ministry, while the decisions of the French-speaking Community and the German-speaking Community of Belgium 
can be overturned by the Government. Limitations to that power to overturn the decisions of the regulator exist only in the German-speaking and French-
speaking  Community  of  Belgium  and  in  Denmark.  The  regulatory  powers  of  11  regulators  are  only  limited  by  the  power  of  other  bodies  to  give 
instruction, but no other body has the power to overturn their decisions.( Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France,  Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, 
Sweden, United Kingdom.  ). 6 regulatory authorities get instructions by a ministry (Cyprus, Denmark, Finland,  Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom.  ). 5 
regulators  can  be  subjected  to  instructions  from  the  Government.  Belgium  (all  Communities),  Sweden,  United  Kingdom .  3  regulators  receive 
instructions from the Parliament, (Italy, Malta, Romania). 
531 Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden report that they do not have powers to enforce its decisions autonomously; see ERGA report 
532 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
533  In  Greece,  Hungary,  Latvia  and  Romania  (Reply  to  the  2015  public  consultation  by  the  Association  of  Commercial  Television  (ACT): 
http://www.acte.be/library/45/54/ACT-Response-to-AVMS-Public-Consultation)  
534 As  also  mentioned  by  the  Commission  in  the  2013  Public  consultation  on  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulators  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-
agenda/en/news/public-consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions.  This  is  for  example  occurred  for  pre-accession 
negotiation process of Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.  
535 Report On Progress in Bulgaria under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism for  the year xxx  
536  Report  On  Progress  in  Romania  under  the  Co-operation  and  Verification  Mechanism  for    the  year  2012  (published  30  January  2013), 
http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 
537 Source,  INDIREG  study  http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360  According  to  this  report,  the  flaws  of  Article  30  became  apparent  in  the  nomination  and 
appointments procedures adopted in several Member States (Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Malta, France, Greece and the Netherlands). The procedures 
of  appointment  and  dismissal  of  members  of  the  Board  of  national  regulators  in  Denmark,  Ireland  and  Poland  also  triggered  doubts  regarding  the 
independence of those national regulator 
538 The  Group  was  set  up  in  2011  to  examine  limitations  of  media  freedom  including  state  interference  and  the  role  and  independence  of  regulatory 
authorities and to issue recommendations for the Commission. The objective was to foster a wide debate with Members of Parliament, Member States 
and representatives from the  media and civil society. The Group published in 2013 its final report, independent and non-binding for the Commission, 
which includes a number of recommendations.  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
appropriate checks and balances. As a follow-up, the Commission launched in the same year 
the Public consultation on the independence of regulators. 

 

In  the  2015  Public  consultation,  a  large  majority  of  regulators,  Member  States,  commercial 
broadcasters,  digital  and  telecom  operators  and  representatives  of  consumers  considered  the 
rules of the Directive not to be effective.539 The respondents to the 2013 public consultation on 
independence of regulators noted that lack of independence could cause problems in particular 
in  the  domains  of  audiovisual  commercial  communications,  jurisdiction  and  protection  of 
minors.540 

  Since the way regulatory authorities function can differ significantly from one Member State 
to the other, it can translate into different levels of user protection across the EU. In markets 
with weak regulators, consumer rights risk not to be sufficiently protected541. 

  Moreover, regulatory authorities lacking independence are not in a position to guarantee media 
freedom and pluralism542. In many countries where independence of national regulatory bodies 
is weak, challenges to media freedom and pluralism over the last years have been reported543. 
This  was  the  case  for  Romania  in  the  period  from  2007  to  2012,  where  the  Commission 
identified  problems  with  ensuring  media  freedoms  and  with  the  independence  of  the 
audiovisual regulatory  body544.  The  same  happened  in  Hungary  in  2010,  where  a  number  of 
provisions of a draft law raised concerns related to media pluralism. The Commission545, the 
European Parliament546, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media547, the Council of 
Europe548 and other international bodies and NGOs active in the area of human rights and civil 
liberties, and Member States have also all raised concerns related to both media freedom and 
the  independence  of  the  regulator.  The  recent  amendment  to  the  media  law  in  Poland  (The 
Broadcasting Act of 1992) could lead to the limitation of the powers of the Media Regulatory 
Authority. As such, it might raise issues related to media pluralism and to the independence of 
public  service  broadcasting  in  the  country,  which  in  turn  may  affect  the  independence  of 
audiovisual regulators.  

In  this  light,  Article  30  does  not  provide  sufficient  safeguards  to  ensure  an  effective  coherent 
application of the AVMSD across the European Union. 

EU added value 

539 They  pointed  out  that  the  independence  of  media  regulatory  authorities  is  far  from  guaranteed  in  a  number  of  European  markets.  Commercial 
broadcasters pointed in this context also to the recent problems affecting publicly-funded broadcasters, sometimes also commercial broadcasters or all 
players, for example in Greece, Hungary, Latvia and Romania.  
Organisations representing consumers pointed to conflict of interests as in many countries the regulation of audiovisual media services is managed by 
stakeholder committees dominated by commercial operators.  
Also citizens pointed to the ineffectiveness of Article 30 AVMSD. A number of Czech citizens raised the issue of politically motivated nominations into 
boards of Czech public TV and radio broadcasters, while UK/LV/SE/DE citizens considerded that AVMSD should do more to ensure the independence 
of regulators and lay down formal regulations. 
540 Results  of  the  2013  public  consultation  on  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies:  http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-
consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions  
541 E.g. reply to the 2015 public consultation by UK Government or FOX  International channels. 
542 Recital  94  AVMSD  "In  accordance  with  the  duties  imposed  on  Member  States  by  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  they  are 
responsible for the effective implementation of this Directive. They are free to choose the appropriate instruments according to their legal traditions and 
established  structures,  and,  in  particular,  the  form  of  their  competent  independent  regulatory  bodies,  in  order  to  be  able  to  carry  out  their  work  in 
implementing this Directive impartially and transparently. More  specifically,  the  instruments  chosen  by  Member  States  should  contribute  to  the 
promotion of media pluralism." 
543 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  
544Progress Reports  http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 
545 The  Commission    noted  that  "the  recently  adopted  Hungarian  Media  Act  raises  specific  concerns  regarding  the  respect  for  the  fundamental  media 
freedoms such as freedom of expression and media pluralism"; see press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-6_en.htm?locale=FR  
546  Weber  Report:  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0203&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0117  and 
Tavares Report: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2013-0229+0+DOC+XML+V0//en 
547 Press release: http://www.osce.org/fom/90823 and  http://www.osce.org/fom/74687 
548

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/media/publications/Hungary/Hungary%20Media%20Acts%20Analysis%20-%20Final%2014-05-

2012%20(2).pdf 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As the AVMSD does not contain any formal obligation for Member States to create an independent 
regulatory  body  if  one  does  not  exist  already  nor  does  it  indicate  any  characteristics  for  such  body. 
Neither does the AVMSD set any requirement for Member States to have an independent regulatory 
body.  

The  absence  of  a  formal  obligation  has  contributed  to  diverse  regulatory  structures  and  varying 
degrees  of  independence.  Yet,  regulatory  independence  both  from  political  bodies  and  commercial 
interests is essential to ensure effective internal market supervision, proper application of the rules of 
the Directive and guarantee media freedom and pluralism. In many countries where independence of 
national  regulatory  bodies  is  weak,  challenges  to  media  freedom  and  pluralism  over  the  last  years 
have  been  reported549.  This  was  the  case  for  Romania  in  the  period  from  2007  to  2012,  where  the 
Commission  identified  problems  with  ensuring  media  freedoms  and  with  the  independence  of  the 
audiovisual  regulatory  body 550 .  The  same  happened  in  Hungary  in  2010,  where  a  number  of 
provisions  of  a  draft  law  raised  concerns  related  to  media  pluralism.  The  Commission 551 ,  the 
European  Parliament 552,  the  OSCE  Representative  on  Freedom  of  the  Media 553,  the  Council  of 
Europe 554 and  other  international  bodies  and  NGOs  active  in  the  area  of  human  rights  and  civil 
liberties,  and  Member  States  have  all  raised  concerns  related  to  both  media  freedom  and  the 
independence of the regulator. The OSCE Representative also recently called for respect of regulator's 
independence in Latvia following the dismissal of the Regulator chairman555. 

A  captive  regulator  may  treat  differently  the  various  players  competing  on  the  same  market  clearly 
distorting  competition.  There  is  also  evidence  that  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory 
authorities has an impact on the providers' willingness to establish in an EU Member State and serve 
audiences in several Member States556.  

As  a  result,  the  lack  of  independence  of  the  Regulators  may  undermine  the  functioning  of  the 
audiovisual internal market. 

On  these  grounds,  it  can  be  affirmed  that  Article  30  AVMSD  does  not  have  in  general  EU  added 
value. 

It  should  however  be  considered  that  Article  30  did  play  a  role  in  facilitating  the  setting  up  of  the 
ERGA  in  2014.  ERGA  has  facilitated  cooperation  among  existing  independent  regulators  and  the 
Commission on cross-border issues. 

Efficiency 
The efficiency of Article 30 AVMSD as regards independent regulators cannot be assessed given the 
absence of a specific obligation. 

However, it should be noted that the independence of regulatory authorities both from political bodies 
and from commercial interests is essential to ensure an objective supervision of markets557. A lack of 
independence  can  result  in  an  unfair  treatment  between  players  competing  on  the  same  market  and 

549 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  
550Progress Reports  http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 
551 The  Commission    noted  that  "the  recently  adopted  Hungarian  Media  Act  raises  specific  concerns  regarding  the  respect  for  the  fundamental  media 
freedoms such as freedom of expression and media pluralism"; see press release: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-6_en.htm?locale=FR  
552  Weber  Report:  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-0203&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0117  and 
Tavares Report: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A7-2013-0229+0+DOC+XML+V0//en 
553 Press release: http://www.osce.org/fom/90823 and  http://www.osce.org/fom/74687 
554

http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/media/publications/Hungary/Hungary%20Media%20Acts%20Analysis%20-%20Final%2014-05-

2012%20(2).pdf 
555 http://www.osce.org/fom/167586 
556 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people 
557 ERGA statement on the independence of NRAs in the audiovisual sector:  
 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-statement-independence-nras-audiovisual-sector 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
have a negative economic impact on service providers. . This is why many EU regulatory frameworks 
in other domains (i.e. telecom, gas, electricity, postal services and personal data protection) mandate 
regulatory independence.  

As  an  example,  in  the  context  of  the  Klubrádió  case,  the  company  sued  the  national  regulator  in 
Hungary  for  economic  loss  resulting  from  an  alleged  unfair  treatment  which  led  to  a  deal  in  the 
granting of a license558. A number of EU based companies also lodged complaints with the European 
Commission  against  Hungary  and  the  Hungarian  converged  regulatory  authority  -  Media  and 
Infocommunications  Authority  (NMHH).  Liberty  Global  also  lodged  a  complaint  against  the 
Hungarian Media regulator that led to the preliminary ruling by ECJ559.  

There is also evidence that  independence of  audiovisual regulatory  authorities has an impact on the 
providers'  willingness  to  establish  in  an  EU  Member  State  and  serve  audiences  in  several  Member 
States560.  

Coherence 
Existing  EU  legislation  in  a  number  of  domains  (i.e.  telecom,  energy  and  postal  regulatory 
frameworks,  personal  data  protection)  mandate  the  Member  States  to  ensure  the  independence  of 
national competent authorities (see the considerations under the section on Relevance). For example, 
the EU Framework Directive for electronic communications requires the Member States to ensure that 
regulators act independently and do not seek or take instructions from any other body in relation to the 
exercise of certain key regulatory tasks assigned to them. Only appeal bodies may suspend or overturn 
decisions by national regulatory authorities, and the head of a national regulatory authority and other 
members of the collegiate body fulfilling that function may be dismissed only if they no longer fulfil 
the conditions required for the performance of their duties laid down in advance in national law. This 
shows that the AVMSD is not coherent with existing EU frameworks in other domains. 

The lack of coherence of the AVMSD with EU legislation in other domains was also pointed out by 
the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom which noted that the lack of harmonisation in the 
audiovisual  domain  is  "particularly  blatant  compared  to  electronic  communications  framework  that 
regulates issues which are closely related and complementary to those in the AVMSD". It further 
stresses  that  in  times  of  convergence,  it  could  be  both  valuable  and  reasonable  to  consider  the 
establishment  of  the  same  requirements  for  audiovisual  regulatory  authorities  as  foreseen  for  the 
electronic  communications  regulators,  particularly  as 
in  some  Member  States  electronic 
communications  and  audiovisual  media  services  are  already  under  the  supervision  of  the  same 
regulator. 

The AVMSD provisions are not coherent either with a number of relevant international instruments 
endorsing  the  principle  of  independence  of  regulators.  This  is  the  case  for,  amongst  others,  the 
Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation (2000)23561 on the independence and 
functions  of  regulatory  authorities  for  the  broadcasting  sector;  the  Declaration  of  the  Committee  of 
Ministers on protecting the role of the media in democracy in the context of media concentration562; 
and Resolution No. 2 of the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy563 on cultural 

558 The National Media and Infocommunications Authority (Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság, NMHH) refused to renew a license for the use of 
frequencies for Klubrádió, one of the few remaining radio stations opposing the government. The office did not execute the legally binding judgment of 
the court obliging it to grant the frequencies. Klubrádió sued NMHH for a multi-billion compensation for the lost advertising income alleging that there 
was  causation  between  the  breach  of  law  of  NMHH  and  the  fall  n  their  adversting  revenues.  The  ruling  is  expected  on  16  February  2016 
(http://www.financialobserver.eu/ce/nervous-moves-on-the-hungarian-media-market/). 
559 Case C-475/12 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=151525&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1257558  
560 Survey and data gathering to support the Impact Assessment of a possible new legislative proposal concerning Directive 2010/13/EU (AVMSD) and 
in particular the provisions on media freedom, public interest and access for disabled people 
561 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2000)23&Language=lanEnglish&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&
BackColorLogged=FDC864 
562 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1089615 
563 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/DH-MM(2006)004_en.pdf 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
diversity  and  media  pluralism  in  times  of  globalisation.  Notably,  the  Council  of  Europe 
Recommendation (2000) 23 unequivocally states: “The rules governing regulatory authorities for the 
broadcasting sector, especially their membership, are key elements of their independence. Therefore, 
they should be defined so as to protect them against any interference, in particular by political forces 
and economic interests”. 

6.9 Accessibility for persons with disabilities 

Article  7  AVMSD  requires  Member  States  to  encourage  audiovisual  media  service  providers  to 
gradually provide for accessibility services for hearing and visually-impaired viewers. 

Relevance of the current rules 
All  the  respondents  to  the  Public  consultation  of  2015  shared  the  opinion  that  accessibility  of 
audiovisual  content  by  all  viewers,  including  those  with  visual  and  hearing  disability,  must  be 
guaranteed. This confirms the relevance of Article 7 AVMSD.   

Effectiveness 

As  indicated  in  the  2nd  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD,  the  proportion  of  audiovisual  media 
services accessible to people with visual or hearing disabilities has increased in some Member States 
since  the  1st  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD  of  May  2012.  For  example,  the  level  of  subtitling 
services has increased since 2010 (reporting period for the 1st Application Report), either due to the 
regulatory action by the Member States564 or voluntary commitments by the audiovisual media service 
providers565. Voluntary  codes  for  broadcasting  services  have been  introduced  in  7  Member  States566 
and for on-demand in 5567. 

Commercial  broadcasting  channels  however  lag  behind  as  compared  to  public  service  broadcasters, 
which are subject to stricter rules in many countries. The average share of programmes broadcast in 
the Member States with subtitles by the two main public channels reached in 2012 between 56% and 
61%,  respectively,  while  the  share  for  the  two main  commercial  broadcasters  amounts  to  only  44% 
and 48% respectively.568 

There is divergence in the conditions of accessibility for consumers leading thus to a fragmentation 
across  the  European  Union.  While  subtitles  are  available  in  most  Member  States,  the  amount  of 
content  subtitled  varies  considerably  between  countries  (from  almost  all  programmes  in  the  UK  or 
France to only specific ones, such as news, in Lithuania). 
The  availability  of  access  services  for  the  visually  impaired  is  much  lower.  The  average  volumes 
broadcasted  with  audio  description  range  between  4%  and  11%.  Some  Member  States  such  as  the 
Netherlands  or  Finland  do  not  provide  any  audio  description,  while  other  Member  States  such  as 
Slovakia (from 7 to 10 % of overall programmes) and UK (15 to 24 %) do.569 The provision of sign 
language interpretation is the least available access service. On average it is below 5% of the overall 
programmes across all countries covered by the Commission's study of November 2013, on assessing 
and promoting e-accessibility. Member States such as Portugal or the UK perform better in this regard 

564 E.g in Austria, in 2009, the subtitling on ORF amounted to 35% of programming - equivalent to 6,170 hours of coverage per year - and in 2012 was 
increased to 10,546 (60 percent of the ORF programming). The amount of hours of the audio descripted programmers on ORF increased from 112 hours 
in  2009  to  752  hours  in  2012  –  thus  by  more  than  six  and  a  half  times.  Similarly,  in  Finland  the  government  introduced  as  of  2014  the  gradually 
increasing quotas on subtitling services that range from 80% for PSb and 40 % for commercial broadcasters in 2014 to 100 % and 50 % respectively in 
2016.  Also  in  Germany,  the  law  of  2013  expanded  the  barrier-free  TV:    the  proportion  of  programmes  with  subtitles  increased  from  40%  and  49% 
respectively in 2012 to 70% and 90% in 2014 respectively (ZDF, ARD). 
565 1st and 2nd Application reports on the AVMSD.  
566 DE, FR, CY, LT, MT, PL, NL 
567 AT, DE, CZ, IE, UK  
568 E-accessibility study: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/12306 
569 Ibidem 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(between 7 and 16 % and 5 to 7 % respectively) than the majority, including some that according that 
study  do  not  provide  any  signing  (e.g.  Germany  or  Luxembourg).570 Overall,  persons  affected  by 
disabilities still face significant barriers when accessing audiovisual content in the EU.571 

In the 2015 Public consultation, viewers and regulators572 expressed dissatisfaction resulting from the 
fact that some programmes are only accessible on linear broadcast but not on-demand. A majority of 
regulators  and  many  Member  States,  as  well  as  commercial  broadcasters,  disability  groups  and 
manufacturers also considered that the rules are not sufficient to ensure accessibility. They argue that 
in the absence of a legal obligation, the EU cannot achieve a barrier-free access to audiovisual media 
content for all citizens. On the other hand, about half of the Member States believe that the AVMSD 
is effective for it leaves the flexibility required by the heterogeneity of the national markets and the 
challenges faced in each Member State. 

Finally,  evidence573 shows  that  specific  obligations  in  legislation  and/or  by  the  regulators  deliver 
better  results  in  terms  of  provisions  of  accessibility  services.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  view  point 
expressed  by  manufacturers  in  the  2015  public  consultation.  They  reported  that,  despite  their  best 
efforts,  the  overall  accessibility  depends  on  the  accessibility  of  other  parts  of  that  ecosystem,  i.e. 
audiovisual content. 

In light of the above, it can be concluded that the AVMSD had an incentive effect for Member States 
to take action to increase the accessibility to audiovisual media services across the EU.  

EU added value 
In  the  absence  of  mandatory  EU-level  accessibility  rules,  there  are  considerable  variations  across 
Member States in terms of the extent to which different types of accessibility measures are in place for 
TV broadcasting services, as well as in the proportion of programming covered. 

Almost all Member States574 have introduced statutory rules requiring providers to adopt measures to 
facilitate  accessibility.  While  some  Member  States  have  very  detailed  statutory575 or  self-  or  co-
regulatory rules576, others have only very general provisions. Some limit the accessibility obligation to 
public service broadcasters (included  in the  public service contracts)577. In some Member States, an 
accessibility  obligation  is  included  in  the  broadcasters'  licenses  for  the  provision  of  broadcasting 
services.578As regards on-demand services, only 2 countries (Belgium and Greece) impose targets on 
the share of accessibility services579. 

The  current  rules  also  allow  for  the  development  of  co-  or  self-regulatory  schemes  which  often 
complement national rules. 

Furthermore,  as  confirmed  in  the  1st  and  2nd  Application  Report  on  the  AVMSD,  the  fact  that  the 
Commission monitors and reports on the state of the art in this domain constitutes an incentive to take 
action both for Member States and broadcasters. 

570 Ibidem 
571 For  example,  the  level  of  access  services,  especially  audio-description,  remain  very  low.  Thus  people  with  a  hearing  impairment  and  to  a  bigger 
extent, people with sight impairment are still excluded from accessing much of the audiovisual content. 
572 ATVOD, OFCOM, ES CNMC.  
573 E-accessibility study   
574 All the Member States with the exception of BG, LU, LV   
575 All the Member States with the exception of LU and LV require services providers to adopt accessibility measures but only the following MSs set 
quotas for accessibility of linear services:  BE (fr), CZ.,DE, IE,  EL, ES, FI, FR, IT, HU, NL, AT, PT, PL, SE, SK, UK, for on-demand services only Be 
(fl) and EL. 
576 DE, FR, CY, LT, MT, PL, NL and for on-demand AT, DE, CZ, IE, UK 
577 BE,DK, ES, FR, UK, HR, IE, PT, RO, SE;  
578 BG, DE, DK, EE, SE, UK 
579 E.g  In Belgium (Flemish speaking community) the regulation concerning accessibility services is identical for linear and on –demand services: 95 % 
of  programming  of  PSBs  have  to  be  subtitled  by  teletext  and  for  commercial  broad  caters  all  news  programmes  and  90  %  of  other  current  affairs 
programmes.  In Greece, on-demand providers shall transmit 20% of the content  with subtitles.  

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In light of the above, it can be concluded that Article 7 laid the ground at EU level for an action of the 
Member States to increase the accessibility to audiovisual media services. 

Efficiency 
The efficiency of Article 7 cannot be assessed given that it sets out no obligations and as such there 
are no costs directly linked to it. 

It is worth highlighting that accessibility is overall guaranteed despite the absence of legal obligations 
in  the  AVMSD.  Some  Member  States580 argue  that  if  more  stringent  rules  on  accessibility  were  in 
place, this would create obstacles for compliance by Member States and commercial broadcasters. 

However, the lack of EU-level harmonisation has led to an uneven treatment for TV broadcasters and 
on-demand  service  providers.  In  most  Member  States,  the  latter  are  not  subject  to  accessibility 
requirements  and  even  content  that  was  available  with  assistive  services  on  TV  is  no  longer 
accompanied by those assistive services when accessed as a catch-up service581. 

At  Member  State  level,  national  law  has  generated  varying  degrees  of  compliance  costs.  For  TV 
broadcasting,  the  yearly  costs  of  providing  accessibility  services  represent  less  than  0.1  %  of  large 
broadcasters' revenues.582 To the same extent, for TV channels of  major broadcasters, the additional 
production  costs  of  subtitles  usually  make  up  less  than  1%  of  the  production  budget  for  the 
programme  itself.  However,  for  niche  channels  using  archive  and  third-party  programming,  or  for 
broadcasters  in  small  countries,  costs  may  reach  25-30%  of  the  channel’s  production  budget.  For 
many  television  broadcasters,  live  programming  accounts  for  an  increasing  proportion  of  overall 
output583. 

The  costs  for  on-demand  services  are  similar  to  those  incurred  by  TV  broadcasting  services.  When 
using subtitling, audio description and signing originally created for broadcasting services, on-demand 
services incur costs related to adapting the services for their platforms584. 

Coherence 
The  AVMSD  is  coherent  with  EU  activities  aimed  at  promoting  the  active  inclusion  and  full 
participation  of  disabled  people  in  society,  in  line  with  the  EU  human  rights'  approach  to  disability 
issues. As such, the AVMSD rules are coherent with the European Commission's European Disability 
Strategy  2010-2020585 that  builds  on  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  People  with  Disabilities 
(UNCRPD), and takes into account the lessons learnt from the European Disability Action plan 2004-
2010586. As such, the AVMSD is coherent with EU initiatives promoting the active inclusion and full 
participation of disabled persons in society, in line with the EU human rights approach to disability 
issues.  

The  AVMSD  is  also  coherent  and  complementary  to  other  EU-level  initiatives  that  aim  at  the 
inclusion of people with disabilities, in particular the proposal for a Directive on the accessibility of 
the  public  sector  bodies'  websites  (DG  CNECT).  The  AVMSD  may  not  be  fully  coherent  with  the 
final outcomes of the proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States 
relating  to  accessibility  requirements  of  goods  and  services  –  the  European  Accessibility  Act  (DG 

580 BE, EE, FI, FR, LU, NL, UK 
581 Reply by OFCOM and ATVOD to the 2013 Green paper Public consultation on AVMSD and to the 2015 AVMSD Public Consultation 
582 Sky plc reported a EUR 6.3 million, Canal + Groupe EUR 2.1 million of yearly costs. 
583 Peter Olaf Looms, The production and delivery of DTV Access Services, EBU Technical review – 2010 Q3 
584 Ibidem 
585 COM(2010) 636 final 
586 COM(2003) 650 final 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EMPL) 587.  This  proposal  also  covers  audiovisual  services.  It  provides  an  information  requirement 
about the functioning of the service and about its accessibility characteristics and facilities as well as 
the general requirement of "including functions, practices, policies and procedures and alterations in 
the operation of the service targeted to address the needs of persons with functional limitations". If the 
proposal  for  a  European  Accessibility  Act  were  to  be  finally  adopted  by  the  co-legislators  in  its 
present  form,  it  would  mean  that  audiovisual  media  services  would  be  subject  to  stricter  rules  than 
those currently set out in the AVMSD. As a result, the rules laid down in the AVMSD would become 
irrelevant.  

The  AVMSD  is  coherent  with  the  UN  convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  disabilities 
(UNCRPD)  that  was  ratified  by  all  EU  Member  States.  The  AVMSD  rules  are  also  coherent  and 
complement national initiatives such as quotas of accessible programmes to be filled by providers or 
with state aid measures mentioned in the Effectiveness sub-section. 

6.10 Events of major importance for society and short news reports 

The  AVMSD  leaves  to  the  Member  States the prerogative to  prohibit  the  exclusive  broadcasting  of 
events  which  they  deem  to  be  of  major  importance  for  society,  where  such  broadcasts  would 
deprive a substantial proportion of the public  of the  possibility to follow those events on free-to-air 
television588. The AVMSD mentions the football World Cup and the European football championship 
as examples of such events589. When a Member State notifies a list of events of major importance, the 
AVMSD requires the Commission to assess its compatibility with EU law. If deemed compatible, the 
list will benefit from 'mutual recognition'. 

The 2nd Application report on the AVMSD mentions the adoption of a positive decision590 on the list 
of  events  of  major  importance  for  society  proposed  by  Italy  in  December  2011.  In  2014,  the 
Commission approved the Polish list. In 2015, the Danish list was approved. 

According  to a  recent  judgement  by the Court of Justice, the  Commission should only review what 
effect a Member State's designation of events as being of major importance has on the freedoms and 
rights  recognised  under  EU  law  and  if  it  exceeds  those  which  are  intrinsically  linked  to  such  a 
designation591. 

To warrant the public's access to information on events of high interest, Member States must ensure 
that  any  broadcaster  established  in  the  Union  gives  access  to  short  extracts  of  such  events  to  the 
public which are transmitted on an exclusive basis. According to the AVMSD, Member States shall 
define  the  modalities  and  conditions  for  the  provisions  of  such  short  news  reports.592 In  so  doing, 
Member  States  can  also  provide  for  compensation  arrangements  but  compensation  shall  not  exceed 
the  additional  costs  incurred  in  providing  access.  In  reply  to  a  request  for  a  preliminary  ruling,  the 
Court  of  Justice  held  that  this  limitation  is  in  line  with  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  in 
particular the right to property. Although it restricts the freedom to conduct a business, such restriction 
is justified and in line with the principle of proportionality593. 

587 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=2400&furtherNews=yes 
588 Article 14 AVMSD 
589 Recital 49 AVMSD 
590OJ L 187 of 17.07 2012, pages 57-61 
591 The Court considered that, for the purpose of determining events of major importance, the World Cup and the EURO tournaments must be considered 
divisible into different matches or stages. Member States need to communicate to the Commission the reasons justifying why they consider the final 
stage of the World Cup or the EURO, in its entirety, to be a single event. 
C-205/11  P  -  FIFA  v  Commission  http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-205/11,  C-204/11  P  -  FIFA  v  Commission 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-204/11, 
Commission 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-201/11 
592 Article 15 AVMSD 
593 Case C-283/11 Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-283+/11 

C-201/11 

UEFA 

P 

v 

- 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Relevance of the current rules 
Most  respondents  across  all  stakeholder  categories  in  the  2015  Public  consultation  on  the  AVMSD 
stated that the rules are relevant.  
However, for events of major importance for society, some commercial broadcasters have indicated 
that the system of lists is outdated as nowadays the market has the instruments to address the public's 
demand for major events. In light of the above, it can be concluded that the AVMSD rules are still 
relevant. 

Effectiveness 
Most respondents across all stakeholders categories (including most Member States and regulators) in 
the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD stated that the rules on events of major importance for 
society have been effective.  

In the frame of the 2015 Public Consultation, one regulator, consumer associations, telecom and ICT 
industry  flagged  some  elements  reducing  the  effectiveness  of  the  Directive:  According  to  them,  the 
notion of "events of major importance for the society" is not clear enough and consequently seems to 
be  stretched  and  overused  by  national  authorities  in  charge  of  creating  the  lists;  the  rules  are  less 
effective in times of media convergence as they do not apply to "new" services (mentioned by some 
Member States and public service broadcasters). Also, according to several consumer organisations, 
the rules do not support the specific AVMSD objectives related to consumer protection as they allow 
sport events listed as "of major importance" to be sponsored by alcohol producers. 

The rules on short news reports have proven to be effective to date. Whereas there have been some 
issues with the transposition of the definition of the source of short news and the lack of time limits, 
these  issues  were  addressed  and  solved  with  the  Member  States  concerned  and  did  not  highlight 
problems with the effectiveness of the rules as such. This was confirmed by a majority of respondents 
across all stakeholder categories in the 2015 Public consultation.  

In  light  of  the  above,  the  AVMSD  rules  on  events  of  major  importance  for  society  and  short  news 
reports have proven to be overall effective for sustaining media pluralism and right of information. 

EU added value 
The AVMSD restricts broadcasters' freedom to conclude exclusive deals that would prevent citizens 
from  accessing  information  and  events  of  major  importance  for  society.  By  warranting  EU-wide 
mutual recognition to national decisions in this domain, the AVMSD has delivered EU added value. 

The  AVMSD  requires  Member  States  to  ensure  that  any  broadcaster  established  in  the  Union  has 
access, on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis, to events of high interest to the public for 
the purposes of short news reports.  The AVMSD rules thus constitute an important corollary to the 
free circulation of audiovisual media services offered by providers under the jurisdiction of Member 
States. This confirms the European added value of the rules. 

Efficiency 
In  the  framework  of  the  Public  consultation,  stakeholders  did  not  flag  any  lack  of  proportionality 
between  the  cost  resulting  from  the  application  of  the  provision  of  events  of  major  importance  for 
society and the objective to ensure access to these events. 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                      
 
However, Public service broadcasters indicated that there is scope for simplification and speeding up 
of  the  notification  procedure.  Also,  one  Member  States  and  a  few  public  service  broadcasters 
indicated  that  the  rules  create  unequal  market  conditions  amongst  operators  active  in  different 
Member  States  as  the  lists  cannot  be  enforced  against  exclusive  right  holders  outside  the  relevant 
territory. 

For short news reports, in the 2015 Public consultation, some commercial broadcasters mentioned that 
there is scope for de-regulation as broadcasters already have access to short news reports under self-
regulatory and contractual arrangements.  

Coherence 
The designation of events of  major importance for society does not give rise to issues of coherence 
with other EU initiatives and activities. The AVMSD functions in a complementary framework with 
Member States' decisions on the designation of events of major importance for society. 

The right to short news reports does not give rise to issues of coherence with other EU initiatives and 
activities.  The  AVMSD  functions  in  a  complementary  framework  with  Member  States'  legislation 
regarding the modalities of exercising that right, including compensation arrangements, the maximum 
length of short extracts and time limits regarding their transmission. 

6.11 Right of reply 

Article  28  of  the  AVMSD  warrants  a  "right  of  reply"  that  applies  to  television  broadcasting  (on-
demand  audiovisual  media  services  are  excluded  from  the  application  of  this  rule).  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. 

Relevance of the current rules 
Most respondents across all stakeholders' categories in the context of the 2015 Public consultation on 
the  AVMSD  stated  that  the  AVMSD  rules  are relevant.  This  confirms that  the  rules  on  the  right  of 
reply are still relevant. 

Effectiveness 
Most respondents across all stakeholders' categories in the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD 
perceive the AVMSD rules to be effective. A number of stakeholders however, called for extending 
the  rules  to  cover  all  audiovisual  media  services  in  order  for  the  rules  to  be  truly  effective.  The 
implementation  of  the  provision  has  never  given  rise  to  any  situation  where  the  achievement  of 
objectives was challenged. In light of the above, it can be concluded that the rules on the right of reply 
are perceived to be effective. 

EU added Value 
By  providing  a  common  level  of  protection  in  television  broadcasting,  the  AVMSD  has  brought  a 
clear EU added value. It  should however be considered that, in the 2015  Public consultation on the 
AVMSD, public service and commercial broadcasters highlighted that there is a case for extending the 
AVMSD  rules  on  the  right  of  reply  to  all  audiovisual  media  services,  to  ensure  alignment  with 
national trends (which have followed soft law – see below under Complementarity - and applied the 
rules beyond television broadcasting) and hence better harmonisation. 

Efficiency 
Despite  the  Public  consultation  and  the  studies  supporting  the  REFIT  evaluation,  it  has  not  been 
possible to conclude on the efficiency of the right of reply. However, neither the results of the 2015 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Public consultation nor other elements suggest that there are more cost-effective options to ensure a 
right of reply in television broadcasting.  

Coherence 
The rules on the right of reply are coherent with soft law measures in this field, in particular the 2006 
Council and Parliament  Recommendation on the  Protection of Minors and  on the Right  of Reply594 
(which is also coherent with the Recommendation of the Council of Europe (2004) 161 on the right of 
reply in the new media).  The Recommendation is a "soft law" measure calling on the Member States 
to  ensure  the  right  of  reply  online  or  equivalent  remedies.  In  including  the  right  of  reply  in  online 
media, the 2006 Recommendation extended the scope of a pre-existing 1998 Recommendation595. 

6.12 Self/co-regulatory initiatives in the context of the AVMSD 

The AVMSD encourages Member States to use self and co-regulation in the fields coordinated by the 
Directive, and particularly in the field of commercial communications in children's programmes596. 

Relevance of the current rules 
A large number of respondents from Member States, broadcasters, the Internet sector and consumer 
organisations  to  the  AVMSD  Public  consultation  2015  and  to  the  2013  Green  Paper  on  media 
convergence  stated  that  the  self  and  co-regulatory  initiatives  encouraged  in  the  AVMSD  are  of 
continued relevance to ensure an appropriate level of consumer protection, in particular in the fields of 
audiovisual  commercial  communications,  protection  of  minors  and  accessibility  of  audiovisual 
content.  This  confirms  the  relevance  of  the  AVMSD  rules  encouraging  the  use  of  self  and  co-
regulation.  

Effectiveness 
At  present,  the  domains  where  self-and  co-regulation  is  most  frequently  used  at  national  level  are 
audiovisual  commercial  communication  (in  particular  addressed  to  children  and  concerning 
audiovisual  commercial  communications  of  alcohol  and  HFSS  foods),  protection  of  minors  and 
accessibility  of  audiovisual  content.  While  the  majority  of  countries  have  self-  or  co-regulatory 
schemes in place for audiovisual commercial communications, in the field of the protection of minors 
from harmful audiovisual content, statutory regulation prevails. The majority of codes lacks specified 
targets and objectives which makes their proper evaluation difficult. Where monitoring processes are 
in place they are often not formalised and implemented systematically. Complaints are often used as 
an  indicator  to  measure  the  performance  of  a  self-  or  co-regulatory  scheme;  however  they  form  a 
relatively ambiguous indicator. The existence of a legislative backstop is an important success factor 
in promoting compliance with a self- or co-regulatory code.  Graduated sanctions which maintain an 
element of proportionality are usually considered to be an effective approach in enforcing a scheme597.  

Already at the time of the last revision in 2007, Member States had put in place self and co-regulatory 
regimes  in  the  fields  covered  by  the  Directive,  such  as  for  protection  of  minors.  This  saw  a  spur 
following  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Directive  as  testified  by  the  1st  Application  report  on  the 
AVMSD, which mentioned that in all but two Member States self- or co-regulatory schemes existed, 
or  encouragement  provisions  had  been  directly  included  in  the  media  legislation.  The  2nd  AVMSD 
Application  report  mentions  that  since  the  previous  Application  report,  four  additional  Member 

594 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006H0952&from=EN 
595 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998H0560&from=EN 
596 In  the  area  of  audiovisual  commercial  communications  in  children’s  programmes  for  sweet,  fatty  or  salty  foods  or  drinks,  Member  States  must 
encourage  audiovisual  media  service  providers  to  develop  codes  of  conduct  regarding  inappropriate  audiovisual  commercial  communications  in 
children’s programmes. 
597 See Annex 11. 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
States598 adopted  new  self-/co-regulation  systems,  mostly  in  the  field  of  protection  of  minors  (in 
particular in on-demand services) and accessibility. 

In  the  field  of  alcohol  advertising,  a  comparison  of  the  1st  and  the  2nd  Application  report  on  the 
AVMSD shows that the number of media services and Member States involved in self-regulation of 
marketing  and  advertising  of  alcoholic  beverages599 increased  substantially  from  2007  to  2010  and 
remained stable from 2010 to 2014. 

Codes of conduct on audiovisual commercial communications of food and beverages high in fat, 
salt and sugars (HFSS) to children codes are already in place in all Member States but two. The 2nd 
AVMSD  Application  report  mentions  that  as  compared  to  the  1st  Application  report  most  Member 
States  did  neither  update  the  current  codes  nor  develop  new  codes  of  conduct600.  There  are  still  a 
number of Member States where there are no relevant measures in place601 or the existing legislation 
only  encourages  the  developments  of  such  codes 602 .  In  many  cases  the  existing  codes  do  not 
specifically  address  audiovisual  commercial  communications  of  HFSS  food  products  addressed  to 
children (e.g. SK, CZ) but in general to the advertising of food products or focus on the promotion of 
a healthy diet. Only in eight cases codes have been updated or new codes were set up since the last 
Application Report. In two Member States, new legislation or co-regulatory measures are at a drafting 
stage (HR, MT). In two other Member States, new self-regulation is being developed (CY, FI).   

According to estimates from the WHO’s Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative (COSI), around 1 
in  3  children  in  the  EU  aged  6-9  years  old  were  overweight  or  obese  in  2010.  This  is  a  worrying 
increase  compared  to  2008,  when  estimates  were  1  in  4 603 .  This  situation  derives  from  varied 
behavioural  risk  factors  including  minors'  exposure  to  food  advertisements  and  other  marketing 
tactics. An evaluation of the Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health concluded that 
stakeholders’ initiatives in the field of marketing and advertising showed good progress, but that their 
impact could be further strengthened604. 

As  regards  protection  of  minors,  many  Member  States  have  in  place  codes  of  conduct  on  minors' 
protection605 or other self-regulatory systems606.  

As regards hate speech, self-regulatory arrangements are in place in a number of Member States (AT, 
BE, DE, EL, HU, IT, NL, PL, FI, DK)607 whereas there is no information on the use of co-regulation.  

The results of the 2015 Public consultation have provided some indications as to the effectiveness of 
these arrangements in various fields covered by the Directive608. 

598 BE (fr), IE, ES, PL 
599 In the context of the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health which has so far promoted a total of more than 300 300 stakeholder 
commitments, some of which cover the area of food and drink marketing (namely targeting children). In 2007, leading food and drink producers signed 
the EU Pledge to change the way they advertise towards children under the age of 12. One of the core commitments of the EU Pledge consists in not 
advertising  products  to  children  under  12  years,  except  for  products  which  fulfil  common  nutritional  criteria.  For  the  purpose  of  this  initiative, 
"advertising to children under 12 years" means advertising to media audiences with a minimum of 35% of children under 12 years.  
600 MS with new codes: EE, EL, PL; MS where codes were updated: IE, ES, NL, FR, PT. 
601 LU, HU, MT – but now legislation has been proposed 
602 CY, LT, LV 
603

Action 

Plan 

on 

Childhood 

Obesity 

2014-2020 

 EU 

(http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf) 
604
Report 

Application 

2012 

May 

 1st 

of 

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203&from=EN) 
605 AT, BE-V, BE-Fr, BG, CZ, DE, ES, IE, IT, SE 
606 EL, FR, HU, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK 
607 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/536460/IPOL_STU(2015)536460_EN.pdf 
608 In the context of the AVMSD Public consultation of 2015, self and co-regulation schemes were presented as possible options for the future of the 
AVMSD in some of the domains covered by the Directive, along with other options. As such, the Public consultation indicates to what extent self and co-
regulation is considered a viable way forward but it does not necessarily deliver results as to whether existing arrangements have proven effective. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
As  regards  commercial  communications,  in  the  majority  of  Member  States,  co-regulatory  systems 
are in place.  
Some  commercial  broadcasters,  advertisers,  the  food  and  drink  industry,  the  Internet,  telecom  ICT 
sector  indicated  that  self  and  co-regulatory  initiatives  are  an  effective  tool  to  be  further  promoted. 
However,  consumer  organisations  and  public  health  agencies  in  the  Member  States  believe  that  the 
self- and co-regulation has not been effective in particular when it comes to alcohol advertising and 
advertising  targeting  children,  in  light  of  blurring  lines  between  broadcast  and  on-demand  services 
and the voluntary character of self-regulatory mechanisms. Also, self- and co-regulation systems are 
deemed to have excessively lengthy procedures to review complaints.  
When it comes to protection of minors, self and co-regulation appears to be an effective tool given 
the satisfactory take  up in the  Member States  (see above) and the fact that both the  ERGA609 and a 
large  number  of  stakeholders  from  various  sectors  (broadcasters,  the  Internet  and  ICT  industry, 
commercial broadcasters, consumer organisations) see this as an effective complement to regulation. 
ERGA also stressed the importance of self and co-regulation in filling regulatory gaps (i.e. to ensure 
protection in online services that are not in the AVMSD scope). ERGA has highlighted best practices 
in co-regulation,  such  as  the shared responsibility between the  Dutch Media Authority and  NICAM 
(the  Netherlands  Institute  for  the  Classification  of  Audiovisual  Media 610 ).  Most  VOD  service 
providers established in the Netherlands have voluntarily adapted the NICAM classification system to 
their services. 

As regards services not covered by the AVMSD, video-sharing platforms have in place self-regulatory 
tools to protect users from illegal or harmful content. They have in place community guidelines which 
prohibit racism, calls to violence, or other forms of abusive and discriminatory content. Any user can 
report, or flag, content for review and possible removal. Guidelines are updated over time. Amongst 
the  latest  updates  is  Facebook's  ban  of  content  "praising  terrorists611"  or  Twitter's  ban  of  indirect 
threats of violence in addition to direct threats. Video-sharing platforms devote substantial resources 
to  "moderating"  UGC  content  (one  third  of  total  Facebook  employees  are  in  charge  of  content 
moderation  and  YouTube  also  relies  on  the  support  of  a  network  of  external  organisations 612 ).  
Activists  have  demonstrated  that  Facebook  enacts  different  standards  for  content  moderation  i.e. 
nudity images are removed more quickly than incitement to violence613. YouTube primarily relies on 
the number of complaints received to review content614 and this has shortcomings615. The Council of 
Europe reported that community guidelines are ineffective against hate speech616. 

EU added value 
Encouraging Member States to use self and co-regulation warrant that Member States take action in 
fields like advertising of HFSS foods to children which are not regulated at EU level. In addition self 
and  co-regulation  are  in  line  with  the  EU  better  regulation  agenda  (for  further  details,  see  the  sub-
section on Coherence). 

Efficiency 
It is not possible to assess efficiency as such given that there is no obligation to the use self and co-
regulation in the AVMSD. The efficiency of self and co-regulatory systems primarily depends on the 

609 ERGA recommendations on protection of minors in a converged environment  
610 Considered a showcase for the co-regulation of content across the media thanks to the integrated approach through all regulated audiovisual sectors 
regarding age classification system and content categorization. 
611 http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/06/social-media-companies-step-up-battle-against-militant-propaganda/ 
612 YouTube's “Trusted Flagger” program allows groups ranging from a British anti-terror police unit to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a human rights 
organization, to flag large numbers of videos as problematic and get immediate action. 
613 http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/3/9662836/facebook-hate-speech-germany-protest-topless-photo-racism 
614 Online  activists  have  called  activists  to  report  collectively  some  abusive  content,  thus  prompting  YouTube  to  more  expeditiously  review  and 
eventually taken down content. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253631 
615 Facebook suspended or restricted the accounts of many pro-Western Ukrainians after they were accused of hate speech by multiple Russian-speaking 
users  in  what  appeared  to  be  a  coordinated  campaign,  said  former  Facebook  security  staffer  Nick  Bilogorskiy.  Vietnamese  activists  said  that  a 
coordinated campaign attributed to Vietnamese officials temporarily blocked content by government critics. 
616https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/Resources/Publications/2014_Starting_Points_for_Combating_Hate_Speech_Online.pdf 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
way they are designed. The Member States and the industry have the flexibility to design and run self 
and co-regulatory mechanisms in the way they see it mostly cost-effective and adapted to the market 
and  other  circumstances.  Indeed,  in  the  2015  Public  consultation,  most  broadcasters,  advertisers  as 
well  as  the  food  and  drinks  sector  emphasised  the  efficiency  of  self  and  co  regulation  in  the 
commercial communications domain.  

One  quantitative  reference  that  can  be  given  to  estimate  the  costs  of  administering  a  co-regulatory 
scheme  is  the  cost  of  running  the  UK  co-regulator  for  on-demand  services  AT  VOD,  which  is 
estimated to be 3000 p/a per service provider affiliated. AT VOD itself, in its contribution to the 2015 
Public consultation, highlighted the efficiency of co-regulatory systems. 

As  indicated  in  the  2nd  AVMSD  Application  report,  the  majority  of  regulators  exercise  monitoring 
activities  only  in  co-regulatory  schemes.  In  the  case  of  self-regulation,  they  rely  on  monitoring  by 
relevant self-regulatory bodies, only few of which report to the regulator in cases of non-compliance. 
In those Member States where statutory rules were adopted, the monitoring and enforcement activities 
are carried out regularly by the regulatory bodies. 

Based  on  information  regarding  self-regulatory  initiatives  on  protection  of  minors,  costs  may  range 
between 100 000 Euros (incurred by incurred for a pilot tool developed to inform parents and children 
on the content of user generated video) and 320 000 Euros (incurred by a major Danish ISP to conduct 
parental control, website, education and information).  

The co-regulatory systems in place for commercial communications in the majority of Member States 
are either funded by membership fees or a levy system from the industry and their cost ranges from 
EUR 250 000 to EUR 1 000 000. For HFSS advertising, the self-regulation organisations' secretariats 
budget currently range from small (with just one to five members of staff and a budget up to EUR 250 
000) to large (up to over 100 members of staff with budgets up to and over EUR 1 000 000) and cover 
the  whole  advertising  field.  SROs'  secretariats  mainly  receive  the  complaints,  gather  any  necessary 
information about the complainant and evidence of the advertiser in order to prepare the case for jury. 
These  SROs  are  either  funded  by  membership  fees  (18  of  them)  or  a  levy  system  (5)  from  the 
industry. 617 

Coherence 
The 2001 White Paper on European Governance618 recognised the need to develop and improve self- 
and  co-regulation  in  order  to  better  achieve  EU  policy  objectives.  The  2003  Inter-institutional 
Agreement on better law making619 defined these two forms of soft law. The importance of soft-law as 
alternative means of regulation was further recognised in the Commission Communication on Better 
regulation for Growth and Jobs in the European Union620 which made it compulsory to consider it as 
an option in all impact assessments. 

In this light, policies supporting self- and co-regulation are coherent with other EU initiatives that are 
part of the Better Regulation Agenda as well as with existing statutory and self/co-regulatory rules in 
the domains coordinated by the Directive. 

6. 

Conclusions   

617 Source: EASA (European Advertising Standards Alliance) 
618 COM (2001) 428. 
619 OJ C 321, 31.12.2003. 
620 COM (2005)97 final 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  evaluation  found  that  while  the  AVMSD  objectives  are  still  relevant,  some  of  its  rules  are  no 
longer  fit  to  attain  these  objectives,  primarily  due  to  market  developments  and  changes  in  viewing 
patterns. 

The  AVMSD,  namely  via  its  COO  approach  has  been  perceived  to  be  an  effective  regulatory 
framework  by  most  stakeholders.  It  seems  to  have  accompanied  the  development  and  free 
circulation  of  audiovisual  media  services  across  the  Union.  The  COO  principle  has  brought  legal 
certainty by subjecting media service providers in the EU to the legislation of one Member State only. 
By  allowing  for  economies  of  scale,  the  COO  principle  in  turn  facilitates  investment  in  the  media 
sector621. These considerations are valid for both traditional TV broadcasting services and on-demand 
services.  With  the  last  revision,  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services  have  become  subject  to  a 
harmonised  set  of  rules  at  EU  level  and  to  a  single  jurisdiction  as  opposed  to  multiple,  possible 
diverging, rules and jurisdictions in the EU.  

The AVMSD has been partially effective in ensuring a satisfactory and coherent level of consumer 
protection. While in the first years following its latest revision in 2007, the minimum harmonisation 
achieved via the AVMSD has allowed the Member States to craft legislation taking into account their 
cultural and historical sensitivities and addressing the specific challenges they face, there are today a 
number of concerns as to the effectiveness of the rules on consumer protection. 

As a result of changes in viewing patterns, with audiovisual services being increasingly consumed on-
demand and online, consumers, in particularly the younger ones, are less protected. 

Firstly,  all  viewers  and  particularly  minors  are  less  protected  (specifically  from  content  harmful  to 
them)  when  watching  audiovisual  content  on  video-sharing  platforms  which  are  not  covered  by  the 
AVMSD. Secondly, the lighter rules applicable to on-demand services have resulted in a lower level 
of  cultural  diversity  in  relation  to  on-demand  services.  Thirdly,  the  fragmentation  resulting  from 
minimum harmonisation has impaired consumer protection in some domains such as accessibility of 
services to hearing and visually impaired viewers.  

The evaluation also found that self and co-regulatory arrangements may effectively complement the 
AVMSD in ensuring consumer protection. However, a proper monitoring mechanism and a regulatory 
backstop are needed. 

From a level playing field viewpoint, the Internet services that are not regulated in the AVMSD but 
are increasingly competing with those regulated in the AVMSD are at a competitive advantage. The 
competitiveness  of  broadcasters  is  undermined  by  the  fact  that  on-demand  services  are  subject  to 
lighter  touch  rules.  This  is  particularly  evident  in  the  fields  of  commercial  communication  and 
promotion of European works. 

The  evaluation  found  that  while  the  AVMSD  has  enhanced  cultural  diversity  by  supporting  the 
promotion,  visibility  and  distribution  of  European  works  in  the  EU,  there  is  scope  for  enhancing 
cultural diversity in on-demand services as compared to broadcasting services. 

The AVMSD rules, notably through its rules on broadcasting events of major importance for society 
and  short  news  reports,  has  contributed  to  media  freedom  and  pluralism.  However,  these  values 
may be in danger given the differences in independence and effectiveness of national regulators 
across the EU. The AVMSD does not require Member States to have in place independent regulators. 
Yet,  regulatory  independence  both  from  political  bodies  and  commercial  interests  is  essential  to 
guarantee media freedom and pluralism. In many countries where independence of national regulatory 
bodies is weak, challenges to media freedom and pluralism over the last years have been reported622. 
This may hamper the effective application of the AVMSD and have a negative impact on pluralism, 
media freedom and the level playing field. 

621 In the public consultation, this aspect has been highlighted by DE, LU, SE and the UK, as well as by the satellite industry, public service broadcasters, 
commercial broadcasters, platform operators and publishers. 
622 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  

133 

 
 
                                                 
The increase in the level of harmonisation brought by the AVMSD has contributed to the general and 
specific  objectives  of  the  Directive.  Indeed,  when  the  AVMSD  objectives  were  not  attained  in  full, 
this  was  in  many  cases  due  to  fragmentation  across  the  EU  caused  by  insufficient  harmonisation. 
Particularly in light of an increasingly transnational audiovisual media services market, and with the 
advent of the online world, the issues addressed by the AVMSD require action at EU level.  

The AVMSD has to some extent proven to be an efficient regulatory framework. In the context of the 
REFIT  programme,  the  evaluation  identified  potential  for  removing  unnecessary  regulatory  burden 
and  provide  simplification  specifically  of  the  procedures  that  support  the  application  of  the  COO 
principle  (i.e.  the  criteria  determining  jurisdiction  and  the  derogation  and  cooperation  procedures 
limiting  freedom  of  reception  and  retransmission  in  specific  cases)  and  the  rules  on  commercial 
communications applicable to broadcasting services.  

The  country  of  origin  principle  guarantees  legal  certainty  for  providers  and  avoids  additional  costs 
linked to compliance with several legislations.. The AVMSD also created to some extent a virtuous 
circle of business opportunities. For example, by protecting the consumer and taking steps to promote 
EU  works,  providers  have  gained  competitiveness  or  contributed  to  the  competiveness  of  other 
industries (e.g. the content industry). Self and co-regulation also proved to be convenient and flexible 
means to implement the AVMSD rules.  

The  evaluation  also  found  that  the  AVMSD  is  coherent  with  the  general  principles  of  EU  law  and 
with other EU legislation and policies. The lack of requirements on the independence of regulators is 
at odds with the rules in other domains, such as in Telecoms or energy. 

Lastly, based on the fact that the quantitative evidence which led to the conclusions on effectiveness 
and efficiency is limited, the evaluation also found is that an effective system for monitoring the 
application of the Directive is lacking and it should put in place in the future. 

7. 

ANNEXES 

1.  Procedural  information  concerning  the  process  to  prepare  the  evaluation  including  stakeholders 

consultations  

Implementation of the provisions on the promotion of EU works at national level.  
Implementation of the provisions on protection of minors at national level  
Implementation of the provisions on commercial communications at national level  

2.  Synopsis report on the results of the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD 
3.  Figures on market developments and viewing patterns 
4. 
5. 
6. 
7.  2nd Application report of the AVMSD  
8.  Report on Articles 16 and 17 AVMSD (Reports on the promotion of European Works)  
9.  European Commission's non-regulatory initiatives on a safer Internet for minors 
10.  Analysis of the results of the data gathering questionnaire to ERGA  
11.  Effectiveness of self and co-regulation in the context of the implementation of the AVMSD 

134 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  5  –  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  OF  THE  “STUDY  ON  THE  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  SELF-AND  CO-
REGULATION IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPLEMENTING THE AVMS DIRECTIVE” (SMART 2014/0054)  

Objective of the study 
This  study  on  the  “Effectiveness  of  self-  and  co-regulation  in  the  context  of  implementing  the 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive”  has  been  prepared  for  the  Directorate  General  for 
Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology  (DG  Connect),  of  the  European  Commission. 
The  study  has  been  carried  out  by  Panteia  and  VVA  Europe  Valdani,  Vicari  &  Associati,  in  close 
cooperation with experts from the European Network for Social and Economic Research (ENSR). 

The  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (AVMS  Directive)  aims  broadly  speaking,  to  ensure  the 
free  circulation  of  audiovisual  services  in  the  Internal  Market.  As  demonstrated  by  Article  4(7),  the 
AVMS Directive encourages the development of self- and co-regulatory schemes to implement some 
of its provisions. 
Article  4(7)  of  the  AVMS  Directive  provides  that  "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". 

The objectives of this study are to provide the Commission with:  

1.  A general description of the existing self- and co-regulatory structures in the EU Member States, 

in the selected areas, coordinated by the AVMS Directive. 

2.  An  analysis  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  self-  and  co-regulatory  systems  in  place  and  their 

acceptance by the stakeholders, based on the Principles for Better Self- and Co-regulation. 

3.  Identification  of  best  practice  examples  of  self-  and  co-regulation  systems  in  the  two  selected 

areas. 
The two selected areas are 1) the protection of minors from harmful audiovisual content, and 2) 
audiovisual  commercial  communications,  in  both  television  broadcasting  and  in  on-demand 
audiovisual media. 

The overall analytical approach adopted was to carry out the assessments by evaluating the schemes 
using  the  Principles  for  Better  Self  and  Co-Regulation623,  as  well  as  additional  enforcement  stage 
criteria regarding complaints resolution and enforcements mechanisms. Criteria for best practices were 
then used to identify  four  examples  of  good practices. The  main criteria on which the best  practices 
were selected are effectiveness and stakeholder acceptance. 

The  information  for  this  study  is  based  on  desk  research  and  in-depth  interviews  with  relevant 
stakeholders  at  the  Member  State  level.  In  addition,  a  large  number  of  European  stakeholders  from 
consumer and civil society groups, industry and media associations, media corporations, and interest 
groups related to regulating audiovisual media, were interviewed.  

623 European  Commission,  (2013)  Principles  for  Better  Self-  and  Co-Regulation,  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/principles-
better-self-and-co-regulation-and-establishment-community-practice. 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Overview of self- and co-regulatory schemes 
The  following  tables  provide  an  overview  of  the  self-  and  co-regulatory  schemes  identified  which 
focus  on  regulating  audiovisual  commercial  communications  and  those  which  focus  on  protecting 
minors from harmful audiovisual content.  

In table 1 the self- and co-regulatory schemes which have a primary focus on the protection of children 
from harmful audiovisual content in both television broadcasting and in on-demand audiovisual media 
services are presented.  
Table  2  presents  the  self-  or  co-regulation  schemes  with  a  primary  focus  on  commercial 
communication  in  both  television  broadcasting  and  in  on-demand  audiovisual  media  services.  This 
overview  also  includes  codes  with  focus  on  advertising  towards  children,  as  well  as  alcohol 
advertising.  Some  of  the  schemes  with  a  primary  focus  on  commercial  communications  contain  a 
general code and several more specific sub-codes which focus on, for instance, specific products such 
as  alcoholic  beverages,  tobacco  products  and  certain  food  products.  These  sub-codes  have  not  been 
collected and assessed separately, but as part of the main scheme.  
In the Member States that are not included in this table, no relevant self- and co-regulation schemes 
were identified. 

table 1 Self- or Co-regulation schemes with primary focus on protection of minors from harmful 
audiovisual content in both television broadcasting and in on-demand audiovisual media services 

Country 

Germany 

Italy 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Spain 

Name Scheme  

Voluntary Self-Monitoring Television  
(Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Fernsehen (FSF)) 

Code TV and Minors  
(Codice TV e Minori) 

Viewing Guide  
(Kijkwijzer) 

Code of Good Practice on the Protection of Minors in On-demand Audiovisual Media Services 
(Kodeks dobrych praktyk w sprawie szczególowych zasad ochrony maloletnich w audiowizualnych uslugach medialnych na zadanie) 

Classification of TV programmes  
(Classificação de Programas de Televisão (RTP, SIC, TVI)) 

Agreement on the representation of violence in television  
(Acordo sobre a Representação da Violência na Televisão) 

Deontological Code  
(Cod Deontologic) 

Code of self-regulation for audiovisual contents and minors  
(Codigo de Autorregulacion de contenidos televisivos e infancia) 

Note: Due to different definitions of self- and co regulation schemes and different study focus, the schemes identified in this study may vary from other studies.  

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
table 2 Self- or Co-regulation schemes with primary focus on commercial communication in both 
television broadcasting and in on-demand audiovisual media services 

Country 

Austria 

Name scheme 

Advertising Industry Ethics Code  

(Ethik-Kodex der Werbewirtschaft) 

Annex to the Advertising Industry Ethics Code: Code of conduct of the Austrian broadcaster regarding inappropriate audiovisual commercial communication 

in connection with children’s programmes and food 

(Anhang zum Ethik-Kodex der Werbewirtschaft: Verhaltenskodex der österreichischen Rundfunkveranstalter hinsichtlich unangebrachter audiovisueller 

kommerzieller Kommunikation in Zusammenhang mit Kindersendungen und Lebensmittel) 

Annex to the Advertising Industry Ethics Code: Communication Code of the Austrian Brewing Industry 

(Anhang zum Ethik-Kodex der Werbewirtschaft: Kommunikationskodex der österreichischen Brauwirtschaft) 

Self-commitment declaration: Resignation of private broadcasters to broadcast commercials interrupting children’s programmes  

(Selbstverpflichtungserklärung: Verzicht von Privatsendern auf Unterbrecherwerbung in Kinderprogrammen) 

Belgium  

Advertising Code of the Advertising Council 

(Reclamecode van de Raad voor de Reclame; Code de la publicité du Conseil pour la Publicité) 

The Belgium Pledge 

Bulgaria 

National Ethics Standards For Advertising And Commercial Communication In Bulgaria  

(НАЦИОНАЛНИ ЕТИЧНИ ПРАВИЛА ЗА РЕКЛАМА И ТЪРГОВСКА КОМУНИКАЦИЯ В Р БЪЛГАРИЯ) 

Croatia 

HURA's Advertising Code  

(HURA Kodeks oglašavanja i tržišnog komuniciranja) 

Cyprus 

Cyprus Code of Communication Ethics  

(Κυπριακός Κώδικας Δεοντολογίας Επικοινωνίας) 

Czech Republic 

The Code of Advertising Practice  

(Kodex reklamy) 

Denmark 

Code of Practice for Marketing of Alcoholic Beverages  

(Norm for markedsføring af alkoholholdige drikkevarer) 

The Code of Responsible Food Marketing Communication 

(Kodeks for fødevarereklamer) 

Estonia 

Responsible commercial communication policy in children’s programmes  

(Vastutustundlik reklaamipoliitika lastesaadetes) 

Finland 

Ethical Code of the Council of Ethics in Advertising  

(Mainonnan eettinen neuvosto) 

France 

Rules of the ARPP  

(Règles de l’ARPP) 

Germany 

Code of conduct of the German Advertising Standards Council  

(Verhaltensregeln des Deutsches Werberat) 

Greece 

Hellenic Advertising Communication Code  

(ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΥ ΚΩΔΙΚΑ ΔΙΑΦΗΜΙΣΗΣ – ΕΠΙΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑΣ (ΕΚΔ-Ε)) 

Self-Regulation for Commercial Communication of the Hellenic Association of Brewers  

(ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗΣ ΕΝΩΣΗΣ ΖΥΘΟΠΟΙΩΝ) 

Statement of Principles and Self-Regulation Plan  

(Δήλωση αυτοδέσμευσης Μελών) 

Hungary 

The Hungarian Code of Advertising Ethics  

(Magyar Reklámetikai Kódex) 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Ireland 

Name scheme 

ODAS Code of Conduct 

Code of Standards for Advertising and Marketing Communications in Ireland 

Italy 

Code of Marketing Communication Self-Regulation Italy 

(Codice di atodisciplina della communcazione commerciale) 

Lithuania 

Lithuanian Ethics Code of Advertising 

(Lietuvos reklamos etikos kodeksas) 

Luxembourg 

Deontological Code of Advertising in Luxembourg  

(Code de déontologie de la publicité au Luxembourg) 

Netherlands 

Dutch Advertising Code  

(Reclamecode) 

Poland 

Television Broadcasters’ Agreement on the rules of distributing Advertisements and Sponsor Recommendations regarding foodstuffs or beverages containing 

ingredients whose presence in excess amounts in the daily diet is not recommended  

(Porozumienie nadawców w sprawie zasad rozpowszechniania Reklam i Wskazan sponsorskich dotyczacych artykulów spozywczych lub napojów 

zawierajacych skladniki, których obecnosc w nadmiernych ilosciach w codziennej diecie jest niewskazana) 

Code of Ethics in Advertising 

(Kodeks Etyki Reklamy) 

Portugal 

ICAP conduct code  

(Código de conduta do ICAP) 

Romania 

The Code of Advertising Practice  

(Codul de practica in publicitate) 

Slovak Republic 

The Ethics Code of Advertising Practice  

(Etický kodex reklamnej praxe) 

Slovenia 

Slovenian Code of Advertising Practice (SCAP)  

(Slovenski oglaševalski kodeks) 

Spain 

AUTOCONTROL Advertising Code of Conduct 

(Código De Conducta Publicitaria de AUTOCONTROL) 

Sweden 

The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman  

(Reklamombudsmannen (RO)) 

United Kingdom 

Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice Code (BCAP Code) 

The Committee of Advertising Practice Code (CAP code) 

Note: Some of the schemes with the primary focus on commercial communication contain a general code and several sub-codes which focus on specific products such as 
alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and certain food products. These sub-codes have not been collected and assessed separately, but as part of the main scheme. 

One of the first general observations made was that in general there is much more statutory regulation 
in place and consequently less self- or co-regulation for the protection of minors from harmful content 
audiovisual  media.  Protecting  children  across  sectors  is  an  important  policy  objective,  and  in  the 
audiovisual media sector this observation is supported by the higher levels of governmental regulation. 
The  vast  majority  of  countries  have  self  –or  co-regulatory  schemes  in  place  for  audiovisual 
commercial  communications.  The  advertising  codes  of  conduct  differ  in  the  level  of  detail  in  their 
rules and in their emphasis. 

Assessing the self- and co-regulatory schemes 
Based  on  the  assessments  carried  out  for  the  self-  and  co-regulatory  schemes  in  place  in  the  EU 
Member  States,  a  criterion  based  analysis  was  carried  out.  The  key  results  from  this  analysis  are 
summarised  below.  The  analysis  follows  the  Principles  of  Better  Self-  and  Co-Regulation  which 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
examines criteria regarding the conception and the implementation of schemes respectively, as well as 
the  three  additional  enforcement  stage  criteria.  These  criteria  are  complaints  resolution  mechanisms, 
the  outcomes  of  these  complaints  resolution  mechanisms,  and  the  sanctions  used  to  enforce 
compliance with schemes. 

Conception 

Participants 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Except in cases where the competitive nature of an initiative makes this inappropriate, participants 
should represent as many as possible of potential useful actors in the field concerned, notably those 
having capacity to contribute to success. 

Good  approaches  for  this  criterion  centre  on  a  balanced  representation  of  stakeholders.  Ideally 
therefore  consumer  and  civil  society  groups  should  be  included  in  the  conception  of  a  self-  or  co-
regulatory scheme along with the relevant industry and regulatory stakeholders. 
The  data  collected  for  this  study  demonstrates  that  in  most  cases,  the  relevant  private  and  business 
sectors  were  well  represented.  Media  and  broadcasting  companies  and  advertising  companies  alike 
were almost always involved, with regulators also being present in many cases. However, the findings 
show  that  consumer  and  civil  society  groups  were  often  not  represented  in  the  development  of  the 
majority of the schemes. 

Openness 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Envisaged actions should be prepared openly.  
  The preparatory phase should include the involvement of any interested parties: public authorities, 
enterprises, legislators, regulators and civil society. Public authorities should be ready to convene, 
moderate or observe, as most helps the process and is deemed appropriate.  

  The  initial  blueprint,  or  "concept  agreement",  for  any  action  should  be  multi-stakeholder  and 
developed  in  a  concerted  and  collaborative  way  involving  open  exchange  between  interested 
parties. (some text omitted from overview). 

The definition for “openness” recommends an open and transparent approach to developing a self- or 
co-regulatory scheme. All participants should be involved and in a collaborative way. 
There were rarely cases where participating stakeholders felt excluded or that information was being 
withheld (for whatever reason) during the development stage. While the end product, the final self- or 
co-regulatory  scheme,  was  usually  available  online,  or  at  least  to  signatories  of  the  scheme, 
documentation of the development process was rarely available. Although there were some exceptions 
to this, the predominant approach in developing self- and co-regulatory schemes was that the group of 
stakeholders involved was relatively closed. 

Good Faith 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Participants  of  different  sizes  and  types  have  different  contributing  capacities.  The  different 
capabilities of participants, including the situation of SMEs, and smaller non-profit organisations, 
should be taken into account when designing the envisaged action.  

  Participants  should  bring  to  the  preparatory  process  all  information  available  to  them  that  can 
contribute to a full analysis of the situation. Similarly, in launching an action, participants should 
ensure that their activities outside the action's scope are coherent with the aim of the action.  

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Both  in  developing  and  in  executing  self-  and  co-regulatory  actions,  participants  are  expected  to 
commit real effort to success. They retain the possibility to withdraw, should the action fail to reach 
the agreed objectives. 

Good  faith  as  a  criterion  is  based  on  the  idea  that  participants  make  real  efforts  to  commit  to  the 
scheme, according to their varying capabilities in a manner coherent with the goals of the scheme. 
In practice, discovering whether real effort or commitment was made by the participants involved was 
somewhat difficult as the exact capacities of each stakeholder involved was not known. In some cases 
this was because schemes have been in existence for some time already (decades in many cases), and 
the details of the development of a scheme were not recalled. However, in general, based on the data 
collected there was no indication that the stakeholders involved felt disrespected or not taken seriously.  

Objectives 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  The objectives of the action should be set out clearly and unambiguously. They should start from 
well-defined  baselines,  both  for  the  issue  on  which  change  is  being  pursued  and  for  the 
commitments that participants have made. They should include targets and indicators allowing an 
evaluation of the impact of the action undertaken. 

In most cases a general policy goal or objective was provided as the guiding principle for a scheme. 
The  objectives  criterion  however  indicates  that  SMART  formulated  objectives  should  be  developed, 
including targets and indicators to monitor and evaluate the performance. In few cases were objectives 
developed with specifically developed targets and indicators. 

Legal compliance 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Initiatives  should  be  designed  in  compliance  with  applicable  law  and  fundamental  rights  as 
enshrined  in  EU  and  national  law.  Participants  are  encouraged  to  have  recourse  to  existing 
guidance  provided  by  public  authorities.  In  case  of  doubts,  an  assessment  clarifying,  inter  alia, 
impact and complementarity with the acquis and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be 
conducted. 

Legal compliance according to the definition above is upheld in the vast majority of the schemes. In 
most  cases,  the  national  regulatory  approach  is  in  compliance  with  European  and  national  legal 
frameworks, and a large number of schemes are based on or connected with a specific law.  
Implementation 

Iterative improvements 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Successful actions will usually aim for a prompt start, with accountability and an iterative process 
of  "learning  by  doing".  A  sustained  interaction  between  all  participants  is  required.  Unless  the 
action  covers  a  short  time-span,  annual  progress  checks  should  be  made,  against  the  chosen 
objectives and indicators, as well as any available broader background data. 

A  number  of  schemes  do  not  have  any  systems  for  iterative  improvements  in  place.  This  lack  of  a 
systematic process for implementing improvements is in part related to the system of monitoring and 
evaluation in place for a scheme. Monitoring and evaluation provide feedback on the performance of a 
scheme. 
Despite iterative processes not being universally implemented, this is not to say that they are lacking 
entirely. A common trend amongst those schemes with a system for making improvements is the use 
of  consumer  complaints  as  an  indicator  for  compliance,  as  well  as  for  identifying  key  areas  of  non-
compliance. Other approaches include regular meetings with stakeholders to discuss the performance 
of a scheme and areas that are not regulated properly in the scheme. Although in many cases there are 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
processes  for  identifying  improvements  or  new  areas  of  focus,  these  were  not  always  carried  out 
systematically or made explicit. 

Monitoring 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Monitoring  must  be  conducted  in  a  way  that  is  sufficiently  open  and  autonomous  to  command 
respect  from  all  interested  parties.  Each  participant  shall  monitor  its  performance  against  the 
agreed targets and indicators. Monitoring results are shared by each actor for discussion with the 
participants  as  a  whole,  and  are  made  public.  A  monitoring  framework  or  template  will  be 
commonly agreed. The results of the monitoring will be aggregated where possible. This should be 
done in a way that is transparent and objective. 

The requirements sketched above for an appropriate monitoring system, according to the Principles for 
Better Self- and Co-Regulation, were in most cases not implemented fully in the schemes identified. 
There  is  often  no  system  in  place  which  specifically  monitors  the  scheme  objectives,  and  indicators 
and targets are often missing. However, in most cases  the schemes do have a form of  monitoring in 
place, usually based on a complaints system. Complaints are often taken as the main indicator for the 
achievement of a scheme’s objective(s).  

Evaluation 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Evaluation  will  allow  participants  to  assess  whether  the  action  may  be  concluded,  improved  or 
replaced.  The  participants  regularly  and  collectively  assess  performance  not  only  against  output 
commitments,  but  also  as  to  impact.  This  should  identify  any  short-fall  in  expected  collective 
impact, any scope to improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the action, and any other desirable 
improvements. 

Few  evaluation  systems  were  in  place  which  undertook  regular  assessments  of  the  scheme,  its 
performance,  possible  areas  for  improvement,  as  well  as  its  broader  impact.  The  fact  that  such 
formalised evaluation mechanisms are not common appears to be related in part to the lack of explicit 
and operationalised objectives with appropriate indicators and targets. The lack of a formal evaluation 
of a scheme also has other causes; in some cases there simply was not enough budget available for an 
evaluation. In other cases the schemes were designed and implemented some time ago, before the need 
for systematic evaluations was a prevalent part of policy making, or because the culture of evaluation 
is less established in a country.  

Resolving disagreements 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Disagreements  inevitably  arise  involving  either  participants  or  others.  As  part  of  the  iterative 
process  of  improvement,  such  disputes  should  receive  timely  attention,  with  a  view  to  resolving 
them. These procedures may be confidential.  

  In addition, complaints by non-participants should be submitted to a panel of independent assessors 
which  consist  of  majority  of  non-participants.  The  outcome  of  their  work  is  made  public.  Non-
compliance  should  be  subject  to  a  graduated  scale  of  sanctions,  with  exclusion  included  and 
without  prejudice  to  any  consequences  of  non-compliance  under  the  terms  of  the  Unfair 
Commercial Practices Directive. 

In  most  of  the  schemes,  there  is  a  system  for  resolving  disagreements,  specifically  a  complaints 
resolution system. Systems for resolving complaints from participants in the scheme were not always 
present  or  formalised.  In  those  cases  with  more  formalised  systems  for  resolving  disagreements  the 
basic  process  for  handling  complaints  is  the  same  for  external  (consumer)  and  internal  (participant) 
complaints. In the schemes where a complaints systems for non-participants is in place, there is also 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
usually an adjudicating body in place for assessing and ruling on complaints. The composition of these 
adjudicating bodies is quite varied. Industry representatives tend to be present in the large majority of 
these bodies, with varying representation of regulators, legislators, independent experts, or consumer 
or civil society actors. 

Financing 
Principles for Better Self- and Co- Regulation definition: 
  Participants  to  the  action  will  provide  the  means  necessary  to  fulfil  the  commitments.  Public 
funders  or  others  may  in  addition  support  the  participation  of  civil  society  organisations  lacking 
fully  adequate  means  themselves  to  play  their  appropriate  role.  Such  financial  support  should be 
made publicly known. 

In many cases membership fees are the main source of financing. Some schemes receive government 
support. Offering services to participants of schemes  for payment is also a source of financing for a 
number of self- and co-regulatory schemes. The provision of a copy advice for an advertisement for 
instance,  can  be  an  extra  source  of  finance,  as  can  the  classification  of  a  programme  according  to  a 
classification system. Sanctions can also form a source of finance. A practice which is considered to be 
quite effective when financing schemes on commercial  communications  is the use of   industry wide 
fees for participating advertisers and media companies. A proportionality element in determining the 
level of fees to be paid ensures fair contributions from the participants of the scheme.  

Additional enforcement stage assessment criteria 
Besides the Principles for Better Self- and Co-Regulation, additional enforcement stage criteria were 
used when assessing the self- and co-regulatory schemes. These criteria concern complaints resolution 
mechanisms, outcomes of complaints resolution, and sanctions. 

Complaints resolution mechanisms 
Consumer  complaints  resolution  mechanisms  are  examined  based  on  several  aspects.  These  include 
the number of complaints received and their resolution and, ideally, the promptness of the compliance 
decisions made. 
The information collected on the self- and co-regulatory schemes show that complaints are not always 
recorded  with  the  same  level  of  detail.  In  some  cases,  complaints  resolution  mechanisms  are  simply 
not a priority to implement more fully. This could be because compliance with the rules in place are 
generally high and no real need is felt to implement a complaints resolution system, or because only a 
few  complaints  are  received.  The  number  of  complaints  received  is  something  of  an  ambiguous 
indicator;  the  reasons  for  the  low  number  of  complaints  could  be  a  favourable  indication  of  high 
compliance but also an indication of low knowledge of the scheme amongst the public. 
In most cases, complaints received are recorded and the number of complaints resolved is recorded as 
well. In many cases the information regarding complaints did not go into further detail beyond what 
was received and resolved; information on the sector or product group concerned, the nature or basis 
of the complaint, and the nature of the outcome or decision is not always recorded. 

Outcomes of complaints mechanisms 
This  criterion  examines  the  outcomes  of  the  complaints  resolution  mechanisms.  The  understanding 
adopted  here  centres  on  the  satisfaction  with  the  complaints  procedure,  and  whether  the  procedure 
contributes to better overall compliance with the rules of the self- or co-regulatory scheme in place. 

The satisfaction with the complaints procedure is not often measured specifically. In those cases, the 
rate of resolution (number of complaints received versus number of complaints solved) is sometimes 
used as an indicator for the performance of the complaints resolution mechanism. In a similar vein, in 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
some  schemes  the  number  of  appeals  made  against  an  adjudicating  body’s  decision  is  used  as  an 
indicator of the outcome of the complaints system. The number of appeals is thought to provide insight 
into the level of satisfaction with the system. 

An important point regarding complaints and satisfaction is that complaints made are first judged for 
their suitability. If the complaint does not have a good foundation, is missing information, or concerns 
something which does not breach the scheme in place, then no action is taken against and advertiser or 
broadcaster.  From  the  perception  of  a  complainant  this  can  feel  unsatisfactory.  When  examining 
statistics on complaints and satisfaction with their resolution, the number of complaints received, those 
which are accepted, and those which are ultimately resolved should all be considered. 
Though dismissing a complaint due to lack of foundation could lead to an unsatisfied feeling for the 
complainant,  sharing  the  response  of  the  adjudicating  body  concerning  the  complaint  can  be  very 
useful.  By  providing  both  parties  involved  in  a  complaint  procedure  with  the  reasoning  for  the 
decision, both parties can understand the reasoning behind the decision and this can improve consumer 
satisfaction. In the case of consumers this means that in many cases, consumers feel heard and not as 
though their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. 

Sanctions 
For this criterion, the presence and nature of sanctions and their enforcement are examined. Graduated 
sanctions  which  maintain  an  element  of  proportionality  with  the  breach  in  compliance  are  usually 
considered to be an effective approach in enforcing a scheme. However, the nature of sanctions which 
are  deemed  appropriate  by  the  industry  and  civil  communities  are  quite  culturally  determined.  The 
element of proportionality concerning breaches in compliance and the sanctions for these breaches is 
important here. 
The types of sanctions which can be applied include the request for an adjustment of the audiovisual 
content or advertisement, naming, shaming and faming, exclusion from membership from a scheme or 
association,  sanctions  or  fines,  the  withdrawal  of  the  audiovisual  content  or  suspension  of  the 
advertisement,  or  notifying  public  authorities  to  implement  further  judicial  sanctions.  In  most  cases, 
especially  in  schemes  with  less  collaboration  between  private  and  public  organisations,  naming, 
shaming  and  faming  are  common  enforcement  instruments.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  importance  of 
reputation  and  a  good  public  image;  undermining  this  can  be  very  damaging  to  a  company  or 
broadcaster. 

Best practices selected 
Based on the criteria of stakeholder acceptance and effectiveness respectively, four best practices are 
selected  for  this  study.  The  practices  selected  scored  well  during  the  assessment  on  the  criteria  for 
stakeholder acceptance and effectiveness; however within this selection, two scored especially well on 
the  former  and  two  scored  especially  well  on  the  latter  criterion.  A  representative  collection  of  best 
practices was sought which structured the protection of minors from harmful audiovisual content and 
those  which  regulated  audiovisual  commercial  communications.  The  best  practices  are  presented  in 
table 3 below.  

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
table 3 Best practices selected 

Strong in overall 

Strong in Stakeholder 

Effectiveness 

Acceptance 

Scheme regulating audiovisual 

The Committee of Advertising 

National Ethics Standards for 

commercial communications 

Practice Code (CAP code), United 

Advertising and Commercial 

Kingdom 

Communication, Bulgaria 

Scheme on protecting minors 

Code of self-regulation for 

Kijkwijzer, Netherlands 

from harmful audiovisual content 

audiovisual contents and minors, 

Spain 

The Committee of Advertising Practice Code (CAP code), United Kingdom 
The  Office  of  Communications  (Ofcom)  together  with  the  private  self-regulator  for  advertising 
communication,  the  Advertising  Standards  Authority  (ASA),  are  the  main  initiators  of  the 
establishment of the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) Code. The objectives of the scheme are 
ultimately  to  make  every  advertisement  shown  in the  UK  responsible in  order to protect  consumers, 
notably children, and to improve the quality and trust in the advertising industry. The CAP is part of 
the ASA, which regularly revises its targets, and has quantitative and qualitative indicators in place to 
monitor the scheme’s performance.  
Every quarter, the ASA reports on its performance indicators to Ofcom. In addition, the ASA and the 
CAP  publish  an  annual  statement  regarding  the  progress  made  towards  achieving  its  objectives  and 
targets. Complaints are generally handled by the ASA, which has produced a set of specific procedures 
governing the process. The ASA Council serves as an independent jury that is solely responsible for 
deciding  if  the  Advertising  Codes  have  been  breached.  There  are  several  sanctions  which  can  be 
employed by the ASA in different types of breaches with the CAP Code. 

Code of self-regulation for audiovisual contents and minors, Spain 
The  scheme  is  initiated  by  the  Ministry  of  Industry,  Tourism  and  Trade  with  four  major  television 
networks. The aim of scheme is to promote further control over television contents and particularly to 
avoid harmful content reaching children. The development of the scheme involved public authorities, 
industries,  consumers  and  civil  society  groups.  The  scheme  participants  are  the  companies  which 
produce  television  contents,  and  professionals  of  the  information  technology  sector.  The  Code 
constitutes a classification system based on different age groups and programme contents. The Code 
includes  a  process  for  monitoring  the  application,  where  representative  organisations  of  youth  and 
children,  of  parents  and  educators,  and  of  consumers  and  users  are  involved  through  the  monitoring 
bodies.  Although  regular  evaluations  are  carried  out  of  the  number  of  complaints  received,  the 
evaluations do not appear to cover progress of the scheme achieving its policy goals or its objectives. 
There are two monitoring organisations. The first is the Self-Regulation Committee (SRC) consisting 
of  representatives  from  television  networks.  This  body  receives  complaints  from  consumers  and 
members alike and makes a ruling on the complaint. The second is the Joint Monitoring Commission 
(JMC) which then checks the complaint and ruling made by the SRC and in case of a breach, contact 
the SRC. 

National Ethics Standards for Advertising and Commercial Communication, Bulgaria  
The Code for National Ethics Standards for Advertising and Commercial Communication (henceforth, 
the Code), was initiated by the National Council for Self-regulation (NCSR). The Code is intended to 
promote responsibility and good practices in advertising and marketing communications in Bulgaria. 
The Code was developed in 2009 based on the ICC’s Consolidated Code of Advertising and Marketing 
Practices.  It  took  the  specifics  of  the  advertising  industry  in  Bulgaria  into  account,  as  well  as 
recommendations from the advertisers, advertising agencies and media service providers. The content 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of  the  Code  was  consulted  on  with  all  relevant  state  authorities,  including  the  state  Council  of 
Electronic Media (CEM) and the State agency for child protection (SACP).  
The  Committee  for  Post-Monitoring  (CPM)  is  responsible  for  the  monitoring.  It  has  two  main 
functions,  monitoring  the  execution  of  the  decisions  issued  by  the  Ethical  Committee  (EtC)  or  the 
Appeal Committee (AC), and monitoring advertising and commercial communications. According to 
the NCSR statutes, the decisions of the EtC or the AC are binding for the NCSR members. 

Kijkwijzer, Netherlands 
The Kijkwijzer is a code developed by the advertising industry in the Netherlands. The Kijkwijzer is a 
classification system for programmes on television. The Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual 
Media  (NICAM)  is  the  code  owner  of  the  Kijkwijzer.  The  objective  is  to  promote  the  provision  of 
information regarding the potential harmfulness of audiovisual products towards young people. It aims 
to do so by regulating the audiovisual sector itself by means of a classification system for programmes. 
NICAM itself also performs regular quality assessments of compliance with the rules. In addition, it 
regularly  tests  consumer  perception  and  the  use  of  the  Kijkwijzer.  The  Media  Authority 
(Commissariaat  voor  de  Media)  uses  the  results  for  the  yearly  evaluation  of  NICAM.  The  results  of 
these  evaluations  are  included  in  a  letter  to  the  government.  These  letters  are  also  published  on  the 
website  of  the  Media  Authority.  NICAM  and  the  Kijkwijzer  are  evaluated  every  year  by  the  Media 
Authority.  

145 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  6  -  MAIN  DEVELOPMENTS  AFFECTING  THE  EU  MARKET  FOR  AUDIOVISUAL  MEDIA 
SERVICES 

  The overall size of the European audiovisual sector in 2014 was around EUR 105.790 million624. 
This  implies  an  increase  of  0.9%  as  compared  to  2010.  This  increase  primarily  comes  from  on-
demand audiovisual media services, whereas physical video registered a significant decrease.  

  The  market  is  evolving.  Connected  Smart  TVs  in  21  EU  markets625 have  moved  from  about  5 
million installed devices at the end of 2011 to more than 39 million in 2014 and are foreseen to 
reach  the  level  of  almost  118  million  in  2018626.  In  the  same  markets,  the  overall  number  of 
connected devices increased from 590 million in 2011 to 935 million in 2014 and is expected to 
reach almost 1,3 billion in 2018627.  

Audiovisual content is increasingly offered by new  players. The number of Internet-based, OTT 
and  VoD  television  providers  targeting  EU  viewers  has  increased.  In  2014,  almost  2  563  VoD 
services  were  established  in  Europe,  including  catch-up  TV  services  of  broadcasters  (932 
services), branded channels on open platforms (408 services), VoD services providing access to a 
catalogue  of  programs  (1 126  services)  and  news  portals  (97  services).  The  UK  is  the  Member 
State  hosting  the  largest  number  of  VoD  services  (about  515),  followed  by  France  (412)  and 
Germany (274)628. 

Providers  of  video  streaming  services,  including  from  third  countries,  have  entered  the  market. 
Sometimes,  they  fall  outside  the  EU  jurisdiction  because they are established abroad or because 
they offer new services that fall outside the definition of audiovisual media services laid down in 
the AVMSD. Internet platforms and social media (Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter) are increasingly 
offering,  along  other  types  of  content,  audiovisual  material  either  uploaded  by  the  users  (User-
Generated-Content, UGC), by themselves or by advertisers. This type of audiovisual content falls 
outside the scope of the AVMSD because it is not editorial (for UGC) or because, despite being 
editorial, it is offered by a platform whose principal purpose is not to offer audiovisual services. 
47%  of  Europeans  now  use  them  at  least  once  a  week,  i.e.  +3  percentage  points  versus  autumn 
2013 and +12 versus autumn 2011. Almost a third of Europeans use social networks every day or 
almost  every  day  (32%,  +2  versus  autumn  2013  and  +12  versus  autumn  2011).  2014 
eurobarometer three-quarters of Europeans in the 15-24 age group use social networks every day 
or almost every day (75%), compared with 50% of 25-39 year-olds, 27% of 40-54 yearolds and 
8% of those aged 55 or over; The daily or near-daily use of online social networks is particularly 
widespread in Denmark (55%), Sweden (53%) and the Netherlands (48%). It is less prevalent in 
Poland (24%), Germany (24%) and the Czech Republic (24%). 

  While TV viewing is still strong, viewers - particularly minors - increasingly consume content 

online.  

The average TV viewing time for the whole EU population in 2013 was 223 minutes per day 629. 
However,  viewing  habits  differ  widely  among  Member  States.  In  some  countries,  like  Austria, 
Finland and Sweden these numbers are lower: 2:42, 2:56 and 2:33 minutes per day respectively. In 

624 EAO Yearbook 2015 
625 AU, BE, HR, CZ, DK, Fin, FR, DE, GR, HU, Irl, IT, LX, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, ES, SW, and UK 
626 Data covering 21 MS. Source: IHS technology database. 
627 Data covering 21 MS. Source: IHS technology database 
628 Study  on  data  and  information  on  the  costs  and  benefits  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Service  Directive  (AVMSD)  –  Origin  and  availability  of  On  -
Demand services in the European Union 
The development of the European market for on-demand audiovisual services. The figures include linear TV as well as short term catch-up (up to 7 days 
in some countries.) 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
countries  like  Romania,  Portugal  and  Hungary  the  viewing  time  reaches  5:42,  4:56  and  4:49 
minutes per day respectively.  

Since 2012, television viewing has reached a plateau in average in the European Union. As time-
shifted television viewing has been increasingly included in television audience measurement, this 
stability implies that live television viewing has declined630.  

Europeans predominantly watch television on a TV set (94% at least once a week, -1 percentage 
point). Although Europeans are far less likely to watch television over the Internet, this practice 
continues to  gain ground: 20% of Europeans watch television  online at least once a week (+2% 
versus autumn 2013  and +3% versus  the EB78 report  of autumn 2012). Europeans in the 15-24 
age group are the most likely to watch television via the Internet: 40% do so at least once a week. 
We  note  that  the  proportion  of  respondent  who  watch  television  via  the  Internet  decreases 
gradually with age: 26% of 25-39 year-olds, 18% of 40-54 year-olds and 8% of those in the 55-
plus age group watch television via the Internet at least once a week. Watching television via the 
Internet is particularly widespread in Sweden (48% do so at least once a week) and Finland (39%), 
but less so in Bulgaria (11%), Greece (12%) and Portugal (12%)631. 

Television  is  the  most  frequently  used  source  of  European  political  news  by  all  age  groups,  but 
respondents in the 55+ age group are the most frequent users of this medium (83%); 

Audiovisual content consumption is increasingly moving online: According to IHS research firm, 
total on demand consumer revenues in the 28 European countries soared from EUR 919 million in 
2010  to  EUR  2.5  billion  in  2014,  an  of  272%  increase  and  a  Compound  Annual  Growth  Rate 
(CAGR) in the 5 year period of 28%632. 

A  recent  Eurobarometer633 report  shows  that  as  of  August  2015  59%  of  EU  internet  users  had 
accessed or downloaded audiovisual content at least once in the past 12 months, in particular the 
young (80%). 30% of them had paid for that content. 

Younger viewers634 watch about half less than television than the aver-age viewer:. Their average 
TV  viewing  in  2014  was  2:03  minutes  per  day.  Also  in  this  case,  viewing  patterns  differ  from 
country to country: in Slovenia, Finland and Sweden, for the age group 15-24, the viewing time is 
at 1:24, 1:17, 1:12 minutes per day, respectively. In Romania, Portugal and Hungary it remains at 
rather  high  levels:  3:34,  3:45  and  2:44  minutes  per  day,  respectively.  A  key  factor  behind  the 
decline  of  TV  viewing  on  TV  sets  is  the  rapidly  growing  population  of  portable  screens  like 
smartphones and tablets.  

Video  viewing  is  now  one  of  the  earliest  Internet  activities  carried  out  by  young  children.  For 
example, YouTube is the second favourite site for children under 5 in the UK (Childwise, 2012).  

According to the preliminary draft study report [not yet published] on "The exposure of minors to 
alcohol  advertising  on  linear  and  non-linear  audio-visual  media  services  and  other  online 
services",  amongst  minors  aged  4-17,  watching  video  clips  is  the  second-most  prevalent  online 
activity (reported by 61% of the surveyed) after listening music and watching films and cartoons. 

99% of minors surveyed responded that YouTube is the online service they use the most to watch 
video clips while Netflix is the second most commonly used service among these age groups for 
that purpose (40.2% and 30.7% of minors in 14-17 and 9-13 age groups respectively indicated that 
they visit this online service). 

630 EAO On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 
631http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/yearFrom/1973/yearTo/2014/surveyKy/2041 
632 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in video-on-demand revenues 
633 Eurobarometer 411, "Cross border access to online content", August 2015 
634 EAO On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 

147 

 
 
                                                 
  Audiovisual  content  is  increasingly  offered  in  innovative  (namely  shorter)  formats.  Mobile 
video  traffic  grew  to  55%  by  the  end  of  2014635.  It  is  estimated  that  nearly  3/4  of  the  world’s 
mobile  data  traffic  will  be  video  by  2019 636.  Presently,  400  hours  of  video  are  uploaded  to 
YouTube every minute (see 2.1.2).  

Also, according to the EAO Study on measurement of fragmented European audiences, while the 
number  of  videos  viewed  tend  to  increase,  the  time  spent  on  one  given  video  tend  to  slightly 
decrease in certain countries (for example, the number of minutes spent on a video has decreased 
in all countries from a sample analysed by ComScore, from -5% in the Netherlands, to -36% in 
Italy.)  

Online advertising is increasingly prominent and is set to overtake TV advertising. While TV 
remains the preferred media for advertising (32% of the market), the Internet is likely to become 
the main advertising platform within the next two years, given its rapid development (+8,4% vs. 
2012) and the market share already captured in 2013 (27,4%)637. 

In  2014,  Internet  advertising  spend  was  higher  than  TV  advertising  spend  in  a  number  of  EU 
countries: CZ, DE, DK, NL, SE, UK.   

According  to  the  EAO  Study  on  online  advertising  in  the  EU638,  the  total  size  of  the  online 
advertising  market  in  the  EU  in  2013  was  €27.2  billion,  an  increase  of  11.6%  compared  to  the 
total  of  €23.2  billion  in  2013.  On  the  other  hand,  television  advertising  in  the  EU  lost  in  2013 
more than EUR 300 million out of EUR 27.748 million overall investments (-1,1% vs. 2012)639.  

According  to  the  EAO,  online  drives  the  advertising  market:  the  global  European  advertising 
market  modestly  grew  of  1.4%  in  2014.  Without  online  ad  spend,  the  market  would  have 
decreased by -2.4%. 

In  Europe,  online  display  advertising  is  the  most  dynamic  form  of  advertising  (+14,9% 
investments 2013/2012) and captured 33,8% (about EUR 9,2 billion) of all online advertising in 
2013. Video ads account for 16% of online advertising.  

There  are  asymmetries  in  content  offerings  and  financing.  The  emergence  of  new  players, 
primarily  offering  services  on-demand,  paired  with  viewers  increasingly  moving  online,  has  an 
impact on content offerings and financing.  

The  year  2014  witnessed  the  closing  of  local/regional  channels  in  the  EU  (-14,1%  in  2014  vs. 
2013).  However,  national  and  international  TV  channels  (targeting  other  Member  States  and/or 
third countries) continued to develop (+7,4% vs. 2013).  

EU TV channels are increasingly internationally oriented: in 2013, 1 989 TV channels established 
in the EU targeted other Member States and third countries (+ 24,6% vs. 2012) and represented 
42% of the total national and international channels established in the EU (19,3% in 2012)640. 

Within  this  transnational  market  though,  the  established  EU  broadcasting  market  is  increasingly 
facing competition of on-demand providers, some of which are not established in the EU.  

Netflix  and  Amazon  Prime,  increasingly  prominent  in  the  EU  market  also  at  the  expenses  of 
established  European  broadcasters,  invest  in  original  content.  However  that  is  not  necessarily 
European content.  

635http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html 
636 Source: Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update 2014–2019 White Paper 
637 Source: European Audiovisual Observatory/WARC 
638 Published in September 2015  
639 Source: WARC 
640 Source: European Audiovisual Observatory; Yearbook 2014 and 2012 

148 

 
 
 
                                                 
Netflix expects to invest nearly $5bn on acquired and original content in 2016 with a progressively 
increasing  trend  over  the  next  years.  In  2015  Netflix  is  expected  to  debut  at  least  48  originals. 
They also announced series shot in the EU, like Marseille or The Crown. This latter is however a 
marketing effort that is not related to contribution to the production of European content. Amazon 
announced  that  it  will  invest  more  than  $100  million  in  the  third  quarter  of  2015  to  produce 
original content globally.   

EU broadcasters counterbalance this trend. In 2009, they invested around 1 / 3 of their revenues in 
EU  quality  content.  In  that  year,  out  of  the  EUR  34,5  billion  programme  spend  in  the  EU  by 
broadcasters  approximately  EUR  15,6  billion  was  spent  on  acquiring  rights,  EUR  5,8  billion  on 
sports rights and EUR 9,8 billion on film and TV acquisitions. 

149 

 
 
ANNEX  7  -  COMPARATIVE  TABLE  OF  SERVICES  THAT  MAY  BE  QUALIFIED  AS  AVMS  –  EPRA 
SURVEY FOR 35TH EPRA PLENARY (31 MAY – 1 JUNE 2012) UPDATED IN 2015 IN THE ERGA SUB-
GROUP ON MATERIAL JURISDICTION 

The  table  below  has  been  provided  to  give  respondents  update  a  comparative  table  included  in  the 
comparative  document  prepared  for  Plenary  Session  1  -  New  Media  &  Regulation:  Towards  a 
Paradigm Shift? New Services and Scope: “What’s in, what’s out Revisited”641 – at the 35th EPRA 
Plenary in Portoroz on 31 May – 1 June 2012. 

The  table  compared  responses  to  the  following  question,  included  in  a  survey  among  EPRA’s 
members to prepare for the plenary session. Please state which services your NRA would TEND to 
qualify as an AVMS – provide all 7 cumulative criteria of Art. 1.1 (a) of the AVMS Directive are 
fulfilled. 

Please fill out the third and fourth columns with yes or no answers.  

Country (2012)  Please state 
whether this 
would  tend to 
be classified as 
an AVMS in 
your 
country (2015) 
Yes 

Has there been 
any change 
since 2012 
(Yes/No) 

No 

Answer 

VOD 

Catch-up TV 

OTT-TV /connected TV 
applications 

Professional channels on UGC 

641

AT, BA, BE–
VRM, BE-CSA, 
BG, CH, CY, 
CZ, 
DE, DK,  FI, 
HR, HU, IT, LT, 
LU, 
LV, ME, MK, 
MT, NL, NO, 
PT, RO, SE, SI, 
SK 
AT, BA, BE-
VRM, BE-CSA 
ES–CAC, CY, 
DE, 
DK, FI, HR, HU, 
IT, LU, ME, 
MK, NL, NO, 
MT, PT, RO, SI, 
SK 
AT, BE-CSA, 
CY, FI, LU, NL, 
SI 
AT, BE-CSA, 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

 http://epra3-

production.s3.amazonaws.com/attachments/files/2011/original/Plenary%201_overview_responses_questionnaire_publicversion.pdf?1340972148 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
platforms 
Newspaper websites with 
searchable video section - 
if not merely complementary to the 
articles 

FI, IT, NL, SI 
AT, BE-CSA, 
CZ, DK, FI, LU, 
LT, ME, NL, 
NO, SE, SI 

Yes 

No 

Network personal video recorder 
services (NPVR) 
Electronic Program Guides (EPG) 

Download to own (DTO) services 

Download to rent (DTR) services 

HU, LU, NO, SK  No 

CY, HU, LT, 
LU, ME, PT, RO 
BE-CSA, CY, 
CZ, HU, LU, 
NL, NO, SK 
BE-CSA, CY, 
CZ, HU, IT, NL, 
NO, SK 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

151 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8 - EXTRACTS OF COMMUNITY GUIDELINES (AS OF 10/01/2016) OF A SAMPLE OF INTERNET 
PLATFORMS  WHOSE  SERVICES  DO  NOT  FALL  WITHIN  THE  AVMSD  SCOPE  AND  EXISTING 
INTERVENTIONS  BY  INTERNET  PLATFORMS  TO  PROTECT  CONSUMERS  FROM  HATE  SPEECH  AND 
MINORS FROM HARMFUL CONTENT 

1. Extracts of Community guidelines (as of 10/01/2016) of a sample of Internet platforms whose 
services do not fall within the AVMSD scope 

YouTube642  

Facebook643 

Twitter644  

Instagram645 

Minimum  age 
to 
the 
use 
service 

Handling 
content 
may 
harmful 
minors  

of 
that 
be 
to 

Children under 13 
years are not 
permitted to set up a 
YouTube account. 
Below are the 
minimum age 
requirements to own 
a Google Account: 
•United States: 13 or 
older 
•Spain: 14 or older 
•South Korea: 14 or 
older 
•Netherlands: 16 or 
older 
•All other countries: 
13 or older 

Age-restricted 
content 
Some videos don't 
violate our policies, 
but may not be 
appropriate for all 
audiences. In these 
cases, minors or 
logged out users may 
not be able to view 
the content. 
When evaluating 
whether content is 
appropriate for all 
ages, here are some of 
the things we 
consider: 
•Vulgar language 
•Violence and 
disturbing imagery 
•Nudity and sexually 
suggestive content 
•Portrayal of harmful 
or dangerous 
activities 

What we consider 
when age-restricting 
depictions of graphic 
or violent content 
  Whether the 
video shows 
scenes 
containing 
physical attacks 
where the injury 
sustained is 

Facebook requires 
everyone to be at least 13 
years old before they can 
create an account (in some 
jurisdictions, this age limit 
may be higher). 

Nudity. People sometimes 
share content containing 
nudity for reasons such as 
awareness campaigns or 
artistic projects. We 
restrict the display of 
nudity because some 
audiences within our 
global community may be 
sensitive to this type of 
content – particularly 
because of their cultural 
background or age. In 
order to treat people fairly 
and respond to reports 
quickly, it is essential that 
we have policies in place 
that our global teams can 
apply uniformly and easily 
when reviewing content. 
As a result, our policies 
can sometimes be more 
blunt than we would like 
and restrict content shared 
for legitimate purposes. 
We are always working to 
get better at evaluating this 
content and enforcing our 
standards. We remove 
photographs of people 
displaying genitals or 
focusing in on fully 
exposed buttocks. We also 
restrict some images of 
female breasts if they 
include the nipple, but we 
always allow photos of 

Twitter's services are 
not directed to persons 
under 13.  
Via 
screening, 
age 
brands  and  others  to 
online 
determine 
whether 
follower 
a 
meets  a  minimum  age 
requirement,  in  a  way 
that  is  consistent  with 
relevant 
industry  or 
legal  guidelines.  This 
makes 
for 
advertisers  and  others 
with 
not 
content 
suitable for minors (e.g. 
alcohol  advertisers)  to 
advertise on Twitter. 

it  easier 

We do not tolerate 
child sexual 
exploitation on Twitter. 
When we are made 
aware of links to 
images of or content 
promoting child sexual 
exploitation they will be 
removed from the site 
without further notice 
and reported to The 
 
National Center for 
Missing & Exploited 
Children ("NCMEC"); 
we permanently 
suspend accounts 
promoting or 
containing updates with 
links to child 
sexual exploitation. 

Violent threats (direct 
or indirect). Users may 
not make threats of 
violence or promote 
violence, including 
threatening or 
promoting terrorism. 
Users also may not 
make threats or 
promote violence 
against a person or 
group on the basis of 
race, ethnicity, national 
origin, religion, sexual 
orientation, gender, 
gender identity, age, or 

Instagram 
requires 
everyone  to  be  at  least 
13  years  old  to  use  the 
Service. 

You may not post 
violent, nude, partially 
nude, discriminatory, 
unlawful, infringing, 
hateful, pornographic 
or sexually suggestive 
photos or other content 
via the Service. 

GENERAL NUDITY646 
Post photos and videos 
that are appropriate 
for a diverse audience. 
We know that there are 
times when people 
might want to share 
nude images that are 
artistic or creative in 
nature, but for a 
variety of reasons, we 
don’t allow nudity on 
Instagram. This 
includes photos, videos, 
and some digitally-
created content that 
show sexual 
intercourse, genitals, 
and close-ups of fully-
nude buttocks. It also 
includes some photos of 
female nipples, but 
photos of post-
mastectomy scarring 
and women actively 
breastfeeding are 
allowed. Nudity in 

642 https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html 
643 https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards 
644 https://twitter.com/tos?lang=en; https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311# 
645 https://help.instagram.com/478745558852511 
646 https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119/ 

152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
bloody or gory. 

  Whether the 

video shows the 
graphic 
aftermath of a 
violent act. 

  Whether the 

 

shots of violence 
or gore are the 
focal point of 
the video. 
  Whether the 
violence 
contained in the 
video is realistic 
when posted in 
a dramatic 
context. 
  Other factors 
include:  
The length of 
time an image 
appears in the 
video  
Fleeting vs. 
prolonged 
exposure 
especially 
relative to the 
overall length of 
the video. 
The camera 
angle and focus 
The relative 
clarity of the 
images in the 
video 
The video 
thumbnail 

 

 

 

 

Child endangerment. 
YouTube has a zero-
tolerance policy for 
sexual content 
involving minors. 
Uploading, 
commenting, or 
engaging in any type 
of activity that 
sexualizes minors will 
immediately result in 
an account 
suspension. 
Nudity or sexual 
content. Sexually 
explicit content like 
pornography is not 
allowed. Videos 
containing fetish 
content will be 
removed or age-
restricted depending 
on the severity of the 
act in question. In 
most cases, violent, 
graphic, or 
humiliating fetishes 
are not allowed to be 
shown on YouTube. 
A video that contains 
nudity or other 
sexual content may 
be allowed if the 
primary purpose is 
educational, 
documentary, 
scientific, or artistic, 
and it isn’t 
gratuitously graphic. 

disability. 

Abuse and harassment. 
Users may not engage 
in targeted abuse or 
harassment. Some of 
the factors that we take 
into account when 
determining what 
conduct is considered 
to be targeted abuse or 
harassment are: 
•if a primary purpose 
of the reported account 
is to send abusive 
messages to others; 
•if the reported 
behavior is one-sided or 
includes threats; 
•if the reported user is 
 
inciting others to 
harass another user; 
and 
•if  the  reported  user  is 
sending 
harassing 
messages to a user from 
multiple accounts. 

photos of paintings and 
sculptures is OK, too. 

NUDITY OF 
CHILDREN 
People like to share 
photos or videos of 
their children. For 
safety reasons, there 
are times when we may 
remove images that 
show nude or partially-
nude children. Even 
when this content is 
shared with good 
intentions, it could be 
used by others in 
unanticipated ways. 

Instagram is not a 
place to support or 
praise terrorism, 
organized crime, or 
hate groups. Offering 
sexual services, buying 
or selling firearms and 
illegal or prescription 
drugs (even if it’s legal 
in your region) is also 
not allowed. Remember 
to always follow the 
law when offering to 
sell or buy other 
regulated goods. 
Accounts promoting 
online gambling, online 
real money games of 
skill or online lotteries 
must get our prior 
written permission 
before using any of our 
products. 

We have zero tolerance 
when it comes to 
sharing sexual content 
involving minors or 
threatening to post 
intimate images of 
others. 

women actively engaged in 
breastfeeding or showing 
breasts with post-
mastectomy scarring. We 
also allow photographs of 
paintings, sculptures and 
other art that depicts nude 
figures. Restrictions on the 
display of both nudity and 
sexual activity also apply 
to digitally created content 
unless the content is posted 
for educational, humorous 
or satirical purposes. 
Explicit images of sexual 
intercourse are prohibited. 
Descriptions of sexual acts 
that go into vivid detail 
may also be removed. 
Violence and Graphic 
Content. Facebook has 
long been a place where 
people share their 
experiences and raise 
awareness about important 
issues. Sometimes, those 
experiences and issues 
involve violence and 
graphic images of public 
interest or concern, such as 
human rights abuses or 
acts of terrorism. In many 
instances, when people 
share this type of content, 
they are condemning it or 
raising awareness about it. 
We remove graphic images 
when they are shared for 
sadistic pleasure or to 
celebrate or glorify 
violence.  
When people share 
anything on Facebook, we 
expect that they will share 
it responsibly, including 
carefully choosing who will 
see that content. We also 
ask that people warn their 
audience about what they 
are about to see if it 
includes graphic violence. 
Bullying and Harassment.  
We don’t tolerate bullying 
or harassment. We allow 
you to speak freely on 
matters and people of 
public interest, but remove 
content that appears to 
purposefully target private 
individuals with the 
intention of degrading or 
shaming them. This 
content includes, but is not 
limited to:  
Pages that identify and 
shame private individuals; 
images altered to degrade 
private individuals; photos 
or videos of physical 
bullying posted to shame 
the victim; sharing 
personal information to 
blackmail or harass people 
and repeatedly targeting 
other people with 
unwanted friend requests 
or messages. We define 
private individuals as 
people who have neither 
gained news attention nor 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the interest of the public, 
by way of their actions or 
public profession. 
Sexual Violence and 
Exploitation. We remove 
content that threatens or 
promotes sexual violence 
or exploitation. This 
includes the sexual 
exploitation of minors and 
sexual assault. To protect 
victims and survivors, we 
also remove photographs 
or videos depicting 
incidents of sexual violence 
and images shared in 
revenge or without 
permission from the people 
in the images. Our 
definition of sexual 
exploitation includes 
solicitation of sexual 
material, any sexual 
content involving minors, 
threats to share intimate 
images and offers of sexual 
services. Where 
appropriate, we refer this 
content to law 
enforcement. Offers of 
sexual services include 
prostitution, escort 
services, sexual massages 
and filmed sexual activity. 

For example, a 
documentary on 
breast cancer would 
be appropriate, but 
posting clips out of 
context from the 
same documentary 
might not be. 
Remember that 
providing context in 
the title and 
description will help 
us and your viewers 
determine the 
primary purpose of 
the video. 

Real depictions of 
graphic or violent 
content. Increasingly, 
YouTube is becoming 
an outlet for citizen 
journalists, 
documentarians and 
other users to publish 
accounts of what is 
happening in their 
daily lives. It is 
inevitable that some 
of these videos will 
contain content that 
is violent or graphic 
in nature. 

If the violence shown 
in your video is 
particularly graphic, 
please make sure to 
post as much 
information as 
possible in the title 
and metadata to help 
viewers understand 
what they are seeing. 
Providing 
documentary or 
educational context 
can help the viewer, 
and our reviewers, 
understand why they 
may be seeing the 
disturbing content. 

It’s not okay to post 
violent or gory 
content that’s 
primarily intended to 
be shocking, 
sensational or 
disrespectful. If a 
video is particularly 
graphic or 
disturbing, it should 
be balanced with 
additional context 
and information. For 
instance, a citizen 
journalist who 
captures footage of 
protesters being 
beaten and uploads it 
with relevant 
information (date, 
location, context, etc) 
would likely be 
allowed. However, 
posting the same 
footage without 
contextual or 
educational 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
information may be 
considered gratuitous 
and may be removed 
from the site. 

Dramatized 
depictions of graphic 
or violent content. 
Some people post 
videos that contain 
dramatized 
depictions of violence. 
Much like movies and 
TV, graphic or 
disturbing content 
that contains a 
certain level of 
violence or gore is not 
suitable for minors 
and will be age-
restricted. 
Harmful or 
dangerous content. 
While it might not 
seem fair to say you 
can’t show something 
because of what 
viewers might do in 
response, we draw 
the line at content 
that intends to incite 
violence or encourage 
dangerous or illegal 
activities that have an 
inherent risk of 
serious physical harm 
or death.  
Videos that we 
consider to encourage 
dangerous or illegal 
activities include 
instructional bomb 
making, choking 
games, hard drug 
use, or other acts 
where serious injury 
may result. A video 
that depicts 
dangerous acts may 
be allowed if the 
primary purpose is 
educational, 
documentary, 
scientific, or artistic 
(EDSA), and it isn’t 
gratuitously graphic. 
For example, a news 
piece on the dangers 
of choking games 
would be 
appropriate, but 
posting clips out of 
context from the 
same documentary 
might not be.  
Videos that incite 
others to commit acts 
of violence are 
strictly prohibited 
from YouTube. If 
your video asks 
others to commit an 
act of violence or 
threatens people with 
serious acts of 
violence, it will be 
removed from the 
site. 
We are very sensitive 
to any harmful or 

155 

 
 
 
Handling 
hate 
content  

of 
speech 

dangerous content 
that involves minors. 
If your video shows a 
minor participating 
in a harmful or 
dangerous activity, 
do not post it. In the 
interest of protecting 
minors, we may age-
restrict videos 
containing adults 
participating in 
activities that have a 
high risk of injury or 
death. 

We encourage free 
speech and try to 
defend your right to 
express unpopular 
points of view, but we 
don't permit hate 
speech. Hate speech 
refers to content that 
promotes violence or 
hatred against 
individuals or groups 
based on certain 
attributes, such as: 
•race or ethnic origin 
•religion 
•disability 
•gender 
•age 
•veteran status 
•sexual 
orientation/gender 
identity 
There is a fine line 
between what is and 
what is not 
considered to be hate 
speech. For instance, 
it is generally okay to 
criticize a nation-
state, but not okay to 
post malicious hateful 
comments about a 
group of people solely 
based on their race. 

Content Related to 
Terrorism. YouTube 
strictly prohibits 
content intended to 
recruit for terrorist 
organizations, incite 
violence, celebrate 
terrorist attacks or 
otherwise promote 
acts of terrorism. We 
also do not permit 
foreign terrorist 
organizations to use 
YouTube. Content 
intended to document 
events connected to 
terrorist acts or news 
reporting on terrorist 
activities may be 
allowed on the site 
with sufficient 
context and intent. 
However, graphic or 

Facebook removes hate 
speech, which includes 
content that directly 
attacks people based on 
their: race, ethnicity, 
national origin, religious 
affiliation, sexual 
orientation, sex, gender or 
gender identity, or serious 
disabilities or diseases. 
Organisations and people 
dedicated to promoting 
hatred against these 
protected groups are not 
allowed a presence on 
Facebook. As with all of 
our standards, we rely on 
our community to report 
this content to us. People 
can use Facebook to 
challenge ideas, institutions 
and practices. Such 
discussion can promote 
debate and greater 
understanding. Sometimes 
people share content 
containing someone else's 
hate speech for the 
purpose of raising 
awareness or educating 
others about that hate 
speech. When this is the 
case, we expect people to 
clearly indicate their 
purpose, which helps us 
better understand why 
they shared that content. 
We allow humour, satire 
or social commentary 
related to these topics, and 
we believe that when 
people use their authentic 
identity, they are more 
responsible when they 
share this kind of 
commentary. For that 
reason, we ask that Page 
owners associate their 
name and Facebook Profile 
with any content that is 
insensitive, even if that 
content does not violate 
our policies. As always, we 
urge people to be conscious 
of their audience when 
sharing this type of 
content. 
Dangerous Organisations. 

not 

against 
attack 

Hateful  conduct.    You 
promote 
may 
or 
violence 
directly 
or 
threaten  other  people 
on  the  basis  of  race, 
national 
ethnicity, 
sexual 
origin, 
gender, 
orientation, 
identity, 
gender 
affiliation, 
religious 
age, 
or 
disability, 
disease.  We  also  do  not 
allow  accounts  whose 
primary  purpose 
is 
inciting  harm  towards 
others  on  the  basis  of 
these categories.  

You must not defame, 
stalk, bully, abuse, 
harass, threaten, 
impersonate or 
intimidate people or 
entities and you must 
not post private or 
confidential 
information via the 
Service 

Serious threats of harm 
to public and personal 
safety aren't allowed. 
This includes specific 
threats of physical 
harm as well as threats 
of theft, vandalism, and 
other financial harm. 
We carefully review 
reports of threats and 
consider many things 
when determining 
whether a threat is 
credible647 

Encouraging  or  urging 
people  to  embrace  self-
injury is counter to this 
of 
environment 
support, 
and  we’ll 
remove  it  or  disable 
accounts if it’s reported 
to  us.  We  may  also 
content 
remove 
identifying  victims  or 
survivors  of  self-injury 
if  the  content  targets 
them 
for  attack  or 
humor. 

647 https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119/ 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
controversial footage 
may be subject to 
age-restrictions or a 
warning screen. 

What types of 
organisations we prohibit 
on Facebook. 
We don't allow any 
organisations that are 
engaged in the following to 
have a presence on 
Facebook:  
•terrorist activity, or 
•organised criminal 
activity.  
 We also remove content 
that expresses support for 
groups that are involved in 
the violent or criminal 
behaviour mentioned 
above. Supporting or 
praising leaders of those 
same organisations, or 
condoning their violent 
activities, is not allowed. 
We welcome broad 
discussion and social 
commentary on these 
general subjects, but ask 
that people show sensitivity 
towards victims of violence 
and discrimination. 
Criminal Activity. We 
prohibit the use of 
Facebook to facilitate or 
organise criminal activity 
that causes physical harm 
to people, businesses or 
animals, or financial 
damage to people or 
businesses. We work with 
the police when we believe 
that there is a genuine risk 
of physical harm or direct 
threats to public safety.  
We also prohibit you from 
celebrating any crimes that 
you've committed. We do, 
however, allow people to 
debate or advocate for the 
legality of criminal 
activities, as well as 
address them in a 
humorous or satirical way. 

Reporting 
tools   

Flagging content. We 
rely on YouTube 
community members 
to flag content that 
they find 
inappropriate. 
YouTube staff review 
flagged videos 24 
hours a day, seven 
days a week, and 
videos that violate 
our Community 
Guidelines are 
removed from 
YouTube. Videos that 
may not be 
appropriate for all 
younger audiences 
are age-restricted. 

Flagged videos are 
not automatically 
taken down by the 
flagging system. If a 
video doesn't violate 
our guidelines, no 
amount of flagging 

Reporting abuse: If you see 
something on Facebook 
that you believe violates 
our terms, please report it 
to us. Governments also 
sometimes ask us to 
remove content that 
violates local laws but does 
not violate our Community 
Standards. If after careful 
legal review we find that 
the content is illegal under 
local law, then we may 
make it unavailable only in 
the relevant country or 
territory.  

Please bear the following 
in mind:  
• We may take action 
whenever something 
violates the Community 
Standards.  
• We may ask Page owners 
to associate their name and 
Facebook Profile with a 
Page that contains cruel 

You can report directly 
from an individual 
Tweet or profile for 
certain violations, 
including: spam, 
abusive or harmful 
content, inappropriate 
ads, self-harm, 
impersonation, child 
sexual exploitation, 
pornography,  

Once you have 
submitted your report, 
we will review the 
reported account 
and/or Tweets. If we 
determine that the 
account and/or Tweets 
are in violation of our 
policies, we will take 
action (ranging from 
warning the user to 
permanently 
suspending the 
account). 

Each of us is an 
important part of the 
Instagram community. 
If you see something 
that you think may 
violate our guidelines, 
please help us by using 
our built-in reporting 
option. We have a 
global team that 
reviews these reports 
and works as quickly 
as possible to remove 
content that doesn’t 
meet our guidelines. 
Even if you or someone 
you know doesn’t have 
an Instagram account, 
you can still file a 
report. 

You may find content 
you don’t like, but 
doesn’t violate the 
Community 
Guidelines. If that 
happens, you can 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
will change that, and 
the video will stay on 
the site. You might 
not like everything 
you see on YouTube. 
Some of the content 
might offend you. If 
you think it's 
inappropriate, locate 
the flagging feature 
on the video and 
submit it for review 
by our YouTube 
staff.  
Our staff reviews 
flagged videos 24 
hours a day, 7 days a 
week to determine 
whether they violate 
our Community 
Guidelines. When 
they do, we remove 
them. Sometimes a 
video doesn't violate 
our guidelines, but 
might not be 
appropriate for 
everyone. These 
videos may get age-
restricted. Accounts 
are penalized for 
Community 
Guidelines violations, 
and serious or 
repeated violations 
can lead to account 
termination. If an 
account is 
terminated, that 
person won't be 
allowed to create any 
new accounts. 
When we remove 
content for violating 
our Community 
Guidelines, the 
uploader will 
typically receive a 
Community 
Guidelines strike. 
If you receive a 
Community 
Guidelines strike, 
you’ll receive a 
notification via email 
and in your Channel 
Settings with 
information about 
why your content was 
removed (e.g. for 
sexual content or 
violence). If you feel 
that content was 
removed without just 
cause, you can appeal 
the strike on your 
account. 
We understand that 
users make mistakes, 
and don’t intend to 
violate our policies. 
That’s why strikes 
don’t last forever -- if 
you don’t receive 
another strike for six 
months, your initial 
strike will expire. If 
you receive a strike, 
make sure to review 
the reason your 

and insensitive content, 
even if that content does 
not violate our policies.  
• Reporting something 
doesn't guarantee that it 
will be removed because it 
may not violate our 
policies.  
• Our content reviewers 
will look to you for 
information about why a 
post may violate our 
policies. If you report 
content, please tell us why 
the content should be 
removed (e.g. is it nudity 
or hate speech?) so that we 
can send it to the right 
person for review.  
• Our review decisions may 
occasionally change after 
receiving additional 
context about specific posts 
or after seeing new, 
violating content 
appearing on a Page or 
Facebook Profile.  
• The number of reports 
does not impact whether 
something will be removed. 
We never remove content 
simply because it has been 
reported a number of 
times.  
• The consequences for 
violating our Community 
Standards vary depending 
on the severity of the 
violation and the person's 
history on Facebook. For 
instance, we may warn 
someone for a first 
violation, but if we 
continue to see further 
violations we may restrict 
a person's ability to post on 
Facebook or ban the 
person from Facebook. 
 Not all disagreeable or 
disturbing content violates 
our Community 
Standards. For this reason, 
we offer you the ability to 
customise and control what 
you see by unfollowing, 
blocking and hiding the 
posts, people, Pages and 
applications you don't 
want to see – and we 
encourage you to use these 
controls to better 
personalise your 
experience. People also 
often resolve issues they 
have about a piece of 
content by simply getting 
in touch with the person 
who posted it. We've 
created tools for you to 
communicate directly with 
other people when you're 
unhappy with posts, photos 
or other content you see on 
Facebook. 

What should I do if I see 
images on Facebook of a 
child being physically 
abused? 

unfollow or block the 
person who posted it. If 
there's something you 
don't like in a comment 
on one of your posts, 
you can delete that 
comment. 

We may work with law 
enforcement,  including 
when  we  believe  that 
there’s  risk  of  physical 
harm  or 
to 
public safety. 

threat 

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
content was removed 
to learn from your 
mistake. A bit more 
information about 
what happens with 
each strike you 
receive: 
•First Strike: The 
first strike on an 
account is considered 
a warning. 
•Second Strike: If 
your account receives 
two strikes within a 
six month period, you 
won’t be able to post 
new content to 
YouTube for two 
weeks. If there are no 
further issues, full 
privileges are 
restored 
automatically after 
the two week period.  
•Third Strike: If an 
account receives a 
third Community 
Guidelines strike 
before the first strike 
has expired, the 
account will be 
terminated. 

Sometimes content is 
removed for other 
reasons, for example: 
the safety of the 
person who posted a 
video, a first-party 
privacy complaint, 
court order, or other 
non-malicious issue. 
In these cases the 
uploader will not 
receive a strike and 
the account will not 
be penalized. 

Reasons accounts are 
terminated: 
•Repeated violations 
of the  Community 
Guidelines  or  Terms 
of Service   
•A single case of 
severe abuse (such as 
predatory behavior 
or spam) 
•Accounts  dedicated 
to  a  policy  violation 
speech, 
(hate 
harassment, 
impersonation, etc) 

Accounts 
termination 

When 
account 
an 
violates  our  abusive 
behavior  policy, 
the 
actions  we  take  against 
that account depend on 
the 
the 
severity  of 
violation.  We  may  ask 
to  verify  or 
users 
provide 
information, 
delete  specific  Tweets, 
or  we  may  suspend  or 
account 
lock 
the 
or 
temporarily 
permanently. 

Violation of these 
Terms of Use may, in 
Instagram's sole 
discretion, result in 
termination of your 
Instagram account. 
You understand and 
agree that Instagram 
cannot and will not be 
responsible for the 
Content posted on the 
Service and you use the 
Service at your own 
risk. If you violate the 
letter or spirit of these 
Terms of Use, or 
otherwise create risk or 
possible legal exposure 
for Instagram, we can 
stop providing all or 
part of the Service to 
you. 

We reserve the right to 
modify or terminate 
the Service or your 
access to the Service 
for any reason, without 
notice, at any time, and 

159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
without liability to you. 
If we terminate your 
access to the Service or 
you use the form 
detailed above to 
deactivate your 
account, your photos, 
comments, likes, 
friendships, and all 
other data will no 
longer be accessible 
through your account 
(e.g., users will not be 
able to navigate to your 
username and view 
your photos), but those 
materials and data may 
persist and appear 
within the Service (e.g., 
if your Content has 
been reshared by 
others. 

We  may,  but  have  no 
obligation  to,  remove, 
and/or 
block, 
edit, 
monitor  Content  or 
containing 
accounts 
Content 
we 
that 
determine  in  our  sole 
discretion violates these 
Terms of Use. 

There may be links 
from the Service, or 
from communications 
you receive from the 
Service, to third-party 
web sites or features. 
There may also be links 
to third-party web sites 
or features in images or 
comments within the 
Service. The Service 
also includes third-
party content that we 
do not control, 
maintain or endorse. 
Functionality on the 
Service may also 
permit interactions 
between the Service 
and a third-party web 
site or feature, 
including applications 
that connect the 
Service or your profile 
on the Service with a 
third-party web site or 
feature  
(…) 
You expressly 
acknowledge and agree 
that Instagram is in no 
way responsible or 
liable for any such 
third-party services or 
features. 

Some of the Service is 
supported by 

Ads policy 

Pages promoting the 
private sale of regulated 
goods or services 
(including firearms, 
alcohol, tobacco, or adult 
products) must restrict 
access to a minimum age of 
18. 
Pages that promote or 
facilitate online gambling, 
games of skill or lotteries, 
including online casino, 
sports books, bingo, or 
poker, are only allowed in 
specific countries with 
prior authorization from 
Facebook. 
Pages  must  not  promote 
the  sale  of  prescription 
pharmaceuticals. Pages for 
online  pharmacies  may  be 
prior 
permitted  with 
approval 
from 
Facebook.651 

All advertisements on 
YouTube must 
conform to our 
Community 
Guidelines, Technical 
Guidelines, and 
Advertising Policies 
described in this 
section and be 
appropriate for a 
general audience of 
YouTube users aged 
13 or older.648 
All advertisements 
sold in the YouTube 
Kids app must 
comply with the 
additional advertising 
policies649. 
Except for the First 
Watch ad products, 
YouTube allows 
alcohol advertising 
that promotes the 
branding and sale of 
alcohol with some 
restrictions 
(described in more 
detail below). 
Campaigns may only 
target countries 
where these ads are 
permissible under 
applicable laws and 
regulations and all 
ads must comply with 
local restrictions.650 
All  Pharmaceutical 
or 
campaigns 

Twitter restricts the 
promotion of online 
and offline sale of 
alcohol and general 
awareness of alcohol 
brands. These 
restrictions are based 
on the specific product 
or service being 
promoted, as well as 
the country that the 
campaign is targeting. 
To determine the policy 
for your product or 
service and the country 
or countries you wish to 
target, see the country-
specific information 
below. Unless listed 
below, the promotion of 
alcohol content is 
prohibited. 
Any advertisement for 
alcohol content that is 
allowed under the 
country-specific 
information below must 
in addition: 
 

not target minors 
or encourage, 
suggest, or entice 
underage drinking 
not use 
characters, sports-
persons, 
celebrities, or 
images/icons 
appealing to 
minors 

 

648 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/188570?hl=en&ref_topic=30084 
649 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6168681?hl=en&ref_topic=30084 
650 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1304652?hl=en&ref_topic=30084 
651 https://www.facebook.com/page_guidelines.php 

160 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
to 

programs 
must 
adhere 
the 
AdWords 
policies 
the 
around 
advertisement  or  sale 
of  prescription  drugs 
in  the  country  where 
the ad is targeted. All 
ads 
pharmaceutical 
clearly 
must 
branded  under 
the 
manufacturer's  name 
and  must 
comply 
with  all  regulatory 
and  legal  guidelines 
applicable 
the 
advertiser. 

be 

to 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not use minors or 
pregnant women 
as models in 
advertising 
not imply that 
drinking in excess 
is good, or that 
alcohol has 
therapeutic, 
relaxing or 
stimulative 
properties 
not imply that 
alcohol has health 
benefits, can 
improve sexual, 
social, athletic or 
professional 
performance or 
standing 
not mislead or 
confuse users into 
thinking alcoholic 
beverages are soft 
drinks or candy 
not associate 
drinking with 
activities that are 
potentially 
dangerous, 
require significant 
care, skill, etc. 
(e.g., driving a 
motor vehicle), or 
are antisocial or 
illegal (e.g., illegal 
drugs) 
not depict people 
under the 
influence of 
alcohol 
not emphasize a 
product’s 
alcoholic strength 
(promoting a 
product as having 
low or no alcohol 
content is 
acceptable) 
Twitter prohibits the 
promotion of drugs and 
drug paraphernalia 
globally 
Twitter prohibits the 
promotion of tobacco 
brands and the online 
and offline sale of 
tobacco and tobacco 
accessories globally. 
Twitter prohibits the 
promotion of hate 
content, sensitive 
topics, and violence 
globally. 
This policy applies, but 
is not limited, to:  
• Hate speech or 
advocacy against an 
individual, organization 
or protected group 
based on race, 
ethnicity, national 
origin, color, religion, 
disability, age, sex, 
sexual orientation, 
gender identity, veteran 
status or other 
protected 

 

advertising revenue 
and may display 
advertisements and 
promotions, and you 
hereby agree that 
Instagram may place 
such advertising and 
promotions on the 
Service or on, about, or 
in conjunction with 
your Content. The 
manner, mode and 
extent of such 
advertising and 
promotions are subject 
to change without 
specific notice to you. 

You acknowledge that 
we may not always 
identify paid services, 
sponsored content, or 
commercial 
communications as 
such. 

161 

 
 
 
status.Violence or 
threats of violence 
against people or 
animals 

• Glorification of self-
harm or related content 

• Organizations or 
individuals associated 
with promoting hate, 
criminal, or terrorist-
related content 

• Inflammatory content 
which is likely to evoke 
a strong negative 
reaction or cause harm. 

•Offensive, vulgar, 
abusive or obscene 
content 

This policy generally 
does not prohibit: 
•News and information 
that calls attention to 
hate, sensitive topics, or 
violence, but does not 
advocate for it 
about 
•Commentary 
products, 
services, 
companies,  or  brands, 
including 
potentially 
negative commentary 

These Terms and any 
action related thereto 
will be governed by the 
laws of the State of 
California without 
regard to or application 
of its conflict of law 
provisions or your state 
or country of residence. 

above, 

If  you  are  a  federal, 
local 
state, 
or 
government  entity 
in 
the  United  States  using 
the  Services 
in  your 
official  capacity  and 
legally unable to accept 
the 
law, 
controlling 
jurisdiction  or  venue 
clauses 
then 
those  clauses  do  not 
apply  to  you.  For  such 
federal 
U.S. 
government 
entities, 
these  Terms  and  any 
action  related  thereto 
will be governed by the 
the  United 
laws  of 
States 
of  America 
(without  reference  to 
conflict of laws) and, in 
the  absence  of  federal 
law  and  to  the  extent 
permitted 
under 
federal  law,  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  California 
(excluding 
choice  of 
law). 

by 

These Terms of Use are 
and 
governed 
in 
construed 
accordance  with 
the 
laws  of  the  State  of 
without 
California, 
giving  effect 
to  any 
principles  of  conflicts 
of 
law  AND  WILL 
SPECIFICALLY  NOT 
BE  GOVERNED  BY 
THE 
UNITED 
NATIONS 
CONVENTIONS  ON 
CONTRACTS 
FOR 
THE 
INTERNATIONAL 
SALE  OF  GOODS,  IF 
OTHERWISE 
APPLICABLE 

162 

The  laws  of  the  State  of 
California  will  govern  this 
Statement,  as  well  as  any 
that  might  arise 
claim 
between 
and  us, 
you 
without  regard  to  conflict 
of law provisions. 

Applicable law  The Terms, and your 
relationship with 
YouTube under the 
Terms, shall be 
governed by: 
Austria: Austrian law 
Belgium: English law 
Bulgaria: English law 
Croatia: internal 
laws of the State of 
California (excluding 
provisions relating to 
conflict of laws) 
Republic of Cyprus: 
??? 
Czech Republic: 
Czech law 
Denmark: English 
law 
Estonia: English law 
Finland: Finnish law 
France: French law 
Germany: English 
law 
Greece: English law 
Hungary: English 
law 
Ireland: Irish law 
Italy: Italian law 
Latvia: English law 
Lithuania: English 
law 
Luxembourg: English 
law 
Malta: ??? 
Netherlands: Dutch 
law 
Poland: Polish law 
Portugal: English law 
Romania: Romanian 
law 
Slovakia: Slovakian 
law 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
Jurisdiction 

Slovenia: internal 
laws of the State of 
California (excluding 
provisions relating to 
conflict of laws) 
Spain: Spanish law 
Sweden: Swedish law 
United 
Kingdom: 
English law 

You and YouTube 
agree to submit to the 
exclusive jurisdiction 
of the courts of: 
Austria:  courts of 
Austria 
Belgium: courts of 
England 
Bulgaria: courts of 
England 
Croatia: competent 
court in the Santa 
Clara county, 
California 
Republic of Cyprus: 
??? 
Czech Republic: 
Czech courts 
Denmark: Danish 
courts 
Estonia: courts of 
England 
Finland: courts of 
Finland 
France: courts of 
France 
Germany: courts of 
England 
Greece: courts of 
England 
Hungary: courts of 
England 
Ireland: courts of 
Ireland 
Italy: courts of Italy 
Latvia: courts of 
England 
Lithuania: courts of 
England 
Luxembourg: courts 
of the UK 
Malta: ??? 
Netherlands: courts 
of Amsterdam 
Poland: courts of 
Poland 
Portugal: courts of 
England 
Romania: courts of 
Romania 
Slovakia: courts of 
Slovakia 
Slovenia: competent 
court in the Santa 
Clara county, 
California 
Spain: competent 
court (not specified) 
Sweden: courts of 
Sweden 
United Kingdom: 
Courts of England 

to resolve any legal 
matter arising from 
the Terms. 
Notwithstanding this, 
you agree that 
YouTube shall still be 

You will resolve any claim, 
cause  of  action  or  dispute 
(claim)  you  have  with  us 
arising out of or relating to 
this Statement or Facebook 
the  U.S. 
exclusively 
in 
the 
for 
District  Court 
Northern 
of 
District 
California  or  a  state  court 
in  San  Mateo 
located 
County,  and  you  agree  to 
submit 
the  personal 
jurisdiction  of  such  courts 
for 
of 
litigating all such claims. 

purpose 

the 

to 

All claims, legal 
proceedings or 
litigation arising in 
connection with the 
Services will be 
brought solely in the 
federal or state courts 
located in San 
Francisco County, 
California, United 
States, and you consent 
to the jurisdiction of 
and venue in such 
courts and waive any 
objection as to 
inconvenient forum. 

ARBITRATION 
NOTICE: EXCEPT IF 
YOU OPT-OUT AND 
EXCEPT FOR 
CERTAIN TYPES OF 
DISPUTES 
DESCRIBED IN THE 
ARBITRATION 
SECTION BELOW, 
YOU AGREE THAT 
DISPUTES 
BETWEEN YOU AND 
INSTAGRAM WILL 
BE RESOLVED BY 
BINDING, 
INDIVIDUAL 
ARBITRATION AND 
YOU WAIVE YOUR 
RIGHT TO 
PARTICIPATE IN A 
CLASS ACTION 
LAWSUIT OR 
CLASS-WIDE 
ARBITRATION 

Except if you opt-out 
or for disputes relating 
to: (1) your or 
Instagram's intellectual 
property (such as 
trademarks, trade 
dress, domain names, 
trade secrets, 
copyrights and 
patents); (2) violations 
of the API Terms; or 
(3) violations of 
provisions 13 or 15 of 
the Basic Terms, above 
("Excluded Disputes"), 
you agree that all 
disputes between you 
and Instagram 
(whether or not such 
dispute involves a third 
party) with regard to 
your relationship with 
Instagram, including 
without limitation 
disputes related to 
these Terms of Use, 
your use of the Service, 
and/or rights of 
privacy and/or 
publicity, will be 
resolved by binding, 
individual arbitration 
under the American 
Arbitration 
Association's rules for 
arbitration of 
consumer-related 
disputes and you and 
Instagram hereby 
expressly waive trial by 
jury 

As an alternative, you 
may bring your claim 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
in your local "small 
claims" court, if 
permitted by that small 
claims court's rules. 

on 

Judgment 
the 
award  rendered  by  the 
arbitrator  may 
be 
entered  in  any  court 
competent 
having 
jurisdiction. 
Any 
provision  of  applicable 
law 
notwithstanding, 
the  arbitrator  will  not 
to 
have 
award 
damages, 
remedies  or  awards 
that  conflict  with  these 
Terms of Use. 

authority 

allowed to apply for 
injunctive remedies 
(or other equivalent 
types of urgent legal 
remedy) in any 
jurisdiction. 
Analysis 

The applicable law 
and jurisdiction 
problem is quite 
diverse within the 
YouTube company. 
 In general, Member 
States' national laws 
and courts 
jurisdiction apply.  
For 12 countries 
listed below, the 
applicable law is the 
one of England with 
the jurisdiction of 
English courts: 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Denmark (English 
law with the 
jurisdiction of Danish 
courts) 
Estonia 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg (the 
only country stating 
that the UK courts 
have the jurisdiction, 
not only the English 
ones) 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 

Moreover, 2 of the 
Member States' 
(Croatia and 
Slovenia) Youtube 
Terms and 
Conditions are 
governed by the law 
of California State 
(with the jurisdiction 
of relevant courts of 
California). 

2. Existing interventions by internet platforms to protect consumers from hate speech and 
minors from harmful content 

The  largest Internet  platforms  (e.g. video  sharing  platforms  like  YouTube)  use  software  and  human 
intervention  with  a  view  to  protecting  viewers  from  hate  speech  and  minors  from  harmful  content. 
The criteria against which content is deemed "inappropriate" (as in the jargon most commonly used by 
Internet  platforms)  are  defined  by  the  platforms  themselves,  in  their  terms  of  service/Community 
guidelines as described above. Examples of initiatives that are being undertaken are:   

1. 
Moderation of content already posted on the platforms based on flagging by the users. Users 
flag content, which is deemed inappropriate according to the terms of service; an algorithm sorts out 
164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  complaints  prior  to  sending  to  a  moderation  team  for  verification;  if  deemed  inappropriate,  the 
content is removed.  However, there are shortcomings.  
First  of  all,  the  large  number  of  videos  uploaded  each  day652 makes  content  moderation  a  complex 
exercise. 

Secondly, when it comes to minors, the EU Kids Online report to the European Commission on the 
"CEO Coalition for a Better Internet for children" states that children rarely use reporting buttons. 

Thirdly,  activists  have  proven  that  YouTube  verifies  as  a  priority  content  which  receives  a  larger 
number of complaints received653. This has shortcomings as regards the level of protection afforded to 
individual consumers.  

Lastly, as also reported in  the ERGA inventory paper on protection of minors, the filtering systems 
that are applied to conduct content moderation might not be optimized654.  

2. 
Age  verification.  For  example,  to  access  certain  YouTube  paid  content,  users  need  to 
authenticate  themselves.  This  requires  them  to  have  an  active  user  account,  declaring  to  be  13+.  
However, it seems that age restrictions are only partially effective for UGC655.  

Video fingerprinting technologies, identifying and preventing the same or similar content from 

3. 
being re-uploaded.  

Systems  allowing  the  users  to  give  feedback  on  the  content  (e.g.  YouRateIt,  piloted  by 

4. 
Mediaset. However, YouRateIt has not been taken up by YouTube). 

5. 
Parental controls offered by the platforms or devices. However, there are figures showing that 
not all parents take a proactive role. ERGA Inventory paper on protection of minors states that "in a 
converging  media  environment  […]  it  seems  virtually  impossible  for  parents  to  be  aware  of  the 
provenance  of  any  content,  especially  to  have  the  knowledge  in  terms  of  all  the  relevant  technical 
solutions  available".  EU  Kids  online  research  has  shown  that  40%  of  parents  are  unaware  of  their 
child’s exposure to sexual images online. In the UK, OFCOM found that just 12% of parents of 5-15y 
said they use YouTube’s safety mode, while 73% said they were not aware of this tool. In Germany, 
according to the recent KIM study656  examining the media usage of 6 to 13 year olds, only 14% of 
parents has installed protection tools on devices used by their children.  

To  conclude,  current  initiatives  are  either  not  specifically  related  to  audiovisual  content  by  online 
platforms or are on a stand-alone basis insufficient as demonstrated above.   

652 For example, Facebook generates 8 billion video views a day, up from 4 billion a day in April 2015: http://www.wsj.com/articles/auto-play-videos-
catching-on-beyond-facebook-1447106795.  
653 Online  activists  have  called  volunteers  to  report  collectively  some  abusive  content,  thus  prompting  YouTube  to  more  expeditiously  review  and 
eventually taken down content. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/253631 
654 In 2014, jugendschutz.net, the joint organisation of all German states for the protection of minors on the Internet, conducted a test with 11 filtering 
systems  from  8  different  providers  (KIM-Study  2014,  Pedagogical  Media  Research  Center  Southwest,  www.mpfs.de).  The  tests  proved  that  filtering 
systems and technical systems worked best on pornographic content. However, it could also be observed that there are continuing problems with regard 
to filtering specific types of content: in the case of right-wing extremist content, depictions of violence and racism only 50 % of the content was filtered 
correctly. 
The ERGA inventory paper reports that so far, content on social media platforms and video sharing platforms like YouTube can only be either blocked or 
unblocked as a whole because filters do not work on single entries on web sites. 
655

(http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/EU%20Kids%20II%20%282009-
11%29/EUKidsOnlineIIReports/ShortSNS.pdf): Fewer younger than older children use SNS but, nonetheless, many ‘under-age’ children are using SNS. 
Setting aside the question of whether it is appropriate for young children to use SNS services, it seems clear that measures to ensure that under-aged users 
are rejected or deleted from the service are not successful on the top SNS services used by children in Europe. 
SNS differ in whether they set age limits for young children. On sites with an age restriction, the rates of displaying an incorrect age in their profile are 
higher among those under than over the age limit, suggesting that ‘forbidden fruit’ is attractive. Since a child generally must declare an incorrect age (or 
date of birth) to create a profile on an age restricted site, it may be that age limits encourage children to declare an incorrect age to gain access; this may 
matter little when interacting with people they already know and who know their real age, but may be risky when making new contacts. 
Furthermore,  page  33  of  the  ERGA  inventory  paper  on  protection  of  minors  mentions  that  "recent  tests  showed  that  protection  tools  do  not  meet  the 
requirements of the rapid changes in the online world, especially when it comes to filtering of user generated content or allowing for access to the web in 
a manner differentiating by age." 
656 KIM-Study 2014, Pedagogical Media Research Center Southwest, <www.mpfs.de>. 

Online 

2014, 

Kids 

 EU 

165 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX  9  –  DETAILS  OF  THE  PROVISIONS  AND  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  COUNTRY  OF  ORIGIN 
PRINCIPLE 

Member State jurisdiction 

Jurisdiction can be based on the providers' (i) establishment in a Member State or (ii) use of a satellite 
up-link/satellite capacity situated in/appertaining to a Member State. 

Establishment: 
The Directive foresees that a provider is established in the Member State where it has its head office 
and editorial decisions are taken. 
If  these  two  places  do  not  coincide,  the  provider  shall  be  deemed  to  be  established  in  the  Member 
State where a significant part of its workforce operates.  
If  a  significant  part  of  its  workforce  operates  in  both  Member  States,  the  provider  is  deemed  to  be 
established in the Member State where its head office is located. 
If  a  significant  part  of  its  workforce  operates  in  neither  of  these  Member  States,  the  provider  is 
deemed  to  be  established  in  the  Member  State  where  it  first  began  its  activity,  provided  that  it 
maintains a stable and effective link with the economy of that Member State. 
If a provider has its head office in a Member State but decisions on the audiovisual media service are 
taken in a third country, or the other way round, it shall be deemed to be established in the Member 
State, provided that a significant part of the workforce operates there. 
Use of a satellite up-link/satellite capacity: 
Providers  are  deemed  to  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Member  State  if  they  use  a  satellite  up-link 
situated in that Member State. If they do not use a satellite up-link in a Member State, they will still be 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Member  State  if  they  use  satellite  capacity  appertaining  to  that  Member 
State. 

Permissible restrictions of the reception and retransmission of services freely circulating within 
the EU 

Regarding  broadcasting,  any  such  restrictions  are  limited  to  cases  of  incitement  to  hatred  and 
infringement of the provisions on protection of minors. For on-demand services, there is a longer list 
of  grounds  justifying  restrictions.  This  list  includes  public  policy,  public  security,  including  the 
safeguarding  of  national  security  and  defence,  the  protection  of  public  health  and  the  protection  of 
consumers.  The  relevant  procedure  includes  a  first  cooperation  phase  where  the  Member  State 
concerned  contacts  the  transmitting  Member  State  to  try  to  produce  an  amicable  settlement.  If  no 
amicable settlement has been produced and the receiving Member State decides to restrict the freedom 
of reception, it needs to notify the measures taken to the Commission. The Commission then has to 
take  a  decision  whether  the  notified  measures  are  compatible  with  Union  law.  This  is  the  so-called 
"derogation procedure". 
Member States may adopt stricter or more detailed rules in an area coordinated by the Directive. If a 
Member State has chosen to do so and encounters issues with a television broadcast mostly or wholly 
directed towards its territory, it can use the 'circumvention  procedure'. That procedure entitles the 
receiving Member States to adopt appropriate measures against the broadcaster concerned, provided, 
among  other  things,  that  the  broadcaster  in  question  has  established  itself  in  the  Member  State  of 
jurisdiction  in  order  to  avoid  stricter  rules  which  would  otherwise  be  applicable  to  it.  Before  a 
receiving Member State may adopt restrictive measures to counter circumvention, it needs to notify 
the sending Member State and the Commission of its intention to do so. The Commission then needs 
to take a decision whether the notified measures are compatible with Union law. This is the so-called 
"circumvention procedure". 

Application of derogation procedure 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  2015,  Lithuania  notified  to  the  Commission  measures  to  restrict  the  retransmission  of  a  Russian 
language  channel,  broadcast  from  Sweden,  on  the  basis  of  instances  of  incitement  to  hatred.  The 
Directive is silent as regards the procedure to be followed at national level and does not provide many 
details about the procedure before the Commission. This prompted the need for Lithuania to readopt a 
national  decision  and  send  a  supplementary  notification  to  the  Commission.  In  July  2015,  the 
Commission decided that the notified measures are compatible with EU law.657  

The Lithuanian case also brought to the fore uncertainties and disagreements with Sweden about what 
Member  State  had  jurisdiction  over  the  Russian  language  channel.    Similar  jurisdiction  issues  have 
arisen  in  the  Commission's  earlier  decisions  on  notifications  regarding  serious  infringements  of  the 
provisions on protection of minors (Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television, Extasi TV). 

These difficulties in applying the derogation procedure prompted the Commission services in August 
2015  to  provide  the  members  of  the  AVMSD  Contact  Committee  and  ERGA  with  clarifications  on 
that  procedure.  Some  months  later,  similar  procedural  difficulties  arose  in  the  context  of  a  new 
notification.658 In view of these issues, the Commission services have drafted a more comprehensive 
document  regarding  the  application  of  the  derogation  procedure  as  well  as  the  circumvention 
procedure.  This  document  will  be  presented  to  and  discussed  by  the  Contact  Committee  at  its 
December 2015 meeting. 

Application of circumvention procedure 

The  2nd  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD  reports  a  circumvention  case  regarding  alcohol 
advertising in Sweden. In December 2014, Sweden notified the Commission of envisaged measures 
(fines) in relation to two broadcasters broadcasting to Sweden from the UK for alleged circumvention 
of  stricter  Swedish  rules  on  alcohol  advertising.  Sweden  subsequently  withdrew  the  notification. 
Procedural  issues  also arose in  this case. In particular, the notification  lacked full details describing 
the procedure at national level in order to adopt restrictive measures659. Again, the notification raised 
the issue whether the broadcasters' right to be heard had been respected. 

Derogation procedure under the eCommerce Directive 

The  derogation  provision  concerning  non-linear  services  is  modelled  on  a  similar  provision  in  the 
eCommerce  Directive  which  contains  the  same  grounds  of  derogations  as  the  AVMSD.  It  emerges 
from  the  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  2012  Communication  on  eCommerce660 that, 
contrary  to  what  might  have  been  expected,  the  derogation  appears  to  have  been  used  very  rarely. 
Thus, in the last decade, the Commission services have received only 30 notifications, mainly dealing 
with  measures  to  protect  consumers.  The  Commission  never  declared  a  measure  incompatible  with 
EU law. Since 2013 relevant notifications under the eCommerce Directive are submitted through IMI 
(Internal Market Information System), which is an interface connecting national administration with 
the  Commission  and  among  themselves.  Since  then  the  number  of  notifications  appears  to  have 
increased slightly. 
The  Court  of  Justice  has  held  that  the  principles  contained  in  the  derogation  procedure  in  the 
eCommerce Directive must be interpreted in the same manner as those governing the Internal Market 

657 C(2015) 4609 final. 
658 In  October  2015,  Latvia  notified  the  Commission  of  two  alleged  instances  of  incitement  to  hatred  in  a  Russian  language  channel  broadcast  from 
Sweden and informed the Commission that it is seeking an amicable settlement with Sweden. On the basis of the information submitted by the Latvian 
authorities,  there  were  again  doubts  regarding  respect  of  the  broadcaster's  right  to  be  heard  to  which  the  Commission  services  drew  the  Lithuanian 
authorities' attention. 
659 This included both the procedure before the national regulator as well as the procedure before the court to which the regulator needs to apply for fines. 
660 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/communication2012/SEC2011_1641_en.pdf 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
freedom provisions of the Treaty.661 The same considerations would in all probability also apply to the 
AVMSD. Hence, the grounds of derogation would need to be interpreted restrictively. 

Simplification of jurisdiction rules 

The  jurisdictional  criteria  would  continue  to  focus  on  the  place  of  the  head  office  and  editorial 
decisions. If these places do not coincide, the Member State having jurisdiction could be determined 
by  reference  to  where  the  majority  of  the  workforce  (instead  of  currently  a  "significant  part  of  the 
workforce") is located. This would make reference to further complex subsidiary jurisdiction criteria 
superfluous, with establishment in a Member State remaining as a fall-back if jurisdiction cannot be 
determined by other means. 

661 Ker-Optika judgment, par. 76 

168 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 10 - COST OF THE COUNTRY OF DESTINATION – PROMOTION OF EUROPEAN WORKS IN THE 
5 BIGGEST MARKETS FOR ON-DEMAND SERVICES 

Objective: 

Determine  the  additional  cost  for  a VoD  provider  to  comply  with  the  financial  contributions  with a 
view to promoting in the 5 biggest EU markets (Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy). 

Background: 

According to the country of origin principle, a provider under the jurisdiction of a Member State will 
only have to comply with the rules of that Member State, while being able to roll out its services in 
other Member States. 
Moving to the country of destination principle for the financial contribution related to the promotion 
of  European  works,  would  mean  that  providers  would  need  to  comply  with  each  and  everything 
related national legislations of countries where their services are available. 

Scope: 

The calculation would cover only 5 big markets which according to the EAO represent 70 % of the on 
demand services market662. 

Methodology: 

Data available and hypothesis: 

The  first  difficulty  for  calculating  the  costs  of  moving  to  the  country  of  destination  for  financial 
contributions is that reliable information on the market share of on demand services in each of the 5 
big  markets  is  missing.  The  only  information  available  found  in  this  regard  was  found  via  google 
search and is the share of those services in Germany: 38.9 % for Amazon, 11,3 % for Itunes, 11,3 % 
for Maxdome, 10,8 % for Google Play, 8 % for Netflix, 4,4 % for Unitymedia, 3,1 % for Videoload 
and 2,3  % for Whatchever663. For recollection and according to the MAVISE Database, Amazon is 
established in Germany and Google Play is deemed to be established in the US. 

For this calculation, Itunes and Netflix will be used as examples for estimating the costs.   

The requirements in the 5 big markets as regards financial contributions are as follows: 

DE:  There  is  a  general  financial  obligation  of  between  1.8%  and  2.3%  of  the  turnover.  For  this 
calculation the higher option i.e. 2.3 % was used. 

FR:  On  demand  services  shall  promote  European  works  by  financially  contributing  to  the 
development  of  European  cinematographic  and  audovisual works  by  reserving  at  least  12%  to  26% 
(depending on the kind of service) of their net revenues. In this calculation 15 % have been used as an 
average. As for Germany, there is a general financial obligation of 2 % of the turnover. 

UK: No measure 

662 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in video-on-demand revenues 
663 http://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2015/02/24/amazon-prime-instant-video-leads-german-vod-market/ 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
IT: On demand services shall promote European works by reserving a 20% share for European works 
in their catalogues (5% during a transition period of 4 years) OR by contributing financially with a 5% 
of their revenues (2% during a transition period of 4 years) to the production or right acquisition of 
European  works.  A  strong  assumption  is  that  Itunes  (VoD)  and  Netflix  (SVoD)  would  be  asked  to 
contribute financially. 

ES: On demand services shall financially contribute to the funding of audiovisual content with at least 
5% of their turnover. 

Calculation: 

Based on the above rules and figures, the costs were estimated according to the following calculation: 

DE 

FR 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

Turnover 

Levy 

35,6 
25,2 

0,8 
0,6 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

Turnover 

37,3 
26,4 

Financial contribution - 
investment 

Levy 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

5,6 
4,0 

0,7 
0,5 

Total 

6,3 
4,5 

UK 

No levy or financial contribution 

IT 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Itunes 
  Netflix 

Turnover 

13,3 
9,4 

Financial contribution - 
investment 

ES 

0,7 
0,5 

7,1 
5,0 

Turnover 

Financial contribution - 
investment 

0,4 
0,3 

8,2 
5,8 

TOTAL 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

Itunes 
  Netflix 

The  costs  of  moving  to  the  country  of  destination  for  the  financial  contributions  related  to  the 
promotion of European works would be between EUR 5.8 and 8.2 million.   

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 11 – COMPLIANCE OF NATIONAL REGULATORS WITH INDIREG CRITERIA ON INDEPENDENCE 

Member 
States/ 
INDIREG  
criteria 

Lack of 
recognition of 
independence 
in national 
framework 

Lack of full 
separation 
from 
ministerial/ 
government 
bodies  

Austria  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 

Estonia 
Finland 

France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary  
Italy 
Ireland 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembour

Implicit 
recognition 
v 
Implicit 
recognition 

v 

v 
v 

v 
v 

v- Lack of 
conflict of 
interest rules 
before 
appointment 

x- lack of 
conflict of 
interest rules 
with the 
Government 
during the term 
of office 
v 

v 

v 

v             x 

Appointment 
procedures 

Status and 
power 

Autonomy of decision 
making bodies 

Lack of policy 
setting powers 

V – no power to decide its own internal 
organisation and procedures  
x  –  no  power  to  decide  on  human 
resources 
z- regulatory powers limited by the 
power of other bodies to overturn their 
decisions   
y - regulatory powers limited by the 
power of other bodies to give instruction  

Financial 
autonomy- 

Lack of adequate 
budgetary 
resources 

Knowledge  
and  
staffing 

Lack of adequate 
staffing resources  

Lack of 
transparency 
during the 
decision 
making 
process 

        v 
        v 
        v 

        v 
        v 
        v 

        v 

        v 
        v 
        v 

        v 

       v 

        x 
                      z           y 
          x                       y 

                                   y 
          x 
v                     z           y 

v       
                                  y 

                                  y 

         x 

                               y 
                               y 

           x                  y 

v 
v 

v 

v 

v 

v 

v 
v 
v 

v 

v 

v 

v 
v 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
g 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 

Portugal  
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
The UK 
Member 
States/ 
INDIREG  
criteria 

Implicit 
recognition 

Recognitio
n of 
independe
nce in 
national 
framework 

Full 
separation 
from 
ministerial/
governmen
t bodies  

       v 
       v 
       v 

       v 

       v 

       v 
       v 

Status and 
power 
v- policy 
implement
ation 
powers 
x-policy 
setting 
powers 

                x 

v 

               x 

v 
Appointme
nt 
procedures
/Conflict 
of interest 
rules 
before 
appointme
nt 

                               y 
                   z 

v 

                               y 

v 

v 

Knowledge  
and  
staffing 

Financial 
autonomy- 
Adequate 
budgetary 
resources 

Transparenc
y during the 
decision 
making 
process 

v 
                               y 
                               y 
Autonomy of decision 
making bodies 
V - power to decide its own 
internal organisation and 
procedures  
x – power to decide on 
human resources 
z- regulatory powers 
limited by the power of 
other bodies to overturn 
their decisions   
y - regulatory powers 
limited by the power of 
other bodies to give 
instruction  

Austria  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Croatia 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Rep. 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 

v 

v 

v 
v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
V    x 
v 
v 

          v 
X        v           z   y 
X        v                y 
X        v              
X        v                y 
X        v 

v 

v 

v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary  
Italy 
Ireland 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembou
rg 
Malta 
Netherland
s 
Poland 
Portugal  
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
The UK 

v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 

v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
V    x 
v 
v 
v 
v 
V    x 
v 
V    x 
V    x 
v 
V    x 

v 
v 

v 
v 
V    x 
v 
v 
v 
v 
V    x 

X        v            z   y 
X        v 
          V                y 
X        v                y 
x 

x 
X                         y 
X                         y 
x 
x 
X                         y 

X                        y 
X                   z 

x 
x 
X                            y 
x 
x 
x 
X                            y 
X                            y 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 
v 

v 

v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 
v 

V 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 

v 

v 

v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 

v 
v 
v 
v 
v 

v 
v 

174 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 12 – CRITERIA OF INDEPENDENCE OF NRAS 

1. Independence from Third Parties 

Studies and Council of Europe 

It implies that the audiovisual regulatory body should form a separate legal entity; it also refers to the impartiality of the decision-
making.  All  the  articles  and  studies  related  to  the  issue  of  independence  of  regulators  agree  that  "the  regulatory  body  can 
achieve the relevant degree of structural independence from the government only if established as a separate legal entity."  A 
functional separation between the ministry and the regulatory body shelters the autonomy of the regulatory body from politics but 
also from industry, because industry capture can also be performed via political channels.664  
EU Legislative Frameworks 

  Telecom Framework: only separation from economic operators "legally distinct and functionally independent of 
all  organizations  providing  electronic  communications  networks,  equipment,  services."665 The  NRA  should  not 
seek or take instructions from any other body in relation to the exercise of these tasks assigned to it.666  

  Data Protection: These authorities shall act with complete independence in exercising the functions entrusted 

to them.667 

  Postal Services: "Each Member State shall designate one or more national regulatory authorities for the postal 

sector that are legally separate from and operationally independent of the postal operators" 

  Gas  and  Electricity  Frameworks:  Member  State  shall  ensure  that,  when  carrying  out  the  regulatory  tasks 

conferred upon it by this Directive and related legislation, the regulatory authority: 

(a) Is legally distinct and functionally independent from any other public or private entity; 

 (b)  Ensures that its staff and the persons responsible for its management: 

(i)  Act independently from any market interest; and 

 (ii)  Do not seek or take direct instructions from any government or other public or private entity 
when  carrying  out  the  regulatory  tasks.  This  requirement  is  without  prejudice  to  close 
cooperation,  as  appropriate,  with  other  relevant  national  authorities  or  to  general  policy 
guidelines issued by the government not related to the regulatory powers and duties under 
Article 37.668 

2. Transparent Decision-Making Processes and Accountability to Relevant 

Stakeholders 

Studies and Council of Europe 

664 INDIREG Final Report, p. 359, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
665 Article 3 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC) 
666 INDIREG Final Report, p. 359, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
667 Article 28 Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) 
668 Article 35(5) Electricity Directive (Directive 2009/72/EC) and Article 39 (5) Gas Directive (Directive 2009/73/EC) 

175 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
As argued in the literature on the topic, accountability and transparency mechanisms can help deter undue 
influences  by  other  actors  or  their  attempts  to  influence  public  opinion.  Therefore,  the  minimum  of 
transparency regarding decision making is essential for all regulatory bodies to act in an impartial manner. 
Broader  public  accountability  measures  (represented  by  parliament  or  other  legitimised  bodies)  provide 
legitimacy and also function as a means to provide the regulatory body with autonomy. The regulatory body 
should have an obligation to conduct open consultations in an inclusive and transparent manner and should 
have a reporting obligation to the public at large. 669  

EU Legislative Frameworks 

Telecom Framework: it shall exercise its powers impartially, transparently and in a timely manner.670 

 
  Data Protection: Each supervisory authority shall draw up a report on its activities at regular intervals. The report shall be 

made public.671   

3. Open and Transparent Procedures for the Nomination, Appointment and 

Removal of Board Members 

Studies and Council of Europe 

The nomination and appointment process regarding the highest decision-making organ can comprise influence factors therefore 
the procedures for the nomination and appointment have to be structured in a way that prevents a structural bias. To ensure that 
the  members  of  the  highest  decision-making  organ  of  the  regulatory  body  are  not  bound  to  interests  that  prevent  them  from 
making  important  decisions,  rules  against  conflict  of  interest  with  regard  to  all  relevant  actors  are  needed  as  an  essential 
characteristic of independence.  Dismissal shall only be possible for limited reasons strictly defined in law. 672 

EU Legislative Frameworks 

 

Telecom  framework:  The  Head  of  Board  members  of  the  NRA  may  be  dismissed  only  in  no  longer  fulfil  the  conditions 
required for the performance of their duties (laid down in advance in national law). Dismissal decision shall be made public 
and a statement of reasons shall be made available.673 

  Electricity Framework: In order to protect the independence of the regulatory authority, Member States shall in particular 
ensure that: (b) the members of the board of the regulatory authority or, in the absence of a board, the regulatory authority’s 
top management are appointed for a fixed term of five up to seven years, renewable once. In regard to point (b) of the first 
subparagraph,  Member  States  shall  ensure  an  appropriate  rotation  scheme  for  the  board  or  the  top  management.  The 
members of the board or, in the absence of a board, members of the top management may be relieved from office during 
their term only if they no longer fulfil the conditions set out in this Article or have been guilty of misconduct under national 
law.674 

4.  Knowledge and Expertise of Human Resources 

Studies and Council of Europe 

Knowledge of the staff of the regulatory authority is essential both for fulfilling the regulatory tasks effectively and for wielding 
counteracting  power  when  actors  are  trying  to  put  pressure  on  a  regulatory  body.  The  regulatory  body  should  thus  this  be 

669 INDIREG Final Report, p.364, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
670 Article 3 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC) 
671 Article 28 (5) Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) 
672 INDIREG Final Report, pp 361-362, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
673 Article 3 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC) 
674 Article 35(5) Electricity Directive (Directive 2009/72/EC) and Article 39 (5) Gas Directive (Directive 2009/73/EC) 

176 

 
 
                                                 
equipped  with  sufficient  human  resources  and  adequate  expertise,  which  comprise  expertise  of  the  members  of  the  highest 
decision making body itself and/or expertise gained from external advice.675 As argued in the studies on the independence of 
regulators, independence is positively linked to the development and application of technical expertise because expertise can be 
a source of resistance against improper influences." 676 

EU Legislative Frameworks 

 

Telecom  Frameworks: NRA shall have adequate financial and human resources to enable them to carry out their tasks, 
also at EU level.677 

  Gas and Electricity Frameworks: In order to protect the independence of the regulatory authority, Member States shall in 
particular ensure that: (a) the regulatory authority (…) has adequate human and financial resources to carry out its duties.678 

5.  Financial, Operational and Decision Making Autonomy  

Studies and Council of Europe 

Financial autonomy has been considered an important indicator for dependency potential of the regulatory body. Where external 
parties have legal influence on the level of the budget, they can both exert pressure to get politically motivated decisions from the 
body, as well as undermine its operational capacity through inadequate financing.679 Like all organisations, regulators depend on 
resources  to  fulfil  their  tasks  in  an  adequate  and  especially  impartial  manner.  If  funding  of  regulatory  body  is  insufficient  this 
indicates serious risk potentials for the regulatory body's independence.  The regulatory authority should play a significant role in 
the budget setting process.680 

EU Legislative Frameworks 

 

Telecom Framework: NRA shall have adequate financial and human resources to enable them to carry out their tasks, also 
at EU level. This also means that NRAs must have a separate annual budget.681  

  Data Protection: Each Member State shall provide that the supervisory authorities are consulted then drawing 
up  administrative  measures  or  regulations  relating  to  the  protection  of  individuals'  rights  and  freedoms  with 
regard to the processing of personal data.682 

  Gas  and  Electricity  Frameworks:  In  order  to  protect  the  independence  of  the  regulatory  authority,  Member 
States shall in particular ensure that: (a) the regulatory authority can take autonomous decisions, independently 
from any political body, and has separate annual budget allocations, with autonomy in the implementation of the 
allocated budget, and adequate human and financial resources to carry out its duties.683 

6.  Effective enforcement powers 

Studies and Council of Europe 

Enforcement power of NRA is a very important criterion to measure its independence. The range of enforcement powers given to 
a regulator dictates whether it can act independently or whether it needs to go to courts or another entity to enforce compliance 
with the rules. Regulator needs monitoring and enforcement powers at its own disposal to supervise audiovisual media services 

675 INDIREG Final Report, p.363 http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
676 INDIREG Final Report, pp.31-32, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360  
677 Article 3 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC) 
678 Article 35 (5)Electricity Directive (Directive 2009/72/EC); Article 39(5) Gas Directive  (Directive 2009/73/EC) 
679 INDIREG Final Report, p.55.http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
680 INDIREG Final Report,  p.360, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360 
681 Article 3 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC) 
682 Article 28 (2) Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) 
683 Article 35(5) Electricity Directive (Directive 2009/72/EC) 

177 

 
 
                                                 
in an effective manner. The regulatory body needs to be equipped with the powers that are binding for the regulators and go 
beyond the status of mere recommendations.  

EU Legislative Frameworks 

  Data Protection: Each authority shall in particular be endowed with: 

 

Investigative  powers,  such  as  powers  of  access  to  data  forming  the  subject-matter  of 
processing operations and powers to collect all the information necessary for the performance 
of its supervisory duties, 

  Effective  powers  of  intervention,  such  as,  for  example,  that  of  delivering  opinions  before 
processing operations are carried out, in accordance with Article 20, and ensuring appropriate 
publication  of  such  opinions,  of  ordering  the  blocking,  erasure  or  destruction  of  data,  of 
imposing a temporary or definitive ban on processing, of warning or admonishing the controller, 
or that of referring the matter to national parliaments or other political institutions, 

  The power to engage in legal proceedings where the national provisions adopted pursuant to 
this  Directive  have  been  violated  or  to  bring  these  violations  to  the  attention  of  the  judicial 
authorities.684 

  Postal  Services:  The  national  regulatory  authorities  shall  have  as  a  particular  task  ensuring 
compliance  with  the  obligations  arising  from  this  Directive,  in  particular  by  establishing  monitoring 
and  regulatory  procedures  to  ensure  the  provision  of  the  universal  service.  They  may  also  be 
charged with ensuring compliance with competition rules in the postal sector.685 

7.  The Possibility only for Judicial Power to Review the NRAs’ Decisions 

Studies and Council of Europe 

Instructions or overruling by any other body than the court should not be possible at all when it comes to 
the specific decision of the regulatory body. 686 

EU Legislative Frameworks 

 

Telecom framework: only appeal bodies that are independent of the parties involved shall have the powers to suspend or 
overturn NRAs decisions.687 

  Data protection: Decisions by the supervisory authority which give rise to complaints may be appealed against through the 

courts.688 

  Postal services: Member States shall ensure that effective mechanisms exist at national level under which any 
user or postal service provider affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority has the right to appeal 
against the decision to an appeal body which is independent of the parties involved. Pending the outcome of any 
such  appeal,  the  decision  of  the  national  regulatory  authority  shall  stand,  unless  the  appeal  body  decides 
otherwise.
689

684 Article 28 (3) Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) 
685 Article 22 (2) Postal Services Directive (Directive 200!/6/EC) 
686 INDIREG Final Report, p.358, http://www.indireg.eu/?p=360  
687 Article 4 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC) 
688 Article 28 (3) Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) 
689 Article 22 (3) Postal Services Directive (Directive 200!/6/EC) 

178 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 13 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON THE PROMOTION OF EU WORKS AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

Article 13 

Member 
State 

Austria         

No 
specific 
national 
measures  

National measures implementing Article 13.1                Summary of the 

national regulations  

National legal basis 
(translation from original 
language) 

Quotas 
Public 
services - 
Yes (50%)  

Prominence 
Public 
services - No     

Commercial 
services - No 

Commercial 
services - 
Yes 

demand 

Commercial services - 
No 

Financial Contribution 
On 
services 
Public services - No                                                        
offered  by  the  Austrian 
Broadcasting 
Corporation 
shall 
reserve 
the  majority 
of 
proportion 
programmes to European 
works.  Other  on  demand 
services  providers  shall 
give European works due 
their 
prominence 
catalogues 
or 
appropriately  designate 
them 

in 

shall 

services 

prejudice 

Federal  Act  on  Audio-visual  Media 
Services  (AMD-G)  -  consolidated  30 
July  2015  -  Article  40:  Media  service 
providers  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media 
promote 
European works in the presentation of 
their  catalog  of  programs  by  giving 
due  prominence  to  or  appropriately 
designating such works. 
Federal  Act 
the  Austrian 
on 
Broadcasting  Corporation  (ORF-G)  - 
consolidated 13 August 2015 - Article 
12:  Without 
the 
requirements  of  §  4e  and  §  4f  in 
connection with the provisions of Part 
the  majority  proportion  of 
1a, 
programmes  in  on-demand  services 
offered  by  the  Austrian  Broadcasting 
Corporation or its subsidiaries, where 
practicable  and  subject  to  the  use  of 
reasonable  means,  shall  consist  of 
European  works  in  accordance  with 
Art. 1 paragraph 1 (n) and paragraphs 
2 to 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU on the 
coordination of certain provisions laid 
or 
down 
administrative  action 
in  Member 
States  concerning  the  provision  of 

regulation 

law, 

by 

to 

179 

 
 
 
  
  
 
  
                                                       
                                                   
 
 
Belgium FL 

 X 

No 

No 

No 

by 

On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
appropriate 
and 
means, 
promote 
European  works.  By 
example 
means 
of 
financial 
through: 
contributions, 
shares 
and/or 
prominence 
measures. 

Belgium FR 

No 

Yes 

Yes (up to 2,2% of all 
revenues for editors 
and either 2 euros per 
user or 2,5% of all 
revenues for 
distributors) The 
service provider can 
choose to contribute in 
the form of a levy. 

demand 

On 
services 
must  place  particular 
emphasis  on  European 
works  by  using 
an 
attractive  presentation  in 
their  catalogues.  Two 
financial 
types 
of 
For 
contribution: 
services 
"éditeurs  de 

acquisition 

on  Radio 

media 
Media 

-  Consolidated 

services 
audiovisual 
(Audiovisual 
Services 
Directive),  OJ  No.  L  95,  of  15  April 
2010, page 1. 
and  Television 
Act 
Broadcasting 
12 
August  2014  –  Article  157:  The  non-
television  broadcasters  will 
linear 
promote  the  production  of  and  access 
to  European  productions,  insofar  as 
this  is  feasible  and  by  appropriate 
means.  Such  promotion  could  relate, 
inter alia, to the financial contribution 
made  by 
television 
the  non-linear 
broadcasters  to  the  production  and 
of  European 
rights 
productions  or  to  the  share  and/or 
prominence  of  European  productions 
in 
the  catalogue  of  programmes 
offered  by  the  on-demand  programme 
catalogue  of  the  non-linear  television 
service. 
A 
the 
promotional  resources,  referred  to  in 
the  first  indent,  has  to  be  used  for 
Dutch-language 
European 
productions. 
lay 
The  Flemish  Government  can 
the  potential  resources  and 
down 
measures,  as  mentioned  in  the  first 
indent. 
Audiovisual media services decree - 
consolidated 29 January 2015 - Article 
46: 
In  their  non-linear  television  services, 
the  RTBF  and  service  editors  must 
ensure 
they  place  particular 
emphasis  on  the  European  works  in 
their  catalogue, 
including  original 
works  by  authors  from  the  French-
speaking  Community  of  Belgium,  by 
using  an  attractive  presentation  to 

considerable 

share 

that 

of 

180 

 
 
 
  
If 

distributeur 

télévisuels":  up  to  2,2% 
of all revenues generated 
by  audio-visual  services 
(valid for broadcasters as 
well  as  VoD  service 
a 
providers). 
service 
audiovisual 
provider 
offers 
in  French 
programmes 
the 
and  Dutch,  only 
French-speaking 
programmes  will 
be 
taken into account for the 
revenue  calculation.  For 
"tout 
de 
services 
télévisuels": 
either  2€  per  user  or 
2,5%  of  the  revenues. 
Financial 
contributions 
can  be  made  directly  to 
and/or 
co-productions 
acquisition  of  rights  OR 
in the for of a levy to the 
Cinema  and  Audiovisual 
Center. 
On 
services 
shall  use  an  accesible 
attractive 
and 
presentation of European 
works 
their 
on 
catalogues.  

demand 

highlight  the  list  of  European  works 
available. 
Article 41: 
The  financial  contribution  can  be  of 
0%  of  editor's  annual  turnover  when 
this is less than EUR 300.000, up to a 
maximum of 2.2% of editor's turnover 
when this is over EUR 20 million.  

Radio and Television Act - 
Consolidated version of 24 December 
2014 - Article 19  (2)-(3):  
(2)  The  creation  of  and  access  to 
European  works  in  the  case  of  on-
demand  audiovisual  media  services 
shall  be  promoted,  where  practicable 
and by appropriate means. 
(3) 
service 
providers  shall  use  hardware  and 
software 
the  accessible  and 
attractive  presentation  of  European 

Audiovisual  media 

for 

181 

Bulgaria 

No 

Yes  

No 

 
 
  
Croatia 

Yes (20%) 

Yes  

OR  

OR 

Yes (in proportion with 
EU works missing 
from programme 
catalogue to comply 
with the quota) 

by 

On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
and 
appropriate 
promote 
means, 
European  works.  By 
example 
means 
of 
financial 
through: 
contributions, 
shares 
and/or 
prominence 
measures. 

Cyprus 

Yes (20%) 

No 

No 

On  demand  audiovisual 
services  providers  shall 
their 
ensure 
that 
at 
catalogues 

include 

works in the catalogue of programmes 
offered  by 
the  audiovisual  media 
service. 
The Electronic Media Act - 
Consolidated 8 July 2011 - Art. 21  
(1)-(3): 
(1)  The on-demand audiovisual  media 
service  providers  shall  use  their  best 
efforts  in  order  that  their  on-demand 
audiovisual  media  services  promote, 
where  practicable  and  by  appropriate 
means, the production of and access to 
European works. 
(2) Promotion of the works referred to 
in  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  could 
relate,  inter  alia,  to  the  financial 
contribution  made  by  such  services  to 
the  production  and  rights  acquisition 
of  European  works  or  to  the  share 
and/or prominence of European works 
the  catalogue  of  programmes 
in 
offered  by  the  on-demand  audiovisual 
media service. 
(3)  The on-demand audiovisual  media 
service  providers  shall  attain  and 
increase  the  financial  contribution  or 
the  share  and/or  prominence  of 
European  works  in  the  catalogue  of 
programmes  referred  to  in  paragraph 
2 of this Article in accordance with the 
criteria  and  method  laid  down  by  the 
ordinance  adopted  by  the  Electronic 
Media Council under Article 42 para 2 
of this Act . 
Electronic Media Act, OG 
153/09,84/11,94/13,136/13, unofficial 
consolidated text 
Law on Radio and Television Stations 
- Article 31A.  (2) (a) and (b): 
(a) 
service 
providers shall ensure that on-demand 
audiovisual  media  services  promote, 

Audiovisual  media 

182 

 
 
  
 
 
 
  
Czech 
Republic 

Yes (10%) 

No 

Yes (1% total 
revenues) 

least  20%  of  European 
works titles.  

the 

Radio 

note 
to 

that 
*Please 
according 
the 
suggested  amendment 
of 
and 
Television  Organizations 
Laws  (1998-2015),  that 
has  been  submitted  to 
the  House  of  Parliament 
examination) 
awaiting 
the percentage is 10%. 
On 
services 
must reserve at least 10% 
of  the  total  number  of 
their 
programmes 
catalogues  to  European 
works  OR  spend  at  least 
total 
1% 
revenues  on  production 
or  right  acquisition  of 
European works.  

demand 

their 

of 

in 

to  comply  with 

where  practicable  and  by  appropriate 
means, the production of and access to 
European works. 
(b)  In  order 
the 
obligation referred to in subparagraph 
(a),  on-demand  audiovisual  media 
service  providers  shall  ensure  that 
their  catalogue  of  works  available  to 
users  includes  at  least  20%  European 
works titles, 
It  being  understood  that  the  above 
revised 
percentage 
periodically by the Authority following 
consultations  with 
the  audiovisual 
media service providers. 

may 

be 

provider 

Act 132/2010 on On-demand 
Audiovisual Media Services - Article 
7.  (1) and (2): 
(1)  An  on-demand  audiovisual  media 
shall, 
service 
where 
practicable,  reserve 
for  European 
works8)  at  least  10%  of  the  total 
number  of  programmes  offered  in  its 
service’s  catalogue  of  programmes 
during  a  reporting  period.  The  total 
number  of  programmes  forming  the 
basis for determining the proportion of 
European  works  shall  not  include 
recordings  of 
news  programmes, 
sports 
competitive 
programmes. 
(2)  The  obligation  under  paragraph 
(1)  above  shall  be  regarded  as 
satisfied  if  an  on-demand  audiovisual 
media service provider spends at least 
1% of total revenues generated by the 
service in a reporting period on:   
a)  the production of European works, 
or 
b)  the paid acquisition of rights to use 
the  on-
European  works 

through 

events, 

or 

183 

 
 
 
  
Denmark 

X 

No 

No 

No 

demand 

services 
On 
appropriate 
shall  use 
means 
promote 
to 
European  works  when 
possible.  

and 

Radio 

demand audiovisual media service. 
Executive Order on Registration-
Based Programme Activity and On-
Demand Audiovisual Programme 
Activities - Consolidated nr. 100 of 28 
January 2010 - Section 10 (1): 
Providers  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media  services  shall  use  appropriate 
means  to  promote  the  production  of 
and  access  to  European  works,  see 
Annex 1, and do so when possible. 
Television 
The 
Broadcasting  Act  -  consolidated  6 
May 2010 - Article 48:  
The minister for Culture may lay down 
programming 
the 
rules 
activities,  including  rules  about  the 
content, promotion of European works 
and  rules  of 
the  availability  of 
programs.  In  context  with  rules  about 
the 
programs 
the 
minister  may 
lay  down  rules  on 
protection  of  minors.  Furthermore 
rules  banning  incitement  to  hatred  
based  on  race,  sex,  religion  or 
nationality    and  sexual  observation 
may be laid down. 

broadcasting 

about 

Estonia 

No 

Yes 

Yes (not speficied) 

demand 

On 
services 
shall  promote  European 
works  by,  among  other 
providing 
means, 
for 
financial 
rights 
production 
AND 
acquisition 
highlighting 
European 
works in their catalogues 
(including  recent  works) 

support 
or 

Furthermore  rules  banning  promotion 
of terrorism may be laid down. 
Media Service Act - Article 24: 
On-demand audiovisual media service 
shall  promote  production  of  and 
to  European  works, 
accessibility 
taking  account  of  the  specific  nature 
and  opportunities  of 
the  service. 
Promotion  of  the  production  of  and 
to  European  works 
accessibility 
means,  among  other,  for  on-demand 
audiovisual media service provider: 
1)  provision  of  financial  support  for 
the  production  of  European  works, 

184 

 
 
 
  
Germany 

No 

No 

No 

Finland 

X 

No 

No 

No 

presenting 
and year of production.  

their  origin 

No national 
implementation 
measures have been 
notified for the 
promotion of European 
works.  

demand 

On 
services 
shall  promote  European 
works  by,  as  a  means  of 
example, 
financial 
contributions,  enhanced 
visibily or other means. 

last 

ordering of the works or obtaining the 
rights for the transmission thereof; 
2) highlighting European works in the 
programme  catalogue,  including  the 
works  completed  during 
five 
years, presenting the country of origin 
and  the  year  of  completion  of  such 
works; 
3)  highlighting  the  works  that  are  in 
compliance  with  the  features  of  own 
production  and  highlighting  the  year 
of  their  completion  in  the  programme 
catalogue. 
Art. 11d Interstate Broadcasting 
Treaty: 

Information Society Code - 
consolidated 18 September 2015 – 
Article 209: 
A  broadcaster  shall  reserve  a  major 
part  of  its  annual  broadcasting  time 
for European works. 
The  broadcasting  time  referred  to 
above  does  not  include  time  reserved 
for: 
1) news; 
2) sports events; 
3) 
programmes; 
4) advertising; 
5) teletext services; 
6) teleshopping. 
is 
Further  provisions  on  what 
considered  European  works  referred 
to  in  subsection  1  in  accordance  with 
Article  1  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 

entertainment 

competitive 

185 

 
 
  
 
 
 
France 

Yes (60%) 

Yes 

Yes (15%-26% net 
revenues) In the form 
of a levy 
(extraterritorial 
application envisaged) 

60% 

demand 

their  catalogues 

On 
services 
shall  promote  European 
works  by  means  of:  (i) 
share 
reserving 
applied) 
(progressively 
to 
of 
works; 
European 
displaying  an  adequate 
proportion  of  European 
works in their homepage; 
financially 
and 
the 
contributing 
development 
of 
European 
and 
cinematographic 
audovisual  works  by  at 
least 
26% 
(depending  on  the  kind 
of  service)  of  their  net 
revenues. 

12% 

to 

to 

be 

by 

laid 

shall 

down 

issued 

shall 
and 

concerning 

States 
of 

promote 
distribution 

Council on the coordination of certain 
provisions 
law, 
regulation  or  administrative  action  in 
Member 
the 
provision 
audiovisual  media 
services  (Audiovisual  Media  Services 
Directive) 
by 
Government Decree. 
Video-on-demand  audiovisual  service 
the 
providers 
production 
of 
European  works  with  the  help  of 
financial contributions to productions, 
programme  acquisitions,  enhanced 
visibility of European works or similar 
means. 
Law n° 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 
on the Freedom of communication - 
consolidated 16 October 2015 - 
Articles 3-5 and 12 of Decree No. 
2010-1379 of 12 November 2010: 
Art. 3 
Catch-up 
television  services  shall 
devote  each  year  part  of  their  net 
the  previous 
annual  revenues  of 
financial 
expenditure 
to 
contributing to the development of the 
production 
European 
cinematographic  works  and  original 
French-language 
the 
proportion  of  which  shall  be  identical 
to  that  to  which  the  provider  of 
services  is  subject  in  respect  of  the 
operation  of  the  television  service 
from  which  the  catch-up  service  has 
originated. 
The  provisions  of 
the  previous 
paragraph  shall  not  be  applicable  to 
catch-up 
television  services  whose 
revenues are included in the resources 
of  the  television  service  from  which 
they have originated, by application of 

works, 

year 

both 

of 

186 

 
 
  
to 

year 

proportion 

cinematographic 

the Decree of 2 July 2010. 
Art. 4 
I. ― Subscription-based services shall 
devote each year a proportion of their 
net  annual  revenues  of  the  previous 
financial 
expenditure 
contributing to the development of, on 
the  production  of 
the  one  hand, 
European 
and 
audiovisual  works  and,  on  the  other 
French-language 
original 
hand, 
shall 
The 
works. 
respectively be at least: 
1.  26%  and  22%  when  they  offer  at 
least  10  full-length  cinematographic 
works a year within a period less than 
twenty-two  months  after  their  cinema 
release in France; 
2.  21%  and  17%  when  they  offer  at 
least  10  full-length  cinematographic 
works a year within a period less than 
thirty-six months and equal to or more 
than  twenty-two  months  after  their 
cinema release in France; 
3. 15% and 12% in other cases. 
II.  ―  Expenditure  resulting  from  the 
application of the provisions of section 
I shall be invested in the production of 
audiovisual 
cinematographic 
works  but  excluding  those  mentioned 
in  the  fifth  paragraph  of  Article  1609 
sexdecies  B  of  the  General  Tax  Code, 
in accordance with the shares of each 
of  these  two  genres  of  works  in  the 
total  number  of  items  downloaded  or 
viewed  by  users  of  the  service  during 
the  previous  financial  year.  When  the 
service  offers  less  than  10  full-length 
cinematographic works or less than 10 
audiovisual  works  a 
the 
expenditure  shall  be  invested  only  in 
the  production  of  works  in  respect  of 

year, 

and 

187 

 
 
than 

from 

from 

which the threshold has been reached. 
Art. 5 
those 
I.  ―  Services  other 
mentioned 
in  Articles  3  and  4, 
especially pay-per-view services, shall 
devote each year: 
1.  15%  at  least  of  their  net  annual 
revenues of the previous financial year 
resulting 
the  exploitation  of 
cinematographic works to expenditure 
contributing to the development of the 
European 
of 
production 
cinematographic  works,  of  which  at 
least  12%  to  expenditure  contributing 
to  the  development  of  the  production 
French-language 
original 
of 
cinematographic works; 
2.  15%  at  least  of  their  net  annual 
revenues of the previous financial year 
resulting 
the  exploitation  of 
audiovisual  works  other  than  those 
mentioned  in  the  fifth  paragraph  of 
Article  1609  sexdecies  B  of 
the 
General  Tax  Code 
to  expenditure 
contributing to the development of the 
production  of  European  audiovisual 
works,  of  which  at  least  12%  to 
expenditure 
the 
the  production  of 
development  of 
original  French-language  audiovisual 
works. 
II.  ―  The  proportion  of  turnover 
originating  from  revenues  other  than 
those  referred  to  in  section  I  shall  be 
taken  into  account  when  calculating 
the revenues mentioned in paragraphs 
1  and  2  of  section  I  in  proportion  to 
the  respective  amounts  of  the  latter. 
Decree (tables of exemptions). 
Art. 12 
At all times, providers of services shall 
total  number 
reserve  out  of 

contributing 

the 

to 

188 

 
 
Greece 

X 

No 

No 

No 

Hungary 

Yes (25%) 

No 

No 

by 

On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
appropriate 
and 
means, 
promote 
European  works.  By 
example 
of 
means 
financial 
through: 
contributions, 
shares 
and/or 
prominence 
measures. 

demand 

On 
services 
shall allocate at least one 
total 
quarter  of 
annual 
of 
programmes  available  to 
European works. 

the 
length 

of 

shall 

works 

audiovisual 

full-length 
respectively 
cinematographic 
and 
audiovisual  works  made  available  to 
the  public  a  proportion  at  least  equal 
to: 
1. 60% for European works; 
Art. 13 
On  their  homepages,  providers  of 
services  ensure 
that  a  substantial 
proportion  is devoted  to  works,  which 
promotionis  ensured  by  other  means 
than  the  reference  to  the  title,  to 
european works (…) 
Decree No. 109 - Article 14 ( 1): 
media 
On-demand 
promote,  where 
services 
practicable and by appropriate means, 
the  production  of  and  access 
to 
European  works.  Such  promotion 
could relate, inter alia, to the financial 
contribution  made  by  such  services  to 
the  production  and  rights  acquisition 
of  European  works  or  to  the  share 
and/or prominence of European works 
the  catalogue  of  programmes 
in 
offered  by  the  on-demand  audiovisual 
media service. 
Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media 
Services and Mass Media - 
Consolidated  July 2015  
Article 20: 
(1) The media service provider 
a) shall allocate over half of its annual 
linear 
total 
audiovisual  media 
to 
broadcasting  European  works  and 
over one-third of its transmission time 
to broadcasting Hungarian works; 
b) shall allocate at least ten percent of 
its  annual  total  transmission  time  of 
linear  audiovisual  media  services  to 
broadcasting  such  European  works, 

transmission 

time  of 

services 

189 

 
 
  
Ireland 

X 

No 

No 

No 

by 

On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
and 
appropriate 
promote 
means, 
European  works.  By 
example 
means 
of 
financial 
through: 
contributions, 
shares 
and/or 
prominence 
measures. 

time 

and  at  least  eight  percent  of  its 
to  broadcasting 
transmission 
that  were 
such  Hungarian  works 
ordered  by  it  from  an  independent 
or  were 
company, 
production 
purchased 
independent 
from  an 
production  company  within  five  years 
of production. 
(2)  Over  one-quarter  of  the  total 
length  of 
the  programmes  made 
available  in  a  given  calendar  year  in 
the  form  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media  services  shall  be  European 
works, and at least ten percent shall be 
Hungarian works. 

European Communities (Audiovisual 
Media Services) Regulations 2010 
(S.I. No. 258 of 2010) – Article 11 
(1)(2)(3): 

to 

inter  alia, 

(1)  On-demand  audiovisual      media  
services  provided   by  media  service 
providers      shall      promote,    where    
practicable      and      by      appropriate   
means,  production  of  and  access  to 
European  works.  Such  promotion 
could  relate, 
the  
financial    contribution  made    by  such 
services  to  the    production  and  rights 
acquisition  of  European  works  or  to 
the  share  or  prominence  of  European 
works 
  catalogue  of 
programmes  offered    by  the    on-
demand audiovisual media  service. 
2)  Where  a  request  is  made  by  the 
Minister  or  relevant  regulatory  body 
to 
an audiovisual media service provider 
for  information  necessary  to  enable 
the 
Minister  to  make  a  report  referred  to 

the 

in 

190 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Italy 

Yes (20%) 

No 

Yes (5% total 
revenues)  

OR 

demand 

services 
On 
shall  promote  European 
works  by  reserving  a 
20%  share  for  European 
works in their catalogues 
(5%  during  a  transition 
period of 4 years) OR by 
financially 
contributing 
with  a  5%  of 
their 
revenues  (2%  during  a 
transition  period  of  4 
years)  to  the  production 
or  right  acquisition  of 
European  works. 
In 
2015,  after  a  public 
consultation, 
the 
regulation 
establishing 
the  EU  quotas  has  been 
the 
amended,  with 
introduction 
of 
prominence  as  a  third 
criterion  for  promoting 

in  Article  3i  of  the  Directive,  it  shall 
be 
complied  with  by 
media service provider. 

the  audiovisual 

Audiovisual  media 

(3)  Audiovisual  Media 
Service 
providers  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media 
services shall notify the Minister or the 
relevant regulatory body of their 
intention  to  provide  or  continue  to 
provide  such  services  in  such  manner 
as the 
Minister  or  the  relevant  regulatory 
body decides. 
Audiovisual Media Services Code - 
Consolidated 13 August 2015 - Article 
44  1., 4. and 7.: 
1. 
services 
providers,  both  linear  and  non-linear, 
shall  promote  the  development  and 
circulation  of  European  audiovisual 
production. 
4.  On-demand  audiovisual  media 
Italian 
services  providers  under 
taking  market 
jurisdiction 
conditions 
into  account,  gradually 
promote  the  production  of  European 
works  and  access  to  the  same,  in 
accordance  with  the  methods  defined 
by  the  Authority  in  its  regulations 
which  shall  be  adopted  within  three 
months. 
7. The Authority shall, by means of co-
regulation procedures, provide for the 
preparation  of  detailed  regulations, 
replacing  the  existing  ones,  consistent 
with  the  principles  set  out  in  this 
Article  and  those  in  Article  3i  of 
Directive  89/552/EEC  of  3  October 
1989 and of the Council, as amended, 
under  which,  with  reference  to  on-

shall, 

191 

 
 
 
  
 
by 

criteria 

EW on VOD. Due to the 
co-regulatory 
principle 
expressed in art. 44, para 
7,  of  the  Italian  AVMS 
Code,  the  definition  of 
and 
technical 
the 
editorial 
of 
prominence  has  been 
determined 
a 
Technical  Table  seeing 
the  participation  of  the 
stakeholders 
interested 
(AVMS 
providers, 
associations  representing 
authors  and  producers). 
The 
to 
adherence 
prominence is voluntary. 
On 
services 
shall  include  European 
works in their catalogues 

demand 

demand 

On 
services 
shall  ensure  that  their 
catalogues 
at 
least  50%  of  European 
titles.  

include 

Latvia 

Yes (not 
specified) 

No 

No 

Lithuania 

Yes (50%) 

No 

No 

services, 

demand  audiovisual 
the 
promotion may concern, inter alia, the 
financial  contribution  made  by  such 
services  to  the  production  and  rights 
acquisition  of  European  works  or  to 
the  share  or  prominence  of  European 
works in the catalogue of programmes 
offered  by  the  on-demand  audiovisual 
media service, without prejudice to the 
provisions of Article 40a. 
Regulation no. 188/11/CONS: 
requirement for the presence of 
European works inside of catalogs for 
a percentage equal to 20 % of the 
hours, or alternatively in an investment 
of 5% of revenues from on demand 
audiovisual media services. 

shall 

on-demand 

Electronic  Mass  Media  Law  -  Section 
23. (5): 
An  electronic  mass  medium  which 
provides 
audiovisual 
include  European 
services 
audiovisual works in its catalogue. 
Law on the Provision of Information to 
the  Public  -  Consolidated  7  January 
2016 - Article 40-4: 
1. Providers of on-demand audiovisual 
falling  under 
media  services 
the 
the  Republic  of 
jurisdiction  of 
promote,  where 
Lithuania 
practicable and by appropriate means, 
the  production  of  and  access 
to 
European works. 
2.  In  pursuing  the  activities  specified 
this  Article, 
in  paragraph  1  of 
providers  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media  services  shall  ensure  that  at 
least  half  of  the  programmes  in  the 
catalogue  of  on-demand  audiovisual 

shall 

192 

 
 
 
  
Luxembourg  X 

No 

No 

No 

Malta 

No 

No 

Yes (10% the 
first two 
years and 
15% from 
the third 
year) 

On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
appropriate 
and 
means, 
promote 
European works. 

by 

by 

On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
and 
appropriate 
promote 
means, 
European  works.  By 
example 
means 
of 
financial 
through: 
contributions, 
shares 
and/or 
prominence 
measures. 

in 

of 

ducal 

under 

regulation 

the  works  of 

media services are European works. 
Grand 
17 
December  2010  amending  the  grand 
dual regulation of 5 April 2001 setting 
the rules on content in European works 
and 
independent 
producers  of  television  programmes 
deemed  to  fall  within  Luxembourgish 
jurisdiction 
the  European 
Television  without  Frontiers  Directive 
- Art. 5bis  (1): 
On-demand audiovisual media service 
providers shall promote, where 
practicable and by appropriate means, 
the production of European works as 
well as access to said works. 
Broadcasting Act 350 - consolidated 
as latest amended in 2015 - 16N  (1) 
(2):  On-demand audiovisual media 
services provided by media service 
providers shall promote, where 
practicable and by appropriate means, 
the production of and access to 
European works. Such promotion 
could relate, inter alia, to the financial 
contribution made by such services to 
the production and rights acquisition 
of European works or to the share 
and, or prominence of European 
works in the catalogue of programmes 
offered by the on-demand audiovisual 
media service. 

The  RA  has  Subsidiary  Legislation 
350.34  Notification  of  On-Demand 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  Order  in 
place  which  specifically  deals  with 
The  Notification  of  on  Demand  and 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  Order.  
Para  4  of  this  SL  states  that,  “  A 
provider  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media services shall 

193 

 
 
 
 
Netherlands  X 

No 

No 

No 

demand 

On 
services 
promote  the  production 
and  access  to  European 
works. 

Poland 

Yes (20%) 

Yes 

No 

demand 

On 
services 
shall  promote  European 
works  in  particular  by: 
(i) giving prominence by 
identifying the origine of 
works,  creating  a  search 
for  European 
option 
and  providing 
works 
and 
information 
(ii) 
materials;  AND 
reserving at least 20% of 
their 
to 
European works. 

catalogues 

and 

culturally 

encourage  the  promotion  of  European 
works 
diverse 
programming.  A  minimum  of  10%  of 
European  works  shall  be  available  in 
the  first  two  years  of  operation  rising 
to 15% in the third year  

the  production  and 

Act no 552 amending the Media Act 
2008 and the Tobacco Act for the 
implementation of the Audio-Visual 
Media Services Directive - Art. 3.29c: 
A  media  organisation  that  provides  a 
commercial  media  service  on  demand 
promotes 
the 
access to European productions in the 
sense  of  article  1  of  the  European 
directive. 
Broadcasting Act - Consolidated 12 
October 2012 - Art. 47f: 
Art. 47f. 
1. Providers of on-demand audiovisual 
shall 
media 
promote 
services 
including  works 
European  works, 
produced  originally 
the  Polish 
language, in particular by: 
1)    proper  identification  of  origin  of 
programmes 
the 
catalogue  of  programmes  as  well  as 
providing  the  option  to  search  for 
including  works 
European  works, 
produced  originally 
the  Polish 
language, or 
2)    placement  of  information  and 
materials  promoting  European  works, 
including works produced originally in 
the Polish language. 
2. Providers of on-demand audiovisual 
media  services  shall  allocate  at  least 
20%  of  the  content  in  their  catalogue 
for  European  works,  including  works 
produced  originally 
the  Polish 
language,  and  shall  provide  adequate 

available 

in 

in 

in 

in 

194 

 
 
 
  
Portugal 

Yes (not 
specified) 

Yes 

OR Financial 
Contribution 

Yes (at least 1% of 
revenues) Amounts not 
directly invested into 
production and/or 
rights acquisition are 
allocated in the form of 
a levy 

Romania 

Yes (20%) 

Yes 

No 

to 

through 

demand 

On 
services 
shall  promote  European 
a 
works 
financial  contribution  to 
their production OR their 
progressive 
incorporation 
their 
catalogues  AND  giving 
them particular visibility. 
(Article 45 (2) and (3) of 
the  TV  Act  2007).  
contribution 
Financial 
in 
goes 
directly 
rights 
production  and 
acquisition 
the 
amounts  not  allocated  to 
investment  are  delivered 
to 
and 
the  Cinema 
audiovisual 
institute. 
(Article  16  (2),(3)  and 
(4) of Law 55/2012). 
On demand services will, 
insofar  as  it  is  feasible 
appropriate 
and 

and 

by 

to 

visibility  to  such  programmes  in  the 
catalogue. 
in 
3.  The  percentage  referred 
paragraph  2,  shall  be  calculated  
based  on  the  total  duration  of  the 
programmes  multiplied  by  the  total 
broadcasting  time  of  the  programmes 
the  catalogue  during  a  given 
in 
calendar quarter. 
4.  Paragraph  2  shall  not  apply  to  the 
catalogues,  in  which  only  audiovisual 
programs  other  than  European  works  
are provided to the general public. 
Television Act 2007 - Article 45 2. 
and 3: 
2  -  On-demand  audiovisual  services 
shall  contribute  to  the  promotion  of 
through 
European  works,  namely 
their 
financial 
their 
production 
the 
progressive 
respective catalogue. 
3  -  On-demand  audiovisual  services 
are  to  give  particular  visibility  to 
European  works  in  their  catalogue, 
implementing  features  which  enable 
the public to search for such works by 
their origin.  

to 
through 

incorporation 

contributions 

into 

or 

Article 16 of Law 55/2012, amended 
by Laws 28/2014 and 82-B/2014 – 
Law on the fostering, development and 
protection of the cinema and 
cinematographic and audiovisual 
activities) 

The Audiovisual Law - consolidated 
22 November 2009 - Art. 23  (1): 
On-demand audiovisual media 
services promote, where practicable 

195 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
means, 
promote 
European  works.  By 
example 
of 
means 
financial 
through: 
contributions, 
shares 
prominence 
and/or 
measures. 

and by appropriate means, the 
production of and access to European 
works. Such promotion could relate, 
inter alia, to the financial contribution 
made by such services to the 
production and rights acquisition of 
European works or to the percentage 
and/or prominence of European works 
in the catalogue of programs offered.  

Slovakia 

Yes (20%) 

No 

No 

demand 

services 
On 
shall  promote  European 
works  by  reserving  a 
20%  share  for  European 
works 
their 
in 
catalogues. 

Decision NAC 320/2012 concerning 
the provision of on demand 
audiovisual media services art.26 
alin.(1) establishes a mandatory share 
of 20%.  
Decision NAC 320/2012 concerning 
the provision of on demand 
audiovisual media services art.26 
alin.(2) 
Providers are required to promote the 
home page of the web site, equally, 
and European audiovisual works of 
fiction available in the catalog. 

of 

Act 308/2000 on Broadcasting and 
Retransmission and on the amendment 
of Act No. 195/2000on 
Telecommunications - consolidated 3 
February 2015 - § 27a (1): 
The 
on-demand 
provider 
audiovisual  media  services  shall  be 
obliged  to  reserve  at  least  20  %  of 
total  time  of  programmes  offered  in 
the  catalogue  of  programmes  per 
calendar  month  to  European  works, 
for each on-demand audiovisual media 
service individually; for the purpose of 
the  calculation  of  total  time  the  news, 
sports  events  and  games  shall  be 
excluded. 

Slovenia 

Yes (10%) 

No 

Yes (1% total 

On 

demand 

services  Audiovisual Media Services Act 

(ZAvMS) - Art. 16 (2) and (3): 

196 

 
 
 
 
  
  
OR 

revenues) 

share 

shall  promote  European 
works  by  reserving  a 
their 
in 
10% 
catalogues  OR, 
if  not 
met, 
financially 
contributing with at least 
1% 
total 
of 
revenues. 

their 

by 

Spain 

Yes (30%) 

No 

Yes (5% of turnover) 

AND 

services 
demand 
On 
reserve  30%  of 
shall 
their 
for 
catalogues 
European  works  (half  of 
in  an  Spanish 
these 
official  language)  AND 
shall 
financially 
contribute  to  the  funding 
of  audiovisual  content 
with  at  least  5%  of  their 
turnover.  

an 

year, 

earmark 

provider 

for  at 
in 
of 

(2)  European  audiovisual  works  must 
least  10%  of 
account 
the 
the  catalogue  of 
programmes 
on-demand 
programmes 
audiovisual  media  service 
in  an 
individual  calendar  year,  unless  this 
Act determines otherwise. 
on-demand 
of 
(3)  A 
audiovisual media services that fails to 
attain the proportion referred to in the 
preceding  paragraph  must,  every 
funds 
calendar 
amounting  to  at  least  one  per  cent  of 
all  revenues 
its  audiovisual 
from 
media  services  in  that  calendar  year 
for the production of or acquisition of 
the  rights  to  European  audiovisual 
works  that  it  provides  via  its  on-
demand audiovisual media services. 
General Law No 7/2010 of 31 March 
on Audiovisual Media - consolidated 1 
May 2015 - Article 5 2. and 3: 
Article 5 2. para. 2 
[…] 
of 
a 
Providers 
programmes  shall  reserve  30%  of  the 
catalogue for European works. Half of 
this  amount  shall  be  in  one  any  of 
Spain’s official languages.   
[…] 
Article 5 3 para.1 
Audiovisual 
service  providers  of 
national  or  regional  coverage  shall 
the  early 
contribute  annually 
financing  of  European  production  of 
motion pictures , television movies and 
series 
,  and  documentaries  and 
animation films and series , with 5% of 
the  revenues  earned  in  the  previous 
year  according 
their  operating 
to 
account corresponding to the channels 
these  audiovisual 
that  broadcast 

catalogue 

to 

of 

197 

 
 
 
  
 
Sweden 

X 

No 

No 

No 

demand 

services 
On 
shall,  when  practicable, 
use  suitable  methods  to 
European 
promote 
works. 

United 
Kingdom 

X 

No 

No 

No 

by 

demand 

On 
services 
shall,  where  practicable 
appropriate 
and 
means, 
promote 
production  and  access  to 
European works.  

products with less than seven years old 
from the date of production. 
Article 5 3. para. 9 
[…] 
Electronic  media  service  providers 
who  transmit  television  channels  and 
providers of catalogue of programmes 
services  shall  also  be  subject  to  the 
funding  obligation  laid  down  in  this 
article. 
[…] 
The Radio and Television Act - 
consolidated 17 June 2010 - Chapter 5.  
8§: 
Any  party  providing  on-demand 
television  by  a  means  other  than  via 
wireline  networks  transmission  shall, 
where  practicable  and  by  appropriate 
means, promote the production of and 
access  to  programmes  of  European 
origin. 
Electronic Communications 
Broadcasting - The Audiovisual Media 
Services Regulations 2009 - 368C (3) 
and 368Q (3): 
368C (3) 
The  appropriate  regulatory  authority 
must  ensure  that  providers  of  on-
demand programme services promote, 
where  practicable  and  by  appropriate 
means,  production  of  and  access  to 
European  works  (within  the  meaning 
given in Article 1(n) of the Audiovisual 
Media Services Directive). 
368Q (3) 
It is the duty of the Welsh Authority in 
the  provision  of  any  on-demand 
programme service to promote, where 
practicable and by appropriate means, 
production of and access to European 
works  (within  the  meaning  given  in 
Article  1(n)  of  the  Audiovisual  Media 

198 

 
 
Services Directive). 

199 

 
 
ANNEX 14 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON THE PROTECTION OF MINORS AT NATIONAL LEVEL (FROM THE 2015 EAO 
IRIS BONUS "COMPARATIVE TABLES ON THE PROTECTION OF MINORS IN AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA SERVICES) 

The protection of minors in audiovisual media services in a converged environment  
Comparative table of legal obligations across Europe  

Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

AT 

Audiovisual Media Services 
Act – (Art. 39: on-demand 
services and Art. 42: 
television programmes). 
ORF guidelines on 
protection of minors 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. Includes a code of 
conduct  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors  from  harmful  content  by  TV 
broadcasters. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents.  

“Seriously  impair”:  (pornography; 
gratuitous violence): banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restriction. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
restriction. 

On-screen  icons  required  by  law  + 
technical 
or 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

BE 
(Flemish 
Comm.) 

Act on radio and television 
broadcasting of 18.03.2009  
Art. 42 (linear TV services) / 
Art. 45 (non-linear services). 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. Includes a code of 
conduct  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors  from  harmful  content  by  TV 
broadcasters. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
unnecessary violence): banned 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions (PIN codes) 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
restriction 

On-screen 
warnings required by law. 

icons 

or 

acoustic 

BE 
(French 
Comm.) 

Décret SMA, as modified – 
Art. 9.2 a) and b) 
Order of the Government of 
21.02.2013 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. 

Stricter  legal  approach:  general 
prohibition for “seriously impair” 
content on VOD services 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
violence): banned 

“Seriously 
violence): banned on VOD 

impair”  (pornography, 

The law provides the basis for minor’s 
protection  and 
regulator  has 
the 
developed  it  through  rules  and  codes 
(Ethics  Code  of  2007  and  CSA’s 
Recommendation  on  the  protection  of 
minors,  both  of  which  are  not  legally 
binding).  

The  Regulatory  authority  is  in  charge 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection  

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection 

icons 

age-related 

Watersheds  /  or  access  code  +  on-
screen 
on 
electronic  programme  guide  and 
acoustic  warning  or  screen  icon 
during  diffusion  if  no  access  code 
(Art. 9.2a) SMA).  

Parental  code  (PIN  code)  +  on- 
screen 
on 
electronic  programme  guide  and 
catalogues (Art. 9.2b) SMA). 

age-related 

icons 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

of the regulation of on-demand AVMS 
in  relation  to  age-related  classification 
of  content  and  the  development  of 
technical  measures  to  prevent  minors 
from accessing harmful contents.  

In  practice,  acoustic  warning  is  not 
currently used.  

to 

the 

Further 
law,  broadcasters 
participate  in  the  system  of  protecting 
minors through the creation of internal 
in  charge  of 
viewing  committees 
deciding on age rating of programmes. 

BG 

CY 

Radio and Television Act 
(Art. 19 on-demand 
services) 

Bill amending the RTA of 
14.5.2014 

Law on Radio and 
Television Stations 
Art. 29(1)-(3): linear 
services / Art. 31A(1)(a)-(b): 
non-linear services 
Cyprus Broadcasting 
Corporation Law  
Art. 19(5) (a)-(c): linear 
services / Art. 181 (1) – (2): 
non-linear services 

Regulations of Radio and 
Television Stations  
Reg. 21(6)-(7) 

Regulatory  authorities  have 
issued 
rules  and  general  guidance  for  the 
protection  of  minors  on  audiovisual 
media  services,  whether  linear  or  on-
demand.  

The  Council  for  Electronic  Media  and 
State Agency for Child Protection drew 
the  assessment  of 
up  criteria  for 
harmful  contents.  All  kinds  of  online 
business communication fall within the 
scope  of  the  National  Self-Regulation 
Board’s Code of Ethics. 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
age 
services: 
non-linear 
is 
classification 
of 
by 
determined 
television 
/  audiovisual  media 
organisations 
service providers. 

The 
programs 

the 

Integrated  approach  across  all 
audiovisual  media 
services 
regarding  protection  of  minors 
(including general prohibition for 
“seriously 
impair”  content  on 
VOD). 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Seriously 
definition): 
services. 

impair” 
banned 

(restrictive 
on  VOD 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

icons 

or 
On-screen 
required  by 
warnings 
technical 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

acoustic 
law  + 
or 

Technical access restrictions, such as 
filtering, 
pre-
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems). 

encryption, 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous violence): banned 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

Age  rating,  content  filtering  and 
parental access codes. 

Media literacy policies are encouraged. 

Acoustic  warnings  of  news  stories 
unsuitable  for  minors  are  given  more 
than once (that is required by law). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection  

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
restriction. 

Appropriate 
technical 
warnings, 
applicable  only 
programs. 

time  of  broadcast, 
acoustic 
measures, 
– 
on-screen 
icons 
to  unencoded 

201 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

CZ 

DE 

Radio and TV Broadcasting 
Act 
On-demand Audiovisual 
Service Act (Section 6(3) 
on-demand services) 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. Includes a code of 
conduct  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors  from  harmful  content  by  TV 
broadcasters. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents.   

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gross gratuitous violence): banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

Television 

Qualified  disclaimer  with  general 
warnings  (Czech  Council  for  Radio 
and 
Broadcasting’s 
statement  of  19  October  2010)  + 
technical access restrictions (such as 
filtering, 
pre-
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems. 

encryption, 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

Youth Protection Act (age 
rating for films (cinema, 
feature films DVD, 
computer games) 

Interstate Treaty on the 
Protection of Minors 
(JMStV): definition of 
harmful contents - Art. 4 
(Länder), Art. 5, Art. 11 
(applicable to broadcasting 
and telemedia services) 

of 

voluntary 

Co-regulatory  system  applicable 
to 
both  linear  and  non-linear  services: 
self-
organisations 
regulation  formally  approved  by  the 
Commission  for 
the  Protection  of 
Minors  in  Electronic  Media  (KJM) 
of 
under 
part 
JMStV 
the 
classification  agreements  with 
federal 
(German  “Länder”) 
under the Youth Protection Act, check 
that  the  provisions  of  the  JMStV  are 
adhered to by their members.  

states 

the 

or 

If  a 

The  KJM  checks  whether  decisions 
taken  by  self-regulatory  organisations 
are  in  compliance  with  their  legal 
scope  of  assessment. 
self-
regulatory  body  exceeds  its  scope,  the 
KJM  may  take  legal  action.  The  KJM 
also  draws  up  statutes  and  directives 
which the self-regulatory organisations 
must  comply  with.  Organisations 
seeking  certification  by  the  KJM  as 
self-regulatory  organisations  must  file 
an application. In order to be certified, 
the  organisation  must  meet  certain 
the 
requirements 

relation 

to 

in 

On-screen 
warnings required by law. 

icons 

+ 

acoustic 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”  (absolute illegal 
content 
/  pornography,  certain 
indexed content and contents which 
seriously 
ex. 
impairs  minors: 
violence, sexual, etc.): banned. 

“Seriously 
impair”:  allowed  on 
VOD  by  means  of  a  closed  user 
group  +  age  verification  systems 
(KJM has developed key criteria for 
a 
two-step  process  based  on 
identification  and  authentication)  – 
except 
is 
banned. 

illegal  content  which 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection:  

Watershed  +  on-screen  icons  or 
acoustic warnings required by law + 
technical 
or 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

Watersheds,  electronic  labelling  - 
which  has  to  be  compatible  with 
formally  approved  filter  software 
(technical systems for the protection 
of  minors),  namely  the  age-de.xml 
specification  -,  or  other  technical 
measures.  Electronic labelling is not 
deemed 
technical 
measure  on  platforms  where  no 
technical  systems  for  the  protection 
of  minors  has  been  approved 
(currently for instance iOS, Android, 
Consoles),  here  additional  technical 
measures  have  to  be  implemented, 
e.g.  PINs,  webcam  checks,  credit 

sufficient 

a 

202 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

and 

broadcasting 

protection  of  minors  (KJM  sets  out  a 
catalogue  of  criteria  for  the  regulation 
in 
AVMS 
(‘telemedia’)  in  order  to  guide  the 
assessment  of  depictions  of  violence 
and  sexuality).  KJM 
the 
competent  supervisory  body  for  all 
providers  that  do  not  submit  to  the 
codex of a self-regulatory body. 

is  also 

of 

voluntary 

Organisations 
self-
regulation  can  also  be  established  for 
on-demand  AVMS.  The  multimedia 
voluntary  self-regulatory  association 
the  biggest  self-
FSM 
regulatory  organisations.  Its  code  of 
conduct  for  providers  covers  both 
linear and nonlinear audiovisual media 
services. 

is  one  of 

of 

Contractually  selected  rating  services 
under  the  Youth  Protection  Act,  such 
as 
the  Voluntary  Self-Regulatory 
Organisation  of  the  Film  Industry  – 
FSK) for films and the Voluntary Self-
the 
Regulatory  Organisation 
Entertainment  Software 
Industry  – 
USK)  for  video  games  take  the  rating 
decisions (with a Länder representative 
taking part and having a veto right); the 
Länder then take over the decision and 
issue  the  formal  administrative  act. 
Under  the  JMStV,  however,  both  the 
USK  online  and  the  FSK  online  are 
formally  approved  bodies,  too.  The 
rating  in  this  case  is  being  decided 
without any state representative. 

impairing 

In  addition,  all  TV  broadcasters, 
providers  of 
telemedia 
services  and  search  engines  providers 
in  Germany  are  obliged  under  the 
JMStV  to  have  a  competent  youth 
protection officer who is responsible in 
in  all 
the  management 
advising 
he/she 
issues; 
protection 

related 

card checks, passport number checks 
and combinations thereof. 

“Telemedia” providers shall provide 
to  any  existing 
clear  references 
labelling  in  the  content  provided  if 
the  content  is  wholly  or  largely 
identical  with  films  or  games  which 
are labelled or have been cleared for 
the respective age group pursuant to 
Article  12  of  the  German  Youth 
Protection  Act.  Certified  technical 
systems for the protection of minors 
for “telemedia” content which could 
impair minors (Art. 11 JMStV). 

203 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

usually decides on all age classification 
within companies. 

DK 

Radio and Television 
Broadcasting Act (Section 
48). 

Order no. 100 of 28.01.2010 
as amended by Order no. 
894 of 23.08.2012, Order no. 
882 of 28.06.2013 and Order 
no. 1109 of 13.08.2013. 
(applying to both linear and 
non-linear services).  

In  the  Danish  Radio  and  Television 
Broadcasting Act, section 48 describes 
in  broad  terms  that  the  Minister  of 
Culture  has  the  authority  to  make 
specified  rules  about  the  protection  of 
minors. 

Such  rules  are  provided  in  secondary 
legislation,  i.e.    Order  no.  100  of  28 
January 2010 as amended by Order no. 
894  of  23  august  2012,  Order  no.  882 
of 28 June 2013 and Order no. 1109 of 
13  August  2013  (applying  to  both 
linear and non-linear services).  

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents.  

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
unnecessary violence): banned (Art. 
6) 

a 
and 

authorities 

envisages 
Danish 
coordinated 
establishing 
classification 
labelling 
scheme for films, DVDs, TV and 
VOD  services  that  would  extend 
across all technologies and would 
cover  any  content  that  might  be 
“seriously”  or  “mildly”  harmful 
to minors. 

“Likely  to  impair”  (e.g.  sexually 
explicit  content):  allowed  with 
some form of protection 
(by  choice  of  programming  or 
installing  technical  device:  acoustic 
warning  or  visual  icons  on  screen 
required  by  law  during  the  whole 
time the program is on air – Art. 6). 

“Seriously 
impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous  violence):  allowed  with 
some type of protection (labelling of 
the  service  that  makes  the  viewers 
aware  of  the  harmful  content,  for 
example – Art. 11). 

“Likely  to  impair”  (e.g.  sexually 
explicit  content):  allowed  without 
restrictions 

main 

public 

The 
service 
broadcaster,  DR,  has  the  same  rule 
as  all  the  other  linear  services  in  a 
clause  written  about  the  protection 
of  minors  in  their  public  service 
contract and in Order no. 102 of 28 
January  2010,  Article  6  for  linear 
services and Article 9 for non-linear 
services.  

The  commercial  public  service 
broadcaster,  TV  2,  has  the  same  as 
all  the  other  linear  services  written 
about  the  protection  of  minors  in  a 

204 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

clause in their public service license 
and  in  Order  no.  881  of  28  June 
2013, Article 4. 

All  regional  television  broadcasters 
have  the  same  rule  as  all  the  other 
linear  services  about  protection  of 
minors in Order no. 1578 of the 27 
December 2014, article 6. 

All local non-commercial television 
broadcasters  have  the  same  rule  as 
all the other linear services in Order 
no.  145  of  18  February  2014  as 
amended  by  Order  no.  1136  of  13 
October 2014, Article 13. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
promotion  of  violence  or  cruelty): 
banned. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some forms of protection 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
protection 

Watersheds  +  Acoustic  warnings 
required by law. 

access 

restrictions 
Technical 
filtering, 
available 
encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes 
or other age verification systems. 

(such 

as 

EE 

Media Services Act: §19(2)-
(6) (linear TV services / 
§19(7) (on-demand services) 

Broadcasters  had  announced  in  2011 
the 
launching  of  a  self-regulation 
system for the protection of minors. As 
of  March  2015,  broadcasters  were 
doing active work, in order to examine 
current 
are 
sufficient  and  into  what  extent)  and 
mechanisms  to  assess  the  need  for 
tangible 
additional  measures.Some 
progress  were  expected  for  the  second 
half of 2015. 

(whether 

rules 

they 

ES 

Spanish General Law 7/2010 
of Audiovisual 
Communication (Art. 7.2) 

Almost  all  of  free  to  air  DTT  national 
providers  in  Spain  signed  a  Self-
regulation  Code  for  the  audiovisual 
content and minors.  

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair”’ 
regarding  “seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous violence, gender violence 
and mistreatment): banned. 

Non-compliance  with  self-regulatory 
codes 
of 
administrative  law  and  operators  can 

constitutes 

breach 

a 

“Seriously 
impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous  violence,  gender  violence 
and  mistreatment):  allowed  with 
access  restrictions  (dedicated  areas 
in  catalogues)  and  using  age  rating 
and  digital  coding  that  allows  the 
exercise of parental control systems. 

205 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

be penalized accordingly.  

approach 

Integrated 
in  Cataluña: 
among detailed age classification rules 
and  watersheds  applicable  to  linear 
services,  all 
television  audiovisual 
media  service  providers,  including  on-
demand  providers  shall  use  a  digital 
coding  for  their  contents  rating  which 
allows the exercise of parental control. 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services.  

is 

responsible 

The  Finnish  Centre 
for  Media 
Education  and  Audiovisual  Media 
(MEKU) 
the 
supervision  of  audiovisual  programme 
provision 
films, 
(classification  of 
the 
of  minors) 
protection 
coordination and promotion of national 
media education. 

and 

for 

to 

impair”:  allowed 

“Likely 
in 
linear  services  with  some  forms  of 
protection:  age  rating  +  on-screen 
icons  +  acoustic  warnings 
for 
content  rated  as  18  +  watersheds  + 
technical 
or 
software  used  by  broadcasters 
(using  digital  coding  for  the  age 
rating  that  allows  the  exercise  of 
parental control systems).  

filtering 

devices 

“Likely to impair”:  allowed in non-
linear  service  with  some  protection 
(age  rating  and  using  digital  coding 
for  the  age  rating  that  allows  the 
control 
exercise 
systems). 

parental 

of 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

(Measures  or  initiatives  pending 
to introduce greater consistency). 

Seriously impair”: Banned 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
spome form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection 

Age-rating,  on-screen 
acoustic warnings required by law. 

icons  + 

FI 

Amendment to Act No. 
744/1998 on Radio and 
Television Broadcasting 
(Laki television-ja 
radiotoiminnasta) 

Acts nos. 306/2010 and 
712/2011 and Act No. 
710/2011 on audiovisual 
programmes 
(Kuvaohjelmalaki) / 
classification and labelling 
of various types of 
audiovisual content. 

For on-demand services: 
Act. No. 458/2002 on the 
provision of information 
society services , 
complemented by Act no. 
460/2003 on the exercise of 
freedom of expression in 
mass media 

FR 

Law n° 86-1067 of 
30/09/1986 related to the 
freedom to communicate 
Art. 1 and 15 
Recommendation of 
7/06/2005 to TV services 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear  services.  Restrictions  on 
content  that  is  “likely  to  impair”  are 
laid  down  through  recommendations 
and  deliberations  of  the  CSA.    Age 

prohibition 

General 
for 
“seriously impair” content on TV 
and  on  VOD.    There  is  a  light 
touch  approach  on  VOD  with 
minimum watershed and adapted 
technical 
regards 
rules 

as 

“Seriously impair”: banned on VOD 

“Seriously 
impair”(criminally 
to 
unlawful  material; 
(attempt 
human  dignity:  violence,  sexual 
perversion,  degrading  to  the  human 
person;  child  pornography;  hard-
core violence): banned 

206 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

publishers regarding youth 
rating and classification of 
programmes, as modified by 
the CSA deliberations n° 
2012-57 of 23/10/2012 and 
n° 2014-17 of 5/03/2014 
Deliberation of the CSA of 
15.12.2004 on the 
broadcasting on television of 
programmes unsuitable to 
under 18s 

Deliberation of the CSA of 
20.12.2011 on the protection 
of young audiences, 
deontology, and the 
accessibility of programme 
on on-demand audiovisual 
media services 

Broadcasting Act 1996 
Communications Act 2003 
(sections 3(4)(h) and 
319(2)(a) and (f) 

Audiovisual Media Services 
Regulations 2009 (Art. 368E 
- harmful material and 
ODAVMS) 
Audiovisual Media Services 
Regulations 2010  

Audiovisual Media Services 
Regulations 2014 

GB 

categories and definitions are common 
to  linear  and  non-linear  audiovisual 
services.  

protection tools. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed with 
some form of protection 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection 

 “-18” (pornographic and extremely 
violent):  only  on  specific  TV  pay 
services  with  age  rating  obligations 
+  watersheds  +broadcast 
time 
restrictions  + 
restricted  access 
system including access code 

 “-16”  and  “-12”  (erotic  material, 
violent  content) 
/  physical  or 
psychological  violence  /  theme  that 
may  trouble  children  under  12): 
in  cinema  and  PPV 
Available 
services and other services with age 
rating  obligations  +  watersheds  + 
broadcast time restrictions 

All  programmes  must  be  rated  and 
symbols 
shall  be 
the  warning 
displayed 
catalogues, 
on 
programmes  and  trailers.    Pin  codes 
are  mandatory  for  -18  programmes, 
which  cannot  be  offered  for  free. 
There are two separate areas: a “trust 
zone”  which 
only 
programmes  which  are  suitable  for 
all  audiences  and  “an  adult  zone” 
which  contains  all  programmes 
which  are  not  suitable  to  under  18s. 
There is only one watershed, on -16 
programmes  offered  for  free  (22:30 
to 5:00) 

contains 

 “-10” (contents which are likely to 
shock  children  under  10):  no 
restriction. 

“Seriously  impair”:  illegal  content, 
extremely  violent  pornography, 
R18+: banned. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents. 

Fully-fledged  self  and  co-regulatory 
system  implemented  specifically  for 
on-demand audiovisual media services.  

Linear  TV  services:  Ofcom    required 
by  law  to  draw  up  a  code  for  TV  and 
radio  (Ofcom  Broadcasting  Code): 
section  2  (harmful  contents)  +  section 
1 (protecting under-18)  

audiovisual 

Co-regulation 

and  ATVOD 

media 
On-demand 
between 
services: 
Ofcom 
(regulatory 
authority  for  notifications  and  for  on-
demand  editorial  content  (including 
Art.  368E).  Ofcom  retains  legislative 
backstop  competences,  including  the 
competence 
statutory 
sanctions on providers who contravene 
the  relevant  requirements.  ATVOD’s 
Rules  and  Guidance  of  26.2014  sets 
out the statutory rules and non-binding 

impose 

to 

“Seriously  impair”:  material  likely 
to  incite  hatred  based  on  race,  sex, 
religion  or  nationality:  banned  on 
VOD. 

Material  which  might 
seriously 
impair the physical, mental or moral 
development  of  persons  under  the 
age  of  18:  allowed  with  access 
restrictions. 

ATVOD  guidance  considers 
that 
there should be in place an effective 
Content  Access  Control  System 
(“CAC System”), which verifies that 
the  user  is  aged  18  or  over  at  the 
point of registration or access by the 
mandatory use of technical tools (ex. 
+ PIN code).  

Since new legislation of 1 December 
2014, content stronger than R18 (i.e. 

207 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

guidance  for  providers  of  on-demand 
programme services (Rule 11). 

Other codes: Ofcom broadcasting code, 
BBC  Editorial  Guidelines,  BBFC 
ratings  for  films,  PEGI  scheme  for 
electronic  games,  BBFC  for  mobile 
visual 
(self-regulatory 
scheme), CAP and BCAP (advertising) 
codes. 

content 

Co-regulatory  system  of  Ofcom  with 
the Advertising Standards Authority in 
relation  to  TV  advertising,  including 
rules  for  the  protection  of  minors.  For 
on-demand audiovisual media services, 
co-regulation 
the 
Advertising  Standards  Authority  and 
the  Association  for  Television  On-
Demand,  which  providers  of  on-
demand audiovisual media services are 
required to notify. 

system 

by 

Classification framework set out by the 
British  Board  of  Film  Classification 
(BBFC) as a basis for some protection 
tools  which  are  mandated  for  film 
content  on  linear  broadcasting,  and 
also  for  mandatory  access  controls  on 
regulated on-demand services. 
TV  and  radio  broadcasters  are  obliged 
by  the  Broadcasting  law  to  draw  up 
multilateral self-regulating agreements. 

GR 

Presidential Decree 
109/2012 
Art. 13 (on-demand AVMS) 

Art. 26 (linear TV services) 

“seriously 
impair”) 
banned on non-linear services. 

is  now  also 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”  :  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection  (except 
hard-core  porn  R18,  which 
is 
banned on TV, based on a decision 
taken  by  Ofcom  in  its  2005  Code 
Review, in part on the basis that the 
in  place  were 
protection 
insufficiently  developed  to  ensure 
children would definitely not access 
R18 content on TV).  

tools 

icons  or 
Watershed,  on-screen 
acoustic warnings required by law + 
technical 
or 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 
Watershed  +  labelling  restrictions 
(age  classification)  + 
technical 
access  restrictions (such as filtering, 
encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes 
or other age verification systems. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
protection. 

Classification  of  contents  +  on-
screen  icons  +  acoustic  warnings 

208 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

HU 

HR 

Act CLXXXV of 2010 on 
Media Services and Mass 
Media (Art. 9: Linear TV 
services) / (Art. 11: on-
demand AVMS) 

Act CIV 2010 on the 
fundamental rules of the 
freedom of the press and 
media contents (Press and 
Media Act): Art. 19(2) 
protection of minors from 
harmful contents in on-
demand AVMS 

Rules on Protection of 
minors, Art. 2, par 1. OG 
60/10: 

Recommendation of 
19.07.2011 of the Media 
Council of the National 
Media and Communications 
Authority 
Electronic Media Act 
(EMA) 

Art. Art. 20 (on-demand 
services) / Art. 26 (linear TV 
services) 

Rulebook of the Council for 
Electronik Media on TV 
broadcasters for the purpose 
of the protection of minors, 
of April 2008 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
services.  The  media 
non-linear 
regulator 
recommendations 
issue 
regarding  effective  technical  solutions. 
On-demand audiovisual media services 
providers  are  obliged  to  notify  the 
the  National 
regulatory  authority, 
Media 
Infocommunications 
Authority. 

and 

Regulatory  authorities  have 
issued 
rules  and  general  guidance  for  the 
protection  of  minors  on  audiovisual 
media  services,  whether  linear  or  on-
demand. 

The  Agency  for  Electronic  Media  has 
the  protection  of 
issued  rules  on 
minors.  Article  14.  OG  60/10  deals 
with 
service 
providers. 

on-demand  media 

required by law. 

“Seriously  impair”:  (category  VI): 
banned. 

Seriously 
some form of restrictions. 

impair”:  allowed  with 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of restrictions. 

Stricter  legal  approach:  general 
prohibition for “seriously impair” 
content 
services 
on  VOD 
(different  authorities  competent 
and 
for 
which 
broadcasting, 
generally  come 
the  same 
rating and classification). 

distribution 
but 
to 

film 

Rating  +on-screen  icons  +  acoustic 
warnings required by law. 

filtering, 

Technical  access  restrictions  (such 
pre-
as 
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems. 

encryption, 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”:  (pornography; 
gratuitous violence): banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

Watershed  + 
access restrictions required by law. 

technical 

tools  of 

symbols 

labelling 
Visual 
restrictions  (age  classification)  + 
PIN code. 

+ 

IE 

Audiovisual Media Service 
Regulation 2010 
Art. 18(2) (linear TV 

Fully-fledged  self  and  co-regulatory 
system  implemented  specifically  for 
on-demand audiovisual media services. 

approach  between 
Graduated 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous violence): banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

209 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

services) / Art. 6(2) (On-
demand services) 

IT 

Italian  AVMS  Code  as 
revised in July 2014 (Art. 1, 
modifying  Art. 
on 
protection of minors) 

34 

Self-regulation Code on TV 
and minors of 29.11.2002, as 
amended 

not 

draft 

The  Broadcasting  Authority  of  Ireland 
does 
on-demand 
regulate 
audiovisual  media  services  beyond 
Codes 
approving 
of 
of 
the  AVMS 
implementation 
Directive 
services.  A 
these 
for 
voluntary Code of conduct was drafted 
in  May  2011  by  the  self-regulatory 
authority  ODAS  and  approved  by  the 
BAI.  

the 

The  BAI  deals  with  appeals  for  non-
compliance  with 
voluntary 
programming  codes  and  implements 
the  AVMS  Directive  requirements  for 
linear  services.  The  Code  is  fairly 
general  in  its  wording  and  does  not 
include  detailed  provisions  concerning 
the protection of minors on VOD. 

When  it  comes  to  the  elaboration  of 
technical  measures,  Article  34  of  the 
Italian AVMS Code provides for a co-
regulatory approach. According to this 
principle,  the  Italian  Communications 
Authority (AGCOM) has established a 
Committee 
all 
composed 
stakeholders  involved  in  the  provision 
of  on-demand  services  aiming  at 
developing 
to 
prevent  minors 
from  viewing  on 
demand  content  that  “might  seriously 
impair” their development.  

technical  measures 

of 

the  conclusions  of 

Following 
the 
Technical  Committee,  AGCOM  has 
adopted 
in  May 
two  deliberations 
2013:  Deliberation  of  AGCOM  (No. 
51/13) 
to  protect 
minors,  PIN  codes);  Deliberation  of 
AGCOM  (No.  52/13)  (criteria  for  the 
classification of programmes) 
Industry  self-regulation  exists  also  in 
Italy. 

(technical 

tools 

contents 
(classification 
cinema, but not for DVDs). 

for 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

to 

Requirement 
schedule 
appropriately  or  encode  and  where 
unencoded  to  either  provide  an 
acoustic  prior  warning  or  apply 
visual  classification  throughout  the 
duration of the programme. 

approach  between 
Graduated 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents, 
for  public 
except 
service  broadcasters,  subject  to 
stricter  rules  than  commercial 
broadcasters. 

“Seriously  impair”  (gratuitous  or 
insistent  or  brutal  violence  or 
pornography, 
including 
cinematographic works classified as 
unsuitable  for  minors  under  18): 
banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access  restriction:  parental  control 
systems  +  PIN  code,  except  for 
VOD by PSB (banned). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  Allowed  with 
some form of protection  

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
protection. 

Rating, watersheds, on-screen icons 
+ acoustic warnings required by law 
and  also  by  codes  of  conduct  + 
technical 
or 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

210 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

LT 

LU 

Law on the protection of 
minors against the 
detrimental effect of public 
information (10.9.2002 – No 
IX-1067), as last amended 
on 14 July 2009 – No. XI-
333): Art. 4 + Art.6 

Law on Provision of 
Information to the Public, as 
amended 
 Art. 40.3 (protection of 
minors in public audiovisual 
information services/ on-
demand AVMS) + Art.17 

Law of 27 July 1991 on 
Electronic Media, as 
amended (17.12.2010): Art. 
27ter (linear TV services) / 
Art. 28quater (on-demand 
services) 

Regulation on Protection of 
Minors in Audiovisual 
Services of 08.01.2015 

In  2002,  all 
Italian  broadcasting 
companies  signed  the  TV  and  Minors 
Self-Regulations  Code,  which 
is 
referred  to  in  primary  legislation  since 
2004  as  binding  also  for  non-signing 
broadcasters.  According  to  the  Code, 
broadcasters  are 
to 
broadcast  at  certain  hours  any  content 
which might impair physical, mental or 
moral development of minors. 

required  not 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. 

Stricter  legal  approach:  general 
prohibition for “seriously impair” 
content on VOD. 

“Seriously  impair”:  (physical  or 
violence 
psychological 
or 
vandalism: 
restrictive  definition) 
banned. 

“Seriously impair”: banned on VOD 
(restrictive definition). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

the 

government 

As  a  result  of  Art.  12  of  the  AVMS 
Directive, 
of 
Luxembourg  adopted  a  regulation  on 
the protection of minors in audiovisual 
media  services  based  on  the  Law  of 
Electronic Media.  

regulation 

established 

The  new 
introduces  a 
system of self-classification which asks 
in 
broadcasters 
Luxembourg  to  classify  their  content 
along  5  categories  of  age  groups:  all 
audiences,  not  suitable  for  minors 
under  10,  12,  16  and  18.  The  new 
system  applies  both  to  providers  of 
linear  and  on-demand  audiovisual 
media services. 

system  of 

On top of the local classification, 
broadcasters of linear audiovisual 
media  services  established 
in 
Luxembourg,  but  principally 
targeting the audience of another 
EU member state can opt for the 
classification 
that 
particular member state provided 
level  of 
this 
the  regulatory 
protection 
authority  ALIA 
as 
regards 
equivalent. In addition, providers 
of  on-demand  services  can  pick, 
the 
as 
the 
classification  granted 
country of origin of the program. 
ALIA must be notified to change 
is 
regime; 

regime  has  a 
that 

local  classification 

system, 
in 

third 

a 

Watersheds  +  on-screen  icons  + 
acoustic warnings required by law. 

filtering, 

Technical  access  restrictions  (such 
pre-
as 
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems. 

encryption, 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous violence): banned. 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

form 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some 
protection 
(watersheds  +  on-screen  icons  + 
text  display  warnings  required  by 
law). 

of 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some 
(age 
form  of  protection 
classification labels). 

211 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

LV 

Law on Electronic Media 
implementing the AVMSD 
28.7.2010 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. 

Art. 24(10) (on-demand 
AVMS) 

considered be the default system. 

Same  approach  between  linear 
and  non-linear  services  with 
respect 
impair” 
to  “seriously 
content,  allowed  with  access 
restrictions.  Graduated  approach 
between  linear  and  non-linear 
services 
to 
impair” 
allowed 
contents, 
without  restrictions  in  non-linear 
services. 

regarding  “likely 

“Seriously impair”: Banned 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

symbol 

required 

Watershed,  restricted  access  control 
tools,  audible  warning  signal  + 
visual 
by 
law+Technical  access 
restrictions 
(such  as  filtering,  encryption,  pre-
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification  systems  (providers  are 
required  to  cover  harmful  pictures 
and    to  replace  rude  words  with  a 
noise). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
protection. 

MT 

Broadcasting Act, 1991 (Act 
No. XII of 1991), 
consolidated version 2011 
Art. 16N(1) (on-demand 
AVMS) 

Draft Code for the 
Protection, Welfare and 
Development of Minors on 
the Broadcasting Media 

the 

regulatory 

Though 
authority 
remains  in  charge  of  the  regulation  of 
on-demand audiovisual media services, 
some  self-regulation  and  co-regulation 
practices are taking place in relation to 
classification  and  labelling  of  content 
technical 
and 
measures 
to  prevent  minors  from 
accessing harmful contents. 

the  development  of 

filtering, 

Watershed, restricted access control 
tools,  audible  warning  signal  + 
visual  symbol  required  by  law  + 
Technical  access  restrictions  (such 
as 
pre-
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification  systems  (providers  are 
required  to  cover  harmful  pictures 
and  to  replace  rude  words  with  a 
noise). 

encryption, 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents, 
for  public 
except 
service broadcaster. 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection.  

icons 

On-screen 
acoustic 
warnings  required  by  law  -,  except 
service 
for  VOD  by  public 

+ 

(PIN 

restrictions 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
code), 
access 
except  for  VOD  by  public  service 
broadcaster. 
“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection,  except  for 
VOD  by  public  service  broadcaster 
(banned). 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

NL 

Dutch Media Act 2008 
(Mediawet) 
Art. 4.1 - 4.6 

broadcaster (banned). 

“Seriously impair”: banned  

restrictions: 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
access 
if  a  media 
service  provider  is  affiliated  with 
NICAM,  respects  the  watersheds 
and  shows  the  applicable  symbols 
(age  and  content  descriptors  based 
on Kijkwijzer system).   

Public service media is subject to 
stricter  regulation  than  private 
media.  

Rules  that  apply  to  linear  and 
non-linear  content  of  public 
service media, and linear content 
of private media:  
- Seriously harmful programs are 
absolute 
(directly 
forbidden 
supervised by CvdM)  
-  Harmful  programs  are  only 
joins 
allowed 
NICAM. 

if  broadcaster 

Rules  that  apply  to  non-linear 
content of private media:  
-  Seriously  harmful  videos  are 
only  made  available  in  such  a 
way as to ensure that minors will 
not normally hear or see them  
-  No  rules  regarding  harmful 
videos.  

for 

system 

through 

In  the  Netherlands  there  is  a  shared 
responsibility  between  The  Dutch 
Media  Authority  (Commissariaat  voor 
de  Media,  CvdM)  and  NICAM  (the 
Netherlands 
the 
Institute 
Classification of Audiovisual Media). 
The  integrated  approach  of  NICAM’s 
Kijkwijzer 
all 
regulated  audiovisual  sector  regarding 
age  classification  system  and  labelling 
(with  certain  specificities  for  each 
sector) has been a showcase for the co-
regulation of content across the media. 
Kijkwijzers’ 
design 
consists  of  a  three-party  construction. 
The  actual  classification  and  rating  is 
conducted  by 
itself. 
the 
System  responsibility  is  installed  with 
NICAM.  On  a  meta  level,  both  the 
functioning and the output of NICAM, 
is supervised by CvdM. 

co-regulatory 

industry 

According  to  the  Media  Act  2008, 
public  service  media,  and  private 
media  that  intent  to  broadcast  linear 
audio-visual  content,  are  obliged  to  be 
affiliated  with  and  obey 
the 
regulations  of  NICAM.  Should  they 
not  comply  with  this,  they  may  only 
broadcast  programmes  suitable  for  all 
ages  and  will  be  subject  to  direct 
supervision of the CvdM.  

to 

Also  media  service  providers  that  are 
not  legally  obliged  to  join  Kijkwijzer 
increasingly  sign  up  as  a  member  of 
NICAM and voluntary comply with the 
Kijkwijzer-rules. 

Rules  on  seriously  harmful  media 
content  are  directly  supervised  by  the 
CvdM.  CvdM  has  created  a  special 
Advisory  Committee  to  advise  the 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access  restrictions,  except  for  non-
linear  content  of  public  service 
media (banned).  

to 

with 

impair”:  allowed  for 
“Likely 
private  media.  Allowed  for  public 
service  media 
access 
restrictions:  if  public  service  media 
is  affiliated  with  NICAM,  respects 
the 
the  watersheds  and  shows 
applicable symbols (age and content 
descriptors  based  on  Kijkwijzer 
system). 

213 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

PL 

Broadcasting Act of Dec. 
29,1992, as amended in 
2011 

regulator  on  issues  regarding  serious 
harmful content. 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. However, an initial 
self-regulatory system was replaced by 
legal  regulation  because  broadcasters 
did  not  comply  with 
their  self-
commitments.  

self-regulation 

Further  to  the  new  Act,  which  entered 
in  force  on  28  February  2013,  one  of 
the  National  Broadcasting  Councils 
(NBC)  tasks  is  to  initiate,  support  and 
promote 
in  media 
services.  Media service providers may 
create  and  join  codes  of  good  practice 
whose  creation  the  NBC  supports  and 
promotes.  In  the  current  legal  system 
the NBC isn’t able to cede its rights to 
other bodies. 

There is an area in protection of minors 
field  which  gives  the  possibility  of 
self-regulation:  
1)  in  determining  effective  technical 
security  measures  in  non-linear  media 
services  
2) in placing advertisements of the so-
called  unhealthy  foods  in  children’s 
programmes - in linear media services. 

the  NBC, 
On  13  October  2014, 
fulfilling  its  statutory  obligation  to 
initiate  and  support  self-regulation, 
took  an  active  part  in  consultations 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously impair”: banned  

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  under 
specific 
effective 
technical security measures -. 

conditions 

- 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection  

“Likely to impair”: allowed with on-
screen icons required by law. 

Watershed  + 
required by law  

on-screen 

icons 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

regarding  the  creation  of  a  “Code  of 
Good  Practice  on  the  Protection  of 
Minors  in  VOD  services"  and  readily 
accepted  it.  The  document  was  signed 
by  six  Polish  on-demand  service 
providers,  who  committed  themselves 
to  take  effective  technical  measures  to 
prevent minors from accessing harmful 
content. 

As regards to advertisements of the  so 
– called “unhealthy food”, at the end of 
October  2014  broadcasters  signed  an 
agreement  which  provide  that,  since  1 
January 2015, programmes for children 
aged up to 12 will not be accompanied 
by  advertisements 
food  and 
beverages that do not meet “Nutritional 
Criteria to the self - regulation on food 
advertising aimed at children under 12 
years”. The document was prepared on 
the request of the  Polish Federation  of 
Food  Industry  and  approved  by  the 
Ministry of Health; it is attached to the 
Broadcasters’ Agreement. 

for 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services.  

The  Regulatory  Body 
for  Media 
Communications encourages television 
to  develop  a  common 
operators 
classification  system 
television 
for 
programmes + codes of conduct of TV 
broadcasters 
the 
the  entertainment 
classification  by 
classification 
when 
broadcasting  cinematographic  works 
and video recording.  

commission 

respect 

to 

PT 

Law of 11 April 2011 
amending the Television Act 
of 2007 
Art. 27(3)-(5) (linear TV 
services) / Art. 27(10) (on 
demand AVMS) 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously impair”: Banned. 

(based 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
restrictions 
access 
on 
voluntary 
on-demand 
system, 
AVMS  work  with  a  PIN  code 
access,  which  is  sent  to  the  client. 
The  PIN  code  restricts  access  to 
content  according  to  a  graduated 
classification 
(high-average-low 
restrictions 
/  unrestricted).  By 
default,  all  TV  boxes  are  delivered 
to  clients  with  low  level  of  active 
constraints,  i.e.  with  access  to  all 
contents except adult content. 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection.  

the 

Accordingly, 
three  mainstream 
broadcasters  have  agreed  on  specific 
a 
agreement,  which 
classification 
TV 
system 
programmes in relation to protection of 
minors.  

down 
for 

lay 

RO 

Radio and Television 
Broadcasting Act, 
consolidated version 2009 
Art. 39 (linear TV services) / 
Art 39.1 (on demand 
AVMS) 

Decision No. 220, of 
24.02.2011 regarding the 
Regulatory Code of 
Audiovisual Content 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. Includes a code of 
conduct  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors from harmful content. 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents, 
for  public 
except 
service  broadcaster  (subject  to 
stricter  rules  than  commercial 
broadcasters). 

Watersheds  +  on-screen 
icons 
required  by  law  and  also  by  codes 
of conduct. 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

icons 

+ 
required  by 
filtering 

acoustic 
On-screen 
law  + 
warnings 
technical 
or 
software  used  by  broadcasters  + 
the 
systems 
Pre-locking 
transmission of over-18 content. 

devices 

for 

SE 

Swedish Radio and 
Television Act of 17.6.2010 
Chapter 5 - 1 (linear TV 
services) and 2 (on-demand 
AVMS) 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear services. Includes a code of 
conduct  regarding  the  protection  of 
minors. 

Broadcasting License 

Swedish  Media 

The 
Council 
encourages  broadcasters  to  create  self-
regulating instruments. 

Same  approach  between  linear 
and non-linear services regarding 
“seriously 
contents 
impair” 
(allowed  in  both  services),  with 
some  differences  in  the  level  of 
protection required.  

Graduated  approach  with  respect 
to  “likely  to  impair”  content 
(allowed  with  some  form  of 
protection  in  linear  services  and 
without  protection  in  non-linear 
services). 

“Seriously impair”: Banned 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection.  Acoustic 
warnings 
for 
required  by 
programmes  containing  portrays  of 
realistic  nature  or 
violence  of 
pornographic.  On-screen  icons  are 
encouraged but not required by law. 

law 

to 

the 

the  broadcasting 
According 
broadcasting 
licenses, 
organisations shall take into account 
the impact of radio and television in 
terms  of  format,  topics  and  time  of 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access  restrictions,  except  for  VOD 
broadcaster 
service 
by 
(banned). 

public 

“Likely  to  impair:  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection,  except  for 
VOD  by  public  service  broadcaster 
(banned).  

restrictions 

(age 
Labelling 
technical  access 
classification)  + 
filtering, 
restrictions 
encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes 
or other age verification systems. 

(such 

as 

“Seriously  impair”:    (depiction  of 
violence  of  a  true-to-life  nature  or 
pornographic 
images):  must  be 
provided  in  such  a  way  that  it  does 
not  create  a  considerable  risk  for 
children viewing the programmes. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
protection. 

Restrictions 
concerning  material 
which  is  “likely  to  impair”  are 
included  in  broadcasting  licences. 
However,  VOD  service  providers 
are only required to register with the 
Swedish Broadcasting Authority). 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

SI 

Law concerning protection 
of minors in audiovisual 
media adopted in November 
2011 
Audiovisual Media Services  
Act on Audiovisual Media 
Services, Art. 14(1) – (3) 
(linear TV services) / Art. 15 
(on-demand AVMS) 

Statutory act complementing 
it (English version) adopted 
in October 2013. 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-
regulatory  system  for  linear  and  for 
non-linear  services,  in  relation  to  the 
classification  and  labelling  of  content 
and 
technical 
measures 
to  prevent  minors  from 
accessing harmful contents.  

the  development  of 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
contents. 

guidance 

issued 
Regulatory  authorities  have 
rules  and  general  guidance  for  the 
protection  of  minors  on  audiovisual 
media  services,  whether  linear  or  on-
demand.  (see  AKOS  Recommendation 
of  November  2011  for  the  safe  use  of 
AVMS  +  APEK 
on 
protection  of  minors  from  harmful 
content 
linear  and  non-linear 
services).  It  provides  criteria  for  the 
identification  of  “seriously 
impair” 
content,  proposes  levels  and  modes  of 
the 
protection, 
elaborates  guidelines  for  classification 
and scheduling and provides proposals 
for labelling.  

recommended 

in 

system 

Self-regulatory 
for  VOD 
services was established in Slovenia by 
Internet,  cable  and  mobile  service. 
AKOS  followed  and  supported  the 
preparation  of 
self-regulatory 
the 
agreement and of the code of conduct. 
AKOS,  however,  does  not  have  any 
backstop  powers  nor  plays  any  other 

in 

such 

broadcasting 

subject  matter 

is 
transmission.  This  provision 
applied 
evaluation  of 
the 
programmes  that  contain  or  deal 
with 
as 
violence, sex and drugs and implies 
organisations 
that 
should  exercise  caution.  In 
the 
matter  of  protection  of  minors, 
programmes  that  contain  violence 
and  sex  which  are  likely  to  impair 
children  shall  only  be  broadcast 
after 21.00.   
“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous violence): banned. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form protection. 

Watersheds  or  technical  protection 
of access restriction required by law 
required by law. 

“Seriously 
(hard 
pornography):  allowed  with  access 
restrictions. 

impair” 

PIN code or other adequate technical 
restriction). 

“Likely  to  impair”  (explicit  sexual 
content):  allowed  with  some  forms 
of protection. 

PIN  code  +  classification  of  any 
sexual content labelled 18 in special 
section of the catalogue. 

217 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

role  in  this  self-regulatory  system.  In 
2013,  the  eight  most  important  VOD 
providers  renewed  the  agreement  and 
the code of 2011.  

through 

approach 

Integrated 
all 
regulated  audiovisual  sector  regarding 
age  classification  system  and  labelling 
(with  certain  specificities  for  each 
sector). 

through 

approach 

Integrated 
all 
regulated  audiovisual  sector  regarding 
age  classification  system  and  labelling 
(with  certain  specificities  for  each 
sector). 

SK 

Broadcasting and 
retransmission Act 
308/2000, consolidated 
version 

NO 

Section 20(2) (on-demand 
AVMS) 
Decree No. 589/2007, Coll., 
as amended on 14 March 
2014 

Law on the protection of 
minors against harmful 
content in audiovisual 
programmes of 15.12.2014 
Norwegian Broadcasting Act 
of 10.12.2012 
Section 2-7 (protection of 
minors) 

Film and Video Act of 
5.5.2006 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents 

“Seriously 
linear services 

impair”:  banned 

in 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

Labelling 
classification) 

restrictions 

(age 

The new law on the protection of 
minors,  which  might  come  into 
the  1  July  2015, 
force  on 
platform-
a 
introduces 
independent  approach.  Its  scope 
includes  linear  television,  on-
demand  audiovisual 
services, 
screening  at  public  gatherings  in 
Norway  (including  at  a  cinema) 
and making videograms available 
to 
(including 
public 
distribution of DVD/Blu-ray).  

the 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form protection 

“Likely to impair”: allowed without 
protection 

On-screen icons required by law. 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection:  rating  + 
PIN  codes,  watershed,  payment  by 
credit  card  (although  no  binding 
access restriction by law). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection:  rating  + 
PIN  codes,  watershed,  payment  by 
credit  card  (although  no  binding 
access restriction by law). 

The  same  protection  tools  will  apply  to  all  platforms  and  all  audiovisual 
programmes  have  to  be  classified  according  to  age  limit.  The  Act  also 
introduces a duty to ensure the age limits are  met and to inform the public 
about the age limit. This includes a duty to label all audiovisual programmes 
with  a  set  age  limit.  The  Norwegian  Media  Authority  (Medietilsynet)  will 
still be responsible for setting the age limits for cinematographic works. For 
all audiovisual programmes, the age limits shall be set by the distributor of 
the  programme,  on  the  basis  of  guidelines  drawn  up  by  the  Norwegian 
Media Authority. 

218 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

Watershed period in broadcasting services 
Comparative table across Europe 690 

AT 

Audiovisual  Media  Services  Act  –  (Art. 
39:  on-demand  services  and  Art.  42: 
television programmes). 

ORF guidelines on protection of minors 

BE 
(Flemish 
Comm.) 

Act on radio and television broadcasting 
of 18.03.2009 

Art. 42 (linear TV services) / Art. 45 
(non-linear services). 

BE 
(French 
Comm.) 

Décret SMA, as modified – Art. 9.2 a) 
and b) 
Order of the Government of 21.02.2013 

690 Table updated as of March 2015. 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors, 
in  particular 
programmes  that  involve  pornography  or  gratuitous 
violence.  In  the  case  of  television  programmes, 
which  are  likely  to  impair  minors,  it  must  be 
ensured, 
time  of 
transmission  or  by  other  measures,  that  minors  will 
not normally perceive such programmes. 

the  choice  of 

through 

the 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors, 
in  particular 
programmes  that  involve  pornography  or  gratuitous 
violence.  In  the  case  of  television  programmes, 
which  are  likely  to  impair  minors,  it  must  be 
ensured, 
time  of 
transmission  or  by  other  measures,  that  minors  will 
not normally perceive such programmes.  

the  choice  of 

through 

the 

Material  that  might  seriously  impair  the  physical, 
mental  or  moral  development  of  people  under  18 
must  not  be  broadcast.  Broadcasters  must  take  all 
necessary  steps 
to  protect  young  people  from 
material  that  is  unsuitable  to  them  by  appropriate 
rating  and  through  the  choice  of  the  time  of 
transmission. 

“Signalétique”: Programmes likely to impair  minors 
are rated and accompanied by access restrictions (on-
screen  icon  for  the  duration  of  the  programme  and 
watersheds on linear services or parental PIN code). 

impair”: 

“Seriously 
(pornography;  gratuitous  violence): 
banned  in  linear  services  /  allowed  with  access  restriction  in 
non-linear services. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed with watershed or other measures 
in linear services (on-screen icons required by law + technical 
filtering  devices  or  software  used  by  broadcasters)  /  without 
restrictions in non-linear services. 

“Seriously 
impair”  (pornography,  unnecessary  violence): 
banned  in  linear  services  /  allowed  with  access  restrictions 
(PIN codes) in non-linear services 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear services (watersheds / or access code + on-screen icons 
on  electronic  programme  guide  or  acoustic  warning  +  screen 
icon if no access code (Art. 9.2a) SMA) / allowed in non-linear 
services  with  parental  code  (PIN  code)  +  on-  screen  icons  on 
electronic  programme  guide  (Art.  9.2b)  SMA)  +  labelling 
restrictions (age classification)  
“Seriously impair” (“hard” pornography, violence): banned in 
linear services and in VOD services. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of protection (watersheds, access code + on-screen age-related 
icons  on  electronic  programme  guide  or  acoustic  warning  + 
screen  age-related  icons  if  no  access  code  (Art.  9.2a)  SMA)  / 
allowed  in  non-linear  services  with  some  form  of  protection 
(parental  code  (PIN  code)  +  on-  screen  age-related  icons  on 
electronic programme guide and catalogues (Art. 9.2b) SMA). 

Public service broadcaster’s channels: 
-  Before 

“Likely 

20:15: 
programmes  not  allowed 
must be “family-friendly”) 

to 
impair” 
(programmes 

-  From  22:00,  when  fictional  programmes 
"not  suitable  for  children"  or  "only  for 
adults" are aired, an X or O, respectively, is 
added  to  the  digital  on-screen  graphic.  A 
“K” 
for  children 
(“Okodoki”)  is  also  added  to  programmes 
particularly suitable for children. 

for  positive  content 

General watershed from 20:00/22:30 (different 
classification  and  subsequent  schedullling  of 
programmes  apply  depending  on  Flemish 
television channels). 

(repeated 

-10:  (programmes  containing  certain  scenes 
susceptible  to  harm  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of children under 10). 
-12: 
scenes  of  physical  or 
psychological  violence):  not  allowed  in  linear 
services from 6:00 to 20:00 (22:00 on the eve 
of public holidays)  
-16:  (erotic  or  very  violent  scenes):  not 
allowed between 6:00 and 22:00 
-18:  (pornographic  or  hugely  violent  scenes): 
only  between  24:00  and  5:00  in  crypted 
channels  and  only  accessible  through  parental 
access code.  

These watersheds are not applied to non-linear 

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

services (VOD) or to linear services accessible 
by personal access code. 

BG 

Radio and Television Act 
(Art. 19 on-demand services) 

Bill amending the RTA of 14.5.2014 

CY 

Law on Radio and Television Stations 
Art. 29(1)-(3): linear services 

Art. 31A(1)(a)-(b): non-linear services 

Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation Law  
Art. 19(5) (a)-(c): linear services 

Art. 181 (1) – (2): non-linear services 

Regulations of Radio and Television 
Stations  
Reg. 21(6)-(7) 

Integrated  approach  across  all  audiovisual  media 
services regarding protection of minors, according to 
which  material  that  might  seriously  impair  the 
physical,  mental  or  moral  development  of  minors  is 
banned in linear and VOD services; Material that is 
likely to impair is allowed with access restrictions in 
linear and in non-linear services.  

Television  broadcasts  shall  not  include  programmes 
which  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors  and  particularly 
programmes  containing  pornographic  scenes  or 
scenes  of  gratuitous  violence.    In  the  case  of 
programmes which are likely to impair the physical, 
mental  or  moral  development  of  minors,  it  must  be 
ensured, through the selection of the appropriate time 
of the broadcast or by other technical measures, that 
minors  will  not  normally  watch  or  hear  these 
broadcasts.  When  such  programmes  are  broadcasts 
in an encoded form, broadcasting organisations must 
ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning 
or  are  identified  by  the  presence  of  a  visual  symbol 
throughout their duration.  

Audiovisual  media  services  providers  of  non-linear 
services,  which  may  seriously  impair  the  physical, 
mental or moral development of minors, must ensure 
that  they  are  made  available  in  such  a  way  that 
minors will not normally watch or hear them.  They 
must  provide,  in  addition  to  the  rating  of  programs, 
additional  technical  means,  in  particular  a  user-
friendly system of content filtering and access codes 
to such content, with which parents of minors will be 
provided  when  subscribing  to  a  service  provider,  so 
that  they  will  be  able  to  ensure  the  blocking  of  the 
access  of  minors  to  services  which  may  seriously 

“Seriously  impair”:  banned  in  linear  services  /  banned  on 
VOD services (restrictive definition)  

+  18  rated  programmes  are  restricted  by 
watersheds.  

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  access  restrictions  in  linear 
services (on-screen icons or acoustic warnings required by law 
+ technical filtering devices or software used by broadcasters) / 
allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in  non-linear  services 
(technical access restrictions, such as filtering, encryption, pre-
locking/PIN codes or other age verification systems). 

“Seriously impair” (pornography, gratuitous violence): banned 
in  linear  services  /  allowed  with  access  restrictions  in  non-
linear services (age rating, content filtering and parental access 
codes). 

 “Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear  services  (appropriate  time  of  broadcast,  technical 
measures, acoustic warnings, on-screen icons – applicable only 
to  non-coded  programs)  /  allowed  without  restriction  in  non-
linear services. 

They can only be broadcast between 23:00 and 
06:00. 

in  unencoded  form 

“Family Zone” means the period during which 
programmes 
that  are 
suitable  for  viewers  under  the  age  of  15  are 
broadcast.  The  zone  starts  at  5.30  and  ends  at 
21.00  for  the  nights  which  are  followed  by 
working days and at 22.00 for the nights which 
are  followed  by  non-working  days  (Saturday, 
Sunday, holidays and school vacations). 

in  green  for  programs  suitable  for 

Warnings  must  be  given  regarding  the  nature 
of  the  programs:  verbal  warning  before  the 
start of the broadcast and visual warning, with 
a  visual  indication  every  ten  minutes,  in  the 
left lower part of the screen: 
(K) 
universal viewing;  
(12)  in  yellow  for  programs  unsuitable  for 
viewers under the age of 12;  
(15)  in  blue  for  programs  unsuitable  for 
viewers under the age of 15;  
(18)  in  a  red  for  programs  unsuitable  for 
viewers under the age of 18;  
(A) for programs of intense sexual content.   

Programs  classified  under  the  categories  (12), 
(15)  and  (18)  may  be  shown  only  outside  the 
family zone. 

220 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

impair their physical, mental or moral development. 

Television  stations  of  unencoded  broadcasts 
are forbidden to show broadcasts, which come 
under  category  (A).  Stations  of  encoded 
broadcast may show broadcasts of the category 
(A) only between the hours 24.00 - 5.30. 

CZ 

Radio and TV Broadcasting Act 
On-demand Audiovisual Service Act 
(Section 6(3) on-demand services) 

Some  elements  of  self  and  co-regulatory  system  for 
linear and for non-linear services. Includes a code of 
conduct  regarding  the  protection  of  minors  from 
harmful content by TV broadcasters. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography,  gross  gratuitous  violence): 
banned  in  linear  services  /  allowed  with  access  restrictions  in 
non-linear  services  +  technical  access  restrictions  (such  as 
filtering,  encryption,  pre-locking  /  PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems). 

Only  programmes  that  "can  be  watched  by 
children" can be aired until 22:00.  

After 22:00, adult-orientated programmes may 
be aired. 

DE 

Youth Protection Act (age rating for films 
(cinema, feature films DVD, computer 
games) 

Interstate Treaty on the Protection of 
Minors (JMStV): definition of harmful 
contents - Art. 4 (Länder), Art. 5, Art. 11 
(applicable to broadcasting and telemedia 
services) 

The  JMStV  introduced  a  regime  applicable  to 
electronic  information  and  communication  media 
(broadcast  and  telemedia  services).  Under  Article  5 
JMStV, providers are required to ensure that children 
and  teenagers  do  not  see  or  hear  content  impairing 
their  development  by  the  use  of  technical  means  or 
scheduling  restrictions.  The  Commission  for  the 
Protection  of  Minors  in  Electronic  Media  (KJM) 
coordinates the work of the State media Authority at 
the  national  level  in  this  field  and  ensures  that  the 
providers act in compliance with the JMStV. 

In  addition,  all  TV  broadcasters,  providers  of 
impairing  telemedia  services  and  search  engines 
providers  in  Germany  are  obliged  under  the  JMStV 
to have a competent youth protection officer who is 
responsible  in  advising  the  management  in  all 
protection  related  issues;  he/she  usually  decides  on 
all age classification within companies. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear  services  (on-screen  icons  +  acoustic  warnings  required 
by  law)  /  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in  non-linear 
services. 

“Seriously  impair”  (illegal  content  /  pornography,  certain 
indexed  content  and  contents  which  seriously  impair  minors: 
ex. violence, sexual, etc.): banned in linear services  /  allowed 
on VOD by means of a closed user group which is ensured by 
using age verification systems (KJM has developed key criteria 
for  a 
identification  and 
authentication). 

two-step  process  based  on 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection 
(watershed + on-screen icons or acoustic warnings required by 
law  +  technical  filtering  devices  or  software  used  by 
broadcasters)  /  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in  non-
linear  services  (watershed  + 
labelling  restrictions  (age 
classification) or technical access restrictions (such as filtering, 
encryption,  pre-locking  /  PIN  codes  or  other  age  verification 
systems). 

“Telemedia”  providers  shall  provide  clear  references  to  any 
existing  labelling  in  the  content  provided  if  the  content  is 
wholly  or  largely  identical  with  films  or  games  which  are 
labelled  or  have  been  cleared  for  the  respective  age  group 
pursuant  to  Article  12  of  the  German  Protection  of  Young 
Persons Act. 

Certified  technical  systems  for  the  protection  of  minors  for 
‘telemedia’  content  which  could  impair  minors  (Art.  11 
JMStV). 

-  +16: allowed between 22:00 and 06:00 
-  +18: allowed between 23:00 and 06:00   

This  means  that  programmes  marked  "Keine 
Jugendfreigabe"  (not  approved  for  minors)  by 
the voluntary self-regulation organisation FSK 
may  only  be  shown  after  23:00.  Blacklisted 
movies may not be aired at any time.  

For  some  content  “+12”,  the  watershed  is 
between  20:00  and  06:00,  but  there  is  no 
general watershed for such content. 

If  a  commercial  broadcaster  wants  to  air  a 
programme  not 
the 
rated  by 
programme’s watershed is usually rated by the 
FSF  (Freiwillige  Selbstkontrolle  Fernsehen – 
Voluntary Self-Regulation for TV) instead. 

the  FSK, 

A  programme  with  neither  an  FSK  nor  FSF 
rating  is  not  usually  aired  by  commercial 
broadcasters,  as  the  KJM  (Kommission  für 
Jugendmedienschutz –  Commission  for 
the 
Protection of Minors in the Media) may charge 
a fine if it finds the content inappropriate.  

the  original  watershed 

To  avoid 
for  a 
programme  or  to  air  a  blacklisted  movie, 
commercial  broadcasters  can  ask  the  FSF  to 
tell  them  how  to  cut  the  movie  for  another 

221 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

rating. 

DK 

Radio and Television Broadcasting Act 
(Section 48 provides that the Minister of 
Culture has the authority to make 
specified rules about the protection of 
minors).  

The rules on protection of minors are 
detailed through secondary legislation, 
by: Order no. 100 of 28.01.2010 as 
amended by Order no. 894 of 23.08.2012, 
Order no. 882 of 28.06.2013 and Order 
no. 1109 of 13.08.2013. (applying to both 
linear and non-linear services).  

The possessor of a broadcasting licence must ensure 
that  no  programme  are  transmitted  that  could 
damage to any serious degree the physical, mental or 
moral  development  of  minors,  exercising  particular 
control  over  programmes  that  include  pornography 
or  unjustified  violence.  This  also  counts  for 
programmes that can damage the physical, mental or 
moral development of minors, unless it is ensured – 
by  choice  of  programming  hours  or  by  installing  of 
technical  devices  –  that  minors  will  not  watch  or 
listen to the programmes. 

“Seriously 
impair”  (pornography,  unnecessary  violence): 
banned in linear services (Art. 6) / allowed with some type of 
protection  (labelling  of  the  service  that  makes  the  viewers 
aware of the harmful content, for example – Art. 11). 

All pornographic films are automatically rated 
at 16 years and above. However, the law does 
contain  no  explicit  regulations  concerning  the 
question of violence. 

“Likely  to  impair”  (e.g.  sexually  explicit  content):  allowed 
with  some  form  of  protection  in  linear  services  (by  choice  of 
programming  or  installing  technical  device:  acoustic  warning 
or  visual  icons  on  screen  required  by  law  during  the  whole 
time  the  program  is  on  air  –  Art.  6)  /  allowed  without 
restrictions in non-linear services. 

The  Public  Service  Television  Danmark’s 
Radio uses an informal watershed of 21:00 and 
there  is  also  a  standard  provision  for  all 
broadcasters  that  those  programmes  that  are 
considered  harmful  to  minors  can  only  be 
shown after 24:00.  

EE 

Media Services Act:  

Art. 19(2)-(6) (linear TV services / Art. 
19(7) (on-demand services) 

Contents  that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical, 
mental or moral development of minors shall not be 
emitted.  In  the  case  of  contents  which  are  likely  to 
impair minors, it must be ensured through the choice 
of the time of transmission or by other measures that 
minors will not normally perceive them. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography,  promotion  of  violence  or 
cruelty): banned in linear services / allowed with some form of 
protection in non-linear services 

“Likely to impair”: allowed with some forms of protection in 
linear  services  (watersheds  +  acoustic  warnings  required  by 
law) / allowed without protection (technical access restrictions 
available (such as filtering, encryption, pre-locking/PIN codes 
or other age verification systems 

A  watershed  is  not  necessary  if  a  decoder  is 
used to receive programme. 

The  guidelines  used  by  Danmarks  Radio  are 
inspired by EBU.  
General  watershed  from  6:00  until  22:00  for 
“likely to impair” contents. 

Such  programmes  shall  be  accompanied  by 
appropriate  symbol 
is 
uinsuitable for minors. 

indicating 

that 

it 

A  watershed  is  not  necessary  if  a  decoder  is 
used to receive programme. 

222 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

ES 

Spanish General Law 7/2010 of 
Audiovisual Communication (Art. 7) 

Contents  that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical, 
mental or moral development of minors shall not be 
emitted.  In  the  case  of  contents  which  are  likely  to 
impair minors, it must be ensured through the choice 
of the time of transmission or by other measures that 
minors will not normally perceive them. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography,  gratuitous  violence,  gender 
violence and mistreatment): banned in linear services / allowed 
in non-linear services with access restrictions (dedicated areas 
in catalogues)  and using age rating and digital coding for the 
age rating that allows the exercise of parental control systems. 

According to the Self-regulation agreement for 
audiovisual  content  and  minors  signed  by 
almost  all  free  to  air  DTT  national  providers 
the  age  rating  system  is:  All  /  +7  /+12  /  +16 
/+18. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some forms 
of protection: age rating + on-screen icons + acoustic warnings 
for  content  rated  as  18  +  watersheds  +  technical  filtering 
devices or software used by broadcasters (using digital coding 
for  the  age  rating  that  allows  the  exercise  of  parental  control 
systems) /  allowed  in  non-linear  service  with  some  protection 
(age  rating  and  using  digital  coding  for  the  age  rating  that 
allows the exercise of parental control systems). 

Two watersheds for free to air television:  
-  General  watershed  (from  06:00  to  22:00: 
during  this  time  slot  any  program  considered 
inappropriate  for  minors  under  18  cannot  be 
broadcast.  Programs  rated  as  +18  are  only 
allowed between 22:00 and 06:00. 
-  Special  watershed:  during  which  this  time 
slot  any  program  considered  inappropriate  for 
minors under 13 cannot be broadcast. 
-  Working days: from 08:00 to 09:00 and from 
17:00 to 20:00.   
-   Saturdays,  Sundays  and  festive  days:  from 
09:00 to 12:00. 

“Seriously impair” : Banned in linear services / Allowed with 
some form of protection (age-rating) in non-linear services. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of protection (on-screen icons + acoustic warnings required by 
law).  

In  Finland,  all  the  major  television  companies 
(Yle,  MTV  Media,  Nelonen  Media,  SBS 
Finland and Fox International) have agreed not 
to show 16-rated content before 21:00 and 18-
rated content before 23:00.Television channels 
use their own discretion to decide the ratings. 

information 

the  related  rating 

Before  airing  a  programme,  the  channel  must 
the 
provide 
governmental  bureau  Finnish  Centre  for  Media 
Education  and  Audiovisual  Media,  which  replaced 
the 
Film 
Classification  in  this  capacity  at  the  beginning  of 
2012. 

Finnish  Board 

now-defunct 

of 

to 

FI 

Amendment to Act No. 744/1998 on 
Radio and Television Broadcasting (Laki 
television-ja radiotoiminnasta) 

Acts nos. 306/2010 and 712/2011 and 
Act No. 710/2011 on audiovisual 
programmes (Kuvaohjelmalaki) / 
classification and labelling of various 
types of audiovisual content. 

For on-demand services: Act. No. 
458/2002 on the provision of information 
society services, complemented by Act 
no. 460/2003 on the exercise of freedom 
of expression in mass media 

FR 

Law n° 86-1067 of 30/09/1986 related to 
the freedom to communicate Art. 1 and 
15 

The  Finnish  Centre  for  Media  Education  and 
Audiovisual  Media  (MEKU)  is  responsible  for  the 
supervision  of  audiovisual  programme  provision 
(classification of films, protection of minors) and the 
coordination  and  promotion  of  national  media 
education. 

jeunesse”:  Programmes 

“Signalétique 
to 
impair  minors  are  rated  and  accompanied  by  access 
restrictions  (on-screen  icon  for  the  duration  of  the 
programme) and watersheds. 

likely 

“Seriously  impair”  (criminally  unlawful  material;  (attempt  to 
human  dignity:  violence,  sexual  perversion,  degrading  to  the 
human person; child pornography; hard-core violence): banned 
on TV and on VOD services. 

Recommendation of 7/06/2005 to TV 
services publishers regarding youth rating 
and classification of programmes, as 
modified by the CSA deliberations n° 
2012-57 of 23/10/2012 and n° 2014-17 of 
5/03/2014 

Deliberation of the CSA of 15.12.2004 on 
the broadcasting on television of 

Rule: 
-  Material that might seriously impair the physical, 
mental or moral development of people under 18 
must not be broadcast. 

-  Broadcasters  must  take  all  necessary  steps  to 
protect  young  people  from  material  that 
is 
unsuitable  to  them  by  appropriate  rating  (under 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear services. 
 “-18”  (pornographic  and  extremely  violent):  only  on  specific 
TV  pay  services  with  age  rating  obligations  +  watersheds  + 
broadcast time restrictions + restricted access system including 
access code. 
“-16”  and  “-12”  (erotic  material,  violent  content)  /  repeated 
physical  or  psychological  violence  /  theme  that  may  trouble 

-10: not allowed in programmes for children. 
-12  rated  programmes/films:  not  allowed  in 
general  channels  before  22:00;  exceptionally 
(16  max.)  allowed  at  20:30  but  never  on 
Tuesdays, Fridays, Saturdays and on the eve of 
public holidays  (for the films prohibited under 
12:  4  max.  per  year,  and  per  channel).    For 
movie  channels:  not  allowed  on  Wednesdays 
before 20:30. 

-16/-18  rated  programmes/films:  not  allowed 
in general channels before 22:30 and 20:30 on 
movie channels respectively.  

223 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

programmes unsuitable to under 18s 

the age of 10/12/16/18) and scheduling time. 

Deliberation of the CSA of 20.12.2011 on 
the protection of young audiences, 
deontology, and the accessibility of 
programme on on-demand AVMS 

Tableau signalétique 2014 

children under 12): Available in cinema and PPV services and 
other  services  with  age  rating  obligations  +  watersheds  + 
broadcast time restrictions. 
 “-10” (contents which are likely to shock children under 10): 
no restriction. 

In  non-linear  services,  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection. 
All programmes must be rated and the warning symbols shall 
be  displayed  on  catalogues,  programmes  and  trailers.    Pin 
codes  are  mandatory  for  -18  programmes,  which  cannot  be 
offered for free.   

GB 

Broadcasting Act 1996 
Communications Act 2003 (sections 
3(4)(h) and 319(2)(a) and (f) 

Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 
2009 (Art. 368E - harmful material and 
ODAVMS) 

Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 
2010  

Ofcom Guidance Notes, Section 1 

Ensure that people under 18 are protected. 

Rule: 
-  Material that might seriously impair the physical, 
mental or moral development of people under 18 
must not be broadcast. 

-  Broadcasters  must  take  all  necessary  steps  to 

protect people under 18. 

-  Children  must  also  be  protected  by  appropriate 
scheduling  from  material  that  is  unsuitable  to 
them (under 15) 

“Seriously  impair”  content  (illegal  content,  extremely  violent 
pornography,  R18+,  hard-core  porn  R18,  material  likely  to 
incite hatred based on race, sex, religion or nationality: banned 
on TV + VOD. 

“Likely to impair”: Material which might seriously impair the 
physical,  mental  or  moral  development  of  persons  under  the 
age of 18: allowed with access restrictions. 

-18  rated  programmes/films:  not  allowed  on 
general  channels;  Certain  satellite  and  cable 
channels can air them in a limited number per 
year 
information  of 
subscribers.    Not  allowed  between  5:00  and 
24:00.    The  access  to  these  programmes  is 
locked with PIN code. 

to  prior 

subject 

The watershed for all ratings finishes at 06:00 
the following morning. 

In non-linear services, allowed with some form 
of  protection.    All  programmes  must  be  rated 
and the warning symbols shall be displayed on 
catalogues,  programmes  and  trailers.    Pin 
codes  are  mandatory  for  -18  programmes, 
which cannot be offered for free. There are two 
separate  areas:  a  ‘trust  zone’  which  contains 
only  programmes  which  are  suitable  for  all 
audiences  and  ‘an  adult  zone’  which  contains 
all programmes which are not suitable to under 
18s.  There  is  only  one  watershed,  on  -16 
programmes offered for free (22:30 to 5:00). 

Watershed only applies to: 
- Free-to-air TV: between 21:00 and 05:30 
- Not  protected  premium  or  pay-per-view 

services: from 20:00 to 06:00.  

- Protected (by pin code) premium or pay-per-

view services: No watershed 

There  should  be  a  gentle  transition  to  adult 
material and 18-rated content must not air until 
22:00  on  most  channels  that  are  without  PIN 
protection.  However, 
are 
dedicated  to  airing  adult  content  may  be 
allowed  to  start  18-rated  content  at  21:00 
without  PIN  protection.  R18-rated  material  is 
not allowed at all, and must be edited to fit 18-
rated content guidelines if shown on television. 

channels 

that 

Advertisements  also  have  to  comply  with  the 
same  set  of  rules,  and  can  be  restricted  when 
shown outside the watershed. 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

GR 

Presidential Decree 109/2012 
Art. 13 (on-demand AVMS) 

Art. 26 (linear TV services) 

Contents  that  might  seriously  impair  the  physical, 
mental or moral development of minors shall not be 
broadcasted  in  linear  services.  They  are  allowed  in 
non-linear  services  with  access  restrictions.  With 
respect to contents which are likely to impair minors, 
they must be accompanied by some form of technical 
protection  in  linear  services  and  may  be  offered 
without restriction in non-linear services. 

Seriously  impair’:  banned  in  linear services  /  allowed  in  non-
linear  services  with  access  restrictions  (watershed  +  labelling 
restrictions  (age  classification)  +  technical  access  restrictions 
(such  as  filtering,  encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes  or  other 
age verification systems). 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of  protection  (classification  of  contents  +  on-screen  icons  + 
acoustic  warnings  required  by 
/  allowed  without 
protection. 

law) 

Triple-tier  watershed,  along  with  a  five-tier 
colour-coded  decal  scheme,  displayed  in  the 
beginning  and  in  regular  intervals  during  all 
broadcasts except for news bulletins. 
- A white rhombus in green or a white circle in 
blue indicates unrestricted programming. 

- A  white 

triangle 

in  orange 

indicates 
programming 
that  could  upset  younger 
children, and is only allowed between 19:00 
and 06:00. 
- A  white 

indicates 
programming  that  may  be  unsuitable  for 
children, and is only allowed between 21:00 
and 06:00. 

in  purple 

square 

- A  white  X  in  red  indicates  programming 
which  by  law  must  not  air  until  midnight. 
Programmes  with 
language  will 
typically fall into this category. Content with 
this  rating  before  midnight  is  punishable  by 
fine,  except  when  used  in  the  context  of  a 
suitably labelled film, theatrical play or other 
media. 

foul 

The  colour-coded  ratings  are  mandatorily 
displayed  and  verbally  announced  at 
the 
beginning of each broadcast. These provisions 
are  enforced  by  the  National  Radio  and 
Television  Council  (ESR),  an  independent 
authority, the executive members of which are 
appointed  by  the  leaders  of  all  parliamentary 
parties,  preferably  by  unanimous  consent  and 
in extremis by an 80% supermajority. 

225 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

HU 

Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media 
Services and Mass Media 
(Art. 9: Linear TV services) / (Art. 11: 
on-demand AVMS) 

Act CIV 2010 on the fundamental rules 
of the freedom of the press and media 
contents (Press and Media Act): Art. 
19(2) protection of minors from harmful 
contents in on-demand AVMS 

Rules on Protection of minors, Art. 2, par 
1. OG 60/10: 

Recommendation of 19.07.2011 of the 
Media Council of the National Media and 
Communications Authority  

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors.  In  the  case  of 
television  programmes,  which  are  likely  to  impair 
minors, it must be ensured, through the choice of the 
time  of  transmission  or  by  other  measures,  that 
minors will not normally perceive such programmes. 

issue 

regulator 

The  media 
recommendations 
regarding  effective  technical  solutions.  On-demand 
audiovisual  media  services  providers  are  obliged  to 
notify  the  regulatory  authority,  the  National  Media 
and Infocommunications Authority. 

Seriously  impair’:  (category  VI):  banned  in  linear  services  / 
allowed with some form of restrictions in non-linear services. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of  protection  (rating  +on-screen  icons  +  acoustic  warnings 
required  by  law)  /  allowed  in  non-linear  services  with  some 
form  of  restrictions  (technical  access  restrictions  (such  as 
filtering,  encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems). 

Six classification categories:  
-  Category I / “-6” (programmes that may be 
viewed or listened to by persons of any age: 
no watershed. 

-   up  to  Category  VI,  (programmes  that  may 
seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors,  particularly 
because 
involve  pornography  or 
extreme  and/or  unnecessary  scenes  of 
violence): can be aired only in an encrypted 
form  or  by  the  use  of  another  effective 
technical solution.  

they 

describes 

Recommendation 

The 
the 
psychological  characteristics  and  the  media 
competence  of  the  different  age  groups  in 
relation  to  the  classification  categories  that 
have  been  set  out  in  the  Media  Law  Act. 
Furthermore, it illustrates by several examples 
which  genres,  harmful  elements  or  problem 
areas can appear in each specific category and 
which content shall be classified as falling into 
a higher (stricter) category. 

HR 

Electronic Media Act (EMA) 
Art. Art. 20 (on-demand services) / Art. 
26 (linear TV services) 

Rulebook of the Council for Electronik 
Media on TV broadcasters for the 
purpose of the protection of minors, of 
April 2008 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors.  In  the  case  of 
television  programmes,  which  are  likely  to  impair 
minors, it must be ensured, through the choice of the 
time  of  transmission  or  by  other  measures,  that 
minors will not normally perceive such programmes. 

The Agency for Electronic Media has issued rules on 
the protection of minors. Article 14. OG 60/10 deals 
with on-demand media service providers. 

impair”: 

“Seriously 
(pornography;  gratuitous  violence): 
banned  in  linear  services  /  allowed  with  access  restrictions  in 
non-linear services. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of protection (watershed +¨technical tools of access restrictions 
required  by  law.)  /  allowed  in  non-linear  services  with  some 
form of protection (visual symbols + labelling restrictions (age 
classification) + PIN code). 

-  Category  18:  not  allowed  between  07:00 
and 23:00. During the entire broadcast the 
following  mark  must  be 
visible:  a 
transparent  circle  with  the  number  “18” 
written in red. 

-  Category  15:  not  allowed  from  07:00  to 
22:00.  The  complete  broadcast  must  be 
marked  with  a  transparent  circle  with  the 
number “15” written in orange. 

-  Category  12:  not  allowed  between  07:00 
and 21:00 and must carry, for the duration 
of  the  broadcast,  a  transparent  circle  with 
the number “12” written in green. 

226 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

IE 

Broadcasting Act (2009) 
Audiovisual Media Service Regulation 
2010 Art. 18(2) (linear TV services) / 
Art. 6(2) (On-demand services) 
BAI Code of Programme Standards 
(CPS) (new revised code to come into 
effect on 1.03.2015) 

to 
Children  (under  18)  shall  not  be  exposed 
programming  that  would  seriously  impair  their 
moral,  mental  and  physical  development, 
in 
particular,  programmes  involving  pornography  or 
gratuitous 
a 
violence.  Broadcasters 
responsibility  with  parents  and  guardians  for  what 
children  listen  to  and  watch  and  in  protecting 
children from exposure to inappropriate and harmful 
programme material.  

share 

BAI  defines  children’s  programmes  as  programmes 
that are commonly referred to as such and/or have an 
audience  profile  of  which  over  50%  are  under  18 
years of age. 

Seriously  impair’  (pornography,  gratuitous  violence):  banned 
on  traditional  TV  /  allowed  with  access  restrictions  in  non-
linear services. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
traditional  TV  (requirement  to  schedule  appropriately  or 
encode  and  where  unencoded  to  either  provide  an  acoustic 
prior  warning  or  apply  visual  classification  throughout  the 
duration of the programme) and non-linear services. 

In Ireland, there is no statutory requirement for 
a  watershed.  The  CPS  of  the  Broadcasting 
Authority  of  Ireland  (BAI)  requires  television 
and  radio  broadcasters  to  use  at  least  one  of 
three  methods  to  advise  viewers  of  content, 
namely:  an  explicit  watershed  for  adult-
oriented  programmes;  prior  warnings  before 
potentially  offensive  programming;  and/or  a 
descriptive classification system.  

IT 

Italian AVMS Code as revised in July 
2014 (Art. 1, modifying Art. 34 on 
protection of minors) 

Self-regulation Code on TV and minors 
of 29.11.2002, as amended 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors.  In  the  case  of 
television  programmes,  which  are  likely  to  impair 
minors, it must be ensured, through the choice of the 
time  of  transmission  or  by  other  measures,  that 
minors will not normally perceive such programmes. 

Primary  and  secondary  legislation  adopted  by  the 
Communications  Authority  (AGCOM),  especially 
with  regard  to  technical  measures  and  classification 
of  programmes.  Italian  AVMS  Code  as  revised  in 
July  2014  and  self-regulatory  provisions  were 
defined in the TV and minors Code in 2002. 

“Seriously impair” (gratuitous or insistent or brutal violence or 
pornography,  including  cinematographic  works  classified  as 
unsuitable  for  minors  under  18):  banned  in  linear  services  / 
allowed  with  access  restrictions  (parental  control  systems  + 
PIN code, except for VOD by PSB (banned). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  Allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear services  (rating, watersheds, on-screen icons  + acoustic 
warnings  required  by  law  and  also  by  codes  of  conduct  + 
technical  filtering  devices  or  software  used  by  broadcasters)  / 
allowed in  non-linear services without protection. 

The  BAI  CPS  code  states  that,  in  general 
terms,  programmes  broadcast  after  21:00  are 
not  regarded  as  children’s  programmes.  After 
this time, the primary responsibility for what a 
child  is  watching  is  seen  to  lie  with  the 
parents/guardians.  The  Code 
recognises, 
however, that children’s viewing does not end 
abruptly at 21:00 and, therefore, the Code will 
offer  some  protection  in  the  hour  between 
21:00 and 22:00. RTÉ Television implements a 
watershed  of  21:00  (ending  at  06:30),  as  well 
as 
system. 
Programmes with the MA ("mature audience") 
classification  may  only  be  shown  after  the 
watershed. 
-  Between  07:00  to  23:00:  all  channels  must 
broadcast "general audience" programmes.  

classification 

onscreen 

an 

-  +14 programmes: allowed after 23:00 
-  +18 

from 
programmes: 
television  altogether,  with 
the  only 
exception  of  satellite  and  cable  premium 
adult channels and VOD 

prohibited 

Specific measures to protect minors during the 
hours  of  programming  from  16:00  and  19:00 
and  within  programs  directly  aimed  at  minors 
particularly  regarding  advertising,  promotion 
and all other forms of audiovisual commercial 
communication  are  detailed  in  self-regulatory 
instruments. 

227 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

LT 

Law on the protection of minors against 
the detrimental effect of public 
information (10.9.2002 – No IX-1067), as 
last amended on 14 July 2009 – No. XI-
333): Art. 4 + Art. 6 

Law on Provision of Information to the 
Public, as amended: Art. 40.3 (protection 
of minors in public audiovisual 
information services/ on-demand AVMS) 
+ Art. 17 

Rules for the categorization and 
dissemination of information, which 
might have a negative effect on minors 
(came into force on 1.11.2010) 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

“Seriously  impair”:  (physical  or  psychological  violence  or 
vandalism:  restrictive  definition)  banned  in  linear  services  / 
banned on VOD (restrictive definition). 

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 
measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection 
(watersheds + on-screen icons + acoustic warnings required by 
law)  /  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in  non-linear 
services  (technical  access  restrictions  (such  as  filtering, 
encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age  verification 
systems). 

if 

the 

Broadcasters  themselves  are  obliged  to  assess 
and  determine 
“to-be-published 
information”  might  have  a  negative  effect  on 
minors. 
The  Rules  provide 
categories: 
- N-7 (programmes for viewers under 7). 
- N-14 (under 14). 
- S (under 18): allowed from 23:00 to 06:00. 

three  TV  programme 

The  Rules  set  one  more  new  requirement:  to 
visually or orally warn the viewers with a note 
that  the  “Information  might  have  a  negative 
effect on minors” prior to the beginning of the 
programme  in  case  the  respective  programme 
might contain such information, but is allowed 
to be transmitted by law. 

LU 

Law of 27 July 1991 on Electronic 
Media, as amended (17.12.2010): Art. 
27ter (linear TV services) / Art. 28quater 
(on-demand services) 

As  a  result  of  Art.  12  of  the  AVMS  Directive,  the 
government of Luxembourg adopted a regulation on 
the  protection  of  minors  in  audiovisual  media 
services based on the Law of Electronic Media.  

Regulation on Protection of Minors in 
Audiovisual Services of 08.01.2015 

to  classify 

The  new  regulation  introduces  a  system  of  self-
classification which asks broadcasters established in 
Luxembourg 
their  content  along  5 
categories  of  age  groups:  all  audiences,  not  suitable 
for minors under 10, 12, 16 and 18. The new system 
applies  both  to  providers  of  linear  and  on-demand 
audiovisual media services. 

“Seriously impair” (pornography, gratuitous violence): banned 
in  linear  services  /  allowed  with  access  restrictions  in  non-
linear services 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of  protection  (watersheds  +  on-screen  icons  +  text  display 
warnings required by law) / allowed in non-linear services with 
some form of protection (age classification labels) 

On  top  of  the  local  classification,  broadcasters  of  linear 
audiovisual  media  services  established  in  Luxembourg,  but 
principally targeting the audience of another EU member state 
can opt for the classification system of that particular member 
state,  provided  this  regime  has  a  level  of  protection  that  the 
regulatory  authority  ALIA  regards  as  equivalent.  In  addition, 
providers  of  on-demand  services  can  pick,  as  a  third  system, 
the  classification  granted  in  the  country  of  origin  of  the 
program.  ALIA  must  be  notified  to  change  regime;  local 
classification is considered be the default system. 

According to the regulation: 
-  No  age  distinction:  programmes  appropriate 
for all audiences;  
-10:  classified  as  unsuitable  for  minors  under 
10 
-12  (physical  and  psychological  violence  in  a 
systematic  and  repeated  manner):  may  not  be 
broadcast  in  unencoded  form  between  06:00 
and 20:00 
-16  (erotic  character  or  great  violence): 
allowed  in  uncoded  form  after  22:00  and 
before 06:00 
-18 
(sexually  explicit  or  highly  violent 
character):  encoded  +  personal  access  code  + 
broadcast only between 24:00 and 05:00.  

228 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

LV 

Law on Electronic Media implementing 
the AVMSD 28.7.2010 

Art. 24(10) (on-demand AVMS) 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 
measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

MT 

Broadcasting Act, 1991 (Act  No. XII of 
1991), consolidated version 2011Art. 
16N(1) (on-demand AVMS) 

Broadcasting Code for the Protection of 
Minors 

Draft Code for the Protection, Welfare 
and Development of Minors on the 
Broadcasting Media 

NL 

Dutch Media Act 2008 (Mediawet) 
Art. 4.1-4.6 

Though the regulatory authority remains in charge of 
the  regulation  of  on-demand  audiovisual  media 
services,  some  self-regulation  and  co-regulation 
practices are taking place in relation to classification 
and  labelling  of  content  and  the  development  of 
technical measures to prevent minors from accessing 
harmful contents. 

New  provisions  proposed  for  inclusion  in  the  draft 
Code require broadcasting stations to have officers in 
charge of programme rating. Programme promotions 
should not include gratuitous violence and any other 
material  suitable  only  for  a  mature  audience. 
Programme promotions may be broadcast during the 
day, so long as each specific episode is rated. Minors 
are defined as persons who are under 16. 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral  development  of  minors.  In  the  case  of 
television  programmes,  which  are  likely  to  impair 
minors, it must be ensured, through the choice of the 
time  of  transmission  or  by  other  measures,  that 
minors will not normally perceive such programmes.  

In  the  Netherlands  there  is  a  shared  responsibility 
between The Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat 
voor de Media, CvdM) and NICAM (the Netherlands 
Institute  for 
the  Classification  of  Audiovisual 
Media). 

Seriously impair’: Banned in linear services / allowed in non-
linear  services  with  access  restrictions  (watershed,  restricted 
access  control  tools,  audible  warning  signal  +  visual  symbol 
required  by  law  +  technical  access  restrictions  (such  as 
filtering,  encryption,  pre-locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification  systems  (providers  are  required  to  cover  harmful 
pictures and to replace rude words with a noise). 

Audio  and  audiovisual  works  displaying 
physical  or  psychological  violence,  bloody  or 
horror  scenes,  scenes  relating  to  sexual  acts 
and  the  use  of  drugs  or  containing  foul 
language  may  not  be  transmitted  between 
07:00 and 22:00. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of protection (on-screen icons + acoustic warnings required by 
law  +  technical  filtering  devices  or  software  used  by 
in  non-linear  services  without 
broadcasters) 
protection. 

/  allowed 

“Seriously impair”: banned in linear services / allowed in non-
linear  services  with  access  restrictions  (PIN  code),  except  for 
VOD by public service broadcaster. 

No  material  which  primarily  exists  for  sexual 
arousal  or  stimulation  may  be  broadcast  in 
programmes aimed at minors or before 21:00 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear  services  (on-screen  icons  +  acoustic  warnings  required 
by  law  -,  except  for  VOD  by  public  service  broadcaster 
(banned) / allowed in non-linear services, except for VOD by 
public service broadcaster (banned). 

“Seriously impair”: banned in linear services / allowed in non-
linear  services  with  access  restrictions,  except  for  VOD  by 
public service broadcaster (banned). 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  for  private  media  in  non-linear 
services  /  Allowed  for  private  media  in  linear  services  and 
public service broadcaster (in linear and non-linear services) if 
the media service provider is affiliated  with NICAM, respect 
the  watersheds  and  shows  the  applicable  symbols  (age  and 
content descriptors based on Kijkwijzer system). 

When  legal  restrictions  apply  to  prevent  the 
identification of any person, broadcasters must 
pay  particular  attention  to  withholding  any 
information  which  could  identify  minors  who 
are or may be victims, witnesses, defendants or 
authors in cases of a sexual offence in the civil 
or criminal courts. 

Broadcast related to the paranormal (exorcism, 
occult  practices)  are  not  allowed  between 
06:00 and 21:00  

All  ages  /  +6  /  +9  programmes  can  be 
broadcast all day: no watershed. 
+12: allowed from 20.00 to 06.00 
+16: allowed from 22.00 to 06.00 

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

PL 

Broadcasting Act of Dec. 29,1992, as 
amended in 2011 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

“Seriously impair”: banned in linear services / allowed in non-
linear  services  under  specific  conditions  /  effective  technical 
security measures). 

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 
measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of protection (watersheds + on-screen icons required by law  / 
allowed with on-screen icons in non-linear services. 

Double-tier  watershed  system,  as  well  as  five 
age ratings. 

All  age  ratings  must  be  displayed  throughout 
the  whole  of 
the 
exception  of  commercial  breaks  and  news 
bulletins.  

the  programme,  with 

“16” 

background), 

The  ratings  are  ‘All’  (indicated  on-air  by  a 
smiling  face),  “7”  (blue  background),  “12” 
(yellow 
(orange 
background) and “18” (red background with a 
key  in  the  middle).  The  number  in  the  age 
rating  indicates  the  lowest  age  for  which  it  is 
suitable. 
-  “12”  programmes 

theme  and/or 
stronger  violence):  not  allowed  within 
children's schedules. 

(war 

PT 

Law of 11 April 2011 amending the 
Television Act of 2007 
Art. 27(3)-(5) (linear TV services) / Art. 
27(10) (on demand AVMS) 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 
measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

“Seriously  impair”:  Banned  in  linear  services  /  allowed  in 
non-linear services with access restrictions (based on voluntary 
system,  on-demand  AVMS  work  with  a  PIN  code  access, 
which  is  sent  to  the  client.  The  PIN  code  restricts  access  to 
content  according  to  a  graduated  classification  (high-average-
low  restrictions  /  unrestricted).  By  default,  all  TV  boxes  are 
delivered  to  clients  with  low  level  of  active  constraints,  i.e. 
with access to all contents except adult content. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of  protection  (watersheds  +  on-screen  icons  required  by  law 
and also by codes of conduct) / allowed in non-linear services 
with some form of protection. 

-  “16” programmes (very strong violence, bad 
language  and/or  erotic  situations):  not 
allowed  within  children's  schedules  or 
before 20:00 on mainstream channels. 

-  “18” programmes (explicit violence, explicit 
situations,  racist  comments):  not  allowed 
within  children's  schedules  or  between 
06:00 and 23:00 on mainstream channels (+ 
rating). 

“16” and “18” programmes: allowed on open-
air channel only between 23:00 and 06:00. 

No  watershed  on  cable  television,  except  for 
pornography  which  cannot  be  broadcast  at  all 
if the signal is not encrypted, requiring an IRD 
to be seen. 

RO 

Radio and Television Broadcasting Act, 
consolidated version 2009 
Art. 39 (linear TV services) / Art 39.1 (on 
demand AVMS) 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

“Seriously impair”: banned in linear services / allowed in non-
linear  services  with  access  restrictions,  except  for  VOD  by 
public service broadcaster (banned). 

Decision No. 220, of 24.02.2011 
regarding the Regulatory Code of 

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 

Likely to impair: allowed in linear services with some form of 
protection  (on-screen  icons  +  acoustic  warnings  required  by 
law  +  technical  filtering  devices  or  software  used  by 

-  All 

categories: 

no 

restrictions 

nor 

watersheds 

-  “AP”  programme:  only  with  parents’ 

permission for minors under 12 

-  “12”  prohibited  under  12:  allowed  after 

20:00 + warning sign 

230 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

Audiovisual Content  

measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

broadcasters  +  pre-locking  systems  for  the  transmission  of 
over-18  content)  /  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection 
(labelling  restrictions  (age  classification)  +  technical  access 
restrictions  (such  as  filtering,  encryption,  pre-locking/PIN 
codes or other age verification systems) in non-linear services, 
except for VOD by public service broadcaster (banned).  

-  “15”:  allowed  between  23:00  and  06:00  + 

warning sign 

-  “18”  prohibited  under  18  other  than 
pornographic 
productions 
audiovisual 
(horror  or  erotic  movies,  extremely  violent 
movies..):  allowed  between  01:00  and 
06:00 + warning sign during all the duration 
of the programme 

-  “18+”  (detail  sexual  intercourse):  shall  not 
be  broadcast  or  retransmitted  by  media 
service  providers  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
Romania  /  under  the  jurisdiction  of  EU 
member  states,  may  be  introduced  in  the 
offer of service distributors if encrypted and 
included  in  the  optional  packages  specially 
dedicated to adults only available between 
01:00 
analogue 
retransmission. 

05:00 

and 

for 

SE 

Swedish Radio and Television Act of 
17.6.2010 
Chapter 5 - 1 (linear TV services) and 2 
(on-demand AVMS) 

Broadcasting License 

regarding  “seriously 

Same  approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear 
impair”  contents 
services 
(allowed in both services),  with some differences in 
the level of protection required. Graduated approach 
with  respect  to  “likely  to  impair”  content  (allowed 
with  some  form  of  protection  in  linear  services  and 
without protection in non-linear services). 

“Seriously impair” (portrayals of violence of a realistic nature 
or  pornographic  images):  Banned  in  linear  services  /  allowed 
in non-linear services with access restrictions (either preceded 
by a verbal warning or warning text continuously displayed on 
the screen throughout the broadcast) (must be provided  in  such 
a way that it does not create a considerable risk for children 
viewing the programmes. 

Programmes  unsuitable  for  children  must  be 
broadcast after 21:00. 

Swedish  Media 

The 
broadcasters to create self-regulating instruments 

Council 

encourages 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
of  protection  (Acoustic  warnings  required  by 
law  for 
programmes containing portrays of violence of realistic nature 
or  pornographic.  On-screen  icons  are  encouraged  but  not 
required  by  law)  /  allowed  in  non-linear  services  without 
protection (restrictions concerning material which is “likely to 
impair” are included in broadcasting licences. However, VOD 
service providers are only required to register with the Swedish 
Broadcasting Authority). 

SI 

Law concerning protection of minors 
adopted on October 2013 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

“Seriously impair” (pornography, gratuitous violence): banned 
in  linear  services  /  allowed  in  non-linear  services  with  access 
restrictions (PIN code or other adequate technical restriction). 

Audiovisual Media Services  
Art. 14(1) – (3) (linear TV services) / Art. 
15 (on-demand AVMS) 

Statutory act complementing it (English 
version) adopted in October 2013. 

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 
measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
protection  (watersheds  or  technical  protection  of  access 
restriction required by law required by law) / allowed in non-
linear  services  with  some  forms  of  protection  (PIN  code  + 
classification  of  any  sexual  content  labelled  18  in  special 
section of the catalogue). 

-   “PG”  (includes  scenes  that  might  upset 
children  under  12,  or  might  not  be 
understandable  without  adult  supervision): 
no  watershed  but 
for 
supervision of parents or legal guardians. 
-  “-12”  (occasional  and  moderate  violence, 
horror  scenes,  use  of  tobacco/alcohol, 
inappropriate 
sex 
discreet 
language, 
scene..): allowed after 21:00 + rating. 

rating 

(PG) 

231 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

-  “-15”(frequent 

moderate 

violence, 
dangerous  scene,  horror,  discrimination, 
sex  scenes,  etc.)  :  allowed  after  22:00  + 
rating. 

-  “-18”  (severe  violence,  suffering,  intense 
sex, 
horror 
discrimination, etc.):  allowed after 24:00 + 
rating. 

scene, 

nudity 

and 

SK 

Broadcasting and retransmission Act 
308/2000, consolidated version 
Section 20(2) (on-demand AVMS) 
Decree No. 589/2007, Coll., as amended 
on 14 March 2014 

Television  channels  must  not  contain  programmes 
that  may  seriously  impair  the  physical,  mental  or 
moral development of minors.  

“Seriously impair”: banned in linear services / allowed in non-
linear  services  with  access  restrictions  (labelling  restrictions 
(age classification) 

In  the  case  of  television  programmes,  which  are 
likely to impair  minors, it  must be ensured, through 
the  choice  of  the  time  of  transmission  or  by  other 
measures,  that  minors  will  not  normally  perceive 
such programmes. 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
protection (on-screen icons required by law) / allowed without 
protection. 

-  Explicit  sexual  programming  content  may 
only  be  broadcast  on  TV  channels  or 
through on-demand  AVMS if access to such 
content  is  restricted  and  only  enabled  to 
adults  by  assigning  users  a  PIN  code  or 
applying an equivalent protection system. 

+12: (expressive or aggressive language) may 
be broadcast all day long but only in the form 
and intensity suitable for minors aged 12 and 
over. 
+15 programme only allowed after 20:00 (the 
so-called “second watershed” applies both to 
linear and VOD services (but also to radio 
programmes, cinemas, video and DVD rentals, 
CD and DVD distributors). 

232 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

NO 

Law on the protection of minors against 
harmful content in audiovisual 
programmes of 15.12.2014 

Norwegian Broadcasting Act of 
10.12.2012 
Section 2-7 (protection of minors) 

Film and Video Act of 5.5.2006 

The  new  law  on  the  protection  of  minors,  which 
might come into force on the 1 July 2015, introduces 
a  platform-independent  approach.  Its  scope  includes 
linear  television,  on-demand  audiovisual  services 
(limited  to  on-demand  services  that  are  competing 
with  traditional  television  broadcasts),  screening  at 
public gatherings in Norway (including at a cinema) 
and  making  videograms  available  to  the  public 
(including distribution of DVD/Blu-ray). 

New age limits are introduced in the new Act: 
All / 6 / 9 / 12 / 15 / 18. 

The  aim  is  to  better  reflect  the  stages  of 
development  of  children  and  the  youth.  The 
previous age limits were:  All / 7 / 11 / 15 / 18. 

“Seriously impair”: banned in linear and non-linear services 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with  some  form  of  protection  in 
linear and non-linear services (rating + PIN codes, watershed, 
payment by credit card (although no binding access restriction 
by law). 

The  same  protection  tools  will  apply  to  all  platforms  and  all 
audiovisual programmes have to be classified according to age 
limit.  The  Act  also  introduces  a  duty  to  ensure  the  age  limits 
are  met  and  to  inform  the  public  about  the  age  limit.  This 
includes a duty to label all audiovisual programmes with a set 
age  limit.  The  Norwegian  Media  Authority  (Medietilsynet) 
will  still  be  responsible  for  setting  the  age  limits  for 
cinematographic  works.  For  all  audiovisual  programmes,  the 
age limits shall be set by the distributor of the programme, on 
the  basis  of  guidelines  drawn  up  by  the  Norwegian  Media 
Authority.  

233 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 15 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

Transposition of Product Placement rules (Article 11(2)-(4) AVMSD) 

Art. 11 (2) 

Art. 11 (3) 

Art. 11 (4) 

MS 

AT 

STRICTER 
REGULATION 
YES for regional TV 
programmes (see § 
16 (2) last sentence 
and § 16 (4) last two 
sentences of the 
ORF-Act) 

 LEGAL 
BASIS 
Federal Act on 
Audio-visual 
Media Services 
(AMD-G) - 
consolidated 30 
July 2015 – 

No product 
placement for spirits 
(§ 13 (4) ORF-Act 
and § 42a AMS-Act) 

See also § 32 
AMS-Act and § 
13 (2) ORF-Act 
as far as product 
placement is 
included 

§ 38.  (1) 
Product placement 
shall be prohibited, 
subject to the 
provisions of 
paragraphs 2 and 3.  

§ 38.  (2)-(4) 
(2) The provision free of charge of certain goods or services, 
such as production props and prizes, with a view to their 
inclusion in a program, shall be excluded from the prohibition 
of paragraph 1. 
(3) Cinematographic works, films made for television and 
television series as well as sports programs and light 
entertainment programs shall be excluded from the prohibition 
of paragraph 1. This exception shall not apply to children’s 
programs. 
(4) Programs that contain product placement shall meet the 
following requirements: 
1. Their content, and in the case of television channels their 
scheduling, shall in no circumstances be influenced in such a 
way as to adversely affect the editorial responsibility and 
independence of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation. 
2. They shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services. 
3. They shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question. 
4. In order to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer, 
they shall be appropriately identified at the start and the end of 
a program and when a program resumes after an advertising 
break. 

Federal Act on 
the Austrian 
Broadcasting 
Corporation 
(ORF-G) - 

§ 16.  (1) 
Product placement (§ 
1a paragraph 1 
subparagraph 10) 

§ 38.  (5) 
Notwithstanding the 
provisions of § 33, programs 
are not permitted to contain 
any product placements for 
the benefit of undertakings 
whose principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products. 

§ 16.  (4) 
Notwithstanding the 
provisions of § 13, 
programmes may not include 
product placement for the 
benefit of undertakings whose 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consolidated 13 
August 2015 

shall be prohibited, 
subject to the 
provisions of 
paragraphs 2 and 3. 

BE 
(Fle
mish 
Com
m.) 

YES 

Production props and 
prizes seem not 
allowed in children's 
programmes in PSB -  
could amount to a 
stricter rule. 

Act on Radio 
and Television 
Broadcasting - 
Consolidated 12 
August 2014 

Art. 50  (3) 
The television broadcaster of the Flemish Community is 
prohibited from relying on sponsorship for its children’s 
programmes and using product placement in children’s 
programmes. 
Art. 99 
Product placement is allowed with regard to: 
1° the inclusion or reference to a product or service or related 
trade name in return for payment. In such a case, product 
placement is only allowed in (television) films, series, sports 
programmes and light entertainment programmes, excluding 
children’s programmes; 
2° goods or services that are supplied free of change, such as 
production props and prizes, with a view to including these in a 
programme. In such a case, product placement is allowed in all 
types of programmes, excluding children’s programmes of the 
public broadcaster of the Flemish Community. The Flemish 
Government can extend this prohibition to children's 
programmes of the other broadcasters. 
Art. 100 
§ 1. Programmes that contain product placement shall meet at 
least all of the following requirements: 
1° the content, and in the case of linear broadcasts, the 
scheduling, will never be influenced as such that the 
responsibility and the editorial independence of the broadcaster 
shall be affected; 
2° they shall not directly encourage the viewer to purchase or 
rent goods or services, by specifically recommending these 
products or services; 

principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products. Product placement 
and provisions free of charge 
pursuant to § 1a subparagraph 
10 last sentence shall also be 
prohibited in regionally 
broadcast television 
programmes. 
Art. 101 
In any event programmes 
shall not contain product 
placement of: 
1° tobacco products or 
cigarettes or enterprises 
whose principal activity 
consists of the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products; 
2° specific medicinal products 
or medical treatments, which 
are only available on 
prescription in Belgium. 

235 

 
 
 
  
BE 
(Fre
nch 
Com
m.) 

YES 

No derogation 
concerning PP in the 
children programmes 
and television news 
even with product 
props.  

Audiovisual 
media services 
decree - 
consolidated 29 
January 2015 

Art. 21  § 1. 
Product placement is 
forbidden. 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider 

3° they shall not give undue prominence to the product or the 
service in question; 
4° if the programme in question is produced or ordered by the 
broadcaster or by an enterprise associated with it, the viewers 
will be clearly informed of the presence of product placement. 
The programme shall be flagged in a suitable manner, at the 
beginning and at the end, or if it is reprised after an ad break, in 
order to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewers. To this 
end, the Flemish Government can lay down further rules. 
§ 2. The conditions of paragraph 1 are applicable to 
programmes which have been produced after the 
commencement of this Act. 
Art. 21  § 2 
Further to the exemption stated in § 1er, product placement is 
admissible: 
1° in film and televisual works of fiction as well as in sports or 
entertainment programmes, or 
2° when there is no fee involved but only the supplying for free 
of certain goods or services such as the supply of production 
accessories and prizes with a view to include them in a 
programme. 
These exemptions do not apply to programmes for children or 
to television news. 
Programmes that involve product placement comply at least 
with all the following conditions: 
1° Their content and, in the case of linear services, their 
broadcasting, must not in any case be influenced so as to 
infringe the responsibility and the editorial independence of the 
service editor; 
2° They do not encourage to buy or hire goods or services, 
especially with particular promotional references to these 
products or services; 
3° They do not put the said product forward in an unjustified 
manner; 
4° They are clearly identified as being composed of product 
placement by visual and sound effects at the beginning and at 
the end of the broadcasting as well as when they return after an 
advertisement break, so as to avoid any confusion for viewers. 
The last condition applies only to programmes produced or 

236 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Art. 10.1  § 1Product 
placement is 
prohibited. 

Decree on 
Radio 
Broadcasting 
and Cinema 
Presentations - 
consolidated 2 
March 2015 

BE 
(Ger
man 
Com
m.) 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider 

Radio and 
Television Act - 
Consolidated 
version of 24 
December 2014 

BG 

YES 
PP prohibited in the 
news, religious 
programmes (without 
derogations) and 
audiovisual media 
services of public-
service providers 
(derogations 
concerning 

ordered by the service editor or a company who is directly or 
indirectly its shareholder or in which it is directly or indirectly a 
shareholder. 
Art. 10.1  § 2In deviation from § 1, product placement is 
allowed under the following provisions:1. in cinematographic 
works, films and series made for audiovisual media services, 
sports programmes and light entertainment programmes, or2. if 
no payment is involved, but only specific goods or services, 
such as production props and prizes towards their inclusion in a 
programme, the allocation is free of charge.The deviation, in 
accordance with Section 1 (1), does not apply to children's 
programmes.Programmes that contain product placements must 
meet at least all of the following requirements:1. Their content 
and - in television programmes - their programme place may 
not be affected in such a way that the editorial responsibility 
and independence of the media service provider are affected.2. 
They may not directly encourage the purchase, rental or leasing 
of the goods or services, especially not by making special 
promotional references to those goods or services.3. They may 
not expose the relevant product too strongly.4. The viewers 
must be clearly informed about the existence of a product 
placement. Programmes with product placement are to be 
appropriately marked at the beginning of the programme, as 
well as when the programme resumes after an advertising 
break, in order to avoid any possible viewer confusion.This 
requirement applies only to programmes, produced by the 
media service provider himself or produced by a company 
affiliated to the media service provider or produced on 
commission. 
Art. 83 
(1) Product placement in news, religious programmes and in 
audiovisual media services of public-service providers shall be 
prohibited. 
(2) Product placement in children's programmes, including in 
programmes referred to in Paragraph (3), shall be prohibited. 
(3) Product placement shall be admissible in cinematographic 
works, in films and series made for audiovisual media services, 
in sports and light entertainment programmes, as well as in 
other programmes which are not expressly indicated in 

Art. 84  (3) 
Programmes must not contain 
product placement of: 
1. cigarettes or tobacco 
products or product placement 
of similar products from 
undertakings whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products; 

237 

 
 
 
 
  
 
cinematographic 
works, in films and 
series made for 
audiovisual media 
services) 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider 

Paragraph (1). Product placement in the programme services of 
the public-service providers shall be admissible in 
cinematographic works, in films and series made for 
audiovisual media services. 
(4) Product placement shall not be the case where a product or 
a service is not included in a particular programme against 
payment but is provided to meet the needs of the programme of 
costumes, production props, prizes or other such and the 
products and services involved are not of significant value. 
(5) "Significant value", within the meaning given by Paragraph 
(4), shall be a value which exceeds the quintuple average value 
of the commercial communications transmitted in the relevant 
programme, according to pre-announced rates of the media 
service provider concerned. 
(6) Providers shall have the right to announce, by appropriate 
means, the provision of goods and services referred to in 
Paragraph (4) in the closing credits of the relevant programme. 
Art. 84 
(1) Programmes that contain product placement must meet the 
following requirements: 
1. their content and, in the case of programme services, their 
programming, must not be influenced in such a way as to affect 
the responsibility and editorial independence of the media 
service provider; 
2. they must not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods of services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services; 
3. they must not give undue prominence to the product in 
question; 
4. viewers must be clearly informed of the existence of product 
placement. 
(2) Programmes containing product placement must be 
appropriately identified at the start and at the end of the 
programme, as well as when a programme resumes after an 
advertising break, in order to avoid any confusion on the part of 
the viewer. This requirement shall not apply to a programme 
which has neither been produced nor commissioned by the 
media service provider itself or by a person affiliated to the 
media service provider. 

2. specific medicinal products 
available only on prescription, 
or medical treatment available 
only on prescription. 

238 

 
 
 
 
Law on Radio 
and Television 
Organizations 
(1998-2015) 

Art. 30G.  (1) 
Product placement in 
programmes shall be 
prohibited. 

CY 

YES 

Production props and 
prizes not allowed in 
children's 
programmes. 

No product 
placement for toys 

Maximum 3 minutes 
in cinematographic 
films and 1 minute 
for series, sports and 
light entertainment 
programmes 

*It is noted that 
according to the 
suggested 
amendment of the 
Radio and Television 
Laws (1998-2015), 
that has been 
submitted to the 
House of Parliament 
awaiting 
examination, the 
requirement provided 
in Art.30G (3) (d) (ii) 
has been deleted. 

Art. 30G.  (4)  (a) and (b) 
Notwithstanding any other 
provision, programmes shall 
not contain product placement 
of: 
(a) tobacco products or 
cigarettes or product 
placement from undertakings 
whose principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products; 
(b) specific medicinal 
products or medical 
treatments available only on 
prescription in the Republic; 
(c) Toys, in accordance with 
the provisions of paragraph 
(5), article 33 of this 
legislation. 
(d) any other product, goods 
or services which are 
forbidden from advertising 
according to this law and its 
regulations. 

Art. 30G.  (2) and (3) 
(2) By way of derogation from paragraph (1), product 
placement shall be admissible in the following cases: 
(a) in cinematographic works, films and series made for 
audiovisual media services, sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes; 
(b) where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, such as production props and 
prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a programme; 
It being understood that the derogations referred to in 
subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall not apply to children's 
programmes. 
(3) Programmes that contain product placement shall meet all 
of the following requirements: 
(a) their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, 
their scheduling shall in no circumstances be influenced in such 
a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial independence 
of the audiovisual media service provider; 
(b) they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services; 
(c) they shall not give undue prominence to the products in 
question, including display thereof in close-up or/and for a 
prolonged time. 
(d) Viewers shall be clearly informed of the existence of 
product placement as follows: 
(i) programmes containing product placement shall be 
appropriately identified, visually and audibly, at the start and 
the end of the programme and when a programme resumes after 
an advertising break or any other interruption, in order to avoid 
any confusion on the part of the viewer; 
(ii) the total time allocated to promoting and/or referring to 
goods/services in product placement messages shall be kept to a 
minimum in the total length of the programme in which they 
have been placed and shall not, under any circumstances, 
exceed three (3) minutes in the case of cinematographic works 
and films and one (1) minute in the case of episodes of serials 
and sports and light entertainment programmes, 
It being understood that programmes not produced or 

239 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Act 132/2010 
on On-demand 
Audiovisual 
Media Services 

CZ 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider 

commissioned by the audiovisual media service provider itself 
or a company affiliated to the audiovisual media service 
provider may be exempted from the provisions of this 
paragraph, provided that the service provider does not benefit 
financially or in some other way from the product placement. 
§ 10.  (1)-(3) 
(1) Product placement in programmes shall be admissible only: 
a)  in cinematographic works, films and series made for on-
demand audiovisual media services or for television 
broadcasting, and in sports and entertainment programmes, 
provided that they are not children’s programmes, 
b)  where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, including, but not limited to, 
production props and prizes for competitors, with a view to 
their use in a programme. 

(2) Programmes containing product placement shall meet the 
following requirements: 
a)  their content shall not be influenced in such a way as to 
affect the editorial responsibility and independence of the on-
demand audiovisual media service provider, 
b)  they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services, and 
c)  they shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question. 
(3) Programmes containing product placement shall be clearly 
identified as programmes containing product placement at the 
start and end of the programme and when a programme 
resumes after an advertising break in order to avoid any 
confusion on the part of the viewer as to the nature of these 
programmes. The obligation under the first sentence shall not 
apply to programmes which have not been produced or 
commissioned by the on-demand audiovisual media service 
provider or a person affiliated to the on-demand audiovisual 
media service provider as a controlling or controlled entity 
under other legislation). 

§ 10.  (4) 
(4) Programmes shall not 
contain product placement of: 
a)  cigarettes or other tobacco 
products or product placement 
from persons whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes or other 
tobacco products, 
b)  medicinal products or 
medical treatments available 
only on prescription in the 
Czech Republic. 

§ 53a.  (4)(4) Programme 
units shall not contain product 

240 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Act 231/2001 
on Radio and 
Television 
Broadcasting 
and on 
amendment to 
other acts - 
Consolidated 21 
April 2010 

DE 

YES 
Narrow definition of 
the "Light 
entertainment 
programmes"  

Interstate Treaty 
on Broadcasting 
and Telemedia - 
consolidated 1 
January 2013 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 

Provisional 
Tobacco Act - 
consolidated 31 
August 2015 

§ 53a.  (1)-(3)(1) Product placement in programme units shall 
be admissible only:a) in cinematographic works, films and 
series made for television broadcasting or for on-demand 
audiovisual media services, in sports and entertainment 
programmes, provided that they are not children’s programmes, 
orb) where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, including, without limitation, 
production props and prizes for competitors, with a view to 
their use in a programme.(2) Programme units containing 
product placement shall meet the following requirements:a) 
their content and scheduling shall not be influenced in such a 
way as to affect the editorial responsibility and independence of 
the on-demand audiovisual media service provider,b) they shall 
not directly encourage the purchase or rental of goods or 
services, in particular by making special promotional references 
to those goods or services,c) they shall not give undue 
prominence to the product in question.(3) Programme units 
containing product placement shall be clearly identified as such 
at the start and end of the programme unit and when a 
programme unit resumes after an advertising or teleshopping 
break in order to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer 
as to the nature of these programme units. The obligation under 
the first sentence shall not apply to programme units which 
have not been produced or commissioned by the television 
broadcaster itself or a person affiliated to the television 
broadcaster as a controlling or controlled entity under specific 
legislation). 
Article 7  (7) 
Surreptitious advertising, product placement and thematic 
placement as well as similar practices shall be prohibited. As 
far as exceptions are admissible pursuant to Articles 15 and 44, 
product placement must meet the following requirements: 
1. Editorial responsibility and independence concerning content 
and scheduling must not be 
prejudiced; 
2. the product placement shall not directly encourage the 
purchase, rental or lease of goods or services, in particular not 
by making special promotional references to such goods or 
services, 

placement of:a) cigarettes or 
other tobacco products or 
product placement from 
persons whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes or other 
tobacco products; orb) 
medicinal products or medical 
treatments available only on 
prescription in the Czech 
Republic. 

Article 21b (3) 
product placements in 
programs produced after 
December 19, 2009 for the 
benefit of tobacco products or 
for the benefit of an company 
whose principal activity is the 
maufacture or sale of tobacco 
products are prohibited.  

[Prohibition of medical 

241 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider 

products included in § 10 
HWG.] 

and 
3. the product shall not be unduly prominently placed; this shall 
also apply to goods of minor value provided free of charge. 
There shall be clear information concerning product placement. 
Product placement shall be identified at the beginning and at 
the end of a programme as well as at its continuation following 
an advertising break, or on radio by a similar adequate 
identification. Obligatory identification shall not apply for 
programmes not produced by the broadcaster itself or produced 
or commissioned by a company affiliated to the broadcaster, if 
it is not possible to establish at reasonable expense whether 
they contain product placement; information to this effect shall 
be given. The broadcasting corporations forming the ARD 
association, the ZDF and the state media authorities shall 
stipulate a uniform system of identification. 
Article 15 
In derogation from Article 7 (7), sentence 1, product placement 
shall be admissible in broadcasting 
1. in cinematographic works, films and series, sports 
programmes and light entertainment programmes which are not 
produced by the broadcaster itself or produced or 
commissioned by an company affiliated to the broadcaster, 
unless they are children's programmes, or 
2. where there is no payment, but only the provision of specific 
goods or services free of charge such as production props and 
prices with a view to their inclusion in a programme, unless the 
programmes concerned are news programmes, current affairs 
programmes, advice and consumer programmes, programmes 
for children or religious broadcasts. 
Light entertainment programmes shall exclude in particular 
programmes which - alongside elements of entertainment - are 
of a predominantly informative nature, are consumer 
programmes or advice programmes including elements of 
entertainment. 
Article 44 
In derogation from Article 7 (7), sentence 1, product placement 
shall be admissible in broadcasting 
1. in cinematographic works, films and series, sports 
programmes and light entertainment programmes unless they 

242 

 
 
DK 

YES 

No PP in 
programmes 
produced in Denmark 
(OK  in  certain 
purchased programs 
produced abroad) 

The Radio and 
Television 
Broadcasting 
Act - 
consolidated 20 
March 2014 

§ 85 a. (1) 
Product placement in 
programmes on 
television and in on-
demand audiovisual 
media services shall 
not be permitted 

are children's programmes, or 
2. where there is no payment, but only the provision of specific 
goods or services free of charge such as production props and 
prices, with a view to their inclusion in a programme, unless the 
programmes concerned are news programmes, current affairs 
programmes, advice and consumer programmes, programmes 
for children or religious broadcasts. 
Light entertainment programmes shall exclude in particular 
programmes which - alongside elements of entertainment - are 
of a predominantly informative nature, are consumer 
programmes or advice programmes including elements of 
entertainment as well as programmes in regional window 
services and window services pursuant to Article 31. 
§ 85 a. (3)-(4) 
(3) Subsection 1 shall not prevent the inclusion of or the 
making of reference to a good, a service or a trade mark in a 
programme (product sponsorship) if 
1) the good, service or trade mark is of no material value and 
2) no relevant media service provider or associated person has 
received payment or other consideration in connection with the 
inclusion of or reference to the good, service or trade mark in 
the programme. 
(4) The Minister for Culture may lay down detailed rules with 
respect to product placement, including exemption from the ban 
on product placement in subsection 1, and  detailed rules on 
product sponsorship. 

Detailed rules 
with respect to 
product 
placement are 
laid down in 
Executive 

§ 31. (1) 
Product placement in 
programmes on 
television and in on-
demand audiovisual 
media services shall 

§ 32. (1) 1)-4), (4) and (5) 
(1) Notwithstanding section 31 (1), product placement in 
purchased programs produced abroad on the television and in 
on-demand audiovisual media services within the categories of 
short and documentary films, feature films, films and series 
produced for television or on-demand audiovisual media 

 § 32. (1) 5)-6) 
5) Programmes must not 
include product placement 
of  tobacco products or goods 
used mainly in connection 
with the smoking of tobacco 
— see the Prohibition of 
Tobacco Advertising etc. Act, 
or goods from businesses 
whose principal activity is to 
produce or sell tobacco 
products or other goods used 
mainly in connection with 
smoking. 
6) Programs must not include 
product placement of 
medicinal products dispensed 
only on prescription pursuant 
to the Medicinal Products Act. 

243 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
be prohibited; but 
see  Section 32 

Order on 
advertising and 
sponsorship - 
consolidated 21 
June 2013 

services, sports programmes and light entertainment 
programmes shall be permitted in accordance with the 
following rules: 
1) The content and programming must not be influenced in 
such a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial 
independence of the media service supplier with respect to the 
programmes. 
2) The programme must not incite to the purchase or hire of 
goods or services; in particular, these must not be given special 
prominence with a view to finding a market for them. 
3) The programme must not give the goods concerned an 
unnecessarily prominent role. 
4) Viewers shall be informed clearly that the goods, services or 
trade marks are shown or referred to in the programme. This 
identification shall be done in an appropriate way at the 
beginning and end of the programme, and when a television 
programme resumes after a commercial break; see Section 3(2). 
(4) Authorisation for product placement according to the rules 
in subsections 1-3 shall not be granted in respect of 
programmes aimed at children under 14 years of age. 
(5) Notwithstanding section 31 (1), product placement in 
programs on  television and on demand audiovisual media 
services  within the categories of feature films and short and 
documentary films, which DR and TV 2/DANMARK A/S are 
obliged to engage themselves financially in, shall be permitted 
in accordance with the rules in subsections 1-4. 

EE 

YES 

Media Service 
Act  

Besides product 
placement, 
production props and 
prizes are not allowed 
in children's 
programmes - could 
amount to a stricter 
rule. 

Detail: MS chose to 

§ 31.  (2) 
Product placement 
shall be prohibited 
except in the cases 
provided for in this 
section. 

§ 31.  (3)-(5) and (7) 
(3) Product placement shall be admissible: 
1) in films made for the cinema and television, and television 
series or serials; 
2) sports programmes; 
3) light entertainment programmes; 
4) where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, such as 
production props and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a 
programme. 
(4) A programme containing product placement shall meet the 
following requirements: 

§ 31.  (6) 
(6) Product placement shall be 
prohibited with regard to the 
following products: 
1) tobacco products or 
cigarettes or the goods of such 
undertakings whose principal 
activity is the manufacture 
and sale of cigarettes and 
other tobacco products; 
2) prescription medicinal 
products or medical 

244 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
treatments available only on a 
medical prescription. 

use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

General Law No 
7/2010 of 31 
March on 
Audiovisual 
Media - 
consolidated 1 
May 2015 

Royal Decree 
1624/2011 of 14 
November 

ES 

YES 

Production props and 
prizes seem not 
allowed in children's 
programmes - could 
amount to a stricter 
rule. 

More detailed rule 
"significant value" 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 

1) product placement shall not affect the responsibility and 
editorial independence of the media service provider; 
2) the programme shall not directly encourage the purchase or 
rental of goods or services, in particular, by making special 
promotional references to those goods or services; 
3) in the programme they shall not give undue prominence to 
the product in question; 
4) with the purpose of informing the viewers clearly and 
understandably of the existence of product placement, the 
programmes containing product placement shall be 
appropriately identified at the start and end of the programme, 
and when a programme resumes after an advertising break with 
a corresponding text or a common symbol agreed upon by 
means of self-regulation. 
(5) Product placement in children’s programmes shall be 
prohibited. 
(7) The requirement provided for in clause (4) 4) of this section 
shall not be applied to the programme that is produced by an 
undertaking located outside a Member State or a State Party to 
the Convention. 
Article 171. Audiovisual media service providers shall have the 
right to broadcast product placements in cinematographic 
feature films, film shorts, documentaries, films made for 
television and series, sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes.Product placement shall be 
admissible in other programmes only in exchange for the 
provision of goods or services free of charge, such as 
production props and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a 
programme.2. Where a programme has been produced or 
commissioned by the service provider or by one of its 
subsidiaries, the public must be clearly informed about the 
product placement at the start and at the end of the programme 
and when a programme resumes after a commercial break.3. 
Product placement must not influence editorial independence. 
Nor must it directly encourage the purchase or rental of goods 
or services, or make special promotional reference to the latter 
or give undue prominence to the product in question.4. Product 
placement shall be prohibited in children’s programmes. 

245 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
[FI] Information 
Society Code - 
consolidated 18 
September 2015  

produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

FI 

NO 

More detailed on the 
way to indicate that a 
programme contains 
PP: This 
identification shall 
not take the form of 
advertising. 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

Article  14 – Decree 1624/2014 
Product placement is ok when there is no payment to place the 
goods and the value of them are below 10% of the price a 
regular advertisement at that period of the day 

220 § 
Any form inclusion of or reference to a product, a service or the 
trade mark thereof within an audiovisual programme, in return 
for payment or for similar consideration (product placement) 
shall be prohibited. 
By way of derogation from subsection 1 above, product 
placement shall be admissible in the following cases: 
1) in cinematographic works; 
2) films and series made for audiovisual content services; 
3) sports programmes; 
4) light entertainment programmes. 
The derogation provided for in subsection 2 shall not apply to 
children’s programmes. 
The provision of goods or product prizes for an audiovisual 
programme free of charge is considered to be product 
placement if they are of significant value. Product placement in 
the form of goods or product prizes is admissible with the 
exception of children’s programmes. 
221 § 
Product placement shall not: 
1) influence the content of programmes or how they are placed 
in the programme; 
2) encourage the purchase or rental of goods or services; 
3) constitute advertisements or otherwise refer to products; 
4) give undue prominence to products.  

Viewers shall be clearly informed of the existence of product 
placement in audiovisual programmes by means of text or 
signal that is used uniformly by all audiovisual content service 
providers. Programmes containing product placement shall be 
appropriately identified at the start and the end of the 
programme, and when a programme resumes after an 

221 § 
Product placement of the 
following products is 
prohibited: 
1) tobacco products; 
2) products from undertakings 
whose principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products; 
3) specific medicinal products 
or medical treatments 
available only on prescription. 

246 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
FR 

YES 

PP allowed only in 
TV and 
cinematographic 
films and in music 
videoclips. 

Stricter list of 
products not allowed 
to be placed in TV 
programmes (alcohol, 
baby food, weapons) 

Law n° 86-1067 
of 30 September 
1986 on the 
Freedom of 
communication 
- consolidated 
08 January 2016 

Délibération n° 
2010-4 du 16 
février 2010 
relative au 
placement de 
produit dans les 
programmes des 
services de 
télévision 

advertising break. This identification shall not take the form of 
advertising. 
By way of exception, product placement need not be identified 
provided that the audiovisual programme in question has 
neither been produced nor commissioned by the content service 
provider itself or an undertaking affiliated with the content 
service provider and knowledge of the product placement 
cannot be obtained with reasonable effort. 
Art 14  1. 
The Higher Council for the Audiovisual Sector shall determine 
the conditions under which the programmes of audiovisual 
communication services, in particular music videos, may 
include product placement. 
The Higher Council for the Audiovisual Sector shall ensure that 
the programmes including product placement are in compliance 
with the following requirements: 
1. Their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, 
their programming shall not be influenced on any account so as 
to undermine the responsibility and the editorial independence 
of the producer of media services. 
2. They shall not incite the purchasing or the renting of the 
products or services of a third party and shall not in particular 
include any specific promotional references to these products or 
to these services. 
3. They shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question. 
4. Television viewers shall be clearly informed of the presence 
of product placement. Programmes including product 
placement shall be identified appropriately at the beginning and 
at the end of their broadcasting and when a programme starts 
again after a commercial, so as to prevent television viewers 
becoming confused. 

IV. - Emissions pouvant comporter du placement de produit 
 Le placement de produit est autorisé dans les oeuvres 
cinématographiques, les fictions audiovisuelles et les 
vidéomusiques, sauf lorsqu'elles sont destinées aux enfants. 
  Il est interdit dans les autres programmes. 

 V. - Produits et services ne 
pouvant faire l'objet d'un 
placement 
 Les produits suivants ne 
peuvent faire l'objet d'un 
placement : 
  - les boissons comportant 
plus de 1,2 degré d'alcool ; 
  - le tabac, les produits du 
tabac et les ingrédients définis 
à l'article L. 3511-1 du code 
de la santé publique ; 
  - les médicaments au sens de 
l'article L. 5111-1 du code la 
santé publique, qu'ils soient 
ou non soumis à prescription 
médicale ; 
  - les armes à feu et 
munitions, sauf sur les 
services de télévision 
mentionnés à l'article 5 du 
décret n° 85-1305 du 9 
décembre 1985 ; 
  - les préparations pour 
nourrissons au sens de l'article 
L. 121-50 du code de la 
consommation. 
  Les produits ou services du 
parrain d'une émission ne 
peuvent faire l'objet d'un 
placement dans cette 

247 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Presidential 
Decree 
109/2010 on 
AVMS 

Article 12  1.Product 
placement shall be 
prohibited. 

EL 

YES 

Product placement is 
prohibited in cases 
where TV 
advertisement is 
forbidden under 
Greek law (Art. 12 
par. 6c of Presidential 
Decree 109/2010). 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

HU 

YES 

PP not allowed in 
news, political, 
religious programmes 
and reporting official 
events even as 
product props. 

Act CLXXXV 
of 2010 on 
Media Services 
and Mass 
Communication 
- Consolidated 1 
July 2015 

30. §  (1) 
With the exceptions 
provided under 
Paragraph (2), 
product placement in 
media services shall 
be prohibited. 

Article 12  2., 3., 4., 5.2. By way of derogation, product 
placement shall be admissible in cinematographic works, films 
and series made for audiovisual media services, sports 
programmes and light entertainment programmes, exclusively 
and only where the following conditions are cumulatively 
met:(a) their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, 
their scheduling shall in no circumstances be influenced in such 
a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial independence 
of the media service provider;(b) they shall not directly 
encourage the purchase or rental of goods or services, in 
particular by making special promotional references to those 
goods or services;(c) they shall not give undue prominence to 
the product in question.3. Moreover, product placement shall be 
admissible where there is no payment but only the provision of 
certain goods or services free of charge, such as production 
props and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a programme, 
provided that the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are 
cumulatively met.4. Product placement in the programmes 
provided for by paragraph 2 shall be prohibited, if such 
programmes are aimed at minors.5. Media service providers 
must clearly notify the viewers of the existence of product 
placement. Programmes containing product placement shall be 
appropriately identified at the start and the end of the 
programme, and when a programme resumes after an 
advertising break, in order to avoid any confusion on the part of 
the viewer. Programmes that have neither been produced nor 
commissioned by the media service provider itself or a 
company affiliated to the media service provider shall be 
excluded from such obligation, as long as the provider does not 
benefit from the placement. 
30. §  (2) and (3) b) 
(2) Product placement in programmes shall be permitted 
(a) in cinematographic works intended for showing in cinemas; 
cinematographic works or film series intended for showing in 
media services; sports programmes and entertainment 
programmes; 
(b) in programmes other than those stipulated in Point (a), 
provided that the manufacturer or distributor of the product 

émission. 
Article 12  6.Placement of the 
following products shall be 
strictly prohibited:(a) tobacco 
products or cigarettes or 
product placement from 
undertakings whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products;(b) specific 
medicinal products or medical 
treatments available only on 
prescription in Greece;(c) in 
any other case that television 
advertising is prohibited. 

30. §  (4)  a) c) 
Programmes shall not contain 
product placements of the 
following products: 
(a) tobacco products, 
cigarettes or other products 
originating from undertakings, 
the primary activity of which 

248 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
"Children" - minors 
under the age of 14. 

HR 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 

Art. 18  (1) 
Product placement 
shall be prohibited. 

The Electronic 
Media Act - 
Official Gazette 
No. 
153/09,84/11, 
94713, 136/13 

concerned, or the provider or intermediary of the service 
concerned does not provide the media service provider or the 
producer of the given programme with any financial reward, 
neither directly nor indirectly, beyond making available the 
product or service free of charge for product placement 
purposes. 
(3) No product display shall take place  
(a) in a news programme and political information programme;  
(b) with the exception of the instance stipulated in point (b) of 
paragraph (2) in a programme specifically for minors under the 
age of fourteen;  
(c) in a programme reporting on the official events of national 
holidays  
(d) in a programme of religious or ecclesiastic content. 
31. §  (1) and (3) 
Programmes containing product placements shall comply with 
the following requirements: 
(a) their content - and in the case of linear media services, the 
programme schedule - may not be influenced so as to 
affect the responsibility and editorial independence of the 
media service provider; 
(b) they shall not call upon the purchase or rent of a product or 
the use of a service in a direct manner; 
(c) they shall not give unjustified emphasis to the product so 
displayed, which does not otherwise stem from the 
content of the programme flow. 
(3) The obligation stipulated under Paragraph (2) shall not 
apply to programmes which were not produced or ordered by 
the media service provider or another media service provider or 
production company operating under the qualifying holding of 
its owner. 
Art. 18  (2)-(5) 
(2) By way of derogation from paragraph 1 of this Article, 
product placement shall be admissible: 
- in cinematographic works, films and series made for 
audiovisual media services,  sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes, with the exception of  children's 
programmes, or 
- where there is no payment to the media services provider, but 

is the manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes or other tobacco 
products; 
(c) medicines, medicinal 
products, or therapeutic 
procedures, which may only 
be used upon medical 
prescription. 

Art. 18  (6) 
In any event audiovisual 
programmes shall not contain 
product placement of: 
- tobacco products or 
cigarettes or product 
placement of natural and legal 
persons whose principal 

249 

 
 
 
 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products, or 
- specific medicinal products 
or medical treatments 
available only on prescription. 

certain goods or services are provided free of charge, such as 
production props and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in an 
audiovisual programme. 
(3) It is assumed that the product and services placement in the 
sense of paragraph 2 subparagraph 2 of this Article exists if the 
goods or services involved in the audiovisual programme are of 
significant value. The Electronic Media Council shall 
determine by an ordinance the manner of determining the 
significant value of the goods and services placed taking into 
account that the significant value is assessed in relation to the 
budget of the production or the costs paid for the product 
placement of the product or service in this programme. 
(4) Audiovisual programmes that contain product placement 
shall meet all of the following requirements: 
- their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, their 
scheduling shall in no circumstances be influenced in such a 
way as to affect the responsibility and editorial independence of 
the media service provider, 
- they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services, 
-  they shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question, 
- viewers shall be clearly informed of the existence of product 
placement, 
- they shall be appropriately identified at the start and the end 
of the audiovisual programme and when a audiovisual 
programme resumes after an advertising break, in order to 
avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer. 
(5) By way of exception, the provisions of the paragraph 4 
subparagraphs 4 and 5 of this Article are not applicable when 
the audiovisual programme containing product placement has 
neither been produced nor commissioned by the media service 
provider itself or a company affiliated to the media service 
provider. 

IE 

NO 

Broadcasting 
Act - 
consolidated 1 
December 2014 

Section 42. (2) (j) 
Broadcasting codes 
shall provide— 
(j) for the matters 

250 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
required to be 
provided for by 
Chapters  IIA, IV and 
V of the Council 
Directive. 
43. (4) 
Broadcasting rules 
shall provide for the 
matters required to be 
provided for by 
Chapters IIA, IV and 
V of the Council 
Directive. 

Article7. Television 
Product Placement 
1. Product Placement 
is prohibited unless 
permitted as specified 
in the Code. 

BAI General 
Commercial 
Communication
s Code 

Article 7 
2. Product placement is permitted where there is no payment 
but the provision only of certain products and services free of 
charge, such as production props and prizes, with a view to 
their inclusion in a programme. 
For the purpose of this Code, the provision of products and 
services free of charge only constitute product placement where 
the provision is of significant value, as defined from time-to-
time by the Authority. 
3. Programmes that contain acceptable product placement shall 
meet all of the following requirements: 
(a) their content shall in no circumstances be influenced in such 
a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial independence 
of the broadcaster and the placement therein shall be editorially 
justified; 
(b) their scheduling shall in no circumstances be influenced in 
such a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial 
independence of the broadcaster; 
© they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
products or services in particular by making special 
promotional references to those products or services and the 
placement therein shall not constitute advertising as defined in 
this Code; 
(d) they shall not give undue prominence to the products or 
services in question; 
(e) Programmes containing product placement shall be 
appropriately identified, in a manner stipulated from time-to-
time by the Authority, at the start and the end of the 
programme, and when a programme resumes after an 
advertising break or teleshopping segment. 
The requirements of (e) do not apply when broadcasting 
television programmes that have neither been produced nor 
commissioned by the broadcaster or a company affiliated to the 
broadcaster. 

Article 7 
4. Product placement shall not 
be permitted: 
- for products and services 
prohibited by this Code 
(include cigarettes and 
tobacco as well as products, 
treatments or services only 
available on medical 
prescription); 
- where the provider of placed 
products/services is also the 
sponsor of the programme in 
which the products/services 
feature. (as from 1.1.2011). 

251 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8.  (1) 
Subject   to   this   Re
gulation,  product  pla
cement  in  an   on-
demand 
audiovisual  media  s
ervice is prohibited. 

S.I. No. 
258/2010 - 
European 
Communities 
(Audiovisual 
Media Services) 
Regulations 
2010. 
Regulations 8 to 
9 

Code of 
Conduct 
On-Demand 
Audiovisual 
Media Services 

Section 13(1) Media 
service providers of 
on-demand 

5. Product integration and thematic placement are not 
permitted. 

8.  (2)-(4) 
(2)  Product placement is admissible— 
(a)  in cinematographic works, films and series made for 
audiovisual  media services, sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes but not in children’s  programmes, 
or 
(b)  where  there  is no payment for the placement of the 
product but only 
the  provision  of  certain  goods  or  services  free  of  charge,  
such  as 
production  props  and  prizes,  with  a  view  to  their   inclusio
n  in  a programme. 
(3)  Programmes  shown  on  an  on-
demand  audiovisual   media  service  that contain  product 
placement shall meet  at least all of the following requirements: 
(a)  their  content  shall in no circumstances be influenced  in 
such a way as to affect  the  responsibility 
and  editorial  independence of the  media service provider, 
(b)  they  shall not  directly  encourage the  purchase  or 
rental  of goods  or services,  in  particular 
by  making  special  promotional references to those  goods or 
services, 
(c)  they shall not give undue  prominence to the product in 
question,  and 
(d)  viewers   shall   be   clearly   informed    of   the   existence 
   of   product placement. 
(4)  Programmes   containing    product   placement   shall   be  
 appropriately identified at  the  start  and  the  end  of 
the  programme, and  where  practicable, 
except   where   the   programme  in  question  has  neither  bee
n   produced nor commissioned by the media service provider 
itself or a company  affiliated  to the media  service 
provider,  when a programme resumes  after  an advertising 
break, in order  to avoid any confusion  on the part  of the 
viewer. 

9. 
Programmes shown on an on-
demand 
audiovisual  media  service  s
hall not contain  product 
placement of— 
(a)  tobacco     products   or    
cigarettes   or    product   plac
ement   from undertakings 
whose  principal  activity  is 
the  manufacture or  sale  of 
cigarettes and 
other  tobacco  products,  or 
(b)  specific  medicinal  produ
cts or  medical  treatments 
available  only  on 
prescription in the State. 

9. Programmes shown on an 

252 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
audiovisual media 
services shall, in co-
operation with the 
BAI, and other 
relevant bodies 
develop codes of 
conduct relating to 
Regulations 5, 6, 7, 8, 
9, 10 and 12. 

6. Product Placement shall be admissible:- 
a. in cinematographic works, films and series made for 
audiovisual media services, sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes but not in children’s programmes; 
or 
b. where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, such as production props 
and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a programme. 
7. Programmes shown on an on-demand audiovisual media 
service that 
contain product placement shall meet at least all of the 
following 
requirements: 
a. Their content shall in no circumstances be influenced in such 
a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial 
independence of the media service provider and any product 
placement shall be editorially justified. 
b. They shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services; 
c. They shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question; 
8 
d. Viewers shall be clearly informed of the existence of product 
placement. 
8. Programmes containing product placement shall be 
appropriately 
identified at the start and the end of the programme, and where 
practicable, when a programme resumes after an advertising 
break, 
in order to avoid any confusion on the part of the viewer. This 
provision only applies where the programme in question has 
either 
been produced or commissioned by the media service provider. 
Art. 40a  1.-3.1. Product placement is permitted in 
cinematographic works, films and series produced for 
audiovisual media services, sporting programmes and light 
entertainment programmes, with the exclusion of children’s 
programmes. Placement may occur both in return for monetary 

on-demand audiovisual media 
service 
shall not contain product 
placement of: 
a. tobacco products or 
cigarettes or product 
placement from 
undertakings whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products; or, 
b. specific medicinal products 
or medical treatments 
available only on prescription 
in the State. 

Art. 40a  4.The placement of 
tobacco products or cigarettes, 
or products from companies 
whose main activity is the 
manufacture or sales of 

253 

IT 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 

Audiovisual 
Media Services 
Code - 
Consolidated 13 
August 2015 

 
 
 
 
  
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

LT 

YES 
PP prohibited in the 
children's 
programmes and 
news programmes 
without derogation 

Law on the 
Provision of 
Information to 
the Public - 
Consolidated 7 
January 2016 

compensation or certain goods and services may be provided 
free of charge, such as production props and prizes, with a view 
to their inclusion in a programme.2. Programmes that contain 
products shall meet the following requirements:a) their content 
and, in the case of television broadcasting, their scheduling 
shall in no circumstances be influenced in such a way as to 
affect the responsibility and editorial independence of the 
media services provider;b) they shall not directly encourage the 
purchase or rental of goods or services, in particular by making 
special promotional references to those goods or services;c) 
they shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question.3. If the programme in which products are included is 
produced or commissioned by the audiovisual media services 
provider or by its subsidiary company, viewers shall be clearly 
informed of the existence of product placement by means of 
warnings at the start and end of the transmission, as well as 
when the programme starts again after an advertising slot. 
Art. 40-1  1. 2. and 4. 
1. Product placement shall be admissible in cinematographic 
works, films and series made for audiovisual media services, 
sports programmes and entertainment programmes. Product 
placement shall also be admissible where, without payment 
agreed upon between persons, certain goods or services, such as 
prizes or other goods or services necessary for the production 
of a programme, are included in the programme. 
2. Programmes that include product placement must meet all of 
the following requirements: 
1) the content and scheduling of programmes and the editorial 
responsibility and  independence of the media service provider 
may in no circumstances be influenced; 
2) they may not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services; 
3) they may not give undue prominence to the product in 
question; 
4) viewers must be clearly informed of the existence of product 
placement. Programmes containing product placement must be 
appropriately identified at the start and the end of the 
programme and when a programme resumes after an 

cigarettes and other tobacco 
products, is prohibited. The 
placement of medicinal 
products or medical 
treatments only available on 
prescription is also prohibited. 

Art. 40-1  3. 
The following product 
placement shall be prohibited 
in programmes: 
1) tobacco products or 
product placement from 
persons whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of tobacco products; 
2) specific medical treatments 
or medicinal products 
available only on prescription 
in the EU Member State 
within whose jurisdiction the 
audiovisual media service 
provider falls. 

254 

 
 
  
LU 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

Grand ducal 
regulation of 17 
December 2010 
amending the 
grand dual 
regulation of 5 
April 2001 
setting the rules 
on advertising, 
sponsorship, 
teleshopping 
and self-
promotion in 
television 
programmes 

LV 

NO 

Electronic Mass 
Media Law 

Section 35.  (10) 
Product placement in 
the programmes of an 
electronic mass 
medium is prohibited 
except for the cases 

advertising break in order to avoid any confusion on the part of 
the viewer. 
4. Product placement in children’s programmes and news 
programmes shall be prohibited. 
Art. 5bis  (1) and (2) 
(1) Derogating from the prohibition provided in article 26ter (7) 
of the law as amended of 27 July 1991 on the electronic media, 
product placement is permitted in audiovisual media services: 
a) in cinema works, films and series made for audiovisual 
media services and in sports and entertainment programmes; or 
b) if no payment is involved but only the supply free of charge 
of particular goods or services, such as production accessories 
and samples, for inclusion in a programme. 
The derogation in a) above does not apply to children's 
programmes. 
(2) Programmes with product placement shall comply with at 
least all the following requirements: 
a) their content and, in the case of television services, their 
programming shall under no circumstances be subject to any 
influence that might prejudice the editorial responsibility and/or 
independence of the audiovisual media service provider; 
b) they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services by, especially, specifically promoting those 
products or services; 
c) they shall not unjustifiably highlight the product in question; 
d) viewers shall be clearly informed of any product placement. 
Programmes with product placement shall be suitably identified 
at the start and end of their broadcast and when the programme 
resumes after a publicity break, to avoid confusing the viewer 
in any way. 
Point d) shall not apply unless the programme concerned was 
produced or commissioned by the audiovisual media service 
provider itself or by an associate. 
Section 35.  (11) 
The restrictions of audio and audiovisual commercial 
communications referred to in this Law shall not apply to the 
transmission of sporting and similar events in which advertising 
materials are placed in the background of events (advertising 
posters in stadiums, names of merchants and emblems, 

Art. 5bis  (3) 
Under no circumstances may 
programmes include product 
placement: for tobacco 
products or cigarettes, for 
products produced by 
undertakings whose main 
business in the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and/or other 
tobacco products, or for 
medicinal products or medical 
treatments available only on 
prescription. 

Section 45.  (3) 
Product placement of the 
following goods and services 
in the broadcasts of an 
audiovisual electronic media 
is prohibited: 

255 

 
 
 
 
referred to in Section 
45, Paragraph one of 
this Law. 

Broadcasting 
Act 350 - 
consolidated as 
latest amended 
in 2015 

16M  (1) 
Subject to the 
provisions of this 
article, product 
placement shall be 
prohibited. 

MT 

YES 
No derogation 
concerning product 
props in the 
programmes for 
children 

No product 
placement of alcohol 
and gambling 
services during 
certain times of the 

trademarks and the like) and it is not possible to avoid them. 
Section 45.  (1) and (2)(1) Product placement in programmes is 
allowed only in the following cases: 
1) in films and series made by an audiovisual electronic mass 
medium or which have been commissioned by an audiovisual 
electronic mass medium, sports and entertainment programmes, 
except children’s programmes; or 
2) where there is no payment and certain goods or services such 
as production props and prizes are provided free of charge in 
order to be included in the broadcast. 
(2) Broadcasts containing product placement shall meet at least 
all of the following requirements: 
1) a broadcast’s content and a programme shall in no 
circumstances be influenced in such a way as to affect the 
responsibility and editorial independence of the electronic mass 
medium; 
2) a broadcast shall not directly encourage the purchase or 
rental of goods or services, in particular by making special 
promotional references to those goods or services; 
3) undue prominence to the product in question shall not be 
given in a broadcast; and 
4) viewers shall be clearly informed of the presence of product 
placement. In order to avoid any confusion on the part of the 
viewer, broadcasts containing product placement shall be 
appropriately identified at the beginning and the end of the 
broadcast, and when the broadcast resumes after an advertising 
break. 
16M  (2) and (3) 
(2) By way of derogation from sub-article (1), product 
placement shall be admissible only in the following instances: 
(a) in cinematographic works, films and series made for 
audiovisual media services, sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes; or 
(b) where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, such as production props and 
prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a programme: 
Provided that the derogation provided for in this sub-article 
shall not apply to children’s programmes. 
(3) Programmes that contain product placement shall meet at 

1) tobacco products, cigarettes 
or products of undertakings 
whose principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products; and 
2) and medical treatment 
available in Latvia only on 
prescription or direction of a 
physician. 

16M  (4) 
(4) In any event programmes 
shall not contain product 
placement of: 
(a) tobacco products or 
cigarettes or product 
placement from undertakings 
whose principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products; or 
(b) specific medicinal 

256 

 
 
 
day (watershed) 

Waiving possibility 
left to the Authority 

least all of the following requirements: 
(a) their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, 
their scheduling shall in no circumstances be influenced in such 
a way as to affect the responsibility and editorial independence 
of the media service provider; 
(b) they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services; 
(c) they shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question; 
(d) viewers shall be clearly informed of the existence of 
product placement. Programmes containing product placement 
shall be appropriately identified at the start and the end of the 
programme, and when a programme resumes after an 
advertising break, in order to avoid any confusion on the part of 
the viewer: 
Provided that by way of exception, the Authority may choose to 
waive the requirements set out in this paragraph provided that 
the programme in question has neither been produced nor 
commissioned by the media service provider itself or a 
company affiliated to the media service provider. 

products or medical 
treatments available only on 
prescription in the Member 
State 
within whose jurisdiction the 
media service provider falls; 

Sub article 16M(4)(c) of the 
Broadcasting Act was not 
included; this states 

(c) alcoholic drinks of more 
than 1.2% alcohol during 
programming which is 
broadcast between 6.00 a.m. 
and 9.00 p.m.; gambling 
products during programming 
which is broadcast between 
6.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m.; 
infant formula; and weapons 
and munitions. 

Time restraints are also 
included in Requirements as 
to Advertisements, Methods 
of Advertising and Directions 
applicable to Tattoo 
Advertising  (S.L 350.23), 
advertisements or any other 
form of programming 
concerting tatoos can only be 
aired between 21.00 and 
6.00am. 

NL 

YES 

Act no 552 

Art PSB: 2.88b 3.b  

Art. 3.19a  2.Unless the programming is specially intended for 

Article 5.2 of the Tobacco Act 

257 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
amending the 
Media Act 2008 
and the Tobacco 
Act for the 
implementation 
of the Audio-
Visual Media 
Services 
Directive 

The media output 
contains no product 
placement.  
Art. 3.19a  1. In 
programming of 
commercial 
broadcasting services 
product placement is 
prohibited.   

No product 
placement on PSB 
Commercial 
broadcasters: no 
product placement for 
alcoholic drinks 
between 06.00 and 
21.00 and for medical 
treatments (Artikel 
3.19b)  

 "Children" - under 
12 years old. 

Broadcasting 
Act - 
Consolidated 12 
October 2012  

Art. 16c. 2) 
16c. The following 
shall be prohibited: 
2) product placement, 
subject to Article 17a, 

PL 

YES 

No derogation 
concerning product 
props in the 
programmes for 
children 

More detailed rule: 
neutral information 
on the producer or 
seller of the placed 
product or an entity 
providing the placed 
service as well as on 
the product or the 

children under twelve, the first paragraph is not applicable to 
programming consisting of:a. films;b. series;c. sports 
programmes;d. light entertainment programmesArt. 3.19b  1., 
2., 4., 5.1. Product placement may only occur if guarantees are 
included in the editorial guidelines, defined in article 3.5, 
second paragraph, for the editorial independence of the 
employees responsible for producing the programming in 
relation to product placement.2. Product placement in the 
programming is created in such a way that:a. The audience is 
not directly encouraged to purchase or hire products or acquire 
services by means of specific recommendations; anb. The 
product in question does not receive excessive attention.4. With 
programming in which product placement has been included, it 
is clearly stated in order to notify the audience that the 
programming includes product placement. The notification 
occurs in a suitable manner and takes place at the start and the 
end of the programme, as well as at the start and the end of 
advertisement message or advertisement messages included in 
the programme.5. The Commission can place further rules 
concerning the application of product placement in 
programming, with these rules requiring the approval of Our 
Minister. 
Art. 17a. 1.-5. 
1. Product placement shall be admissible exclusively: 
1) in cinematographic works, films or series made for 
audiovisual media services, sports programmes and light 
entertainment programmes, or 
2) where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, such as production props and 
prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a programme 
- with the exception of children’s programmes. 
2. Programmes that contain product placement shall be 
identified with a graphic sign in television programme services, 
and with an acoustic symbol in radio programme services, 
informing about product placement, at the start and the end of 
the programme, and when a programme resumes after an 
advertising or teleshopping break. 
3. Neutral information on the producer or seller of the placed 
product or an entity providing the placed service as well as on 

prohibits product placement 
for tobacco products. 

Art. 17a. 6. 
Product placement of goods 
and services referred to in 
Article 16b paragraph 1 shall 
be prohibited. 
Art. 47k. 
The provisions of Article 16 
paragraph 1, Article 16b 
paragraphs 1-3a, Article 16c, 
Article 17 paragraphs 1-2, 4, 
5, 6a and 7, Article 17a 
paragraphs 1-3, 5 and 6 as 
well as regulations issued 
based on Article 16b 
paragraph 3b, Article 17 
paragraph 8, except for the 
provisions relating to 

258 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
service shall be 
inserted at the end of 
the programme 

PT 

YES 
Stricter rules for 
programmes for 
children - 
presentation of any 
type of commercial 
message liable to 
prejudice minors 
(i.e.unhealthy food) is 
prohibited. 
TV Act, Art. 41-A (8) 

- No derogation 
concerning PP in the 
children programmes 
even without 
payment. 
TV Act, Art. 41-A (2) 

Television Act 
27/2007 (as 
amended by 
laws 8/2011, 
40/2014 and 
78/2015) 

Law 37/2007, 
of 14 August,  
(Tobacco 
Act) 

Advertising   
Code  

the product or the service shall be inserted at the end of the 
programme referred to in paragraph 2, produced with the 
contribution of a broadcaster or on its order. 
4. Product placement shall not prejudice the autonomy and 
editorial independence of the broadcaster through its impact on 
contents or scheduling and shall not release the broadcaster of 
the liability for contents of the programme. 
5. Programmes that contain product placement shall not: 
1) give undue prominence to the product in question, 
2) directly encourage the purchase or rental of goods or 
services, in particular by making promotional references to 
those goods or services. 
Art. 47d. 
Product placement in programmes and sponsorship of 
programmes made available as part of on-demand audiovisual 
media services may not affect the autonomy and editorial 
independence of the provider of the on-demand audiovisual 
media service, in particular by affecting the content or place of 
programmes in the catalogue, and shall not release the provider 
from liability for the content of programmes. 
Article 41-A  1.-7. and 9.-11, of the Television Act 
1 - Product placement is prohibited except in cinematographic 
works, films and series made for television programme services 
or on-demand audiovisual services, sports programmes and 
light entertainment programmes. 
2 - Product placement in children's programmes is prohibited. 
3 - The content of programmes which contain product 
placement and, in the case of television programme services, 
their scheduling shall not be influenced in any such way as 
impacts their responsibility and editorial independence. 
4 - Programmes which contain product placement shall not 
directly encourage the purchase or rental of products or 
services, in particular by making special promotional references 
to such products or services. 
5 - Product placement shall not give undue prominence to 
products, services or trademarks, specifically where the 
reference made is not justified on editorial grounds or where 
such reference is likely to mislead the public with respect to 
their nature, or by the recurrent form in which such items are 

registration of sponsored 
programmes or other 
broadcasts, as well as 
regulations issued pursuant to 
Article 17a paragraph 9 on the 
special conditions of marking 
of programmes with product 
placement with a special 
graphic mark by the 
broadcaster shall apply to on-
demand audiovisual media 
services 

 Articles 16 and 18 of the 
Tobacco Act 

Article 19 of the Advertising 
Code 

259 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
More detailed rules 
concerning product 
props and 
"Significant 
commercial value" 
TV Act, Art. 41-A 
(7)(9)(10)(11) 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 
TV Act, Art. 41-A (6) 

presented or shown. 
6 - When produced or commissioned by the television operator, 
by the provider of on-demand audiovisual services or by an 
affiliated thereof, programmes containing product placement 
shall be appropriately identified at the start and the end of the 
programme, and when a programme resumes after an 
advertising break. 
7 - Production props may be provided to any programme when 
the products or services used are of no significant commercial 
value, subject to the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 6. 
8 - During the broadcast of programmes for children, the 
presentation of any type of commercial messages liable to 
prejudice the physical and mental development of minors is not 
allowed, namely those relating to food and drinks which 
contain nutrients and substances that have a nutritional or 
physiological effect whose presence in excessive quantities as 
part of a dietary regime is not advisable. 
9 - The use of production props where the goods or services 
used have significant commercial value is subject to the rules 
governing product placement, including those rules referring to 
administrative offenses. 
10 - Significant commercial value is to be determined by 
agreement made between the television operators and the 
providers of on-demand audiovisual services, which agreement 
shall be subject to ratification by Entidade Reguladora para a 
Comunicação Social (Regulatory Authority for the Media). 
11 - In the event that there is no agreement, as referred to in the 
preceding paragraph, or where there is a lack of subscription to 
such an agreement, significant commercial value will be 
determined by Entidade Reguladora para a Comunicação Social 
(Regulatory Authority for the Media), following a prior hearing 
of the operators and providers of the sector, and shall, in any 
event, be based on the commercial value of products or services 
involved and the publicity value corresponding to the duration 
of broadcasting during which the product or service is 
commercially identifiable, particularly through the display of 
the brand, in addition to the time given to its identification 
immediately preceding or subsequent to the programme, 
according to the highest television advertising price rate 

260 

 
 
 
The 
Audiovisual 
Law 504/2002 - 
consolidated 

Art. 31 (1) 
Product placement 
shall be prohibited. 

RO 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

SE 

YES 
PP prohibited for 
alcohol products 

The Radio and 
Television Act - 
consolidated 17 
June 2010 

Complemented 

Chapter 6  Section 
11. Television or on-
demand television 
programmes must not 
include product 
placement unless 

applying on the date on which the programme is first broadcast 
or is first made available on demand. 
Art. 31 (2) - (6) 
(2) By way of derogation from par. 1, product placement shall 
be admissible: 
a) in cinematographic works, films and series made for 
audiovisual media services, sports programs and entertainment 
programs; 
b) where there is no payment but only the provision of certain 
goods or services free of charge, such as production props and 
prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a program. 
(3) The derogation provided for par. 2, (a) shall not apply to 
children’s programs. 
(4) Programs that contain product placement shall meet at least 
all of the following requirements: 
a) their content and, in case of television broadcasting their 
scheduling shall in no circumstance be influenced in such a 
way as to affect the responsibility and editorial independence of 
the media service provider; 
b) they shall not directly encourage the purchase or rental of 
goods or services, in particular by making special promotional 
references to those goods or services; 
c) they shall not give undue prominence to the product in 
question; 
(5) Programs where product placement is inserted, shall contain 
clear information on it and shall be appropriately identified at 
the start and at the end of the program, and when a program 
resumes after an advertising break, in order to avoid any 
confusion on the part of the viewer. 
(6) Requirements in par. (5) shall not apply to the program that 
has neither been produced nor commissioned by the media 
service provider itself or by a company affiliated to the media 
service provider. 
Chapter 6. section 2. para. 1., Section 3 and 4.2§. Media service 
providers may broadcast films, television series, sports 
programmes and light entertainment programmes that include 
product placement on the conditions set out in Sections 3 and 
4.[...]3§. Programmes that include product placement may only 
be broadcast if the programme does not unduly promote 

Art. 31 (7) 
Product placement of tobacco 
products or cigarettes or other 
products of undertakings 
whose principal activity is the 
manufacture or sale of such 
products, as well as product 
placement of medicinal 
products or medical 
treatments available only on 
prescription are forbidden. 

Chapter 6.  Section 2  para. 
2[...]However, the first 
paragraph above shall not 
apply to programmes that are 
primarily aimed at children 
under 12 years of age nor to 

261 

 
 
 
 
Section 2 determines 
otherwise. 

by law SFS 
2015:662 on the 
influence of PP 
on the editorial 
independence. 

SI 

NO 

Audiovisual 
Media Services 
Act (ZAvMS) 
entered into 
force on 17 
November 2011 

Art. 26 (1) 
Product placement 
shall be prohibited, 
except in the cases 
determined by this 
Act. 

Act Amending 
Audiovisual 
Media Services 
Act (ZAvMS-A) 
entered into 
force on 21 
November 2015 

commercial interests, in accordance with Chapter 5 Section 
5.4§. Where product placement takes place in a programme, 
information about this must be provided at the beginning and 
end of the programme, as well as when the programme re-
commences after any commercial breaks.This information shall 
only consist of a neutral notification that product placement 
takes place in the programme and about the product or service 
that has been placed in the programme.Chapter 5 – Section 
5:Programmes that are not advertisements must not unduly 
promote commercial interests. This means that such 
programmes must not:1. encourage people to buy or hire goods 
or services or include other features that promote sales, or2. 
give undue prominence to a product or a service.) 
Art. 26 (3)-(6) 
(3) Product placement shall be permitted: 
- in cinematographic works, films, docudramas, series and 
serials made for audiovisual media services, and sports and 
light entertainment programmes, or 
- in cases where there is no payment but only the provision of 
certain goods or services free of charge, such as production 
props and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a programme. 
(4) If the value of the goods or services referred to in the 
second indent of the preceding paragraph is negligible in 
proportion to the programme’s production costs, this shall not 
be deemed to be product placement under this Act. 
(5) Programmes that contain product placement must meet the 
following requirements: 
- their content and, in the case of television broadcasting, their 
scheduling shall in no circumstances be influenced by product 
placement in such a way as to affect the responsibility and 
editorial independence of the provider; 
- product placement must not directly encourage the purchase 
or rental of goods or services, in particular by making special 
promotional references to those goods or services; 
- product placement may not give undue prominence to the 
product or service in question; 
- programmes containing product placement must be 
appropriately identified at the start and the end of the 
programme, and when a programme resumes after an 

programmes that feature the 
placement of the following 
products:1. alcoholic drinks 
and tobacco products,2. other 
products provided by 
companies that are primarily 
involved in the production or 
sale of alcoholic drinks or 
tobacco products, or3. 
prescription drugs or medical 
treatments that are only 
available on prescription. 

Art. 26 (7) 
Without prejudice to the 
provision of the third 
paragraph of this Article, 
product placement shall be 
prohibited where a prohibition 
of advertising or audiovisual 
commercial communications 
applies under this Act or other 
acts. 

262 

 
 
 
 
 
 § 39a (2) 
(2) Product 
placement shall be 
permitted only under 
the conditions laid 
down by this act. 

SK 

NO 

- "Children" - minors 
up to 12 years of age.  

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

Act 308/2000 
on Broadcasting 
and 
Retransmission 
and on the 
amendment of 
Act No. 
195/2000on 
Telecommunica
tions - 
consolidated 3 
February 2015 

advertising break, in order to acquaint the viewer clearly with 
the fact that the programme contains product placement. The 
obligation to identify shall not apply to programmes that have 
neither been produced nor commissioned by the broadcaster 
itself or by a company affiliated to it. 
(6) Without prejudice to the provision of the first indent of the 
third paragraph of this Article, product placement shall be 
prohibited in programmes intended for children. 
§ 39a (2) to (6) 
(2) Product placement shall be permitted only under the 
conditions laid down by this act. 
(3) Product placement shall be permitted if certain goods or 
services are provided free of charge, such as production props 
and prizes for a competition, without prejudice to the 
conditions laid down in sub§ (5). 
(4) Product placement under sub§ (3) that is not free of charge 
shall be permitted in cinematographic works, films, series, 
sports programmes and entertainment programmes. 
(5) Product placement under sub§s (3) and (4) shall be 
permitted in programmes that meet the following criteria:a) 
their content and scheduling in the programme service must not 
be influenced in a way that would affect the editorial 
responsibility or editorial independence of the broadcaster or 
the provider of on-demand audiovisual media service, 
b) it does not directly promote the purchase, sale or lease of 
goods or services, in particular by making specific references to 
those goods or services, 
c) undue prominence shall not be given to the goods or services 
in question, 
d) viewers are clearly informed of the existence of product 
placement by means of identification at the start and the end of 
the programme, and when a programme resumes after a media 
commercial communication break. This shall not apply to a 
programme which production has not been commissioned or 
that has not been produced by the broadcaster or by the 
provider of the on-demand audiovisual media service that 
broadcasts or provides the programme in question. 
(6) Product placement shall be prohibited in programmes 
intended for minors up to 12 years of age. 

§ 39a (7) 
Product placement involving 
products associated with a 
natural person or legal entity 
whose main activity is the 
production or sale of 
cigarettes or other tobacco 
products shall be prohibited. 

§ 31a (10) 
Media commercial 
communication for medicinal 
products available only on 
prescription and medical 
treatments paid from public 
health insurance under 
specific legislation shall be 
prohibited. 

263 

 
 
 
 
 
UK 

[GB] Electronic 
Communication
s Broadcasting - 
The Audiovisual 
Media Services 
Regulations 
2009  

Ofcom 
Broadcasting 
Code – Section 
9 (rules 9.6 to 
9.11 

Stricter rules 
applying to 
product 
placement 
included in all 
programmes 
produced under 
UK jurisdiction 
(rules 9.12 to 
9.13) 

YES 
No derogation 
concerning product 
props in programmes 
for children 

Stricter rules for 
programmes 
produced under UK 
jurisdiction (PP in 
more limited types of 
programmes, stricter 
list of products not 
allowed to be placed: 
alcohol, baby milk, 
fatty foods, 
gambling…) 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

368H (3), (6)-(10), (13) 
(3) Product placement is prohibited in children’s programmes 
included in on-demand programme services. 
(6) Product placement is otherwise permitted in programmes 
included in on-demand programme services provided that— 
(a) conditions A to F are met, and 
(b) if subsection (14) applies, condition G is also met. 
(7) Condition A is that the programme in which the product, 
service or trademark, or the reference to it, is included is— 
(a) a film made for cinema; 
(b) a film or series made for a television programme service or 
for an on-demand programme service; 
(c) a sports programme; or 
(d) a light entertainment programme. 
(8) Condition B is that the product placement has not 
influenced the content of the programme in a way that affects 
the editorial independence of the provider of the service. 
(9) Condition C is that the product placement does not directly 
encourage the purchase or rental of goods or services, whether 
by making promotional reference to those goods or services or 
otherwise. 
(10) Condition D is that the programme does not give undue 
prominence to the products, services or trade marks concerned. 
(13) Condition G is that the on-demand programme service in 
question signals appropriately the fact that product placement is 
contained in a programme, no less frequently than— 
(a) at the start and end of such a programme, and 
(b) in the case of an on-demand programme service which 
includes advertising breaks within it, at the recommencement of 
the programme after each such advertising break. 

9.6 Product placement is prohibited except in the following 
programme genres: 
a) films; 
b) series made for television (or other audiovisual media 
services); 
c) sports programmes; and 
d) light entertainment programmes. 

368H (4) 
Product placement is 
prohibited in on-demand 
programme services if— 
(a) it is of cigarettes or other 
tobacco products, 
(b) it is by or on behalf of an 
undertaking whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes or other 
tobacco products, or 
(c) it is of prescription-only 
medicines. 

Ofcom Broadcasting Code 
For programmes produced 
under UK jurisdiction: 
9.12 Product placement is not 
permitted in the following: 
a) religious programmes; 
b) consumer advice 
programmes; or 
c) current affairs programmes. 

9.13 The product placement 
of the following is prohibited: 
a) alcoholic drinks; 
b) foods or drinks high in fat, 
salt or sugar (“HFSS”); 
c) gambling; 
d) infant formula (baby milk), 
including follow-on formula; 
e) all medicinal products 
f) electronic or smokeless 
cigarettes, cigarette lighters, 
cigarette papers, or pipes 
intended for smoking; or 
g) any product, service or 
trade mark that is not allowed 

264 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
9.7 Programmes that fall within the permitted genres must not 
contain product placement if they are: 
a) news programmes; or 
b) children’s programmes. 

to be advertised on 
television. 

9.8 Product placement must not influence the content and 
scheduling of a 
programme in a way that affects the responsibility and editorial 
independence 
of the broadcaster. 

9.9 References to placed products, services and trade marks 
must not be promotional. 

9.10 References to placed products, services and trade marks 
must not be unduly prominent. 

Source: EAO AVMSDatabase http://avmsd.obs.coe.int/cgi-bin/search.php [accessed on 08/12/2015], complemented by Commission own 
information 

265 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transposition of the 12-minute advertising limitation (Article 23 AVMSD) 

MS 

Stricter rule for 12-
minute limitation 

Legal basis 

Belgium 
(French 
Community) 

NO  
but stricter for 
teleshopping and 
non-linear services 

French community - Audiovisual 
media services decree - 
consolidated 29 January 2015 - 
Art. 20 

NO 

Belgium 
(Flemish 
Community) 

NO 

Belgium 
(German 
Community) 

Flemish community - Act on Radio 
and Television Broadcasting - 
Consolidated 12 August 2014 - 
Art. 81  §§ 2. and 3. 

German community - Decree on 
Radio Broadcasting and Cinema 
Presentations - consolidated 2 
March 2015 - Art. 15  § 1 

Article 23(1) AVMSD 
The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20 %. 

The maximum time allotted to 
advertisement and teleshopping within 60 
minutes cannot exceed 20% of this period. 
For non-linear services, The maximum 
time allotted to advertisement and 
teleshopping cannot exceed 20% of the 
length of the programme. 
PSB and local channels cannot broadcast 
teleshopping programmes. 
Limit of 3 hours per day for teleshopping. 
The share of television ads and 
teleshopping ads may not exceed twenty 
percent per clock hour. 

The share of TV advertising and 
teleshopping spots may not exceed 20% 
within a full hour of broadcasting time. 

Bulgaria 

YES for PSB 

Radio and Television Act - 
Consolidated version of 24 
December 2014  - Art. 89  (1) (2) 

The share of advertising spots and 
teleshopping spots within a given clock 
hour may not exceed 12 minutes. 

For  PSB  channels  (BNT):  15  minutes 
over a period of 24 hours and 4 minutes 

Article 23(2) AVMSD 
Paragraph 1 shall not apply to announcements 
made by the broadcaster in connection with its 
own programmes and ancillary products 
directly derived from those programmes, 
sponsorship announcements and product 
placements. 
Virtual advertising and product placement are not 
included 

shall not apply to announcements of the linear 
television broadcasters pertaining to their own 
programming and ancillary products that are 
directly derived from this, as well as sponsorship 
announcements and product placement 
Not included: 1. References by the television 
broadcaster to own programmes and ancillary 
products, derived directly from these 
programmes, are; 
2. Sponsorship references and the product 
placement. 

shall not apply to announcements made by the 
broadcaster in connection with its own 
programme services, programmes and ancillary 
products derived from those programmes, 
promotion of European films, as well as to charity 
appeals and public-benefit causes. 

266 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Czech 
Republic 

YES for PSB 

Act 231/2001 on Radio and 
Television Broadcasting and on 
amendment to other acts - 
Consolidated 21 April 2010 - § 
50(2) and 50(4) 

Denmark 

NO 

Germany 

YES for PSB  

The Radio and Television 
Broadcasting Act - consolidated 20 
March 2014 - § 75. (1) 

Executive Order on advertising and 
sponsorship - consolidated 21 June 
2013 - § 6.  

Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting 
and Telemedia - consolidated 1 
January 2013 - Article 16 (3)-(4) 
and Article 45 (1)-(2) 

Article 16 of the Interstate 
Broadcasting Treaty 

per  hour  and  may  use  up  to  one  third  of 
the  total  advertising  time  between  19:00 
and 22:00 over a period of 24 hours. 

For  regional  PSB  channels:  may  not 
exceed 6 minutes per hour.  
During each hour of television 
broadcasting by any broadcaster the time 
allocated to advertising and teleshopping 
spots shall not exceed 12 minutes. 

PSB:  
general ban for advertising spots with the 
exception for two channels (ČT2, ČT4) 
that shall not exceed 6 min. an hour within 
19 -22hours and 0,5% of the daily 
transmission time. 
Section 75(1) of the Radio and Television 
Broadcasting Act: 
"Advertisements on radio and television 
may occupy a maximum of  12 minutes 
per hour" 

Advertisements on radio and television 
may occupy a maximum of 12 minutes 
per hour. 
Time devoted to teleshopping spots is 
counted in the time limit for advertising  
The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within one 
hour shall not exceed 20 per cent.  

PSB:  Article 16(1) provides that on 
working days the total advertising time on 
ARD and ZDF must be a maximum of 20 
minutes (calculated as an annual 
average). Sponsoring and product 
placement are not counted.  

shall not apply to a broadcaster’s notification 
concerning its own programmes and ancillary 
products or services directly derived from such 
programmes, to any notification of sponsorship or 
product placement, to any public service 
announcements or announcements in favour of 
generally beneficial objectives broadcast free of 
charge, or to charity appeals broadcast free of 
charge. 

References by the broadcasters made to their own 
programmes and ancillary products which are 
derived from said programmes, public service 
announcements  and charity appeals broadcast 
free of charge are not considered to be advertising  
(Executive Order on advertising and sponsorship 
§ 1(3)). 

Shall not apply to product placements and 
sponsorship announcements. 
References by the state broadcasting corporations 
made to their own services and programmes and 
ancillary products which are directly derived from 
said programmes and programmes, public service 
announcements broadcast free of charge including 
charity appeals and mandatory references under 
law are not considered to be advertising. 
Article 45  (2) 
Announcements made by the broadcaster in 

267 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia 

NO 

Media Service Act - § 29.  (1) 

Ireland 

YES for all 
commercial 
broadcasters and 
even stricter rules for 
PSBs. 

Broadcasting Act - consolidated 1 
December 2014 - 43.(1) (b) 

Greece 

NO 
but more details on 
exceptions to 12-
minute rule 

Decree No. 109 - Article 23  1 and 
3. 
L. 4279/2014, Article 6 

After 8 p.m. as well as on Sundays and 
on public holidays celebrated in the 
whole of Germany, advertising may not 
be broadcast.   

The hourly transmission time of television 
and radio advertising spots and 
teleshopping shall not exceed 12 minutes 

The Authority shall prepare the rules as to 
the maximum amount of advertising in 
any given hour for the transmission of 
advertisements and teleshopping. 

The total daily time for broadcasting 
advertising and teleshopping spots shall 
not exceed a maximum of 18 per cent of 
the total broadcast day.  
The time to be given to advertising and 
teleshopping spots in any clock hour shall 
not exceed a maximum of 12 minutes. 
These rules apply solely to commercial 
broadcasters. The number of  
advertising minutes on Public Service 
Broadcasters is determined by the Minister 
for Communications, Energy & Natural 
Resources and currently stands at 6 
minutes per clock hour. (Section 106(3) 
of the Broadcasting Act 2009) 
The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20%. 

connection with its own services and programmes 
and ancillary products directly derived from said 
services and programmes, public service 
announcements and charity appeals broadcast free 
of charge as well statutory references are not 
considered to be advertising. 
Shall not apply to: "the announcements that a 
television and radio service provider broadcasts in 
connection with its own programmes and 
ancillary products, sponsorship announcements 
and product placement directly deriving from 
those programmes." 

Announcements made by a broadcaster in 
connection with its own programmes and 
ancillary products directly derived from those 
programmes, and for other activities of the 
broadcaster and those of affiliated enterprises 
(according to Article 42e of Law 2190/1920) 
operating in media (information or otherwise), 

268 

 
 
 
 
 
Spain 

NO 
but more details on 
telepromotions 

General Law No 7/2010 of 31 
March on Audiovisual Media - 
consolidated 1 May 2015 - Article 
14  1., Article 14  4.  para. 2-
4,  and  Article 15  1. 

Decree 1624/2011, 14 November 

Television media service providers may 
exercise that right by broadcasting 12 
minutes of advertisements per clock hour.  

information and entertainment services via the 
Internet, production and distribution of music and 
/ or audiovisual works, technical training for 
service in the above disciplines, and 
announcements of social interest, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements shall not 
be taken into account in calculating the 
aforementioned advertising time. The 
announcements of this paragraph must not exceed 
four (4) minutes per hour. If the period of four (4) 
minutes is not exhausted, it is possible to transfer 
any unspent minutes within that month, provided 
that the total length should not exceed six (6) 
minutes. 
Shall not apply to :"sponsorship and product 
placement. Telepromotion shall also be excluded 
from the calculation where an individual 
telepromotion announcement clearly lasts longer 
than an advertisement and where the 
telepromotion as a whole does not exceed 36 
minutes per day, or 3 minutes per clock hour." 
The length of one Telepromotion should be at 
least2 minutes 

France 

YES  
for channels covering 
areas of 10 million 
inhabitants and for 
PSB 

on 

Law  n°  86-1067  of  30  September 
1986 
of 
communication  –  consolidated  08 
January 2016 

Freedom 

the 

Article 53 :  
For PSB channels: no advertising between 
8pm and 6am 

Décret n°92-280 du 27 mars 1992 
pris pour l'application des 
articles 27 et 33 de la loi n° 86-
1067 du 30 septembre 1986 et 
fixant les principes généraux 
définissant les obligations des 
éditeurs de services en matière 
de publicité, de parrainage et de 
télé-achat. (dernière modification 
: 1 janvier 2011) 

Art. 15 
Amount is fixed in individual agreements 
and in the following conditions: 
- for terrestrial broadcasters distributed  in 
a geographical area with a registered 
population of more than 10 million 
inhabitants: a maximum of 9 minutes per 
hour on average over all the schedule 
periods and not more than 12 minutes in 
any given hour. 
- for terrestrial broadcasters in areas with 

269 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
less than 10 million inhabitants and those 
which do not use scarce resources 
assigned by the CSA: fixed individually 
and in any case, not more than 12 
minutes in any given hour. 
- for local channels that cannot be received 
in other Member States, this may rise to 12 
minutes on average and not more than 15 
minutes in any given hour 

Art. 15.1 
Pour les services de cinéma et les services 
de paiement à la séance, les programmes 
faisant l'objet de conditions d'accès 
particulières ainsi que les programmes 
dont la diffusion en clair a été autorisée à 
titre exceptionnel par le Conseil supérieur 
de l'audiovisuel ne peuvent pas comporter 
de messages publicitaires. 
Toutefois et par dérogation à l'article 8, 
pour les services de cinéma distribués par 
câble ou diffusés par satellite ou par voie 
hertzienne terrestre en mode numérique, 
les programmes faisant l'objet de 
conditions d'accès particulières peuvent 
comporter des messages publicitaires 
concernant le secteur du cinéma. Les 
proportions fixées en application du V de 
l'article 15 sont alors respectées, 
respectivement, pour les programmes 
diffusés en clair et pour les programmes 
faisant l'objet de conditions d'accès 
particulières. 

Art.16 
Aucune publicité ne peut être insérée dans 

270 

 
 
 
Croatia 

YES for PSB  

Electronic Media Act - 
Consolidated 8 July 2011 - Art. 
32  (1)-(2)  

The duration of advertising spots and 
teleshopping spots within a given clock 
hour (…) shall not exceed 12 minutes. 

les diffusions de services religieux.  

Croatian Radio –television Act –
Official Gazette 137/10, 76/12 – 
Art. 37 (2) and( 4) 

Electronic Media Act – Official Gazette 
No 153/09, 84/11, 94/13, 136/13 Art. 
32  (1)  

Croatian Radio - Television 
The duration of advertising spots in 
general television programmes within a 
given clock hour (…) shall not exceed  9   
minutes, while in the period from 18 to 22 
hours (prime time), within a given clock 
hour shall not exceed  4 minutes. 

Croatian Radio- Television shall not 
broadcast advertising spots on specialized 
television programming channels or 
broadcast advertising spots to the general 
television programming channels 
separately by region. 

Shall not apply to announcements made by the 
television broadcaster in connection with its own 
programmes and ancillary products directly 
derived from those programmes, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements. 

Electronic Media Act – Official Gazette No 
153/09, 84/11, 94/13, 136/13 Art. 32   (2) 

Italy 

YES for free-to-air, 
pay-tv and PSB 

Audiovisual Media Services Code - 
Consolidated 13 August 2015 - 
Art. 38  4 and 38 6. 

In any case the proportion of television 
adverts and teleshopping adverts within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20 
percent.   

"Shall not apply to announcements by 
broadcasters, including of analogue, in relation to 
their programmes and ancillary products directly 
derived from those programmes, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements." 

For PSB: "shall not exceed 4 percent of 
the weekly programming schedule and 12 
percent of every hour; any excess, in any 
case not exceeding 2 percent in one hour, 
must be recovered in the previous or 
following hour." 

For national free-to-air channels: "shall not 
exceed 15 percent of the daily 

271 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programming schedule and 18 percent of 
a determined and distinct clock hour; 
any excess, in any case not exceeding 2 
percent during the hour, must be recovered 
in the previous or following hour." 
+ "shall be taken to 20 percent if it 
includes forms of advertising different 
from adverts such as telepromotions 
(…)the transmission time dedicated to 
such forms of advertising that differ from 
adverts shall not in any case exceed one 
hour and twelve minutes per day. " 

For pay-tv broadcasters: " shall not exceed 
16 percent in the year 2010, 14 percent in 
the year 2011 and, starting from the year 
2012, 12 percent of a determined and 
distinct clock hour; any excess, in any 
case not exceeding 2 percent during the 
hour, must be recovered in the previous or 
following hour." 

Cyprus 

NO  

Law on Radio and Television 
Stations - Art. 34.  (1)-(2) 

The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20%. 

Latvia 

YES for PSB  

Electronic Mass Media Law - 
Section 42.  (1) and (2) 1). 

Lithuania 

YES for PSB 

Law on the Provision of 
Information to the Public - 

The time reserved for advertising and 
teleshopping (…) may not exceed 20 per 
cent of each natural clock hour.  
The time reserved for advertising and 
teleshopping (…) in television 
programmes or broadcasts produced 
within the framework of the public service 
remit may not exceed 10 per cent of each 
natural clock hour. 
The total time of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 

Shall not include: (a) announcements made by the 
television organisation in connection with its own 
programmes and ancillary products directly 
derived from those programmes; or 
(b) communications in connection with a 
sponsorship or product placement. 
Shall not include: "announcements of the 
audiovisual electronic mass media regarding their 
own broadcasts and other products which are 
directly derived from their broadcasts, sponsors’ 
announcements and product placement" 

"shall not apply to the programmes broadcast by 
the broadcaster of television programmes itself 

272 

 
 
 
 
Luxembour
g 

NO 

Hungary 

NO 
but more details on 
advertisements 
included in the limit 
and daily limit on 
teleshopping 

Malta 

NO 

Consolidated 21 May 2015 - Art. 
39  11.  3) 

Grand-ducal regulation dated 24 
June 2008 that amends the grand 
ducal regulation dated 5 April 
2001, which sets the rules for 
advertising, sponsoring, 
teleshopping and self-promotion in 
programs - Art. 6 ( 1) and (2) 
Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media 
Services and Mass Communication 
- Consolidated 1 July 2015 - 35. 
§  (1) and (3) and 35. §  (2)  l) 

Broadcasting Act 350 - 
consolidated as latest amended in 
2015 particularly in Part V of the 
Broadcasting Act with Article 
19(2)(3) (4) (5) & Para 15 and 16 
Third Schedule). 

given clock hour must not exceed 20%.  

No advertising on PSB channels. 
The amount of broadcasting time devoted 
to advertising and to teleshopping 
programs within one hour must not exceed 
20 %. 

and announcements of the ancillary products 
directly related to those programmes, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements;" 
"Does not apply to the messages broadcast by the 
broadcaster for its own programs and their by-
products, the sponsor notifications and the 
product placements." 

The duration of advertisements 
broadcasted in linear media services may 
not exceed twelve minutes within any 60-
minute period (…) including split screen 
advertisements, virtual advertisements and 
the promotion of the programmes of other 
media services. 
The transmission time used for 
broadcasting teleshopping windows may 
not exceed three hours per calendar day 
(…). 
The proportion of advertising spots and 
teleshopping spots within a given clock 
hour shall not exceed 20%. (Para 15 of the 
Third Schedule of the Broadcasting Act 
350)  
By Article 19 (3) the Authority is given 
the power to legislate further than what is 
actually imposed by the current 
provisions. 

Article 19 (4) implies that the Authority 
can exercise methods of control for the 
purpose of securing that the provisions of 
the code are complied with, and the 
Authority has the power to give directions 
to exclude any particular advertisement 

Article 19 (5) gives the power to the 

Shall not apply to: announcements intended solely 
for the purpose of advertising the media service 
itself or the products complementing the 
programmes broadcasted in the media service. 

"shall not apply to announcements made by the 
broadcaster in connection with its own 
programmes and ancillary products directly 
derived from those programmes, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements."  (Para 
16 of the Third Schedule of the Broadcasting Act 
350) 

Article 19 (8) of the Broadcasting Act items 
designed to give publicity to charitable purposes; 
reviews of literary or artistic or other publications; 
announcements of the place of any performance 
included in the programme; amongst others, 
would not fall under advertisement. 

273 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Authority to give directions on the time 
when advertisements are to be allowed. 

Such directions mentioned in Article 19 
(4) are qualified in Article 19 (11) (a),(b) 
and (c) and may relate to the amount of 
advertising time, the minimum interval 
which must elapse between any two 
periods given over to advertisements and 
the exclusion of advertisements from a 
specified broadcast. 

General Interest Objectives 
(Television Services) (Selection Criteria) 
Regulations (S.L. 350.32 Par 3(3) ) 
establishing a maximum allocation of 3 
hours for teleshopping windows between 
7:00 and 23:00  

The programming on a programme 
channel consists of a maximum of twelve 
minutes per hour of advertisement and 
teleshopping messages. 

PSB : per channel no more than 15% of 
the total daily duration of the 
programmes and no more than 12 min per 
hour 
The duration of advertising and 
teleshopping spots - shall not exceed a 
total of 20 per cent of a one hour period, 
calculated starting from the last full hour. 

Austrian Broadcasting Corporation Act: 
On a yearly average, television advertising 
broadcast all over Austria may not exceed 
the length of 42 minutes per day per 
channel, deviations of not more than 20 
per cent per day being permissible. 

Articles 2.95 (1) and 3.8 (1) state that the share of 
advertisement and teleshopping messages shall 
not exceed 12 minutes per hour. Announcements 
made by the broadcaster in connection with its 
own programmes and ancillary products directly 
derived from those programmes, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements are not 
mentioned so those messages do not count for the 
maximum.  
Not included: References by broadcasters to their 
own programs and supporting materials that are 
derived directly from these programs; 

Austrian Broadcasting Corporation Act: 
1. announcements by the Austrian Broadcasting 
Corporation of programmes on its channels and 
materials supporting such programmes, which are 
directly derived from such programmes, and 
2. product placements.  

274 

Netherlands  YES for PSB 

Austria 

YES for PSB 

Act no 552 amending the Media 
Act 2008 and the Tobacco Act for 
the implementation of the Audio-
Visual Media Services Directive - 
Article 2.95 1b-c. 

Federal Act on Audio-visual Media 
Services (AMD-G) - consolidated 
30 July 2015 - § 45.  (1) (2)1 

Federal Act on the Austrian 
Broadcasting Corporation (ORF-G) 
- consolidated 13 August 2015 - § 
14.  (5)(6) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland 

NO 

Broadcasting Act - Consolidated 
12 October 2012 - Art. 16. 3 and 4. 

Advertising and teleshopping shall not 
exceed 12 minutes in any given clock 
hour. 

Portugal 

YES for conditional 
access TV services 
and for some PSB 
TV channels  (RTP1 
and RTP 2) 

Television Act 27/2007 (as 
amended by laws 8/2011, 40/2014 
and 78/2015)   
- Article 40  1 and 2. 

PSB Concession contract of 2015, 
clause 23, (1) and (2) 

Romania 

Yes for PSB 

The Audiovisual Law 504/2011 - 
consolidated  
 Art. 35 (1)-(2) 

Slovenia 

NO 

Audiovisual Media Services Act 
(ZAvMS) - Art. 32 (1) and (4) 

Broadcasting time allotted to television 
advertising and teleshopping between two-
hour periods may not exceed 10% in the 
case of conditional access television 
programme services and may not exceed 
20% in the case of free-to-air television 
programme services, whether unrestricted 
or subject to subscription. 

The transmission time devoted for 
commercial advertising in RTP 1 shall not 
exceed 6 minutes within a give clock hour; 
RTP2 can not transmit commercial 
advertising 

The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20%, 12 
minutes respectively; in case of public 
television, their duration shall not exceed 
8 minutes from the given time of any 
hour. 
The total amount of television advertising 
and teleshopping on a television channel 

Advertising for cinematographic works financed 
or co-financed by the Austrian Broadcasting 
Corporation shall not be included in the maximum 
permissible advertising time. 

" shall not apply to: 
1) announcements made by the broadcaster 
containing solely information on its programmes 
or extracts of such programmes, 
2) announcements made by the broadcaster 
containing solely information on ancillary 
products directly derived from the programme, 
3) identification of commercial communications 
required by law, including identification of 
sponsors. " 
"The limits established in the preceding paragraph 
do not apply to self-promotions, telepromotions 
and blocks of teleshopping, as well as to the 
promotion of ancillary products, directly related 
to programmes of the television operators." 

"shall not apply to announcements made by the 
broadcaster in connection with its own programs 
and ancillary products directly derived from those 
programs, sponsorship announcements and 
product placement. " 

"shall not apply to announcements broadcast by a 
television broadcaster in connection to its own 

275 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
may not exceed 12 minutes per hour 

Slovakia 

YES for PSB 

Act 308/2000 on Broadcasting and 
Retransmission and on the 
amendment of Act No. 195/2000on 
Telecommunications - consolidated 
3 February 2015 - § 36 (2) and § 
37a (1) a) 
and § 37a (1)(e) 

Broadcasting time reserved for advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots must not 
exceed 20 % of broadcasting within one 
hour (12 min.).  
Broadcasting time reserved for advertising 
between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. by a 
public service broadcaster must not 
exceed eight minutes per a given whole 
hour. 

Finland 

NO 

Information Society Code - 
consolidated 18 September 2015 - 
222 § 

The proportion of broadcasting time 
devoted to teleshopping spots and 
television advertising shall not exceed 12 
minutes per hour of daily broadcasting 
time (…). 

Sweden 

YES for PSB 

Radio and Television Act - 
consolidated 17 June 2010 - 
Chapter 8  1§  para. 1 and 16§. 

Advertising may be broadcast on 
television for no more than 12 minutes per 
full clock hour. 

The broadcasting licence of the 
public service-broadcaster 
prohibits transmissions of 
advertising (with the exception of 
advertising of own and other psb 

+additional rule on minimum time:  "The 
total time devoted to promotional 
messages in a television broadcast may 
not be less than one minute in any given 
case(…)" Does  not apply to broadcasts of 

television programmes on the same channel and 
ancillary products directly derived from those 
programmes (i.e. products specially designed to 
provide listeners or viewers with all the benefits 
of these programmes or interaction with them), 
sponsorship announcements and product 
placements." 
Shall not apply to : 

- 

- 

" self-promotion including 
information about the broadcaster's 
own programmes, "  
§ 37a(1)(a) 

“Identification of the sponsor of a 
programme broadcast under § 38(2) 
and the identification of product 
placement under § 39a (5)(d).”  
§ 37a(1)(e) 

Shall not apply to: 
"1) a broadcaster’s announcements of its own 
audiovisual programmes; 2) ancillary products 
directly derived from those programmes; 3) 
announcements related to sponsorship; 4) product 
placement; 5) ideological and social advertising 
referred to in (…) ;6) teleshopping windows 
referred to in (…)." 
"shall not apply to advertising that a media 
service provider makes for its programme 
activities. " 

276 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programming). 

live sports events.  

United 
Kingdom 

YES for PSB and 
other channels 

Ofcom Code on the Scheduling of 
Television Advertising – 4 and 7 

However, no advertising is allowed in PSB 
programming 
Time devoted to television advertising and 
teleshopping spots on any channel in any 
one hour must not exceed 12 minutes. In 
addition: 
- for PSB, must not exceed: i) an average 
of 7 minutes per hour for every hour of 
transmission time across the broadcasting 
day ; and 
ii) subject to (i) above, an average of 8 
minutes an hour between 6pm and 
11pm; 
-on other channels,  time devoted 
to  television advertising and teleshopping 
spots must not exceed an average of 12 
minutes of television advertising and 
teleshopping spots for every hour of 
transmission across the broadcasting day, 
of which no more than 9 minutes may 
be television advertising. 

Source: EAO AVMSDatabase http://avmsd.obs.coe.int/cgi-bin/search.php [accessed on 25/11/2015], complemented by Commission own information 

277 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Various stricter/additional national rules, including alcohol advertising, advertising in children's programmes and showing of a 
sponsorship logo in children's programmes 

MS 

Legal basis 

AT 

BE 
(French 
Commun
ity) 

BE 
(Flemish 
Commun
ity) 
BG 

Prohibition of 
advertising in 
children's 
programmes 

not 

NO 
PSB  must 
broadcast 
advertising 
targeting  minors 
immediately  before 
and  after  children's 
programmes 
YES 

YES 

NO 

Legal basis 

Additional  prohibition /regulation of 
alcohol/spirits advertising 

Legal basis 

Prohibition of sponsorship logo in 
children's programmes 
(Article 10(4)) AVMSD) 

YES 
No audiovisual commercial 
communication for spirits   

NO 

Article  72.2  c)  d) 
e)  du  contrat  de 
conclut 
gestion 
entre 
le 
Gouvernement de 
la  Communauté 
française  et 
la 
RTBF  

Article  16  du 
décret SMA 

YES  
No spirits advertising on PSB  

YES on PSB and local televisions 

Art  18  §3  du  décret 
SMA 

Broadcasters advertising alcohol should 
provide equivalent free space for 
prevention campaigns 

YES  
No alcohol advertising before and after 
children's programmes 

YES 
No direct spirits advertising  
No indirect spirits advertising before 
22.00 

télé-achat 

"la  publicité, 
et 
le 
l'autopromotion  ne  peuvent  être 
insérés  dans  les  journaux  télévisés, 
dans  les  programmes  pour  enfants, 
dans 
de 
cérémonies religieuses et laïques."  

retransmissions 

les 

YES for PSB 
No 
programmes by alcohol producers 

sponsoring 

of 

children's 

YES 

278 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CY 

NO 

Paragraph F(2)(a) 
IX 
Index 
of 
(Reg.50),  of  the 
Advertising  and 
Sponsorship 
Code.  

YES 
No advertising of spirits containing 
1,2% alcohol or above is permitted in 
breaks: 

-  During, before or after 
children’s programmes 
-  During, before or after 

programmes suitable for 
persons under the age of 
eighteen. 

-  During, before or after 

programmes with religious 
content.  

NO 

NO 

NO 
In general, no advertising on PSB after 
20.00, on Sundays and official holidays 
YES 

transmission 

of 
communications 

audiovisual 
The 
commercial 
for 
alcoholic  beverages  during  children's 
programmes  or  during  the  children’s 
television zone is strictly forbidden. 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EL 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES  

Prohibition 
advertising 
games 
minors.  

of 
war 
targeting 

Prohibition 
of 
advertising  toys  on 
during 
TV 
transmission  hours 
considered 
to 
minors 
address 
from 
(practically 
07.00 to 22.00). 
-Prohibition  of  war 
games 

Law 1730/1987 
article 3, 
Ministerial 
Decision 
(Regulation 
3/1991 article 
9-Code of 
Ethics for radio 
and television 
advertisement-
National 
Council for 
Radio and 
Television), 

Consumer 
Protection  Act:. 

Presidential 
Decree  109/2010, 
(Article  10,  par.4 
and  Article  11, 
par. 3) 

NO 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

No. 
(Article 

Decree 
109/2010 
11, par. 6) 
(Directive  1/2011, 
Article  11  National 
Council  for  Radio 
and Television) 

Programmes whose content is evidently 
directed at minors are prohibited from 
accepting sponsorship about alcoholic 
beverages 

279 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EE 

FI 

L.  2251/1994, 
as 
article  9, 
amended  by  L. 
3587/2007 
article 11, 

Presidential 
Decree 
109/2010, 
article  10,  par. 
4) 

alcoholic 
during 

The transmission of 
audiovisual 
commercial 
communications 
for 
beverages 
children's 
programmes 
during 
children’s 
television  zone  is 
strictly forbidden. 
NO 

or 
the 

alcohol 
in 

YES  
No 
advertising 
children’s 
programmes  
A 
children’s 
program  may  be 
interrupted 
by 
advertising  only  if 
scheduled 
the 
of 
duration 
the 
program 
is  more 
than 30 minutes 

Alcohol 
advertising:  Act 
1143/1994 
No. 
on 
alcohol 
(Alkoholilaki)    

Tobacco 
advertising:  Act 
No.  693/1976  on 
tobacco 
(Tupakkalaki) 

Alcohol 
advertising:  Act 
No.  1143/1994 
on 
alcohol 
(Alkoholilaki)    

by 

Suspension  of 
certain 
audiovisual 
programs 
advertising:  
Information 
Society  Code  - 
consolidated  18 
September 2015 
(Tietoyhteiskun

YES 
No alcohol advertising on PSB 
/Comment: there is no advertising on 
PSB according to Estonian Public 
Broadcasting Act. Advertising and 
sponsorship on PSB channels can be 
allowed only on special cases/. 
No alcohol advertising between 7.00 
and 21.00 

YES 
No spirits advertising   
No alcohol advertising between 07.00 
and 21.00 
No tobacco product advertising or 
indirect advertising 

YES 

NO 

280 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FR 

NO 

takaari)  

Décret 
n°92-
280 du 27 mars 
1992  pris  pour 
l'application 
des  articles  27 
et  33  de  la  loi 
n°  86-1067  du 
septembre 
30 
1986  et  fixant 
les 
principes 
généraux 
les 
définissant 
obligations  des 
de 
éditeurs 
en 
services 
de 
matière 
publicité, 
de 
parrainage  et 
de 
télé-achat.  
(dernière 
modification  : 
1 janvier 2011) 

NO 

Décret  n°92-280 
du  27  mars  1992 
pour 
pris 
l'application  des 
articles 27 et 33 de 
la  loi  n°  86-1067 
du  30  septembre 
1986  et  fixant  les 
principes 
généraux 
les 
définissant 
des 
obligations 
de 
éditeurs 
en 
services 
de 
matière 
de 
publicité, 
parrainage  et  de 
télé-achat.  
(dernière 
modification  :  1 
janvier 2011) 

Law  n°  86-1067 
of  30  September 
the 
on 
1986 
Freedom 
of 
communication  – 
consolidated  08 
January 2016 

Décret  n°92-280 
du 27 mars 1992 
pris 
pour 
l'application  des 
articles  27  et  33 
de  la  loi  n°  86-
1067 
30 
du 
septembre  1986 
et 
les 
fixant 
principes 
généraux 
définissant 
les 
obligations  des 
de 
éditeurs 
en 
services 
de 
matière 
de 
publicité, 
parrainage  et  de 
télé-achat. 
(dernière 
modification  :  1 
janvier 2011) 

YES 
No alcohol advertising  
Art.8 : Est interdite la publicité 
concernant, d'une part, les produits dont 
la publicité télévisée fait l'objet d'une 
interdiction législative et, d'autre part, 
les produits et secteurs économiques 
suivants : 
- boisson comprenant plus de 1,2 degré 
d'alcool ; 
- édition littéraire sauf sur les services 
de télévision exclusivement distribués 
par câble ou diffusés par satellite ; 
- cinéma ; 
- distribution pour les opérations 
commerciales de promotion se déroulant 
entièrement ou principalement sur le 
territoire national, sauf dans les 
départements d'outre-mer et les 
territoires de la Polynésie française, des 
îles Wallis et Futuna, dans la collectivité 
départementale de Mayotte et en 
Nouvelle-Calédonie. 
Au sens du présent décret, on entend par 
opération commerciale de promotion 
toute offre de produits ou de prestations 
de services faite aux consommateurs ou 
toute organisation d'événement qui 
présente un caractère occasionnel ou 
saisonnier, résultant notamment de la 
durée de l'offre, des prix et des 
conditions de vente annoncés, de 

281 

 
 
 
l'importance du stock mis en vente, de la 
nature, de l'origine ou des qualités 
particulières des produits ou services ou 
des produits ou prestations accessoires 
offerts. 

YES 
No alcohol advertising on PSB 
No  spirits advertising between 18.30 
and 21.30 

NO 

HU 

Act 
33: 

YES 
 Media 
Section 
Programs 
in 
broadcast 
linear 
media 
services  may  not 
interrupted 
be 
with 
advertisements or 
if 
teleshopping 
is  
the  program 
intended 
for 
minors  under  the 
age  of  fourteen, 
its  duration 
if 
does  not  exceed 
thirty minutes 

or 

split 

Virtual 
screen 
advertisements 
cannot  be  inserted 
in 
programs 
broadcast  in  linear 
audiovisual  media 
services,  whichare 
intended for minors 
under  the  age  of 
fourteen, 
their 
duration  does  not 
exceed 
thirty 
minutes; 

if 

282 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Electronic  Media 
Act,  Article  17, 
paragraph 5 

YES 

The  showing  of  a  sponsorship  logo 
during  children's  programmes  and 
religious 
be 
programmes 
prohibited. 

shall 

HR 

NO, but: 

Electronic 
Media 
Article 
paragraph 8 

Act, 
16, 

Audiovisual 
commercial 
communications 
shall  not:  –  cause 
physical  or  moral 
detriment 
to 
minors,  –  directly 
encourage  minors 
to  buy  or  hire  a 
product  or  service 
by  exploiting  their 
inexperience 
or 
credulity, – directly 
encourage  minors 
to  persuade 
their 
parents or others to 
purchase  the  goods 
or  services  being 
advertised, 
– 
exploit  the  special 
trust  minors  place 
in  parents,  teachers 
or other persons, or 
unreasonably 
– 
show  minors 
in 
dangerous 
situations AND 

Children’s 
programmes,  when 
their  duration 
is 
less 
30 
than 
minutes,  shall  not 
interrupted  by 
be 
short 
advertising 
spots  and/or  short 
teleshopping  spots. 

Electronic  Media 
Act,  Article  16, 
paragraph 6 

Electronic  Media 
Act  Article  31, 
paragraph 4 and 5 

YES 

Audiovisual commercial 
communications for alcoholic beverages 
shall not be aimed specifically at minors 
and shall not encourage immoderate 
consumption of such beverages. 

 Advertising and teleshopping for 
alcohol and alcoholic beverages shall be 
prohibited, unless the Food Act, and the 
subordinate legislation passed by virtue 
thereof, provide otherwise. 

 Advertising and teleshopping for 
alcohol and alcoholic beverages referred 
to in paragraph 4 of this Article shall 
comply with the following criteria: 
- it may not be aimed specifically at 
minors or, in particular, depict minors 
consuming these beverages, 
- it shall not link the consumption of 
alcohol to enhanced physical 
performance or to driving, 
- it shall not create the impression that 
the consumption of alcohol contributes 
towards social or sexual success, 
- it shall not claim that alcohol has 
therapeutic qualities or that it is a 
stimulant, a sedative or a means of 
resolving personal conflicts, 
- it shall not encourage immoderate 
consumption of alcohol or present 
abstinence or moderation in a negative 
light, 
- it shall not place emphasis on high 
alcoholic content as being a positive 
quality of the beverages. 

283 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The 
children's 
programmes  may 
be 
interrupted  by 
advertising  and/or 
teleshopping  once 
for  each  scheduled 
period of at least 30 
minutes,  provided 
that  the  scheduled 
the 
duration 
programme 
is 
greater 
than  30 
minutes. 
 YES 

of 

Electronica 
Media 
Article 
paragraph 6 

Act, 
32, 

IE 

Alcohol advertising 
is  not  allowed  in 
advertising  breaks 
programmes 
in 
where  the  audience 
indicates 
profile 
adult 
that 
the 
audience 
programme  would 
be less than 75% of 
the total audience. 

the 

for 

YES 
No spirits advertising  
No alcohol advertising in or around 
children's programmes  
In addition, all alcohol advertising, 
purchased in any media, based in 
Ireland, and/or aimed at the Irish 
marketplace is subject to the Alcohol, 
Marketing, Communications and 
Sponsorship Codes of Practice 
(http://asai.ie/wp-
content/uploads/Alcohol-Codes-of-
Practice-2008.pdf), which comprises a 
set of voluntary self-regulatory codes 
that includes specific sections dealing 
with Television and Radio advertising. 
All broadcasters in Ireland are required 
to comply with these codes under rule 
11, section 8.1 of the Broadcasting 
Authority of Ireland’s Commercial 
Communications Code 
(http://www.bai.ie/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/201308_GCCC_Englis
h_vFinal.pdf)      

YES 

European  Communities  (Audiovisual 
Media  Services)  Regulations  2010 
(S.I. No. 258 of 2010) – Article 7(7) 

logo  shall  not  be 
children’s 
during 

“Sponsorship 
displayed 
programmes, 
documentaries 
programmes 
audiovisual media service.” 

and 
an 

in 

religious 
on-demand 

BAI 
Childrens 
Communications Code 14(5) 

Commerical 

“Sponsor  logos  may  not  be  shown  
during    the    editorial    segments    of  
Children’s  
Programmes.” 

284 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IT 

Italian 
Code  

AVMS 

NO  
but  protected  time 
slot  between  16.00 
and 
and 
19.00 
children 
during 
  (no 
programmes 
alcohol,  call  and 
contraceptive 
advertising) 

YES 

YES 
No spirits advertising between 16.00 
and  19.00 
No  spirits  advertising  during  breaks 
immediately  before  or  after  children 
programmes  

Article  34,  paragraph  7,  of  the  Italian 
AVMS  Code:  “Broadcasters,  even  the 
analogue  ones,  are  also  required  to 
ensure  […]  the  application  of  specific 
measures  to  protect  children  during  the 
hours  of  programming  from  16.00  to 
19.00  and  within  the  programs  directly 
aimed at children, with particular regard 
to  advertising,  promotions  and  other 
forms 
commercial 
audiovisual 
of 
communications”. 

communications 

Art.  36-bis,  paragraph  1,  lett.  e),  of  the 
Italian  AVMS  Code:  “Audiovisual 
commercial 
of 
alcoholic  beverages  shall  not  be  aimed 
specifically  at  minors  nor  encourage 
immoderate 
such 
beverages ”. 

consumption  of 

Television 

advertising 

Article  37,  paragraph  9,  and  11,  of  the 
Italian AVMS Code:  
“9. 
and 
teleshopping  for  alcoholic  beverages 
shall comply with the following criteria: 
a)  not  be  aimed  specifically  at  minors 
or,  in  particular,  do  not  depict  minors 
consuming these beverages;  
b)  do  not  link  the  consumption  of 
alcohol 
to  physical  performance  of 
particular importance or driving cars;  
c)  do  not  create  the  impression  that  the 

285 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
consumption  of  alcohol  contributes  to 
social or sexual success;  
d)  do  not  claim  that  alcoholic  drinks 
have therapeutic qualities or stimulating 
or  calming  of 
resolving  personal 
conflicts ;  
e)  do  not  encourage  an  excessive  and 
uncontrolled  use  of  alcohol  or 
to  
present in a negative light abstinence or 
moderation;  
f)  do  not  use  an  indication  of  the  high 
degree of alcohol as a positive quality of 
beverages. 
[…]  
11. “The provisions of this Article shall 
also 
and 
teleshopping broadcast by radio stations 
”. 
Article  39,  paragraph  2,  of  the  Italian 
AVMS Code:  
“The  audiovisual  media  services  or 
programs  shall  not  be  sponsored  by 
natural or legal persons whose principal 
activity  is  the  manufacture  or  sale  of 
cigarettes and other tobacco products or 
the manufacture or sale of spirits”. 

advertising 

apply 

to 

LT 

YES 
for PSB 

Article  4,  paragraph  4,  litt.  a),    of  Self-
regulation Code on TV and minors  
No spirits advertising during breaks 
immediately before or after children 
programmes. 
YES 
No alcohol advertising 6.00 and 23.00 
except during direct or continuously 
broadcasted international art, culture or 
sports events. 

Law  on  Alcohol 
– 
Control 
Consolidated 
1 
November 2015 - 
Art. 29.2 (3) 

NO 

286 

 
 
 
 
 
LV 

LU 

MT 

NO 

NO 

NO 
Also 
teleshopping 
windows  may  not 
be 
broadcast 
immediately  before 
or 
a 
after 
programme  aimed 
at children. 

YES  
No spirits advertising  

NO 

YES  
No alcohol advertising between 06.00 
and 21.00. 
In sponsored programmes, it shall not 
be permitted to use the name of an 
alcoholic drink as the name of the 
sponsor between 06.00 and 21.00 

But particular alcohol advertising which 
promote cut price offers, happy hour 
drinks, buy two and get one free, money 
off coupons and similar advertisements 
which encourage excessive or 
immoderate consumption are 
unacceptable and are prohibited and are 
not tied to any water shed. 

The rest of the Requirements as to 
Advertisements, 
Methods of Advertising and Directions 
Applicable to Alcoholic Drink 
Advertising, Sponsorship and 
teleshopping) (S.L. 350.24) 
 target the content of advertising 
implying that alcohol should be 
consumed with moderation, should not 
imply that drinking is essential to social 
success or acceptance, should not imply 
that drinking is an essential part of the 
daily routine. Such advertising should 
not use aggressive, anti-social or 
irresponsible behaviour. 

NO 

NO 

YES 
The  showing  of  a  sponsorship  logo 
during  children’s  programmes  shall 
be prohibited. 

287 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertising referring to alcohol 
advertising and which are listed in the 
Main Broadcasting Act point out to a 
number of criteria amongst them such 
advertising may not be aimed 
specifically at minors or depict minors 
acquiring or consuming such beverage. 
YES 
No alcohol advertising between 06.00 
and 21.00 

YES 
No alcohol advertising except beer 
No beer advertising 06.00 and 20.00 
(except during sporting games) 
YES 
No alcohol advertising between  7.00 
and 22.30. 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NL 

PL 

PT 

552 
Act 
no 
amending 
the 
Media  Act  2008 
and  the  Tobacco 
Act 
the 
for 
implementation 
of 
Visual 
Services 
Directive  
Articles  2.94  2  b 
(PSB) and 3.7 2 b 
(Commercial 
media services)  

the  Audio-
Media 

Portuguese 
Advertising 
Code, Art. 17 (2) 

no 
in 

YES 
PSB: 
advertising 
children’s 
programmes. 
Children’s 
programmes  may 
not be sponsored. 

552 
Act 
no 
amending 
the 
Media Act 2008 
and 
the 
Tobacco Act for 
the 
implementation 
the  Audio-
of 
Visual  Media 
Services 
Directive 
Articles 
and 2.106 

2.97 

YES 

Portuguese  TV 
Act,  Art.  40-B 
(3) (c) 
(split 
adv.) 

screen 

Art. 41-D (2) 
(interactive 
adv.) 

Art. 41-A (8) 

NO  
but  no  split  screen 
in 
advertising 
children's 
programmes and no 
interactive 
advertising  in  and 
around 
children's 
programmes 
No  advertising  for 
during 
HFSS 
children's 
programmes and no 
teleshopping in and 

288 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(adv. for HFSS) 

Art.  40-B  (3) 
(b) 
(teleshopping) 

Art. 41-A (2) 
(product 
placement) 
Decision NAC 
220/2011 -
consolidated, 
art.107 alin. (3) 
lit.a) 

RO 

SK 

children’s 

product 
in 

around 
programmes 
No 
placement 
children’s 
programmes 

NO  
but  prohibition  of 
screen 
split 
advertising 
in 
programmes 
destined to minors 
NO 

SI 

NO 

Decision NAC 
220/2011 – 
consolidated 
art.98 
art.113 

alin.(3); 

YES 
No spirits advertising between 06.00 
and 22.00 

Act No. 308/2000 
on  Broadcasting 
and 
retransmission 
the 
and 
on 
amendment 
of  
Act No. 195/2000 
on 
Telecommunicati
ons as amended 
Act  Regulating 
Sanitary 
the 
of 
Suitability 
Foodstuff, 
Products 
Materials 
Coming 
Contact 
Foodstuffs 
(ZZUZIS), 

into 
with 

and 

YES 
No alcohol advertising except beer and 
wine between 06.00 and 22.00 
No wine advertising between 06.00 and 
20.00 

YES 

No advertising of alcoholic beverages 
containing more than 15 per cent of 
alcohol. 

No alcohol advertising between 07.00 
and 21.30.  

Article 15 

NO 

NO 

NO 

289 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article 14-15.b 

The advertising of alcoholic beverages, 
containing more than 15 % of alcohol 
by volume, is prohibited. 

Article 15a 
It is forbidden to advertise alcoholic 
beverages on radio and television 
between 7 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. 

shall not portray persons under 

shall not  be directed at young 

shall not be displayed in or on 

Article 15b 
The advertising message shall comply 
with the following conditions: it 
- 
and shall not contain scenes in which 
alcohol is consumed; 
- 
25 years of age; 
- 
buildings, premises and adjacent 
grounds, where health services and 
educational and sport activities are 
being carried out; 
shall not be displayed on 
- 
hoardings, signboards, posters or 
illuminated advertising signs which are 
less than 300 metres away from 
kindergartens and schools; 
- 
manifestations and sports events where 
the audience or the participants are 
primarily underage persons; 
- 
images, characters from cartoons and 
other youth programmes; 

shall not contain any symbols, 

shall not be displayed at 

ES 

NO 

General 
7/2010 
March 

of 

Law 
31 
on 

YES  
Forbidden advertising for all spirit 
drinks over 20°  

NO 

290 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SE 

Radio 
and 
Television    Act 
2010:696) Ch 8, 
3 & 7§§ 

UK 

YES:  There  is  a 
general ban for any 
advertising 
the 
targeting 
attention 
of 
children  under  the 
age of 12.  

Further: A program 
mainly 
targeting  
children  below  12 
be 
not 
must 
interrupted 
by 
advertising  and  no 
advertising must be 
directly 
placed 
before or after such 
a program.  

NO  
but  may  not  be 
in  or 
advertised 
adjacent 
: 
to 
*programmes  for 
minors  audiences 
: 
-Gambling 
(with 
some  exceptions)  / 
betting 
-Slimming 
products 

/ 

Audiovisual 
Media 

For spirits drinks below 20° advertising 
only between 20.30H and 06.00 in the 
next morning 

Alcohol 
Act 
(2010:1622)  Ch 
7, 3§ 

YES 
No alcohol advertising is allowed in tv 
or radio transmissions 

Broadcasting 
license  for  public 
service 
broadcasters 

YES for PSBs where no sponsoring is 
allowed 
programs  mainly 
targeting children under 12 years. 

for 

The  Radio  and 
Television  Act 
(2010:696)  Ch  7, 
2§ 

No sponsoring by companies whose 
main activity is to produce or sell 
alcohol is allowed. 

 YES 
No advertising of alcoholic drinks 
should be targeted at persons under 18 
years of age, and should not imply, 
condone or encourage immoderate, 
irresponsible or anti-social drinking. See 
www.cap.org.uk - Principle 19 on 
Alcohol.  

YES 
Product  placement  is  prohibited  in 
children’s  programmes.  Where  a 
sponsor  is  prohibited  from  product 
is 
placing 
sponsoring,  sponsorship  credits  may 
not  be  shown  during  the  sponsored 
programme. 

the  programme 

in 

it 

291 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
religious 

treatments 
/establishments 
-Certain 
matters  
-Live premium rate 
services   
*programmes  for 
young audiences : 
-
Lotteries/gaming/b
etting 
-Medicines, 
vitamins  or  dietary 
supplements 
-Computer  games 
with  18+,  16+  or 
15+ rating 
-HFSS products 
-Matches 
-Trailers  for  videos 
carrying  an  18  or 
15 certificate 
*programmes  for 
children 
-Sanitary 
protections 
-Condoms 
see 
Also 
Committees 
Advertising 
Practice Principle 5 
– 
children 
on 
www.cap.org.uk. 

The 
of 

292 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transposition of article 9(2) AVMSD on HFSS foods advertising 

Country 

Austria  

Belgium 

French  
communit
y 

Statutory instrument/ 
Co-regulation 
BGB1  I  No  50/2010  requires  from 
public  service  broadcasters  and 
private  media  providers  to  issue 
guidelines 
commercial 
for 
communications  of  HFSS  foods  in 
and between children's programmes. 

Self-regulation 

Since  February  2010  Code  of  Conduct  by  Austrian 
broadcasters,  enforced  by  the  Austrian  Advertising 
Council. 
In  the  event  of  adverse  decision  by  the  Council  the 
broadcasters  commit  not  to  broadcast  the  audiovisual 
commercial communication concerned.      

General provisions in the law 
(encouragement) 

§ 36 (3) AMS-Act; § 13 (8) ORF-Act 

FEVIA code – ICC food framework enforced by JEP 
(Belgian Advertising Ethics Board)  

Belgium  

Flemish 
communit
y 

Art.77 of the Decree of 27 March 
2009 stipulates that commercial 
communications for children and 
young people may not encourage or 
condone excessive consumption of 
HFSS foods 

FEVIA code – ICC food framework enforced by JEP 
(Belgian Advertising Ethics Board) 

Bulgaria 

Bulgaria's National Council for Self-regulation 
(Advertising industry + TV and radio broadcasters)  : 

Federal  competence.  No  specific  measures 
in this area. 

Art.  7  of  the  "health  law"  states  that  the 
King  may,  in  the  interest  of  public  health, 
regulate and prohibit the advertising of food 
and  on 
their  composition  or  dietary 
properties or their effect on health." 

In addition - annual plans for the promotion 
of healthy diet. 

Federal competence.  
Art.  7  of  the  "health  law"  states  that  the 
King  may,  in  the  interest  of  public  health, 
regulate and prohibit the advertising of food 
their  composition  or  dietary 
and  on 
properties or their effect on health." 
In addition - annual plans for the promotion 
of healthy diet. 

293 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Croatia 

since 2010 Framework for responsible  communication 
on food and beverages, including special rules on 
HFSS foods and children 
+ The ethical Code of the Bulgarian Media – voluntary 
rules on HFSS foods and children 
The codes of conduct have not yet been produced and 
published. 

 In  2012,  the  Agency  for  Electronic  Media  organized 
the  first  meeting  of  the  Working  Group  for  drafting  a 
co-regulation  Act  relating  to  the  advertising  of 
unhealthy  food  to  children  in  audiovisual  commercial  
communications.  The  meeting,  was  attended  by 
representatives  of  public  service  broadcaster,  Nova 
TV,  RTL  Television,  Croatian  Institute  of  Public 
Health  (HZJZ), 
the  Economic  Interest  Grouping 
companies for market communication (HURA) and the 
specialized  agency  for  audience  measurement  (AGB 
Nielsen  Media  Research).  Since  then  there  were 
several  attempts  made  towards  reaching  a  consensus 
on  the  codes  of  conduct  but  without  significant 
improvements in terms of finalization and adoption.  
The activities intensified recently as the NRA decided 
to  revise  the  Ordinance  of  protection  of  minors.  The 
Agency  for  Electronic  Media  and  UNICEF  have 
signed  (Zagreb,  September  2014)  a  Memorandum  of 
Understanding in order to support the development of 
media  literacy  of  parents  and  children,  as  well  as  to 
encourage  the  electronic  media  to  take  advantage  of 
their potential as much as possible in order to improve 
the  quality  of  life  of  children  and  their  families.  The 
cooperation  will  include  a  research  on  the  television 
viewing  habits,  as  well  as  consultations  with  the 
stakeholders  for 
the 
the  purpose  of 
regulatory  framework  concerning  the  protection  of 

improving 

294 

 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus 

Czech 
Rep. 

Denmark 

Obligation in the law transposing the 
AVMS Directive (harmonisation 
amendment of 10.12. 2010) placed on the 
media service providers in cooperation with 
the Cyprus Broadcasting Corporation to 
develop relevant code of conduct. 
Such a code should be submitted for 
approval by the Authority within a year 
from the entry into force of the Act.  
*it is noted that according to the suggested 
amendment of the Radio and Television 
Organizations Laws (1998-2015), that has 
been submitted to the House of Parliament 
awaiting examination , the Authority will 
prepare a Code of Conduct in consultation 
with FED. 

children.  Along  these  lines,  the  need  for  adoption  of 
code  of  conduct  regarding  audiovisual  commercial 
communication  of  foods  high  in  fat,  sugar  and  salt 
(HFSS) targeting children will be addressed again. 
FED, a non-profit, self-regulation organization created 
by 
the 
the  Cyprus  Association  of  Advertisers, 
Association  of  Advertisements  and  Communications 
and the majority of Cyprus Media has drafted a code of 
conduct for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. (available 
online: 
http://www.fed.org.cy/fed/page.php?pageID=180&mp
ath=/138/265) 

Self-regulatory body RPR, the Council for Advertising 
(including  broadcasters  and  advertisers)  uses  its  code 
of  conduct  which  applies 
the  ICC  principles, 
including  the  „Framework  for  Responsible  Food  and 
Beverage Marketing Communications 2012“. 
Code  of  conduct  by  Forum  for  Responsible  Food 
Marketing  Communication  –  aimed  at  children  under 
13  
Forum: representatives of food industry, consumer 
goods retailers , media and advertising sectors  

The  Code  discourages  the  advertising  of  food  with  a 
high  content  of  sugar,  fat,  and  salt  in  media  aimed  at 
children. It has been effective from 1 January 2008 and 
it  is  accompanied  by  a  guide  explaining  which  foods 

295 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and media the code includes. It covers commercials on 
TV, internet (social media) and other media.  

Since  the  Code  was  signed  in  2008,  the  marketing  of 
food  with  a  high  content  of  sugar,  fats  or  salt  has 
disappeared. 
According  to  Media  Services  Act  audiovisual  media 
service  providers  in  Estonia  have  encouraged  by  the 
regulator (at that time the Ministry of Culture, now by 
the Technical Regulatory Authority) to set up the code 
of  conduct  in  this  area.  Relevant  code  of  conduct  has 
been  adopted  by 
the  Estonian  Association  of 
Broadcasters in 2011 and is functioning well. 
General  guidelines  by  the  Consumer  Agency  on 
marketing of foods aimed at children   
The  Finnish  Food  and  Drink  Industries’  Federation  is 
in  the  process  of    renewing  their  code  on  commercial 
communication  of  foods,  so  as  to  address  better 
marketing of HFSS foods targeting children.  

Article  27  of  the  Media  Services  Act  – 
media may establish codes of conduct 
-  if  media  operators  fail  to  establish  the 
codes-  possibility  of  regulation  by  the 
Minister responsible for the area. 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Original text available: Relevant 
Code of conduct 
http://www.tja.ee/public/documents/
Elektrooniline_side/Sideteenused/M
eediateenused/Lastele_suunatud_rek
laami_eneseregulatsioon.pdf    

Co-regulation:  
In  May  2012  a  Nutrition  Charter 
agreement  was  signed  under  the 
care  of  public  bodies  (Health  and 
Sport  Ministries,  Ministry 
of 
Culture  and  Communication  and 
CSA)  by  broadcasters,  advertising 
industry, TV producers and Author's 
Union. 
In November 2013 a new charter to 
favorable  diet  and 
promote  a 
to  health 
physical  activity 
in 
programs 
advertisements 
and 
broadcast  on  television  was  signed. 
It  entered  into  force  on  1  January 
2014.  

296 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

The new charter was approved by a 
higher  number  of  signatories  (36 
against  19  previously).  It  has  more 
commitments  (14  against  8),  an 
increase  of  hours  of  programs  to 
promote  nutrition  and  physical 
activity. 
There  are  numerous  rules  on  food 
advertising (e.g. Sections 11 and 12 
of  the  German  Food,  Consumer 
Goods 
and  Feed  Code,  EU 
Regulation  on  nutrition  and  health 
claims  made  on  foods,  Section  4(1) 
and  Section  6  of  the  Regulation  on 
nutrition  claims  on 
food  and 
nutrition  labelling  for  foodstuffs) 
for 
which  are  also  applicable 
commercial 
audiovisual 
communication  and  are 
to  be 
commercial 
observed 
in 
foods, 
communication  of  HFSS 
provided  this  is  aimed  at  children. 
Section 6 of the Interstate Treaty on 
the  Protection  of  Minors,  which 
2011, 
entered 
specifically  governs  the  protection 
of  minors  with  regard  to  electronic 
information 
communication 
media. 
The 
amending 
thirteenth 
Interstate  Treaty  on  Broadcasting, 
which 
the  AVMS 
Directive,  makes  reference  to  these 
code  of  conduct  by  the  German 
Advertising  Standards  Council,  in 

transposed 

force 

into 

and 

the 

the 

in 

The  Federal  Government  has  held  talks  with  the 
advertising  industry  on  a  corresponding  code  of 
conduct since 2008 within the framework of the action 
plan  ‘IN  SHAPE  –  Germany's  Initiative  for  Healthy 
Eating and More Exercise.’ 
 The  Federal  States  have  also  been  in  discussion  with 
the  advertising  industry  and  have  also  encouraged  the 
idea of codes of conduct as part of the implementation 
of the AVMSD.  

for 

the  ZAW, 

self-regulation 

in  advertising 

the  auspices  of 

Under 
the  German 
advertising  industry  –  including  audiovisual  media 
service  providers  –  and  advertising  agencies  adopted 
codes  of  conduct  on  commercial  communication  for 
foods on 1 July 2009 and entrusted the enforcement of 
these  to  the  German  Advertising  Council,  the  central 
institution 
in 
Germany.  The  food,  trade,  media,  communication 
agency  and  professional  advertising  organisations  in 
the  ZAW  thus  held  themselves  to  these  codes  of 
conduct.  
They  committed  not  to  include  in  their  commercial 
advertising of foods anything that could be understood 
as  encouraging  excessive  and  unbalanced  dietary 
choices. The particular focus here is on children. Food 
advertising  aimed  at  children  should  therefore  not 
contain any direct incitements to purchase or consume 
foodstuffs  and  should  not  run  counter  to  a  healthy, 

297 

 
 
 
 
force since July 2009. 

Greece 

active  lifestyle.  Commercial  communication  measures 
for  food  should  also  not  suggest  to  children  that  the 
consumption of a specific type of food is indispensable 
for a meal to be complete and balanced. The codes can 
be found at http://www.werberat.de/lebensmittel.  
In  the  guidelines  of  the  public  broadcasters  ARD  and 
ZDF  for  ‘Advertising,  Sponsoring,  Competitions  and 
Production  Aid,’  dated  12  March  2010,  the  public 
broadcasters also hold themselves to these principles of 
conduct. 
The public broadcasters comprising ARD and ZDF are 
also  members  of  the  ZAW  through  their  advertising 
companies and are therefore subject to the same codes 
of  conduct  of  the  German  Advertising  Council.  The 
general  terms  and  conditions  of  ARD's  advertising 
companies  and 
its  central  marketing  unit,  ARD 
Werbung  Sales  &  Services  GmbH,  stipulate  that 
advertisements  that  are  not  in  line  with  the  codes  of 
conduct of the German Advertising Council should be 
rejected (Clause 2 in conjunction with Clause 6 of the 
General Terms and Conditions of ARD Werbung Sales 
& Services GmbH).  

In  addition  to  the  existing  codes  of  conduct,  the 
German  Advertising  Association  (ZAW)  published  a 
catalogue of criteria containing codes of conduct at the 
end  of  2011,  which  must  be  observed  for  online 
advertising on websites for children. 

No  specific  code  of  conduct  but  general  rules  of  the 
Greek  Code  for  Advertising  and  Communication  set 
out  by  Union  of  Advertising  and  Communication 
Companies,  Association  of  Hellenic  Advertisers  and 
licensed radio and TV stations applies. 

Article 10(5) of Presidential decree 
109/2010 obliges audiovisual media 
providers to draw up codes of conducts 
related to inappropriate audiovisual 
commercial communications of HFSS 
foods accompanying or included in 

298 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Additionally, 
commitments by media service providers: 

specific 

there 

exist 

voluntary 

The  pay  -TV  and  -radio  service  provider  Multichoice 
Hellas S.A., (now Forthnet Media S.A.) has elaborated, 
since  its  entry  into  operation,  a  code  of  conduct  for 
audiovisual  commercial  communications  of  foods 
high in fat, sugar and salt targeting children and, in 
general,  any  commercial  communication  targeting 
children,  underlining  that  the  said  code  is  constantly 
being  updated  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of 
legislation,  case-law  and  directives,  recommendations 
and  opinions  issued  by  both  the  EU  and  the  NCRTV. 
The  code  of  conduct  is  updated  by  a  team/committee 
of  experienced  specialised  scientists-partners  of  the 
company, having knowledge in the areas of pedagogy, 
law and marketing.  

The  broadcaster  APT  CITY  NEWS  S.A.  states  that  it 
has prepared a code of conduct and does not accept to 
broadcast  audiovisual  commercial  communications  of 
HFSS foods to children. 
- The Hellenic Association of Brewers has adopted a 
scheme  focusing  on  issues  of  “high  sensitivity", 
targeting  persons  under  18  and  highlighting  the 
association  of  beer  consumption  with  driving.  What’s 
more, a booklet based on the said Code was issued in 
order to facilitate the users and raise their awareness in 
what concerns the spirit of the Code. 
-  The  Federation  of  Greek  Distillates  and  Spirits  – 
(SEAOP)  and  the  Association  of  Drinks  Companies 
(ADC)  adopted  a  Code  aiming  at  informing  and 
protecting particularly vulnerable social groups such as 
young  people.  The  Code  prohibits  advertising  that 

children's programmes, within one year  of 
commencing their programme 
The  National  Broadcasting  Council  should 
review the codes every two years.  

9, 

para.6 

Protection  Act 

The code has not yet been established.  
The Code has not yet been established. 
-  Consumer 
(Law 
2251/1994), as amended by Law 3587/2007 
(Article 
on  Commercial 
Communication),  prohibits  advertising  of 
toys  on  TV  during  transmission  hours 
considered  to  address  minors  (practically 
from  07.00  to  22.00).  The  advertising  of 
tobacco,  war  games,  medicinal  products  as 
well  as  medical  treatments  available  on 
prescription is totally prohibited. 
- Law 2328/1995 (Article 3, para. 16 & 17), 
explicitly  provides  for  the  possibility  of 
adopting  codes  of  conduct  or  relevant 
the 
regulatory 
content  of  television  programs  following 
consultation  of  interested  stakeholders,  in 
the  direction  of  taking  co-regulating  action 
in  cooperation  with  the  Greek  National 
Council for Radio and Television. 
- Article 10 of Presidential Decree 77/2003, 
constitutes  the  Code  of  Ethics  on  News-
and 
journalistic-political 
prohibits either the presentation of "minors 
through  image,  name  or  other  way  which 
makes 
their 
participation  in  all  emissions  included  in 
this code". 

identity  clear,  or 

instruments 

broadcasts 

regarding 

their 

299 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary 
Italy 

NO RULES  

directly or indirectly is addressed to minors or projects 
social  recognition  through  consumption  of  alcoholic 
beverages. Important innovations lie on joint planning 
of  the  competent  state  bodies  with  private  initiative, 
information  campaigns  and  public  awareness  on  the 
consequences  of  the  abuse  of  alcoholic  beverages,  as 
well  as  the  organization  and  the  operation  of  a 
mechanism  that  would  monitor  compliance  with  the 
Code.    
- The broadcaster APT CITY NEWS S.A. states that it 
has prepared a code of conduct and does not accept to 
broadcast  audiovisual  commercial  communications  of 
HFSS foods to children. 

In 2004, the self-regulation code on advertising has 
been amended with the insertion of provisions on 
specific parameters for the protection of minors as 
regards to food advertisement, in order to encourage a 
balanced and healthy behavior. 
On  28  October  2015  the  Ministry  of  Health  has 
adopted  guidelines  for  food  and  drink  advertisement, 
to  ensure  an  adequate  protection  of  minors'  diet.  This 
document  was  signed  by  the  Ministry  of  Health,  the 
Institute  for  Advertising  Self-Regulation  and  some 
associations active in the food industry. 

Ireland 

Statutory rules:  
Linear services: 

The BAI has updated (in June 2013) 
broadcasting codes and rules to 

The  Code  of  Conduct  for  On-demand  Audiovisual 
commits  on-demand 
Media  Service  Providers 
providers to develop a code of conduct on audiovisual 
communications of HFSS that target children.  

Directives and Recommendations issued by 
Greek 
  NCRTV  (National  Council  for 
Radio and Television) 
-Directive  n.  2/18.2.2014  regarding  the 
transmission  by  TV  broadcasters  of 
advertising    of  toys  addressed  to  children 
under the age of 14.  
-Directive  n.  1/12.7.2011  regarding  the 
of 
interpretation 
Presidential 
on 
sponsorship, product placement, advertising  
and teleshopping. 

application 
109/2010 

and 
Decree 

Article 36-bis, paragraph 2, legislative 
decree n. 177/2005: 
“The Ministry [of the communication], in 
consultation with the Authority and after 
consulting the Ministry of the health, 
encourages media service providers to 
develop codes of conduct regarding 
audiovisual communications business not 
appropriate accompanying children's 
programs or included in, related to food or 
beverages containing nutrients and 
substances with a nutritional or 
physiological effect, in particular those 
such as fat, fatty acids trans, sugars, sodium 
or salt, excessive consumption  of which in 
the general diet is not recommended”. 

300 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provisions 

Furthermore,  service  providers  are  advised  to  take  on 
the  BAI  Commercial 
board 
Communications  Code  with  regard 
to  children’s 
advertising for foods and beverages in the development 
of their codes. 

of 

include requirements in terms of the 
promotion of HFSS foods to 
children. The revised rules are 
contained in the BAI’s General and 
Children’s Commercial 
Communications Codes (Children 
under 18) which can be viewed 
here: 
http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=3364 
In  summary,  these  rules  state  that 
commercial  communications 
for 
HFSS  food  (including  drinks)  shall 
in  children’s 
not  be  permitted 
programmes.  In  addition,  content 
rules  will  apply 
to  commercial 
communications  for  HFSS  food 
broadcast  outside  of  children’s 
programmes  but  which  are  directed 
at 
commercial 
children.  Such 
communications shall not: 

 

 

 

Include celebrities or sports 
stars; 
Include programme 
characters; 
Include licensed characters 
e.g. characters and 
personalities from cinema 
releases; 

  Contain health or nutrition 

claims; 
Include promotional offers; 

 

301 

 
 
 
In addition, no more than 25% of 
sold advertising time and only one 
in four advertisements for HFSS 
food are permissible across the 
broadcast day on radio and 
television services. This will be 
assessed based on a yearly average. 

HFSS foods are defined with 
reference to the Nutrient Profiling 
Model developed by the UK Food 
Standards Agency. 

(further 

On-demand services: 
BAI  has  approved 
to 
statutory instrument 258/2010)  self-
regulatory Code of Conduct for On-
demand  Audiovisual  Media  Service 
Providers 

NO RULES  
but intention to contact The 
Advertising Ethics Commission 
The Code for the Protection of 
Minors (S.L 350.05) provides legal 
basis in line with Article 9 (2) of the 
AVMSD particularly with Articles 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembou
rg 

Malta 

Discussions  on  the  establishment  of  code  of  conduct 
are taking place (Ministry of Health, advertising, food 
and media industry). 
The  regulatory  authority  is  currently  checking  the 
public availability of these codes of conduct. 
Ministry of Culture, the Radio and television 
Commission of Lithuania are currently working in 
cooperation with    Lithuanian Radio and Television 
Association on drafting such a code.  

Article 24(5) of the Electronic Mass Media 
Law requires electronic media providers to 
draw up publicly available codes of conduct 
on AVCC of HFSS foods aimed at children. 

Article 39 of Media Law requires electronic 
media providers to draw up codes of 
conduct on AVCC of HFSS foods aimed at 
children (code in preparation). 
Alia is also entrusted with the task of 
encouragement of codes of conduct in this 
area.  
The Broadcasting Code provides that the 
Media Authority should encourage media 
service providers to develop codes of 
conduct regarding the audiovisual 

302 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4, 8 and 19 .  

Article 4 states “The measures 
provided for in paragraph 3 of this 
Code shall also extend to other 
programmes which are likely to 
impair the physical, mental or moral 
development of minors, except 
where it is ensured, by selecting the 
time of the broadcast or by any 
technical measure, that minors in the 
area of transmission shall not 
normally hear or see such 
broadcasts”. 

Article 8 states that “Advertisements 
shall not include any material that 
may result in harm to minors either 
physically, mentally or morally”.   

Article 19 states that 
“Advertisements for confectionery 
and snack foods shall not suggest 
that such products may be 
substituted for balanced meals.” 

Paragraph 35 of the Third Schedule 
also protects minors in a way that 
prohibits teleshopping windows 
prior or back to back to children’s 
programmes, “Teleshopping 
windows may not be broadcast 
immediately before or after a 
teleshopping aimed at children”.  

commercial communications of HFSS 
foods targeted at children.   
As per Article 31 of Broadcasting Code for 
the Protection of Minors (S.L 350.05)  it 
hints on self regulation but to date media 
service providers have not drafted any self 
regulate policies stating that “The Authority 
shall encourage media service providers to 
develop codes of conduct regarding 
inappropriate audiovisual commercial 
communiation, accompanying or included 
in children’s programmes, of foods and 
beverages containg nutrients and substances 
with a nutritional or physcological effect, in 
particular those such as fat, trans-fatty 
acids, salt/sodium and sugars, excessive 
intakes of which in the overall diet are not 
recommended”. 

Also Article 16 K (g) of the Broadcasting 
Act hints on the inclusion of particular 
advertisements which would cause physical 
or moral detriment to minors.  One can 
consider that the inclusion of HFSS adverts 
in children’s programmes might cause 
physical detriment to minors. Article 16 K 
(g)” audiovisual commercial 
communications shall not cause physical or 
moral detriment to minors. Therefore they 
shall not directly exhort minors to buy or 
hire a product or service by exploiting their 
inexperience or credulity, directly 
encourage them to persuade their parents or 
others to purchase the goods or services 
being advertised, exploit the special trust 

303 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  proposed  legislation  prohibits 
audiovisual 
commercial 
communication  of  a  number  of 
HFSS products thirty minutes before 
during  and  thirty  minutes  after  the 
children’s programme.  
Those  prohibited  products  include: 
soft  drinks,  cordials,  fruit  juices, 
whether  natural  or  concentrated, 
water  with  added  vitamins,  mineral 
water with different flavours, energy 
and  sports  drinks  and  drinks  with 
other 
caffeine 
audiovisual 
commercial 
communication  for  food  and  drink 
containing  a  high  content  of  trans 
fats,  salt  or  sugar,  sweet  syrups, 
chemicals  or  artificial  preservatives 
will  be  prohibited.  This  proposal  is 
included  in  a  recommendation  by 
the  RA  to  be  taken  into  account  in 
the  new  legislation  amending  the 
Code for the Protection of Minors. 

content.  Also 

Such proposal would be in line with 
the Broadcasting Act namely with 
Article 20. (1) The Authority shall, 
in conjunction with the Minister 
draw up, and from time to time 
review, a code giving guidance - 

 (b) as to such other matters 
concerning standards and practice 
for programmes broadcast by the 
Authority or by any person 

minors place in parents, teachers or other 
persons, or unreasonably show minors in 
dangerous situations.” 

304 

 
 
 
 
 
providing broadcasting services in 
Malta, as the Authority may 
consider suitable for 
inclusion in the code; 

and, in considering what other 
matters ought to be included in the 
code, the Authority shall have 
special regard to programmes 
broadcast when children and young 
persons may be expected to be 
watching or listening. 

 As things stand, should anyone be 
willing to take action on such 
content, there are a number of 
provisions in the 
BROADCASTING CODE FOR 
THE 
PROTECTION OF MINORS (S.L 
350.05) which might be used as 
legal basis; Par 3/4 and 8 which 
address the impairment of physical 
development and Par  19 (which 
addresses food advertising but in a 
more generic way) 

Netherlan
ds 

Dutch Advertising Code for Food Products(part of the 
Dutch advertising Code)  prohibits unhealthy  
food advertising to children under 7 years old. 
Enforced by the Advertising Code Authority 
(composed  of advertising and media industry).  
+ other initiatives by broadcasters (Kids Vitaal) and 
food industry (FNLI – Dutch Food Industry Website) 

305 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland 

Portugal 

targeting children up to age of 12 years 
On  29  October  2014  7  major  broadcasters  signed  an 
agreement 
to  which 
(self-regulation)  according 
advertisers  who  want  to  advertise  during  an  around 
programmes  aimed  at  children  under  12  will  be  are 
required  to  submit  declaration  of  compliance  with  the 
nutritional criteria.  

for 

self-regulation  on 

food 
Nutritional  criteria 
advertising  to  children  under  the  age  of  12  of 
December  2013  were  developed  by 
the  Polish 
Federation  of  Food  Industry  (PFPŻ)  and  verified  by 
the Food and Nutrition Institute. They are applied to all 
ads  from  1  January  2015.  It  also  laid  down  the 
categories  of  products  which  cannot  be  advertised  to 
children  under  the  age  of  12,  including:  sugar,  sugar-
based products, soft drinks and others.  

(Civil 

Institute 

for  Self-Discipline 

Polish  Advertising  Council  –  Commission  of  Ethic  in 
advertising  enforces  ICC  framework  for  responsible 
food and beverage marketing communication.    
ICAP 
in 
Commercial  Communication,  the  Portuguese  self-
regulation body for advertising) has a Code of Conduct 
which  promotes  guidelines  on  ethics  of  business 
communication  and  advertising.  It's  Code  of  Self-
Regulation  in  respect  of  commercial  Communications 
in food and beverages to children , set up I may 2010 
was revised and the new version entered into force on 
22 July 2014.  
Also  the  General  Direction  for  Consumers  issued 
recommendations regarding nutrition and health claims 
made about foods. 

 Polish Broadcasting Act establishes that 
programmes for children should not be 
accompanied by commercial 
communications for HFSS foods. 
The Broadcasting Council may issue a 
regulation specifying the products 
concerned and the way those products may 
be included in the programmes so as they 
do not target children. 

306 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Romania 

Slovakia 

Decision by NAC (Regulator) on 
the code regulating audiovisual 
communications provides for the 
obligation placed on radio and TV 
broadcasters to  promote healthy 
lifestyles (healthy diet) in the form 
of warnings broadcast during the 
day (6-22)  

Co-regulation 
The  Romanian  Advertising  Council 
adopted  the  Code  of  Advertising 
Practice that includes framework for 
food  and  beverage 
responsible 
on 
communications 
marketing 
aimed 
advertising 
children. 
commercial 
a 
Where 
communication  violates  the  code 
RAC  notifies  the  NAC  and  other 
relevant  ministries  with  a  view  to 
applying  penalties  in  accordance 
with  the  audiovisual  law  –  public 
summons and administrative fines. 

at 

Agreement  on  diet,  physical  activity  and  health  and 
publicity  targeted  at  children  of  5  November  2009 
made  within 
the  Portuguese 
the  framework  of 
Association of advertisers by 26 agri-food companies.   
The Romanian Advertising Council signed EU Pledge 
and adopted it as the Code of Ethics for food 
advertising aimed at children. 

According to Article 29(8) of the 
Audiovisual Act  av media service 
providers are encouraged to set up relevant 
codes of conduct   

the 

regulating 

audiovisual 

Rules 
commercial 
communication of HFSS are established by the Slovak 
Advertising  Standards  Council  which  is  a  body  of 
ethical  self-regulation  of  advertising  and  which 
adopted  the  Code  of  Ethics  that  regulates  principles 
applicable  to  the  advertisement  of  foods,  however  not 
exclusively targeting children. 
According  to  Article  26  of  the  Code  of  Ethics  the 

307 

 
 
 
 
 
 
focused  on 

food  should  present 
advertisement 
truthfully the characteristics of food, including the size, 
shape, 
look,  used  cover  material,  composition, 
durability,  content,  origin,  production  process  and  the 
benefit for consumer’s nourishment and health as well 
as the food layout and surroundings, in which the food 
is  shown.  Advertisement  focused  on  food  and  soft 
drinks  shall  promote  healthy  and  balanced  diet,  or 
healthy  and  active  life  style.  The  advertiser  shall  pay 
particular attention in order not to present junk food in 
an  advertisement  in  a  way  that  recommends  the 
consumer  over-consumption  of 
food  or 
downplays  or  denies  the  nutritional  or  physiological 
effect of  excessive  consumption of junk food. For the 
purposes of the Code, junk food means the food or soft 
drink  containing  excessive  amount  of  nutrients  and 
substances  with  a  nutritional  or  physiological  effect, 
particularly  fats,  trans  fatty  acids,  sugars,  salt  or 
sodium,  whose  excessive  intake  in  the  overall  diet  is 
not recommended. 
The Code of Ethics also contains a provision according 
to which an advertisement shall not exploit the natural 
credulity of minors and their lack of life experience. 
(Article 47 of the Code of Ethics). 

junk 

Slovenia 

Ministry of health od Republic of Slovenia is drafting 
guidelines on HFSS. Service providers will be able to 
draft codes of conduct in accordance with the 
guidelines. 

 Article 23 of the 
Audiovisual Media Services 
Act, adopted in November 2011 and 
amended in 2015 states: 

Ministry of Health set up an interdepartmental group 
whose role is to prepare measures for limiting the 
advertising of unhealthy foods and evaluate the 
possibility of restricting advertising of those foods. 

Providers must develop codes of 

(1) 
conduct regarding inappropriate audiovisual 
commercial communications, 
accompanying or included in children’s 
programmes, of foods and beverages 

308 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The codes of conduct must be 

containing nutrients and substances with a 
nutritional or physiological effect, in 
particular those such as fats, transfatty 
acids, salt/sodium and sugars, excessive 
intakes of which in the overall diet are not 
recommended, and publish these codes of 
conduct. 
(2) 
formulated in such a way that allows 
children to develop healthy eating habits in 
line with the nutritional guidelines 
published by the minister responsible for 
health. 
(3) 
Providers  must  send  the  ministry 
responsible  for  the  media  a  copy  of  the 
codes  of  conduct  within  15  days  of  their 
adoption,  and  inform  the  ministry  of  any 
amendment  to  the  codes  by  the  same 
deadline. 
The Law on Audiovisual Communication 
(LGCA) provides that the media regulator 
will encourage audiovisual media service 
providers to establish codes of conduct on 
commercial communications of HFSS 
foods to children. 

309 

Spain 

In  2012  a  new  Code  was  signed,  a 
co-regulation,  in  order  to  comply 
with  the  Food  Safety  and  Nutrition 
Law  2011.  The  new  code  extended 
the  scope  of  application  of  the 
PAOS  code  to  Internet  directed  at 
children less than 15 year old. So far 
44  companies,  representing  95%  of 
the  sector's  advertising  investment 
adhered  to  the  Code.  It  does  not 
contain an advertising ban of HFSS 
products  to  children  but  focuses  on 
the  control  of  content  (rather  than 
scheduling).  Its  main  rules  concern 
the  restrictions  on  sales  pressure, 
nutritional 
and 
education 

PAOS code for food advertising to minors (since 
September 2005 , since 2009 agreement between the 
Spanish Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs, the 
television channels, the Federation of Food and 
Beverages Industries and Autocontrol, committing  not 
to broadcast  advertisements non compliant with PAOS 
Code  
Enforcement entrusted to the Spanish Advertising Self-
regulatory body- Autocontrol –possibility to impose 
financial sanctions  

The Law 3/2013 of 4 June creates the National 
Markets and Competition Authority (CNMC), and it 
allocates the supervision of the audiovisual content co-
regulation at this NRA. 

 
 
 
information, 
information about products etc 

presentation 

and 

In  2015  a  new  Code  to  protect 
children has been published 

Sweden 

UK 

Sweden bans TV advertising aimed 
at children   
Linear services: 

A total ban on HFSS foods 
advertising in and around 
children's programmes , on 
dedicated children's channels and 
in programmes of particular 
appeal to children under the age 
of 16  
(Statutory rules by stages since 
2007, final phase January 2009 )  
Administered by ASA on behalf of 
Ofcom.  

also 

that 
require 
rules 
The 
for  HFSS  products 
advertising 
aimed  at  children  outside 
these 
times  should  not  use  techniques 
calculated to be of particular appeal 
to children. New advertising content 
rules  which  apply  to  HFSS  adverts 
targeted  at  children  up  to  primary 
school  (12  years)  age  were  also 
introduced.  The  effectiveness  of 
these  rules,  which  remain  in  force, 

310 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
was  last  reviewed  by  Ofcom  in 
2010. 
Total ban on product placement of 
HFSS foods 

On demand :  
In relation to non-linear audiovisual 
media services, the UK government 
introduced 
requiring 
legislation 
Ofcom or its designated co-regulator 
that  providers 
(ASA) 
comply with the rules of Article 9.2 
AVMSD.  

to  ensure 

In  case  of  non-compliance  with 
ASA adjudication case is referred to 
impose 
Ofcom,  empowered 
sanctions, 
financial 
penalty.  

including 

to 

311 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  16  –  DETAILED  ESTIMATES  OF  SOME  COSTS  RELATED  TO  THE  PROMOTION  OF  EU 
WORKS 

Calculations and assumptions underpinning the estimates of the baseline administrative 
costs 

A1.1  Baseline administrative costs 

A1.1.1  Overall framework 

Baseline administrative costs have been separately calculated for each of the following groups 
for each Member State: 

  Broadcasters; 

  On-demand service providers; and 

  Regulators. 

The following formula was used to calculate the administrative costs: 

Σ P x Q 

For industry: 

  P (for Price) =  Hourly wage rate x Average time spent compiling and reporting 

compliance data to the national regulator (number of hours) 

  Q (for Quantity) = Number of businesses (broadcasters and on-demand service 

providers) 

For regulators: 

  P  =    Hourly  wage  rate  x  {Average  time  spent  on  monitoring  &  verification  of 
compliance data per regulated entity  + Average time spent on reporting to the 
European Commission per regulated entity} 

  Q  =  Number  of  regulated  entities  (broadcasters  and  on-demand  service 

providers) 

A1.1.2 

Inputs and assumptions 

A1.1.2.1  Hourly wage rate 

Data on hourly wage rate was sourced from Eurostat. We used the wage rates for the following 
NACE category: “Education; human health and social work activities; arts, entertainment and 
recreation; other service activities”. As the latest available data is for year 2014, we calculated 
2015 wage rates by applying a growth rate of 2% (the compound annual growth rate in wages 
observed between 2004 and 2015 across the EU) – see Table A1.1. 

Table A1.1 

Total labour costs, euros per hour 

GEO/TIME 
EU 

2014 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

2015 
(estimated) 
25.2 

34.8 

3.9 

8.8 

37.8 

24.7 

34.1 

3.8 

8.6 

37.1 

312 

 
 
 
GEO/TIME 
DE 

2014 

EE 

IE 

GR 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

2015 
(estimated) 
30.7 

8.8 

34.5 

15.4 

22.6 

33.4 

9.8 

32.9 

18.1 
6.5 

6.2 

38.1 

6.0 

14.2 

36.1 

31.2 

9.2 

14.7 

4.2 

16.0 

8.9 

31.6 

33.5 

23.0 

30.1 

8.6 

33.8 

15.1 

22.2 

32.7 

9.6 

32.3 

17.7 
6.4 

6.1 

37.4 

5.9 

13.9 

      35.4  

30.6 

9.0 

14.4 

4.1 

15.7 

8.7 

31.0 

32.8 

22.5 

Source: Eurostat [data extracted on 22.01.2016; last updated on 26.03.2015] 

A1.1.2.2  Average time spent on monitoring and reporting activities 

To derive this variable, we first classified each Member State according to the reporting system 
put in place: 

  SR = self-reporting/ no verification 

 

 

IM = independent monitoring 

IV = independent verification 

Table A1.2 

System put in place to monitor compliance with Articles 16 & 17 (Broadcasters) and 
Article 13 (On-demand) 

Monitoring system (Broadcasters) 

AT 

BE (CFR) 

BE (VLG) 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

SR 
IV 
IV 
IV 
IM 
IV 
SR 
SR 
IM 

Monitoring system (On-
demand) 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 

313 

 
 
 
Monitoring system (Broadcasters) 

ES 

FI 

FR 

UK 

GR 

HU 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

IV 
SR 
IM 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
IV 
IM 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
IV 
IV 
IM 
SR 
SR 
IV 
SR 

Monitoring system (On-
demand) 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 
SR 

The following assumptions were then made regarding the average time spent by the different 
actors on the various monitoring and reporting activities: 

Table A1.3  Working assumptions: average time spent by the different actors on the various monitoring and 

reporting activities (hours) 

Regulators 

Average time spent 
compiling and reporting 
compliance data to the 
national regulator 

Average time spent on 
monitoring & verification of 
compliance data per 
regulated entity 

Average time spent 
on reporting to the 
European 
Commission per 
regulated entity 

Reporting 
system 

Broadcasters 

On-
demand 
service 
providers 

Broadcasters 

On-demand 
service 
providers 

Self-reporting/ no 
verification 

Independent 
monitoring 

31* 

12* 

As monitoring is carried out by an 
independent body, no cost is 
incurred by AVM service providers 

- 

50 

- 

50 

Variable 
time 
(hours 
per 
entity) 

1 

1 

31* 

Independent 
verification 
* the time spent is assumed to be the same as  both systems involve self-reporting by AVM 
service providers. The only difference being that in the latter, independent verification of self-
reported data is carried out. 

12* 

35 

35 

1 

These assumptions were based on: 

Fixed 
time 

20 

20 

20 

314 

 
 
 
  Data collected from regulators and broadcasters; 

  Expert judgement. 

A1.1.2.3  Number of broadcasters and on-demand service providers 

The number of broadcasters subject to AVMSD reporting requirements was derived from the 
following two pieces of information: 

  Data on the number of channels sourced from the EAO Yearbook; and 

  Member States reports on the application of articles 16 & 17, Statistical 

statements. 

Similarly, the number of on-demand service providers subject to AVMSD reporting requirements 
was derived from combining the following pieces of information: 

  Data on the number of on-demand services per Member State sourced from the 

MAVISE database 

The results of our calculations are presented in Table A1.4. 

Table A1.4 

The number broadcasters and on-demand service providers subject to AVMSD reporting 
requirements  

Channels 
(total)1 

Channels 
(actually 
covered by 
MS 
reporting in 
2012) 2 

Broadcasters 
(actually 
covered by 
MS 
reporting in 
2012) 2 

On-
demand 
services  3 

On-demand 
service 
providers 3 

AT 

BE - fr 

BE - nl 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

UK 

GR 

HU 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

74 

32 

62 

127 

36 

188 

428 

43 

13 

248 

57 

507 

1515 

77 

51 

59 

17 

430 

18 

61 

37 

23 

16 

30 

65 

8 

75 

33 

20 

9 

36 

14 

102 

132 

128 

33 

10 

5 

91 

11 

14 

6 

12 

6 

13 

44 

6 

40 

22 

4 

5 

19 

6 

55 

25 

61 

26 

7 

3 

16 

2 

4 

3 

10 
17 

23 

9 

19 

38 

89 

14 

3 

24 

16 

128 

135 

6 

7 

7 

5 

15 

5 

84 

3 

7 
10 

8 

7 

3 

10 

56 

8 

2 

16 

8 

65 

57 

4 

5 

6 

4 

7 

4 

5 

2 

315 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Channels 
(total)1 

Channels 
(actually 
covered by 
MS 
reporting in 
2012) 2 

Broadcasters 
(actually 
covered by 
MS 
reporting in 
2012) 2 

On-
demand 
services  3 

On-demand 
service 
providers 3 

45 

245 

121 

90 

225 

252 

52 

44 

11 

21 

69 

28 

53 

53 

12 

27 

9 

8 

22 

12 

23 

14 

8 

26 

3 

74 

35 

9 

12 

45 

9 

8 

2 

19 

15 

8 

7 

11 

4 

5 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Total EU 

5154 

1135 

501 

852 

365 

(1)  source:  EAO  Yearbook  2014,  TV  channels  by  kind  of  transmission,  available  and 

established in the European countries, December 2013, In units. (p124-125) 

note: Two categories are excluded from the numbers presented here on the basis that they are 
likely to be exempted channels (news / sport channels and below threshold channels in terms of 
audience share - 0.3%): Regional or territorial channels; Local stations and open channels  
(terr. or cable)  

(2)  source:  Member  States  reports  on  the  application  of  articles  16  &  17,  Statistical 

statements 

(3)  source:  MAVISE  database,  List  of  on-demand  AV  services  established  in  the 
country.  Data  extracted  Jan  16.  Presented  statistics  include  the  following  genres 
only: VOD film, VOD TV fiction, VOD film and TV fiction, VOD Animation / Children, 
VOD Generalist, VOD Documentary, VOD Lifestyle and Health 

A1.1.3  Detailed results 

The detailed results of the above analysis are presented in the table below. 

Table A1.5 

Baseline administrative cost estimates, euros 

Cost to industry - 
compiling and reporting 
compliance data to the 
national regulator* 

Member 
State 

Cost to regulator - on 
monitoring & verification 
of compliance data* 

Broadcasters 

On-
demand 

Broadcasters 

On-
demand 

Cost to regulator  - 
reporting to the 
European 
Commission** 
On-
demand 

Broadcasters 

AT 

              11,611  

BE (CFR) 

                 6,469  

BE (VLG) 

              14,017  

BG 

CY 

CZ 

                 5,287  

                        -    

              10,877  

2,622  

4,174  

3,339  

326  

650  

1,053  

375  

                   7,304  

                 15,826  

                   5,969  

                   5,416  

                 12,281  

218  

348  

278  

27  

54  

88  

999  

904  

843  

1,043  

                   1,148  

248  

469  

526  

974  

105  

415  

263  

316 

 
 
 
 
               
                       
                     
                       
                       
               
                     
                       
                   
               
                     
                       
                  
                        
                       
                       
                  
                        
                       
                       
               
                        
                       
                       
Cost to industry - 
compiling and reporting 
compliance data to the 
national regulator* 

Member 
State 

Cost to regulator - on 
monitoring & verification 
of compliance data* 

Broadcasters 

On-
demand 

Broadcasters 

On-
demand 

Cost to regulator  - 
reporting to the 
European 
Commission** 
On-
demand 

Broadcasters 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

UK 

GR 

HU 

HR 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

              20,939  

            20,632  

                 4,692  

                        -    

              13,337  

                 5,881  

3,633  

211  

4,348  

3,036  

675  

151  

                   2,193  

                 15,058  

190  

                        -                 26,016  

                 91,724  

              17,786  

            15,698  

              29,125  

                 4,851  

                 2,125  

                 3,206  

                        -    

                    386  

                 4,730  

                    607  

                 3,956  

                 8,953  

                 6,261  

                        -    

                 2,982  

              14,520  

                 3,971  

                 7,152  

739  

361  

705  

1,655  

2,767  

299  

2,289  

157  

340  

8,231  

1,652  

1,410  

351  

4,416  

769  

532  

574  

940  

156  

69  

                   3,620  

                 26,357  

12  

153  

20  

128  

                 10,109  

                   7,069  

                   8,813  

96  

468  

                   4,484  

231  

1,719  

                   1,289  

303  

18  

362  

253  

2,168  

1,308  

62  

30  

59  

138  

231  

25  

191  

13  

28  

686  

138  

118  

29  

368  

64  

44  

908  

219  

883  

822  

                   2,502  

                   1,033  

                   1,248  

277  

264  

793  

                   1,186  

137  

916  

150  

411  

                   1,011  

386  

470  

180  

                   1,138  

448  

408  

2,333  

1,060  

193  

815  

885  

2,835  

1,767  

370  

150  

255  

827  

890  

149  

954  

144  

312  

1,408  

321  

411  

113  

1,037  

384  

222  

Total EU 

            203,723  

          112,410  

               220,458  

21,479  
*It is understood that in some Member Sates these costs are only incurred during the years the 
Member States have to report to the Commission (i.e. once every 2 years for broadcasters and 
once every 4 years for on-demand service providers). To date no monitoring or reporting of on-
demand service providers has actually taken place. 

9,367  

                 21,373  

** These costs are incurred once every 2 years for broadcasters and once every 4 years for on-
demand service providers 

317 

 
 
                       
                  
                   
               
                       
                     
                       
                   
                  
                        
                       
                       
               
                     
                       
                       
               
                       
                     
                       
                       
                  
                   
                       
                  
                   
                  
                       
                        
                       
                  
                       
                        
                       
                       
                  
                         
                        
                       
                       
               
                     
                       
                       
               
                     
                       
                  
                         
                        
                       
                       
               
                       
                     
                       
                       
                  
                         
                        
                       
                       
                  
                       
                        
                       
                       
               
                     
                   
               
                     
                       
                       
               
                     
                       
                       
                  
                         
                        
                       
                       
               
                       
                     
                   
                  
                        
                       
                       
                  
                       
                        
                       
                       
                  
                 
Calculations and assumptions underpinning the estimates of administrative and 
compliance costs associated with financial levies 

A1.2 

Substantive compliance costs 

A1.2.1  Overall framework 

The substantive compliance costs were calculated as follows: 

Σ N x L X T 

Where  

  N = Number of VOD providers established abroad in Member States likely to 

introduce financial levies  

  L= Levy as a percentage of turnover 

  T = Projected turnover of VOD providers established abroad  in 2017 (the 

earliest year in which levies are likely to be introduced) 

A1.2.2 

Inputs and assumptions  

A1.2.2.1  Number of VOD providers established abroad in Member States likely to introduce financial 

levies  

The data on the number of VOD providers established abroad was extracted from the MAVISE 
database.  

It was then assumed that Member States that currently have a system of financial contributions 
in place are the most likely candidates for applying financial levies in future to VOD providers 
established abroad. The list of included countries is however quite large as it includes all 
countries which have in place some form of provisions regarding financial contribution to 
European works by on-demand AVMS providers and/or distribution platforms (including where 
the scheme is not mandatory – for example, when the obligation can be met via respecting a 
share of catalogue). In addition, the list is not limited to the film fund option, it includes countries 
e.g. in Spain, where the obligation takes the form of direct investment obligations.  

Table A1.6 

Number of VOD providers established abroad and the likelihood of Member State introducing 
financial levy 

Member 
State 

AT 

BE (CFB) (2) 

BE (DSG) (2) 

BE (VLG) (2) 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

VOD providers 
established 
abroad [1] 

Is the MS likely to 
introduce financial 
levies? [2] 

35 

31 

30 

31 

5 

18 

4 

35 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

318 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

VOD providers 
established 
abroad [1] 

Is the MS likely to 
introduce financial 
levies? [2] 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GB 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

18 

7 

28 

28 

45 

33 

20 

3 

11 

31 

28 

7 

21 

7 

18 

11 

15 

21 

7 

9 

21 

8 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

[1]  source: MAVISE database, List of on-demand AV services available in the country but not established in the 
country. Data extracted Feb 17. Presented statistics include the following genres only: VOD film, VOD TV fiction, 
VOD film and TV fiction, VOD Animation / Children, VOD Generalist, VOD General Interest programmes, VOD 
Documentary, VOD short movies, VOD Lifestyle and Health. 

[2] source: EAO (2015) The development of the European market for on-demand audiovisual services. Table 84  
Summary of mandatory financial contributions by providers of on-demand audiovisual services and/or providers of 
audiovisual services in EU countries (2014)     

A1.2.2.2  Levy as a percentage of turnover  

It was assumed that the financial levy will, on average, be set at 2%. This is based on the 
current rate of mandatory financial contributions by providers of on-demand audiovisual services 
and/or providers of audiovisual services in EU countries which averages at 2% - Table A1.7. 

Table A1.7  Mandatory financial contributions by providers of on-demand audiovisual services and/or 

providers of audiovisual services in EU countries  

Member 
State 

BE (French) 

BE (Dutch) 

CZ 

Rate of levy 

1.4 to 2.2% of turnover, depending on size turnover (for providers of 
broadcasting and/or VoD services; to a film fund or direct investment) 
€3 million a year or €1.3 per subscriber (for service distributors; ; to a film 
fund or direct investment) 
1% of total revenues (for on-demand providers, via direct investment, 
optional – otherwise share of catalogue) 

319 

 
 
Member 
State 
DE 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

Rate of levy 

1.8 to 2.3% of turnover (for on-demand providers, via a fund) 

5 % of revenues (for on-demand providers and distributors, via direct 
investment) 
2% of revenues (for on-demand providers, via a fund) + 15% to 26% of net 
turnover (direct investment) 
0.5 % of their annual gross income (for on-demand providers and 
distributors, via a fund)  
5 % of revenues (for on-demand providers, via direct investment, 
optional – otherwise share of catalogue) 

1.5% of revenues (for distributors, via a fund) 

1% of revenues of VoD services + 4% on the advertising price  + € 1 for 
each individual subscription paid to on-demand broadcasters (via direct 
investment) 
1% (for on-demand providers, via direct investment, optional – otherwise 
share of catalogue) 

Source: EAO (2015) The development of the European market for on-demand audiovisual services. Table 84  
Summary of mandatory financial contributions by providers of on-demand audiovisual services and/or providers of 
audiovisual services in EU countries (2014)     

A1.2.2.3  Projected turnover of VOD providers established abroad  in 2017  

2017 revenue projections for non-demand services were based on: 

  Actual data on on-demand consumer revenues by Member State for the period 

2010-2014 compiled by the EAO; 

  Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) over the period 2010-2014 calculated 

by ICF; and 

  Expected future growth by market based on historical growth rates, stakeholder 

interviews, EAO reports and expert judgement. 

The results of the calculations are provided below. 

Table A1.8 

Past and future trends: on-demand consumer revenues 

Total on-demand consumer revenues (€ 
million)  [1] 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

5.3 
36 
0 
0.4 
0.4 
83.5 
11.5 
1 
1.2 
54.9 
0.8 
209.3 
0 
0.8 
11.9 
117.4 
0.3 
0.3 

7.5 
46.2 
0.2 
0.5 
1.1 
108.1 
16.7 
1.6 
1 
47.3 
2.2 
243.3 
0.1 
1.5 
14.1 
120.1 
0.4 
0.4 

10.6 
65 
1 
0.8 
3.9 
166.6 
26.2 
2.3 
1.7 
38.1 
4.3 
287.3 
0.3 
3.1 
19.3 
121 
0.6 
0.8 

13.7 
84.9 
1.9 
0.9 
7.7 
248 
52 
2.6 
2.7 
43.3 
16 
298.8 
0.7 
4.7 
26.1 
111.1 
0.8 
1 

16.8 
99.9 
2.6 
1.1 
11.8 
315.2 
95.8 
3.2 
4 
62.5 
40 
330.5 
0.8 
6.3 
34.7 
117.8 
1 
16.2 

Per 
capita 
spend 
2014 
1.975 
8.916 
0.359 
1.282 
1.122 
3.903 
17.024 
2.432 
0.366 
1.344 
7.338 
5.020 
0.188 
0.638 
7.534 
1.938 
0.340 
29.472 

MS 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
GR 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 

CAGR 
(2010-
2014) 

YoY 
Growth 
(2014/1
3) 

Recent 
trend 

Project
ed 
growth 

26% 
23% 
90% 
22% 
97% 
30% 
53% 
26% 
27% 
3% 
119% 
10% 
68% 
51% 
24% 
0% 
27% 
122% 

23%  Stable 
18%  Stable 
37%  Strong 
22%  Stable 
53%  Strong 
27%  Stable 
84%  Strong 
23%  Stable 
48%  Strong 
44%  Strong 
150%  Explosive 
11%  Stable 
14%  Stable 
34%  Stable 
33%  Stable 
6%  Stable 
25%  Stable 
1520%  Explosive 

Strong 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Strong 
Stable 
Strong 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Strong 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Stable 
Strong 
Explosive 
Stable 

320 

 
 
Recent 
trend 

YoY 
Growth 
(2014/1
3) 

MS 

Total on-demand consumer revenues (€ 
million)  [1] 

LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EU 

0.2 
0 
20 
17.1 
16.8 
0.1 
29.5 
0.8 
0.7 
298.8 
919 

1.4 
0.4 
140.8 
54.2 
34.6 
10.8 
154.6 
5.5 
6.2 
932.4 
2501 
[1] source: IHS cited in Refit exercice: contribution of data and information by the European Audiovisual Observatory. 
Note B.2: market revenues and investments  - VoD revenues. Draft October 2015.  

8%  Stable 
33%  Stable 
86%  Strong 
24%  Stable 
20%  Stable 
83%  Strong 
55%  Strong 
38%  Stable 
44%  Strong 
46%  Strong 
37% 

0.9 
0.2 
57.1 
42 
24.4 
2.2 
55.9 
3 
2.6 
464.4 
1406 

1.3 
0.3 
75.9 
43.8 
28.9 
5.9 
99.6 
4 
4.3 
640 
1821 

0.4 
0 
31.2 
25.3 
19.2 
0.1 
39.7 
1.2 
1.1 
307 
1038 

Per 
capita 
spend 
0.699 
2014 
0.940 
8.366 
1.426 
3.318 
0.541 
16.029 
2.668 
1.145 
14.499 
5.029 

CAGR 
(2010-
2014) 
48% 
26% 
48% 
26% 
16% 
155% 
39% 
47% 
55% 
26% 
22% 

Project
ed 
growth 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Strong 
Explosive 
Strong 
Explosive 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Stable 

Key: 

Stable growth  

Strong growth  

Explosive growth  

22% 

51% 

116% 

Additional pieces of evidence used for triangulation: 

  Estimated CAGR for German VoD market assuming arrival of one big SvoD 

player: 22% [source: EAO (2015) The development of the European market for 
on-demand audiovisual services] 

  According to a market forecast elevision and video-on-demand services will hit 

$1,633 million (1,266 million euros) by the end of the year (2014) and eventually 
$5,502 million (4,266 million euros) by 2020, with the UK leading the market 
and Germany not too far behind:. This translates into CAGR of 22% [source: 
European Online TV & Video Forecasts produced by DigitalTV Research] 

Table A1.9 

Revenue projects for 2016 and 2017: on-demand consumer revenues 

Country 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
GR 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 

Expected future growth 
trend 
Strong 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Strong 
Stable 
Strong 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Strong 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Stable 
Strong 
Explosive 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Strong 

2016 

25.4 
122.0 
5.6 
2.4 
25.5 
476.1 
117.0 
4.8 
8.7 
135.3 
60.4 
403.8 
1.7 
13.6 
42.4 
177.9 
2.2 
19.8 
3.0 
0.9 
212.7 

2017 

38.3 
149.1 
12.2 
5.2 
55.3 
719.2 
143.0 
7.3 
18.7 
292.9 
91.3 
493.3 
3.7 
29.5 
51.8 
268.8 
4.7 
24.2 
6.6 
1.9 
321.3 

321 

 
 
  
  
 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
ICF calculations 

Explosive 
Strong 
Explosive 
Stable 
Explosive 
Explosive 
Stable 

117.3 
52.3 
23.4 
188.9 
11.9 
13.4 
1139.1 

254.0 
78.9 
50.6 
230.7 
25.8 
29.1 
1391.6 

Market share of VOD players established abroad was then assumed to be in the range of 
10 – 25% based on expert judgement and the data for France (the only country for which 
this data is available).  

A1.2.3  Detailed results 

The detailed results of the above analysis are presented below. 

Table A1.10 

Substantive compliance costs – financial levies 

Member 
State 

VOD 
providers 
established 
abroad  

Is the MS 
likely to 
introduce 
financial 
levies?  

Levy as 
% of 
turnover  

Projecte
d 
turnover 
- on 
demand: 
€ million  
(2017) 

Projected turnover -
VOD providers 
established abroad € 
million 

LOWER 
BOUND 
(10% 
market 
share) 

UPPER 
BOUND 
(25% 
market 
share) 

Substantive 
compliance costs € 
million 

LOWER 
BOUND 

UPPER 
BOUND 

149.10  

14.91  

37.28  

0.30  

          0.75  

55.31 

719.18 

5.53 

71.92 

13.83 

179.79 

0.11 

1.44 

0.28 

3.60 

292.94 

29.29 

73.23 

0.59 

1.46 

493.28 

49.33 

123.32 

0.99 

2.47 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

3.75 

0.37 

0.94 

0.01 

0.02 

2% 

268.78 

26.88 

67.19 

0.54 

1.34 

322 

AT 
BE (CFB) 
(2) 
BE (DSG) 
(2) 
BE (VLG) 
(2) 
BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

ES 

FI 

FR 

GB 

GR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

35 

31 

30 

31 

5 

18 

4 

35 

18 

7 

28 

28 

45 

33 

20 

3 

11 

31 

28 

7 

21 

7 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

 
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
              
                    
                    
              
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

18 

11 

15 

21 

7 

9 

21 

8 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

2% 

2% 

254.04 

78.95 

25.40 

7.89 

63.51 

19.74 

0.51 

0.16 

1.27 

0.39 

2% 

25.78 

2.58 

6.44 

0.05 

0.13 

TOTAL 

    2,341.09  

234.11  

              585.27  

4.68  

     11.71  

A1.3  Administrative costs 

A1.3.1  Overall framework 

The following formula was used to calculate the administrative costs: 

Σ P x Q 

For industry: 

  P (for Price) =  Hourly wage rate x Average time spent compiling and reporting 

compliance data to the national regulator (number of hours) 

  Q (for Quantity) = Number of VOD providers established abroad 

For regulators: 

  P  =    Hourly  wage  rate  x  {Average  time  spent  on  monitoring  &  verification  of 
compliance data per regulated entity  + Average time spent on reporting to the 
European Commission per regulated entity} 

  Q = Number of VOD providers established abroad 

A1.3.2 

Inputs and assumptions 

The inputs and assumptions used for the above calculations are summarised below. 

Table A1.11  Overview of the inputs and assumptions used for calculating administrative costs of financial 

levies 

Inputs/ assumptions 

Source 

Hourly wage rate  

Average time spent compiling and reporting 
compliance data to the national regulator  

Average time spent on monitoring & verification of 
compliance data per regulated entity  and  reporting to 
the European Commission  
Number of VOD providers established abroad 

Eurostat – see Table A1.1 in Error! Reference source 
not found. 
35 – 50 hours per VOD provider  (assumption based 
on data collected from regulators and broadcasters and 
expert judgement) 

14 – 21 hours per VOD provider (assumption based on  
expert judgement) 

MAVISE database – see Table A1.6 

A1.3.3  Detailed results 

 The detailed results of the above analysis are presented below. 

Table A1.12  Administrative costs – financial levies 

Member 

Region 

Hourly 

Industry 

Regulator 

323 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
              
           
State 

wages 
€ 

LOWER 
BOUND 

UPPER 

BOUND 

LOWER 

BOUND 

UPPER 

BOUND 

BE 

BE 

BE 

CZ 

DE 

ES 

FR 

HR 

IT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

fr (2) 

de (2)  

nl (2) 

38.11 

38.11 

38.11 

8.91 

32.54 

22.92 

34.51 

9.68 

34.92 

9.49 

14.62 

15.87 

35 hours 
          41,353  

50 hours 
       59,076  

14 hours 
       16,541  

21 hours 
       24,812  

          40,019  

       57,171  

       16,008  

       24,012  

          41,353  

       59,076  

       16,541  

       24,812  

            1,247  

          1,781  

             499  

             748  

       39,859 

       56,941  

       15,944  

       23,915  

          22,459  

       32,084  

          8,984  

       13,475  

          54,359  

       77,656  

       21,744  

       32,616  

            1,017  

          1,452  

             407  

             610  

          34,221  

       48,888  

       13,689  

       20,533  

            4,983  

          7,119  

          1,993  

          2,990  

          10,747  

       15,354  

          4,299  

          6,448  

       11,665  

    16,664  

       4,666  

       6,999  

 TOTAL 

        303,284  

     433,262  

     121,313  

     181,970  

324 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  17  -  SECOND  REPORT  ON  THE  APPLICATION  OF  ARTICLES  16  AND  17  OF  DIRECTIVE 
2010/13/EU FOR THE PERIOD 2011-2012 

EUROPEAN   
COMMISSION   

Brussels,  XXX     
[…] (2015)  XXX   draft   

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

Second Report on the Application of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU for the  
period 2011 - 2012   

Promotion of European works in EU scheduled  

 audiovisual media  

- 

services   

325 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
    
  
1. INTRODUCTION 

This Report is drawn up pursuant to Article 16 (3) of Directive 2010/13/EU (hereafter referred to 
as ‘AVMS Directive’) 691. The present Report reflects on the coordination of certain provisions 
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision 
of audiovisual media services. Through this document the Commission reports on the application 
of Articles 16 and 17692 of the AVMS Directive for the period 2011-2012. The Report is based 
on the Member States' statistical statements on the achievement of the proportions referred to in 
these Articles for each of the television programmes falling within their jurisdiction. The Report 
also  presents  the  Commission's  opinion  on  the  application  of  these  provisions,  including  the 
main conclusions to be drawn from the Member States' reports. 

The  purpose  of  this  biennial  Report  is  twofold.  First,  pursuant  to  Article  16  (3)  it  informs  the 
Member  States,  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Secondly, it aims to verify whether the measures 
adopted by the Member States in order to promote European works and independent productions 
in EU television services have been properly applied.    

Like the first Report on the application of Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMS Directive, this Report 
does  not  cover  the  EEA  countries693
 because  of  the  delay  in  transposing  the  AVMS  Directive 
into  the  EEA  'acquis'.  Therefore  these  countries  were  not  invited  to  submit  their  data  for  this 
Report. 

It is for the first time that Croatia provided data for this Report. Given the fact that Croatia has 
joined the EU on 1 January 2013, the EU average has been still calculated on the basis of the 27 
Member  States  that  have  been  Member  States  of  the  EU  during  the  reporting  period. 
Nevertheless, the Staff Working Paper accompanying this Report reproduces the Croatian data.   

While  previous  reports  have  also  looked  into  differences  in  trends  between  "new  Member 
States"694 and  Member  States  who  joined  the  EU  at  an  earlier  stage695 at  this  point  it  seemed 
opportune to abandon that differentiation. Instead, this report focuses on other trends present on 
the level of the entire EU-average. 

2. COMMISSION'S OPINION ON THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLES 16 AND 17  

2.1. General remarks 

2.1.1. Articles 16 and 17 in the context of the European audiovisual landscape 

The  European  audiovisual  market  continued  to  grow  over  the  period  2011-2012.  Figures  from 
the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory  show  an  increasing  trend  of  available  channels. 
According  to  the  European  Audiovisual  Observatory,  in  December  2012  there  were  8  272 
television channels  in EU-27 —  of which 2 961 were  local channels  —  compared  to  7 622 in 
2010. This represents an 8.5 % increase over two years, which is lower than the one registered 
between 2008 and 2010 (25.6%).  

691 
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 (Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive). This codified version replaces Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC and Directive 2007/65/EC. 
692 
693 
694  
695  

Former Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 89/552/EEC 
Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein 
Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 (EU-12) 
Member States which joined the EU up to 1995 (EU-15) 

326 

 
 
 
                                                 
At  the  same  time  a  decrease  was  registered  in  the  total  number  of  channels  covered696 by  the 
reports of the Member States compared to the previous period. The number of channels covered 
went  from  1,313  in  2009  and  1,390  in  2010  to  1036  in  2011  and  1091  for  2012  for  European 
works. 697 This  represents  a  13%  drop  between  2009  and  2012,  with  a  slight  growth  of  5% 
between  2011  and  2012.  This  trend  can  be  explained  by  a  change  in  the  methodology,  which 
provides  the possibility to  exempt  channels with a very low audience share from the reporting 
obligation (see explanation under 2.1.2.1.below).  

2.1.2. Methods of implementation and monitoring by Member States 

2.1.2.1. Possible exemption from the reporting obligation of channels with a very low audience 
share 

In 2011 the Commission decided to give channels with a very low audience share (below 0.3%) 
the possibility to request an individual exemption from their reporting obligation under Articles 
16 and 17. The underlying reason behind this exemption was the flexible wording of Articles 16 
and 17 ('where practicable') and the emergence of new and small channels. This exemption only 
concerns the reporting obligation, and not the obligation to comply with the obligatory shares set 
out  in  the  Directive,  and  can  be  granted  by  the  competent  national  authorities.  The  'Revised 
Guidelines for Monitoring the Application of Articles 16 and 17 of the AVMS' of July 2011'698 
sets out the detailed conditions for granting such exemptions 

The previous reporting period already reflected the effects of this change in methodology. This 
mainly  manifested  in  a  decrease  in  the  number  of  covered  channels.  However,  Member  States 
had only limited time to change their methodology as regards the previous report. Therefore this 
report should be considered as the first to show the effects of the broad implementation of the 
revised guidelines.  

Several national authorities reported that they have granted such exemptions during the reference 
period. 12 Member States have reported that such individual exemptions have been granted on 
the  basis  of  a  very  low  audience  share  (below  0.3%):  Croatia,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Germany, 
Finland, The Netherlands, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Poland, United Kingdom. The number of 
exempted  channels  varies  considerably  among  Member  States:  while  some  Member  States699 
only reported about 4 such exemptions, this number was 270 in Denmark, 266 in the Netherlands 
and  338  in  the  United  Kingdom.  Future  reports  would  benefit  from  more  consistency  in  the 
reporting on the exemptions, including a clear indication of the underlying grounds. 

Overall, the number of national reports providing data for all covered channels increased slightly 
in comparison with the previous period. 17 out of 28 national reports provided statistical data on 
European works for all channels in 2011 and 16 in 2012 (15 in 2009 and 2010). For independent 
productions, 15 and 14 national reports provided data for all channels respectively in 2011 and 
2012 (14 and 15 in 2009 and 2010). The report has identified some difficulties in collecting data 
on recent independent productions: most national reports (17 out of 27) failed to provide data on 
recent independent productions for all channels.  

2.1.2.2. Monitoring 

696 
'Covered'  channels:  total  number  of  channels  identified  minus  the  number  of  non-operational  channels  and  the  number  of  channels 
exempted from their reporting obligation (see paragraph 2.1.2.1.) and of exempt  (due to the nature of their programmes) or excluded channels 
(due to legal exceptions) - see Indicator 1 in Staff Working Document - Part III – Annex 1  
697 
for 2012. For recent independent productions this was 1,310 in 2009,  1,386  in 2010,  1,035 in 2011 and 1,092  in 2012.  
698 
avms 
699  

For independent productions, the number of covered channels went from 1,311 in 2009 and 1,387 in 2010 to 1,036 in 2011 and 1,093 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/revised-guidelines-monitoring-application-articles-16-and-17-audiovisual-media-services-

Germany and Poland 

327 

 
 
 
                                                 
As already stated in previous Reports, there is no uniform monitoring methodology in the EU. 
This  varies  substantially  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  In  most  Member  States  the 
competent authorities obtain the data directly from the broadcasters.  In the majority of cases the 
data  provided  to  the  Commission  are  based  on  full  monitoring  data  of  all  broadcasted 
programmes for the entire reporting period. However, four Member States supplied data based 
on  samples  (French  Community  of  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Ireland  and  the  Netherlands).  Other 
Member  States  combine  different  methods  (Luxembourg,  Flemish  Community  of  Belgium), 
such as collecting full data for some channels and using estimation and/or sampling for others. 
Some national reports indicate the use of specific software for the collection and transmission of 
data. 

Providing full data about the reporting period is preferable in view of guaranteeing that the report 
provides  an  exact  picture  of  the  situation  on  EU-level.  Nevertheless,  sampling  monitoring 
methods  can  be  used  when  in  accordance  with  the  revised  guidelines.  When  the  monitoring 
method  is  based  on  samples,  it  needs  to  be ensured  that the data  used  is  representative  for  the 
entire period.  

Most  Member  States  do  not  have  verification  systems  in  place  for  data  collected  from 
broadcasters. Noting the lack of such systematic verification, the Commission's previous report 
asked national authorities to put in place systems ensuring the verification of data provided by 
the broadcasters.  

Several Member States have indicated that they carry out a certain verification of the data e.g. if 
they  detect  inconsistent  information,  but  only  few  Member  States  ensure  a  systematic 
verification. One of the most common verification methods is the double-checking of a sample 
of the data transmitted by broadcasters (e.g. one week per year) against monitoring data of the 
authority  or  against  published  program  schedules.  Some  Member  States  mention  using  the 
services of independent research companies for verification.  

A  truthful  picture  on  the  application  of  Articles  16  and  17  requires  that  national  monitoring 
mechanisms  include  appropriate,  systematic  and  specific  verification  systems  of  the  data 
provided by broadcasters.   

2.1.2.3 Divergent methods of implementation by Member States 

The Commission has identified other elements of divergence in the application of Article 17 by 
Member States. The minimum proportion of independent works to be achieved under Article 17 
can either relate to the channel's transmission time or to their programming budget. Only France 
and  Italy  have  implemented  this  Article  by  laying  down  an  investment  obligation  instead  of 
compliance based on transmission time. This obligation varies in France also depending on the 
type of channel.700 Due to the lack of comparability of data and to ensure consistency, the data 
from France and Italy has not been taken into account for the calculation of the EU average of 
transmission time regarding independent productions and recent independent productions. 

700  
According to the French national report the French regulation contains stricter and more complex rules than the ones set out in Article 
17.  French legislation imposes an obligation on television channels to finance independent productions. Obligations to invest in audiovisual and 
cinematographic production are expressed as percentages of turnover or resources and not on the basis of the programming budget. The French 
regulation also distinguishes between audiovisual works and cinematographic works and imposes specific obligations on both of these categories.  
The French definition of an "audiovisual work" is more restrictive than the definition used by the Directive. it excludes, in particular, programmes 
which are primarily filmed on set as well as variety programmes (and cinematographic works, for which special obligations exist). In addition, 
the French regulations on financing obligations distinguish further between "heritage" and other audiovisual works. Heritage works include the 
following genres: fiction, animation, creative documentaries, including those which are incorporated into a programme other than TV news or 
entertainment programmes, music videos and broadcasting or re-creation of live performances. Additionally, certain broadcasters have to comply 
with stricter obligations since they may only declare investments in certain types of productions.  

328 

 
 
 
                                                 
Divergences in implementation exist also in other areas, as a result of the margin of flexibility 
permitted by the Directive. National reports show for example that several Member States grant 
exemptions for certain types of channels (e.g. for new channels or for channels with a specific 
thematic  profile).  These  exemptions  vary  among  Member  States,  from  providing  a  full 
exemption  from  the  obligation  to  lowering  the  obligatory  percentages  for  these  channels 
permanently or for a certain period.  

These differences in implementation make it difficult to measure national data in a comparable 
way.  Nonetheless,  the  data  included  in  this  report  is  a  good  basis  to  draw  certain  conclusions 
from the national reports on the application of Articles 16 and 17 at EU level. 

2.2. Application of Article 16 

This  section  provides  an  analysis  of  compliance  with  the  obligation  to  broadcast,  where 
practicable, a majority of European works as set out in Article 16 of the Directive701. 

The EU average transmission time dedicated to European works by all reported channels in the 
EU-27 was 64.1% both in 2011 and 2012. This indicates in general a stable level of European 
works with a very minor increase compared to 2009 (63.8%).  

2009-2012: 0.3 percentage point increase (63.8% in 2009 64.1% in 2012) 

2011-2012: no change (64.1% both in 2011 and 2012) 

Trends in the transmission time reserved for European works over the period 2009-2012 in each 
Member State have been reproduced in charts in the accompanying Staff Working Paper.702 
EU-average  compliance  rates 703  regarding  European  works  were  fairly  stable  over  the 
reporting period with 69.1% in 2011 and 68.6% in 2012. These rates are also stable, with a slight 
decrease of 0.3 percentage point, compared to the previous reporting period (68.8% in 2009 and 
69.6%  in  2010).  Compliance  rates  do  not  merely  reflect  the  channels'  achievement  of  the 
European  works  proportions  set  out  in  Article  16,  but  also  the  level  of  communicated/non 
communicated data.  

Two  Member  States  encountered  difficulties  in  reaching  the  required  proportion  of  European 
works over the whole reference period. One additional Member State was slightly above the 50% 
average in 2011 but fell slightly below that mark in 2012. Two Member States which registered 
averages  below  50%  during  the  previous  period  were  able  to  reach  the  required  proportion  of 
European works in this reporting period. At the same time one Member State that already failed 
to  reach  the  50%  average  in  the  previous  reporting  period  did  not  reach  the  required  level  of 
European works in the current reporting period either. Member States concerned are invited to 
examine the reasons behind difficulties to reach the required percentages and look at methods to 
address the situation in efficient ways.  

2.3. Application of Article 17 

This section presents the results achieved at European level as regards European  works made 
by independent producers (hereinafter "independent productions") set out in Article 17704. This 

According to Article 16 broadcasters shall reserve for European works a majority proportion of their transmission time, excluding the 

701  
time allotted to news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping. 
702 
See Staff Working Paper – Part II – Section 2 
703  
The compliance rate is obtained by determining the number of channels achieving the required proportions under Articles 16 and 17 
and comparing these figures with the number of channels covered by Articles 16 and 17. The channels for which no data were communicated are 
considered non-compliant for the purpose of this indicator. 
704  
Article 17 establishes the obligation for broadcasters to reserve at least 10% of their transmission time, excluding the time allotted to 
news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping, or alternately, at the discretion of the Member State, at least 10 % of 
their programming budget, for European works created by producers who are independent of broadcasters.  

329 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
section  also  reports  on  the  broadcast  of  recent  European  works  by  independent  producers 
(hereinafter "recent independent productions")705. 

The EU-average  proportion reserved for  independent  productions by all  reported channels in 
all  Member  States  was  33.1%  in  2011  and  34.1%  in  2012.  When  compared  to  the  previous 
reporting period, the overall level stayed stable (34.1% both in 2009 and 2012). At the same time 
there is a slight fluctuation within the years (34,1% in 2009, 33,8% in 2010, 33,1% in 2011 and 
34,1% in 2012). 

           2009-2012: no change (34.1%  in 2009, 34.1% in 2012) 

2011-2012: 1 percentage point increase (33.1% in 2011, 34.1% in 2012)            

At  Member  State  level,  the  average  share  of  transmission  time  devoted  to  independent 
productions varied significantly, from 20.7% to 55.6% in 2011 and 20.5% to 60.8% in 2012. As 
in the previous period, during the current reporting period all Member States achieved the 10% 
proportion of independent productions. 20 Member States posted results above 25% of the total 
qualifying transmission time. 

EU-average compliance rates706 regarding independent productions were 80% for 2011 and 
82% for 2012. This indicates a relatively stable trend when compared to the previous reporting 
period, with some minor fluctuations within the years (the compliance rate was 80,4% in 2009 
and 81,9% in 2010).  

The  EU  average  transmission  time  dedicated  to  recent  independent  productions  was  62%  in 
2011 and 62.2% in 2012. Overall results regarding recent independent productions show a stable 
level  maintained  during  the  reference  period  and  a  slight  downward  trend  as  compared  to  the 
previous reporting period (64.3% in 2009). 

2009-2012: 2.1 percentage points decrease (64.3% in 2009, 62.2% in 2012) 

2011-2012: 0.2 percentage point increase (62% in 2011, 62.2% in 2012) 

2.4 Reasons for non-compliance 

National  reports  from  Member  States  gave  similar  reasons  for  non-compliance  with  the 
proportions required under Articles 16 and 17 of the Directive as in previous reference periods. 
Like  in  the  previous  report,  a  substantial  number  of  national  reports  referred  to  financial 
difficulties  related  to  the  economic  crisis  and  the  declining  advertising  market.  It  appears  that 
such  difficulties  may  have  been  among  the  reasons  behind  the  slight  decrease  of  some  of  the 
indicators in the current reporting period, when compared to previous reports.  

Another often repeated argument was the difficulty for specialized channels to comply with the 
obligatory  shares.  This  would  be  due  to  the  lack  of  availability  of  European  works  in  specific 

705  
i.e.  works  broadcast  within  five  years  of  their  production.  The  proportion  of  recent  independent  productions  is  obtained  by 
determining  the  average  transmission  time  reserved  for  independent  productions  on  each  channel  covered  by  Article  17  for  which  data  were 
communicated (‘reported channels’) when comparing that figure with the transmission time reserved for all independent productions. 
706 

See footnote 11 

330 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
programmes.  The  higher  cost  of  European  productions  compared  to  US  productions  was  also 
often mentioned. This was often combined with the argument that such productions are often less 
attractive to the audience than US productions.  

The  current  chapter  summarizes  the  main  reasons  most  frequently  mentioned  in  the  national 
reports.  

  Recently launched channels  

Some  national  reports  indicated  that  recently  launched  channels  found  it  difficult  to  meet  the 
obligations set out in Articles 16 and 17 from the start of their operations.  

The Directive leaves open the possibility of progressively building up to the required proportions 
of European works707.  Also Article 16(3) allows the Commission to take into consideration the 
particular  circumstances  of  new  broadcasters.  At  the  same  time  efforts  should  be  made  to 
achieve  the  required  proportions  as  soon  as  possible.  For  instance,  a  clear  obligation  for  a 
progressive increase could be considered for new channels which have been granted exceptions. 
This could be done for example by imposing a timeline to achieve the required proportion. 

  Small channels 

Certain  Member  States  mentioned  that  the  required  shares  are  difficult  to  reach  for  small 
channels  with  a  low  audience  share  and  for  small  local  channels.  One  Member  State  also 
mentioned  that  this  would  be  particularly  difficult  in  the  present  market  situation  given  the 
negative impacts of the economic crisis. 

As  set  out  in  Article  18,  the  obligations  on  Articles  16  and  17  do  not  apply  to  television 
broadcasts that are intended for local audiences and do not form part of a national network. As 
regards  channels  with  a  low  audience  share  (below  0.3%),  as  set  out  in  point  2.1.2.1,  national 
authorities  can  grant  these  channels  individual  exemptions  from  the  reporting  obligation. 
However,  as  already  pointed  out,  such  individual  exemptions  only  concern  the  reporting 
obligation and not the obligation to comply with the mandatory shares set down by the Directive. 

  Problems with the acquisition of European programmes 

Furthermore, a number of national reports indicated the current economic environment has made 
it  difficult  and  expensive  to  produce  national  programmes  and  to  acquire  European  and 
independent  productions.  This  was  pointed  out  in  particular  in  comparison  to  US  productions 
that  have  more  competitive  prices  and  are  often  more  attractive  for  the  audience.  Several 
broadcasters  state  that  to  broadcast  a  majority  of  European  works  puts  them  at  a  competitive 
disadvantage. 

Some  broadcasters  explained  that  they  were  interested  in  EU  content  but  could  not  afford  to 
match  the  prices  of  companies  with  larger  market  shares.  Others  pointed  to  the  difficulties  to 
purchase such content because of exclusivities or unfavourable contractual terms. 

  Thematic channels  

707 See in particular Recital 67 of the Directive 

331 

 
 
                                                 
Many  national  reports  pointed  out  that  channels  specialising  in  one  genre,  or  targeting  a  very 
specific audience, find it difficult to reach the required proportions of European and independent 
works. Like in the previous report, Member States mentioned this issue in particular as regards 
channels broadcasting a large proportion of news and sports events. Not surprisingly, channels 
specializing  in  non-European  content  e.g.  Hollywood  movies,  South-American  TV-series  or 
Japanese anime were also encountering such difficulties. Member States often granted individual 
exemptions  for  such  channels.  Member  States  also  granted  exemptions  regarding  recent 
independent productions for channels specializing in archive content or cinematographic works 
from the past.  

It appears that there is an increasing number of very specialized channels in various genres e.g. 
cooking, lifestyle, human interest, crime, interior design, health, entertainment news, or specific 
audiences  e.g.  children,  young  public.  Several  Member  States  reported  that  such  specialized 
channels have difficulties to find appropriate European content because of the lack of availability 
of such specialized content.  

  Difficult economic conditions during the reference period 

As mentioned, a number of national reports point at the general economic and financial problems 
in  Europe,  arising  from  the  economic  crisis,  and  at  the  difficult  market  conditions  (recession, 
declining advertising market, unstable economic situation, deteriorating business environment). 
They point to the unstable financial situation of some channels that make it difficult for them to 
comply with the obligatory shares. Some national reports also pointed to the specific difficulties 
of small Member States. 

2.5. Measures adopted or planned to remedy cases of non-compliance 

Here again the situation differs from one Member State to another. Many Member States do not 
apply specific sanctions to penalise broadcasters who fail to report and/or comply with Articles 
16 and 17. In most cases authorities are in contact with non-compliant broadcasters drawing their 
attention  to  the  need  to  achieve  the  required  proportions  of  European/independent  works. 
Broadcasters are usually required to explain the reasons for the failure to reach. Some Member 
States  issue  warnings  or  infringement  notices  pointing  to  future  possible  steps  in  case  of 
continued  non-compliance.  One  Member  State  mentioned  setting  intermediate  targets  for  non-
compliant broadcasters. 

Most Member States do not apply specific sanctions to penalise broadcasters who fail to report 
and/or  comply  with  Articles  16  and  17.  Only  few  Member  States  indicated  the  possibility  to 
apply penalties or similar sanctions in the case of non-compliance. One Member State mentioned 
to  have  applied  a  penalty  during  the  reporting  period  but  pointed  to  a  gradual  sanctioning 
practice.  Some national authorities pointed to  a lack of applicable sanctions  or  did not  refer to 
any measures undertaken in the case of non-compliance. 

National reports mentioned other measures to improve the situation, such as: communicating the 
results  of  the  last  report  to  all  TV  channels  for  self-regulation  purposes,  adopting 
recommendations  for  the  monitoring  and  with  more  detailed  methods  of  classification  of 
European  works,  cooperating  with  the  state,  public  and  private  enterprises  in  co-financing 
projects and organising a workshop for broadcasters and producers to discuss the collected data.  

3. CONCLUSION 

332 

 
 
Regarding Article 16, the  data provided by the Member States showed relative stability during 
the reference period as well as compared to the previous reporting period. The 64.1% average of 
European works achieved in 2011 and 2012, well above the obligatory majority proportion set 
out in Article 16, reflects a generally sound application of this provision throughout the EU.  

Member  States  also  met  comfortably  the  requirement  regarding  the  share  of  independent 
productions  set  down  in  Article  17.  With  33,1%  in  2011  and  34.1%  in  2012  the  average  of 
independent productions was significantly above the required 10% laid down by Article 17. At 
the  same  time  the  share  of  independent  productions  differs  significantly  among  Member 
States.708   

The EU average share of recent independent productions was 60.6% in 2011 and 61.1% in 2012. 
Despite a slight decrease when compared to the previous reference period, with 62.1% in 2009 
and 61.8% in 2010, this proportion is generally satisfactory.  

This report shows that the provisions of Articles 16 and 17 are overall correctly implemented by 
Member  States.  Current  rules  on  promotion  of  European  works  have  led  to  strong  shares  of 
transmission of European works, independent productions and recent independent productions.  

However, some issues call for attention.  

Monitoring  methods  of  compliance  vary  greatly  among  Member  States.  Also,  not  all  Member 
States  have  put  in  place  verification  systems  of  the  data  provided  by  broadcasters.  As  regards 
exemptions granted to  certain channels, the overall consistency of future reports would  benefit 
from further indication on the underlying grounds of the exemptions. 

The  Commission  has  examined  these  issues  thoroughly  in  the  context  of  the  REFIT  exercise.

333 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Development of Main Indicators from 2009-2012 

70,0%

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%

63,8% 

64,3% 

64,3% 

64,0% 

64,1% 

62,0% 

64,1% 

62,2% 

34,1% 

33,9% 

33,1% 

34,1% 

2009

IND2: European Works

2011
2010
IND4: Independent producers

2012

IND6: Recent works

334 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 18 - EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S NON-REGULATORY INITIATIVES ON A SAFER INTERNET 
FOR MINORS  

The Commission is providing coordination and leadership at the EU level through a regulatory 
framework  as  well  as  financial  support  to  online  safety  activities  in  the  Member  States.  The 
Commission is also seen by stakeholders as forerunner internationally in providing a safer online 
environment for minors709. 

2.1 Coordination 
The European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children710 from 2012 set up an overarching 
coordination  and  cooperation  agenda  combining  protection  and  encouraging  creativity  and 
positive use of the internet to help children and young people to grow and shape their world in a 
safe, creative way and to become resilient from risks.  

While acknowledging that children are a particularly vulnerable group online that needs special 
empowerment  and  protection  measures,  the  strategy  provides  a  coherent  framework,  based 
around  legislation,  self-regulation  and  financial  support,  involving  the  Commission,  Member 
States, industry, civil society, researchers and youth themselves. 

So  far  the  Commission  has  made  progress  in  promoting  positive  content,  awareness  raising, 
self-regulation and fighting against child sexual abuse material (child pornography). 

The Commission has stimulated  the  production and a wider availability  of positive content  for 
children through national and European competitions711. In addition, the Commission has set up 
and  funded  POSCON,  the  first  European  network  of  experts  in  this  field,  which  has  provided 
checklists  and  best  practices  on  how  to  produce  positive  content,  a  repository  of  over  1.300 
existing online relevant services in 28 countries (eg games, blogs, social networks for children, 
apps, children’s browsers, search engines), an overview of existing financing models for positive 
content.  Nevertheless,  in  some  EU  languages  only  few  positive  resources  for  children  are 
available.  
Positive online experience by  teenagers has been stimulated through the Youth Manifesto712, a 
crowd-sourced  initiative  to  select  the  top  ten  principles  which  reflect  the  digital  rights  that 
Europe’s  young  people  view  as  most  essential  for  building  a  better  internet.  The  Youth 
Manifesto,  already  downloaded  more  than  30,000  times,  is  being  consulted  also  by  countries 
beyond Europe, namely Brazil, United States, India and Uganda. 

The  Commission  has  set  up  the  pan-European  network  INSAFE  to  carry  out  in  the  Member 
States campaigns to empower children, young people, parents, carers and teachers with the skills, 
knowledge and strategies to stay safe online and take advantage of the opportunities that internet 
and  mobile  technology  provides.  In  2014,  INSAFE  developed  1380  new  resources,  reaching 
more than 22.5 million people and worked with approximately 12,000 youth in 30 countries (all 
MSs, plus Norway and Iceland)713. 

The  INSAFE  network  includes  helplines  to  provide  information,  advice  and  assistance  to 
children,  youth  and  parents  on  how  to  deal  with  harmful  content,  harmful  contact  (such  as 
grooming) and harmful conduct such as (cyberbullying or sexting).  

709 Final evaluation of the multi-annual Community programme Safer Internet 
710 COM(2012) 196 final 
711 http://www.bestcontentaward.eu/ 
712 http://www.youthmanifesto.eu/ 
713 Annual report INSAFE/INHOPE 2014: 
 http://www.inhope.org/Libraries/Annual_reports/Joint_Insafe_INHOPE_Annual_Report_2014.sflb.ashx 

335 

 
 
                                                 
The Commission has also been influential in relation to international activities. European Safer 
Internet activities are often considered good practice internationally, and have been taken up in 
Latin America, the US and Asia-Pacific. As an illustration, the Safer Internet Day, coordinated 
by INSAFE, is an international yearly event to raise awareness of child online safety. It is now 
celebrated  in  over  100  countries  in  6  continents.  In  2015,  more  than  28  million  people  were 
reached in EU. The campaign is also a huge success on social media. On Twitter, over 60 million 
people  were  reached  worldwide  with  the  #SID2015  hashtag  throughout  the  SID  campaign 
period. Over 10,000 fans supported the SID campaign on Facebook. 

Through  INHOPE,  the  international  network  of  hotlines  for  combating  illegal  online  content, 
especially child sexual abuse material the Commission is contributing to process more than one 
million reports every year. While in 2011 60% of the reported abuse content was removed within 
1  to  3  days,  93%  was  removed  in  the  same  time  limit  in  2014.714 The  hotline  network  has 
become  global  and  now  stretches  over  all  continents.  The  focus  of  the  network  has  extended 
from mere reporting and forwarding to the police to a network which helps monitor performance 
in notice and takedown of the material.  

INSAFE and INHOPE  takes  part  as  well  in  international  fora  such  as  the  Internet Governance 
Forum (IGF). – At the last IGF, INSAFE organised a workshop "Beyond the tipping point: SID 
in the global South"715 with the aim to promote SID in developing countries where a sizeable and 
rising  portion  of  the  projected  growth  in  Internet  users  will  include  children.  The  aspects 
discussed  were  framed  within  the  broader  context  of  ongoing  digital  children’s  rights 
discussions.  Typically,  in  the  context  of  Internet  governance  children's  rights  give  little 
consideration  and  when  children  are  acknowledged  it  is  related  to  child  protection  while  their 
rights to provision and participation are overlooked. 

The Commission has set up and supported the multinational research network EU Kids Online 
to  enhance  the  knowledge  of  European  children's  online  opportunities,  risks  and  safety.  The 
network  has  provided  a  unique  pan-European  study  interviewing  a  sample  of  over  25.000 
children aged 9-16, plus one of their parents, in 25 European countries.716 

Last but not least, in 2015 the Commission has provided a "Mapping of Safer Internet policies 
in  Member  States"  which  includes  an  analysis  of  how  Better  Internet  for  Kids  -  related 
challenges  are  addressed  in  policies  and  initiatives  across  Europe  as  well  as  a  sustainable 
benchmarking tool.717  

2.2 Funding  
The  Telecom/Digital  Service  Infrastructure  funded  under  CEF 718  allows  the  deployment  of 
services  that  help  make  the  Internet  a  trusted  environment  for  children  by  providing  a  core 
platform  for  the  delivery  of  services  that  are  accessed  and  delivered  either  at  EU  level  or  via 
interoperable national  Safer  Internet Centres.  Through the core platform Safer Internet Centres 
are sharing resources and good practices and providing services to their users, including citizens 
and industry.719 Safer Internet Centres provide information, awareness campaigns and resources, 
support  helplines  for  children  who  encounter  problems  online,  and  hotlines  for  reporting  child 
sexual abuse material. 

The  Commission  coordinates  the  core  platform  which  provides  a  single  entry  point  to  online 
tools,  resources  and  services  for  the  Safer  Internet  community  to  collaborate  on  resource 

714 ttp://www.inhope.org/Libraries/Statistics_Infographics_2014/INHOPE_stats_infographics_for_2014.sflb.ashx  
715 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals 
716 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60512/1/EU%20Kids%20onlinie%20III%20.pdf 
717 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-better-internet-kids-policies-member-states 
718 Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  guidelines  for  trans-European  telecommunications  networks  and  repealing 
Decision No1336/97/EC 
719 https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/ 

336 

 
 
                                                 
development  and  assess  and  exchange  good  practices,  materials  and  services  in  support  of 
awareness  raising  and  teaching  online  safety.  The  platform  also  provides  back  office  reporting 
facilities for helplines and hotlines including secure environments for gathering and sharing data 
of  child  sexual  abuse  content  to  enhance  hotlines'  capacity  to  identify  and  remove  the  illegal 
content  as  well  as  a  point  of  access  for  finding  information,  guidance  and  resources  on  issues 
related to children's use of ICT. 

The  Safer  Internet  infrastructure  will  be  co-funded  under  the  CEF  framework  until  2020  but 
continued support will be needed for promoting online safety also beyond 2020. 

Regulatory instruments need to be complemented by self-regulatory measures to provide a safer 
online environment for children tackling the wide range of emerging risks that young users face 
as consumers and creators of digital services and content.  

Building on earlier sectoral agreements, brokered by the Commission, such as the Pan-European 
Games Information (PEGI) (2003), the European Framework for Safer Mobile Use (2007), the 
Safer Social Networking Principles (2009), in December 2011, the Commission set up the CEO 
Coalition to make the internet a better place for children.  

This was a cooperative, voluntary endeavour among global and European leaders of the whole 
digital  industry  value  chain  (such  as  Microsoft,  Apple,  Google,  Facebook,  Deutsche  Telecom, 
Samsung, RTL) to respond to emerging challenges arising from the diverse ways in which young 
Europeans go online. 31 companies coming from the software industry, social networks, media 
platforms, broadcasters, device manufacturers, games providers, and  telecoms operators signed 
the Coalition Statement of Purpose. 

The signatories committed to take positive actions to make the internet a safer place for kids in 
five  areas:  Simple  and  robust  reporting  tools,  age-appropriate  privacy  settings,  wider  use  of 
content classification, wider use and availability of parental controls, effective takedown of child 
sexual abuse material.  

The  most  significant  achievements  have  been  the  acceleration  of  the  roll-out  of  parental  tools 
(particularly  among  the  device  manufacturers  who  were  originally  resistant  to  this)  and  the 
considerable efforts on content rating (for example, Google adopted PEGI ratings for all apps in 
Google play720). Other topics (notably the detection of child sexual abuse material and privacy 
settings) were much more controversial as regards the collective solutions that could be agreed 
and results did not match up fully to original expectations. However, individual companies did 
engage  in  further  initiatives  such  as  Google  and  Facebook's  use  of  PhotoDNA  to  prevent  re-
uploading of known child abuse images. 

The  CEO  coalition  raised  quite  significant  support  and  visibility,  leveraged  tangible  effects  in 
organisations and fostered collaboration across the whole-industrial value chain.  

720 http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/1068/nid/50 

337 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 19 – CALCULATION OF THE 20% SHARE OF EUROPEAN WORKS  

According to the study on-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 
developments), the average share of EU films in 75 big EU VoD catalogues was 27 % in 2015 
and 30% in 16 big SVoD catalogues. However, there are great disparities among catalogues of 
pan-European VOD providers (from almost 0% to to 70%) and among Member States (from an 
average of less than 10% to an average of almost 60%). 

The median average share of European works in VoD catalogues offered in the EU-28 Member 
States is 24% i.e. that the average share is equal or lower to 24% in 14 Member States. Among 
this 14 Member States, 12 Member States are below 20% and only 2 between 20% and 24%. The 
following figure gives an insight into the availability of EU works in each MS: 

The figure below provides an overview of the availability of EU films from the point of view of 
the major pan-European on-demand services (EU 28 row): 

338 

00,10,20,30,40,50,6SIFRBEHRITPLSEATESDEDKNLCZLUFIIEGBROBGMTSKGRLVCYHUPTEELTAverage share of EU works in VoD/SVoD cataloguesWeighted average share of EU works 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By  setting  a  20%  share  of  European  works  in  on-demand  services  catalogues,  the  AVMSD 
would secure: 

- 
- 

a minimum level of diversity across Europe;   
a safety net below which share of EU works in catalogues should not fall. This approach  
would mitigate the risk of on-demand services not rolling their services in some MS. It 
would also take into consideration the uncertainties resulting from the absence of data on 
non feature works. 

-  Countries will preserve the opportunity to set higher standards. 

Moreover, a mandatory exemption applies for small and micro-companies and thematic or low 
audience services. 

339 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 20 – DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE OPTIONS 

INSUFFICIENT MINORS AND CONSUMERS PROTECTION IN VIDEO-SHARING PLATFORMS 

Status quo 
The  AVMSD  does  not  apply  to  UGC  in 
video-sharing  platforms  (e.g.  YouTube). 
Video-sharing  platforms  are  covered  by 
the  ECD,  which  warrants  them  limited 
liability  for  illegal  content  under  certain 
conditions. 

to 

television 
The  AVMSD  applies 
broadcasts  and  on-demand  audiovisual 
media  services  for  which  providers  have 
editorial responsibility. To be covered by 
the Directive: 
(i)  services  must  have  as  their  principal 
purpose  the  provision  of  programmes  to 
inform,  entertain  or  educate  the  general 
public and  
(ii) programmes should be comparable, in 
form  and  content,  to  television  ("TV-
like"). 
Most  recently,  the  ECJ  has  clarified  the 
"TV  likeness"  and  "principal  purpose" 
requirements  in  the  "New  Media  Online 
GmbH" case721. 

removing 

Option A 
1)  The  AVMSD  scope  would  be  adapted  to 
cover all audiovisual content under the editorial 
responsibility  of  a  provider  including  short 
video clips placed by providers. This would be 
like" 
achieved  by 
requirement.  In  addition,  it  would  be  clarified 
that  the  AVMSD  would  also  cover  other  type 
of content such as stand-alone video sections in 
newspapers'  websites.  This  would  be  achieved 
by codifying the interpretation of the “principal 
purpose” criterion in the light of the ECJ recent 
case-law  in  the  case  of  "New  Media  Online 
GmbH".  

"TV 

the 

2)  Member  States  and  the  Commission  would 
encourage  video-sharing  platforms  to  adopt 
self-regulatory  measures  to  restrict  access  to 
content harmful to minors or inciting to hatred. 
Video-sharing  platforms  would  be  defined  as 
those that exercise a degree of control, short of 
editorial responsibility, over the presentation of 
audiovisual  content  (including  UGC),  and 
the 
whose  principal  business  purpose 
provision  of  audiovisual  services 722 .  This 

is 

Option B 
1) The "TV like" requirement would be removed 
and the ECJ recent case-law in the case of "New 
Media  Online  GmbH"  would  be  codified  as 
under Option A. 

2)  Member  States  would  have  to  ensure  that 
video-sharing platforms put in place appropriate 
measures to: 

-  Protect  minors  from  harmful  content; 
access to which would have to be restricted;  
-  Protect 
content 
citizens 
all 
containing incitement to hatred.  

from 

Video-sharing  platforms  would  be  defined  as 
those  that  exercise  a  degree  of  control,  short  of 
editorial  responsibility,  over  the  presentation  of 
audiovisual content (including UGC), and whose 
principal  business  purpose  is  the  provision  of 
audiovisual  services 723.  This  degree  of  control 
would include automatic means (such as tagging 
and  sequencing  a  large  amount  of  audiovisual 
content), 
including  algorithms.  This  would 
exclude  services  such  as  mere  hosting,  caching, 
cloud  computing,  mere  conduit,  search  engines 
and  business  services,  which  are  subject  to  the 

721 Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015, New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat, Case C-347/14 (hereinafter, "New media Online GmbH" case). 
722 As defined by Articles 56 and 57 TFEU. 
723 As defined by Articles 56 and 57 TFEU. 

340 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
degree  of  control  would  include  automatic 
means (such as tagging and sequencing a large 
amount  of  audiovisual  content), 
including 
algorithms.  This  would  exclude  services  such 
as  mere  hosting,  caching,  cloud  computing, 
mere  conduit,  search  engines  and  business 
services, which are subject to the ECD. 

The  notions  of  content  harmful  to  minors  and 
incitement  to  hatred  would  be  the  same  as  the 
ones  applying  to  audiovisual  media  services 
under the AVMSD.  

The Commission would play a facilitating role 
in  encouraging  the  development  of  European 
codes  of  conduct  by  providing  examples  of 
measures  that  could  be  adopted  by  video-
sharing platforms (these could include some of 
the examples of on-going initiatives mentioned 
in ANNEX 8 and 18).  

The  general  provisions  on  self-  and  co-
regulation  (Article  4(7))  would  be  reinforced 
the 
indicating  new  benchmarks 
by 
effectiveness of existing and new codes.  

for 

ECD.  

The  notions  of  content  harmful  to  minors  and 
incitement  to  hatred  would  be  the  same  as  the 
ones  applying  to  audiovisual  media  services 
under the AVMSD. The terms and conditions of 
the platforms would have to be brought in line if 
necessary  with  these  notions  and  other  relevant 
rules of the Directive. 

Member  States  should  not  impose  on  providers 
any  general  obligation  to  monitor  content  ex 
ante.  

(e.g.  age-verification 

Member  States  would  require  video-sharing 
platforms  to  develop  co-regulation  providing 
mechanisms 
systems, 
to 
content  description,  age  rating  systems) 
achieve  these  objectives.  These  mechanisms 
would  have  to  be  chosen  by  the  industry  which 
would be subject to an obligation of means (i.e. 
to  use  all  reasonable  means  to  achieve  the 
desired 
results).  The  AVMSD  would  not 
mandate  adoption  of  specific  technologies  or 
tools. The terms and conditions of the platforms 
should  contain  an  appropriate reference to  these 
mechanisms. 

This  would  be  a  maximum  harmonization 
provision  under  which  Member  States  shall  not 
be able to impose more detailed or stricter rules 
on video-sharing platforms. 

The  Commission  and  ERGA  would  facilitate 

341 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exchanges  of  best  practices  on  co-regulatory 
systems across the EU. If considered appropriate, 
the  Commission  would 
the 
development  of  EU  codes  on  which  ERGA 
might be requested to give an opinion.  

facilitate 

A  complaint  mechanism  for  consumers  and 
minors  should  also  be  foreseen  at  national  level 
in case of non-compliance. Any sanction should 
be  proportionate  and  take  into  account  as 
mitigating  factor  the  fact  that  video  sharing 
platforms lack proper editorial responsibility. 

For  the  specific  purpose  of  this  provision,  a 
video-sharing  platform  would  be  under  the 
jurisdiction of the Member State in which it, its 
parent  company,  one  of  its  subsidiaries  or  an 
entity  within  the  same  group  is  established 
within  the  meaning  of  Articles  49  to  55  of  the 
Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union. 

Option B 
For  TV  broadcasters  the  status  quo  would  be 
maintained.  

For  on-demand  service  providers,  Member 

PROMOTION OF EUROPEAN WORKS 

Status quo 
Under  the  AVMSD,  TV  broadcasters 
reserve  a 
must,  where  practicable, 
majority proportion of their transmission 
time  to  European  works  and  at  least  10 

Option A 
Member  States  would  allow  TV  broadcasters 
their 
either 
broadcasting  time  to  European  works  or  to 
invest  at  least  50% 724  of  their  programming 

the  majority  of 

reserve 

to 

724 Public  service  media  organizations  in  Europe  invest  around  EUR  16.6  billion  in  content  (Source  EBU-MIS  based  on  Member  States'  data.)  and  EUR  15  billion  are invested, per  year,  in  content  by  Europe’s  largest  commercial 
broadcasters (http://www.acte.be/) i.e. 31 million in total. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.1 A the investment of the main TV groups in 15 countries in original content, deemed to be European, amounted to EUR 15.7 billion in 2013.  By 
setting a share at 50 % at least, we align the situation across the EU on the average.  

342 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
%  of  their  transmission  time  or  of  their 
programming budget to European works 
created  by  independent  producers.  An 
adequate  proportion  of  this  quota  has  to 
be  reserved 
independent 
to  "recent" 
works. 

On-demand  service  providers,  where 
practicable, must promote the production 
of  and  access  to  European  works.  The 
Directive  gives  the  following  examples 
of  how  this  can  be  done  but  leaves  the 
to  Member 
the  measures 
choice  of 
States:  i)  financial  contribution  to  the 
production  and  rights  acquisition  of 
European works; ii) a share of European 
works  in  the  catalogues;  and/or  iii) 
prominence  of  European  works  in  the 
catalogues.  

budget  in  European  works.  Providers  would  be 
obliged to choose at least one option. 

In  addition,  Member  States  would  allow  on-
demand  services  to  promote  European  works 
either through a share of European works, their 
prominence  in  the  catalogues  or  through  a 
financial  contribution.  On-demand 
service 
providers  would  be  obliged  to  choose  at  least 
one  option.  It  will  be  up  to  Member  States  to 
decide  on  the  level  of  requirement  for  each 
measure. 

States  should  require  them  to  secure  at  least  a 
20%  share 725  of  European  works  in  their 
catalogue  and  give  prominence  to  those  works. 
In addition, on-demand service providers would 
be required to report to the Commission on their 
compliance with these obligations. 

A Member State would be allowed to require a 
contribution (e.g. levies and/or direct investment 
in  content 726)    to  the  production  of  European 
content from video on-demand service providers 
established in other Member States if:  

- 
- 

- 

they target consumers in its territory,  
the  contribution  applies  only  to  the 
revenues generated in that Member State 
and 
these revenues are not already subject to 
an 
the 
Member States of establishment.  

contribution 

equivalent 

in 

Member  States  would  be  required  to  introduce 
exceptions  for  low  audience  and  thematic  on-
demand service providers or for small and micro 
enterprises727. 

PROTECTION OF MINORS IN ON-DEMAND SERVICES 

725 According  the  EAO  study  on  on-demand  Audiovisual  Markets  in  the  European  Union  (2014  and  2015  developments),  the  average  share  of  EU  films  in  75  big  EU  VoD  catalogues  was  27  %  in  2015  and  30%  in  16  big  SVoD 
catalogues. In order to take into account SMEs which may have less European works in their catalogues, the share is set to 20%. 
726 Levies are  contributions that companies exploiting audiovisual content must pay to audiovisual Funds. The Funds use the contributions to finance funding  measures. Direct  investment is  a investment from companies exploiting 
audiovisual content into audiovisual content production.  
727 This could be done on the basis of the current Contact Committee Guidelines. 

343 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Status quo 
TV  broadcasts  must  not  include  seriously  harmful  programmes 
(pornography  and  strong  violence).  They  may  include  potentially 
harmful  programmes  (erotic  content  and  mild  violence),  but  should 
do  it  in  a  way  which  prevents  minors  from  hearing  or  seeing  them. 
On-demand  service  providers  are  also  required  to  take  appropriate 
measures  so  that  minors  would  not  normally  hear  or  see  seriously 
harmful  content.  There  are  no  restrictions  for  potentially  harmful 
content for on-demand services. 

Option A 
The rules on protection of minors applicable to on-demand audiovisual 
media  services  would  be  strengthened  by  requiring  them  to  restrict 
access  to  any  kind  of  "harmful  content"  (gratuitous  violence, 
pornography  erotic  and  mildly  violent  content)  728 .  The  same  rule 
would apply to TV broadacsters.  
The  most  harmful  content,  such  as  gratuitous  violence  and 
pornography, shall be subject to the strictest measures providing a high 
degree of control, such as age verification pin codes or even by a "by 
default" mechanism that would not make this type of content available 
except when activated by an adult.  

In  addition  Member  States  would  have  to  ensure  that  all  audiovisual 
media  service  providers  provide  sufficient  information  to  consumers 
about  the  possible  harmful  nature  of  the  content  in  programmes  by 
means of co-regulatory systems 729.  

The  Commission  and  ERGA  would  facilitate  exchanges  of  best 
practices  on  co-regulatory  systems  across  the  EU.  If  considered 
appropriate,  the  Commission  would  facilitate  the  development  of  EU 
codes on which ERGA might be requested to give an opinion.  

The general provisions on self- and co-regulation (Article 4(7)) would 
be  reinforced  by  indicating  new  benchmarks  for  the  effectiveness  of 
the existing and new codes.  

728 Article 12 AVMSD: "Member  States shall take appropriate  measures to ensure that on-demand audiovisual media services provided by  media service providers under their jurisdiction which  might seriously impair the physical, 
mental or moral development of minors are only made available in such a way as to ensure that minors will not normally hear or see such on-demand audiovisual media services". 
729 The  actual  age rating systems will  continue to be defined at  Member State level,  according to the different national sensitivities but it will be  complemented by  content descriptors  (words or symbol) which provide guidance to 
consumers on the harmful nature of the content (for example bad language, sex, violence, drugs, discrimination, etc.). Age rating systems as such would not be harmonised.  

344 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Option B 
Option  B  would  entail  (i)  simplifying  the  criteria  to  determine 
jurisdiction;  (ii)  ensuring  transparency  and  legal  certainty  via  the 
implementation  of  a  database  of  service  providers  under  Member 
States  jurisdiction;  and  (iii)  revising  the  cooperation  procedures  to 
make them more effective. 
In case of disagreement over which Member State has jurisdiction (in 
particular  when  applying  the  cooperation  procedures  foreseen  by  the 
Directive), the Commission would settle the matter after requesting an 
opinion from ERGA.  

The same derogation procedure and grounds for derogating from COO 
would  apply  to  TV  broadcasting  and  on-demand  services  (i.e. 
incitement  to  hatred,  protection  of  minors  and  public  security).  The 
urgency  procedure  currently  available  for  on-demand  services  only 
would  also  apply  to  TV  broadcasting  services.  The  cooperation 
procedure  would  clarify  the  right  to  be  heard  of  audiovisual  media 
service  providers  in  relation  to  measures  restricting  their  freedom  to 
broadcast. 

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN PRINCIPLE 

Member State jurisdiction 

Status quo 

Jurisdiction  can  be  based  on  the  providers'  (i)  establishment  in  a 
Member  State  or  (ii)  use  of  a  satellite  up-link/satellite  capacity 
situated in/appertaining to a Member State. 

Establishment: 
The  Directive  foresees  that  a  provider  is  established  in  the  Member 
State where it has its head office and editorial decisions are taken. 
If these two places do not coincide, the provider shall be deemed to 
be  established  in  the  Member  State  where  a  significant  part  of  its 
workforce operates.  
If a significant part of its workforce operates in both Member States, 
the provider is deemed to be established in the Member State where 
its head office is located. 
If  a  significant  part  of  its  workforce  operates  in  neither  of  these 
Member  States,  the  provider  is  deemed  to  be  established  in  the 
Member  State  where  it  first  began  its  activity,  provided  that  it 
maintains  a  stable  and  effective  link  with  the  economy  of  that 
Member State. 
If a provider has its head office in a Member State but decisions on 
the audiovisual media service are taken in a third country, or the other 
way round, it shall be deemed to be established in the Member State, 
provided that a significant part of the workforce operates there. 
Use of a satellite up-link/satellite capacity: 
Providers are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of a Member State 
if they use a satellite up-link situated in that Member State. If they do 
not use a satellite up-link in a Member State, they will still be under 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  Member  State  if  they  use  satellite  capacity 

345 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
appertaining to that Member State. 

Permissible  restrictions  of  the  reception  and  retransmission  of 
services freely circulating within the EU 

Regarding broadcasting, any such restrictions are limited to cases of 
incitement to hatred and infringement of the provisions on protection 
of  minors. For  on-demand  services,  there  is  a  longer  list  of  grounds 
justifying restrictions. This list includes public policy, public security, 
including  the  safeguarding  of  national  security  and  defence,  the 
protection  of  public  health  and  the  protection  of  consumers.  The 
relevant  procedure  includes  a  first  cooperation  phase  where  the 
Member  State  concerned  contacts  the  transmitting  Member  State  to 
try to produce an amicable settlement. If no amicable settlement has 
been produced and the receiving Member State decides to restrict the 
freedom  of  reception,  it  needs  to  notify  the  measures  taken  to  the 
Commission.  The  Commission  then  has  to  take  a  decision  whether 
the notified measures are compatible with Union law. This is the so-
called "derogation procedure". 
Member  States  may  adopt  stricter  or  more  detailed  rules  in  an  area 
coordinated by the Directive. If a Member State has chosen to do so 
and  encounters  issues  with  a  television  broadcast  mostly  or  wholly 
directed  towards  its  territory,  it  can  use  the  'circumvention 
procedure'.  That  procedure  entitles  the  receiving  Member  States  to 
adopt  appropriate  measures  against  the  broadcaster  concerned, 
provided,  among  other  things,  that  the  broadcaster  in  question  has 
established itself in the Member State of jurisdiction in order to avoid 
stricter  rules  which  would  otherwise  be  applicable  to  it.  Before  a 
receiving  Member  State  may  adopt  restrictive  measures  to  counter 
circumvention,  it  needs  to  notify  the  sending  Member  State  and  the 
Commission of its intention to do so. The Commission then needs to 
take  a  decision  whether  the  notified  measures  are  compatible  with 
Union law. This is the so-called "circumvention procedure". 

346 

 
 
 
 
Application of derogation procedure 

In  2015,  Lithuania  notified  to  the  Commission  measures  to  restrict 
the  retransmission  of  a  Russian  language  channel,  broadcast  from 
Sweden,  on  the  basis  of  instances  of  incitement  to  hatred.  The 
Directive is silent as regards the procedure to be followed at national 
level  and  does  not  provide  many  details  about  the  procedure  before 
the  Commission.  This  prompted  the  need  for  Lithuania  to  readopt  a 
national  decision  and  send  a  supplementary  notification  to  the 
Commission. In July 2015, the Commission decided that the notified 
measures are compatible with EU law.730  

The  Lithuanian  case  also  brought  to  the  fore  uncertainties  and 
disagreements  with  Sweden  about  what  Member  State  had 
jurisdiction over  the  Russian  language  channel.   Similar  jurisdiction 
the  Commission's  earlier  decisions  on 
issues  have  arisen 
notifications  regarding  serious  infringements  of  the  provisions  on 
protection of minors (Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television, Extasi TV). 

in 

These difficulties in applying the derogation procedure prompted the 
Commission services in August 2015 to provide the members of the 
AVMSD  Contact  Committee  and  ERGA  with  clarifications  on  that 
procedure. Some months later, similar procedural difficulties arose in 
the  context  of  a  new  notification. 731  In  view  of  these  issues,  the 
Commission  services  have  drafted  a  more  comprehensive  document 
regarding  the  application  of  the  derogation  procedure  as  well  as  the 
circumvention  procedure.  This  document  will  be  presented  to  and 
discussed by the Contact Committee at its December 2015 meeting. 

730 C(2015) 4609 final. 
731 In October 2015, Latvia notified the Commission of two alleged instances of incitement to hatred in a Russian language channel broadcast from Sweden and informed the Commission that it is seeking an amicable settlement with 
Sweden. On the basis of the information submitted by the Latvian authorities, there were again doubts regarding respect of the broadcaster's right to be heard to which the Commission services drew the Lithuanian authorities' attention. 

347 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Application of circumvention procedure 

The 2nd Application report on the AVMSD reports a circumvention 
case  regarding  alcohol  advertising  in  Sweden.  In  December  2014, 
Sweden  notified  the  Commission  of  envisaged  measures  (fines)  in 
relation to two broadcasters broadcasting to Sweden from the UK for 
rules  on  alcohol 
alleged  circumvention  of  stricter  Swedish 
advertising.  Sweden  subsequently  withdrew 
the  notification. 
Procedural issues also arose in this case. In particular, the notification 
lacked full details describing the procedure at national level in order 
to  adopt  restrictive  measures 732.  Again,  the  notification  raised  the 
issue whether the broadcasters' right to be heard had been respected. 

Derogation procedure under the eCommerce Directive 

The derogation provision concerning non-linear services is modelled 
on  a  similar  provision  in  the  eCommerce  Directive  which  contains 
the same grounds of derogations as the AVMSD. It emerges from the 
Staff Working Document accompanying the 2012 Communication on 
eCommerce733 that,  contrary  to  what  might  have  been  expected,  the 
derogation  appears  to  have  been  used  very  rarely.  Thus,  in  the  last 
decade, the Commission services have received only 30 notifications, 
mainly dealing with measures to protect consumers. The Commission 
never  declared  a  measure  incompatible  with  EU  law.  Since  2013 
relevant  notifications  under  the  eCommerce  Directive  are  submitted 
through  IMI  (Internal  Market  Information  System),  which  is  an 
interface  connecting  national  administration  with  the  Commission 
and  among  themselves.  Since  then  the  number  of  notifications 
appears to have increased slightly. 

732 This included both the procedure before the national regulator as well as the procedure before the court to which the regulator needs to apply for fines. 
733 http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/communication2012/SEC2011_1641_en.pdf 

348 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
in 

The  Court  of  Justice  has  held  that  the  principles  contained  in  the 
the  eCommerce  Directive  must  be 
derogation  procedure 
interpreted  in  the  same  manner  as  those  governing  the  Internal 
Market freedom provisions of the Treaty.734 The same considerations 
would  in  all  probability  also  apply  to  the  AVMSD.  Hence,  the 
grounds of derogation would need to be interpreted restrictively. 

Simplification of jurisdiction rules 

The jurisdictional criteria would continue to focus on the place of the 
head  office  and  editorial  decisions.  If  these  places  do  not  coincide, 
the  Member  State  having  jurisdiction  could  be  determined  by 
reference to where the majority of the workforce (instead of currently 
a  "significant  part  of  the  workforce")  is  located.  This  would  make 
reference 
jurisdiction  criteria 
superfluous,  with  establishment  in  a  Member  State  remaining  as  a 
fall-back if jurisdiction cannot be determined by other means.   

further  complex  subsidiary 

to 

INDEPENDENCE OF REGULATORS 

Status quo 
The  AVMSD  does  not  contain  a  formal  obligation  for  the  Member 
States  to  create  an  independent  regulatory  body  if  one  does  not 
already exist.  

 Article  30  requires  Member  States  to  take  appropriate  measures  to 
exchange,  among  them  and  with  the  Commission,  the  information 

Option A 
The  AVMSD  would  set  minimum  mandatory  requirements  for 
regulatory  bodies.  Such  requirements  could  include:  i)  independence 
from  third  parties;  ii)  transparent  decision-making  processes  and 
accountability  to  relevant  stakeholders;  iii)  open  and  transparent 
procedures  for  the  removal  of  Board  Members;  iv)  knowledge  and 
expertise of human resources; v) financial735, operational and decision 

734 Ker-Optika judgment, par. 76 
735 In line with the INDIREG study, financial autonomy means "that the regulator is equipped with sufficient financial resources". 

349 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
necessary  to  apply  the  Directive.  This  should  in  particular  be  done 
through  their  competent  regulatory  authorities  and  in  view  of  the 
application  of  the  cooperation  and  circumvention  mechanisms 
detailed in the baseline scenario related to the COO principle.  

Recital  94  underlines  that  Member  States  are  free  to  choose  the 
appropriate  instruments  according  to  their  legal  traditions  and 
established structures, and, in particular, the form of their competent 
independent  regulatory  bodies.  This  should  let  them  carry  out  their 
work  in  implementing  the  Directive  impartially  and  transparently. 
More  specifically,  the  instruments  chosen  should  contribute  to  the 
promotion of media pluralism. 

making  autonomy;  vi)  effective  enforcement  powers;  vii) 
possibility only for judicial power to review the NRAs’ decisions. 

the 

These are based on the Council of Europe Recommendation (2000)23 
736 ,  a  number  of  studies  and  reports  (see  Section  5.2.4.1)  and  the 
requirements  set  by  EU  law  in  other  legislative  frameworks  (see 
ANNEX 12) 

The AVMSD would also require that the regulators have competences 
in  all  the  areas  covered  by  the  AVMSD.  They  should  exercise  these 
competences impartially and transparently and in accordance with the 
AVMSD  objectives  (media  pluralism,  cultural  diversity,  consumer 
protection, internal market, distortion of competition).  

This  option  shall  not  prevent  supervision  in  accordance  with  national 
constitutional law. 

The role of ERGA, currently set by a Commission Decision737, would 
be embedded in the AVMSD and include new tasks deriving from the 
review  of  the  Directive  (see  Sections  5.1.3,  5.2.2  and  5.2.3).  This 
would  not  imply  the  creation  of  an  Agency.  Existing  financing 
mechanisms would be maintained. 

COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS 

736 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=393649&  
737 C(2014) 462 final 

350 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Status quo 
For  TV  broadcasting  services  and  on-demand  services,  audiovisual 
commercial  communications  (AVCCs)  shall  be  recognisable,  non-
discriminatory and not encourage harmful behaviour738.  
AVCCs  must  not  harm  minors,  must  not  directly  exploit  their 
inexperience or credulity or encourage them to pressurize parents to 
make a purchase. 

Sponsorship  and  product  placement  are  allowed,  subject  to  certain 
conditions739.  

AVCCs  for  alcohol  must  not  be  aimed  at  minors  or  encourage 
excessive alcohol consumption.  

Option A 
For  both  TV  broadcasters  and  on-demand  services,  sponsorship  rules 
would be made more flexible by focusing on the principles of editorial 
independence,  transparency  (clear  indication  that  the  programme  has 
been  sponsored)  and  no  sponsorship  for  banned  products  such  as 
tobacco. Similarly, product placement would be explicitly allowed and 
the  rules  would  be  relaxed  by  deleting  the  "undue  prominence" 
criterion  and  focusing  on  the  principles  of  editorial  independence, 
transparency  (clear  indication  that  the  programme  contains  product 
placement)  and  no  product  placement  for  banned  products  (such  as 
tobacco  or  medicines  on  prescription).  The  prohibition  of  product 
placement in children's programmes would remain. 

On  AVCCs  for  foods  high 
in  fat,  salt  and  sugar  (HFSS) 
accompanying or included in children's programmes, Member States 
and  the  Commission  must  encourage  the  development  of  codes  of 
conduct. 

For  TV  broadcasters,  films  could  be  interrupted  more  often  (once  for 
each period of 20 minutes) except for children's programmes for which 
the current rule would remain. Isolated spots would be allowed. 

For  TV  broadcasting  services,  advertising  and  teleshopping 740  on 
television  are  subject  to  a  set  of  tighter  rules  on  presentation741 and 
content.  
They must also comply with stricter rules when it comes to television 
advertising  and  teleshopping  for  alcoholic  beverages:  (a)  it  may  not 
be  aimed  specifically  at  minors  or,  in  particular,  depict  minors 

As  regards  quantitative  limitations  for  advertising,  TV  broadcasters 
would be allowed more flexibility by transforming the 20 % per hour 
limitation into a daily limitation. 

More  types  of  commercial  messages  would  be  excluded  from  the 

738 AVCCs must:  

be readily recognisable, not use subliminal nor surreptitious techniques: 
respect human dignity, not include/promote discrimination (e.g. based on sex, nationality, religion),  
not encourage behaviour harmful to health, safety or the environment, not promote tobacco or prescription medication.  

739 In particular, they shall not influence either the content or the scheduling of the programme. They shall not encourage the purchase of a product or service. They must be clearly identified as such in an appropriate way. Programmes 
featuring product placement should not give undue prominence to the product or service referred to. 
740 Teleshopping windows must last at least 15 minutes and be clearly identifiable 
741 Advertising and teleshopping must be easily recognizable, distinguished as such by auditory and visual means (though this principle should not prevent the use of new advertising techniques), and should, where possible, not be 
isolated (apart from broadcast sports events). For alcoholic drinks it must comply with specific restrictions. 

351 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  
  
  
consuming  these  beverages;  (b)  it  shall  not  link  the  consumption  of 
alcohol  to  enhanced  physical  performance  or  to  driving;  (c)  it  shall 
not create the impression that the consumption of alcohol contributes 
towards  social  or  sexual  success;  (d)  it  shall  not  claim  that  alcohol 
has therapeutic qualities or that it is a stimulant, a sedative or a means 
of resolving personal conflicts; (e) it shall not encourage immoderate 
consumption  of  alcohol  or  present  abstinence  or  moderation  in  a 
negative  light;  (f)  it  shall  not  place  emphasis  on  high  alcoholic 
content as being a positive quality of the beverages. 

They  may  not  take  up  more  than  20%  of  any  given  hour  of 
broadcasting time. By way of exception, broadcasters' self-promotion 
-  i.e.  announcements  about  their  own  programmes  or  products 
derived from them - are not counted in this 12-minute limit.  

Advertising  and  teleshopping  may  be  inserted  only  once  in  a 
least  30  minutes  during  children’s 
scheduled  period  of  at 
programmes, films and news programmes.  

advertising  limit  (e.g.  cross-promotion  including  announcements  for 
programmes  of  other  broadcasters  or  other  media  within  the  same 
media group). 

As regards qualitative rules, the status quo would remain742. Regarding 
the provisions on AVCCs for alcohol (Article 9(1)e)) and  HFSS foods 
accompanying or included in programmes with a significant children's 
audience  (Article  9(2)),  self-  and  co-regulation  would  be  encouraged, 
also at EU level if necessary. Member States would be encouraged to 
ensure that self- and co-regulatory codes are effectively used to reduce 
the exposure of children to audiovisual commercial communications of 
alcoholic beverages and of HFSS foods. The Commission and ERGA 
would  facilitate  exchanges  of  best  practices  on  co-regulatory  systems 
across  the  EU.  If  considered  appropriate,  the  Commission  would 
facilitate  the  development  of  EU  codes  on  which  ERGA  might  be 
requested to give an opinion.  

The general provisions on self- and co-regulation (Article 4(7)) would 
be  reinforced  with  new  benchmarks  for  the  effectiveness  of  the 
existing and new codes. 

742 See Article 9 AVMSD. 

352 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 21 – GLOSSARY (LAST ANNEX) 

Glossary AVMSD 
Excerpt from the Digital Agenda for Europe website: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-
agenda/en/glossary 

Advertising 
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) defines advertising in television as any 
form of announcement whether in return for payment or for similar consideration by a private 
or  public  undertakings  in  connection  with  trade,  business,  craft  or  profession  in  order  to 
promote the supply of goods or services. 

Advertising spot 
Advertising  spots  on  television  may  not  exceed  12  minutes  per  hour.  In  line  with  the 
Commission's position, the Court adopted a wide and uniform interpretation of the notion of 
‘advertising spot’ in line with the purpose of the AVMSD, which is to protect the viewer from 
an  excessive  amount  of  advertising.  The  Court  found  that  an  advertising  spot  is  any  type  of 
advertising  broadcast  between  programmes  or  during  breaks,  unless  it  is  covered  by  another 
form of advertising expressly governed by the AVMSD. 

Cinematographic and other audiovisual works 
Audiovisual  works  intended  for  a  first  screening  in  cinemas.  Circulation  of  European 
cinematographic  works  is  hampered  by  a  number  of  factors,  e.g.  the  fragmentation  of  the 
European market and strong competition from the US. European films rely heavily on public 
funding.  The  2013  Cinema  Communication  of the  Commission  lays  down  the  guidelines  for 
granting state aid for films. The Commission Communication on European Film in the Digital 
area adopted in May 2014 outlines the policy proposed for the adaptation of the sector to the 
new digital environment. 

Codes  of  conduct  against  advertising  for  "unhealthy"  food  and  beverages  in  children's 
programmes 
The  AVMSD  obliges  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  encourage  media  service 
providers to develop codes of conduct regarding advertising for 'unhealthy' food and beverages 
in  children's  programmes.  Self-regulatory  practices  have  been  promoted  at  EU  level  through 
the  EU  Platform  for  Action  on  Diet,  Physical  Activity  and  Health.  Significant  progress  has 
been  made,  but  further  work  is  needed.  The  Commission  will  support  the  development  of  a 
definition of stricter age and audience thresholds and more consistent nutritional benchmarks 
across companies. 

Connected TV 
Devices that can be connected to the Internet. In a broader sense, the term refers to technical 
solutions that bring linear TV and the Internet world closer together, e.g. TV sets with added 
internet connectivity, set-top boxes delivering audio-visual content 'over-the-top', audio-visual 
services provided via tablet computers or smartphones.  

Contact Committee 
To  facilitate  effective  implementation  of  the  AVMSD,  the  so-called  Contact  Committee  has 
been set up to allow regular consultation on practical problems arising from the application of 
the Directive. This committee is chaired by the Commission and made up of representatives of 
the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States.  It  addresses  not  only  current  audiovisual 
policy but also relevant new developments emerging in this sector (Article 29 AVMSD). 

353 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Convergence 
The  result  of  digital  technologies  whereby  information  (voice,  text,  audio  and  video)  can  be 
converted  into  digital  form  and  transmitted  through  different  networks  and  accessed  from 
different  end-user 
the  convergence  of  ICT,  media  and 
is 
telecommunications industry services. Applied to the audio-visual sector, convergence relates 
to the progressing merger between online and broadcast content. The practical result is online 
content on the TV screen and broadcast content on the PC, mobile phone or tablet. 

terminals.  The  result 

Cooperation and circumvention procedure 
The  AVMSD  provides  a  mechanism  for  addressing  a  dispute  between  Member  States 
regarding  cross-border  broadcasts:  a  broadcaster  under  the  jurisdiction  of  one  Member  State 
(of origin) directs its broadcast wholly or mostly towards another Member State (target). The 
latter  claims  that  the  broadcaster  is  violating  national  law.  As  a  first  step,  a  consultation 
procedure between the two Member States is foreseen. If the result is deemed unsatisfactory by 
the  traget  Member  State,  it  may  impose  binding  measures  against  the  broadcaster 
circumventing its national rules, subject to ex-ante control by the Commission. 

Co-production 
The  AVMSD  contains  measures  to  encourage  the  production  and  distribution  of  European 
works  both  in  linear  and  on-demand  services.  The  term  "European  work"  is  defined  in 
Article1(n)  AVMSD.  It  includes  works  produced  within  the  framework  of  bilateral  co-
production treaties between Member States/the EU and third countries if the Community co-
producers supply a majority share of the production cost and control the production. 

Country of origin principle 
The rule that an audiovisual media service must only be regulated by the Member State where 
its provider is established, as defined by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD). 
Only exceptionally can a receiving Member State limit reception or retransmission of services, 
following  the  procedure  foreseen  in  the  AVMSD  ,for  example  when  the  service  breaches 
domestic rules on the protection of minors or hate speech. The principle applies to both linear 
and on-demand audiovisual media services. 

Derogation from the obligation to ensure freedom of reception 
The AVMSD establishes the principle that Member States  must ensure freedom of reception 
and may not restrict retransmission on their territory of AV media services from other Member 
States  (Article  3(1)).  However,  following  a  detailed  procedure,  they  may  suspend 
retransmission  of  a  television  broadcast  from  another  Member  State  if  they  consider  that  it 
manifestly, seriously and gravely infringes on rules for the protection of minors or incitement 
to hatred. A Member State can also restrict the retransmission of on-demand audiovisual media 
services under certain conditions (Article 3(4) AVMSD). 

Disability - Access for people with a visual or hearing disability 
The  AVMSD  (Article  7)  intends  to  facilitate  the  access  to  audiovisual  media  services  for 
people  with  visual  or  hearing  disabilities.  Member  States  shall  encourage  media  service 
providers under their jurisdiction to ensure that their services are gradually made accessible to 
people  with  a  visual  or  hearing  disability.  Some  of  the  means  envisaged  to  this  end  are 
subtitling, sign language and audio description. 

European Audiovisual Observatory (EAO) 
A Partial Enlarged Agreement of the Council of Europe. Members of the Observatory include 
all  EU  Member  States,  the  EU  and  other  European  countries.  The  EU  is  represented  by  the 
Commission, DG CONNECT is the lead service. The legal basis and the financing is provided 
by  the  Creative  Europe  Regulation  managed  by  DG  EAC.  The  Observatory  focuses  on 

354 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
collection, preparation and distribution of economic and legal information on the film, linear 
TV  and  VOD  sectors  in  Europe.  DG  CONNECT  has  a  service  contract  on  statistical 
information on VOD. 

European Convention on Transfrontier Television 
This  Convention  of  the  Council  of  Europe  lays  down  a  number  of  rules  for  the  free  and 
unhindered circulation of television programmes across the countries  concerned. In  2007 the 
revision of the convention was put on hold after the Commission reminded Member States that 
the EU enjoys exclusive competence in this area and has no interest in joining the Convention 
which covers similar areas as the AVMSD. The Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE suggested 
in  2014  to  explore  the  possibilities  for  continuing  the  works  on  the  amendments  of  the 
Convention. 

European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) 
ERGA brings together heads or high level representatives of national independent regulatory 
bodies in the field of audiovisual services, to advise the Commission on the implementation of 
the  EU's  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  (AVMSD).  Its  objectives  are  set  out  in  the 
Commission  Decision  of  3  February  2014.  The  first  meeting  of  the  Group  took  place  on  4 
March 2014, in Brussels. 

European works 
To  support  the  production  and  distribution  of  European  works,  the  AVMSD  lays  down  in 
Article 16 that Member States must ensure that broadcasters reserve a majority proportion of 
their  transmission  time  for  such  works.  Article  13  also  requires  on-demand  audiovisual 
services to promote production of and access to European works. 'European work' is defined in 
Article 1 (n) AVMSD.  It  includes not only works  produced in a Member State but also in a 
state party to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television and works produced within 
co-production treaties. 

Events of major importance for society 
The AVMSD provides that the public may be guaranteed access on free-to-air television to the 
broadcasts  of  events  of  major  importance  for  society  (Article  14).  Each  Member  State  may 
draw  up  a  list  of  such  events.  They  must  be  broadcast  unencrypted.  On  the  basis  of  the 
principle  of  mutual  recognition,  Member  States  must  ensure  that  broadcasters  under  their 
jurisdiction respect the lists of other Member States. The events concerned may be national or 
other, e.g. major sports events. 

Freedom of expression 
The  TEU  stipulates  that  the  Union  shall  respect  fundamental  rights  as  guaranteed  by  the 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the 
Council of Europe, notably Article 10 on the right to freedom of expression. Article 11 of the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on freedom of expression and information guarantees those 
same rights, as well as the freedom and pluralism of the media. 

Free-to-air broadcasting 
Broadcasting, either public service or commercial, of programmes which are accessible to the 
public without paying any specific fees (except licence fees and/or the basic tier subscription 
fees to a cable network). 'Free to air' television may cover transmission by cable, satellite or 
terrestrial technologies but excludes services to which access is limited by conditional access 
systems such as Pay-TV Services. 

Free-to-view broadcasting 

355 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Broadcasting  of  services  that  may  require  a  one-time  activation  fee,  but  without  subsequent 
costs for viewers. Usually this takes the form of encrypted broadcasts, requiring an access card 
for decryption and viewing. 

Linear Audiovisual Media Service 
A  linear  audiovisual  media  service  (i.e.  television  broadcast)  is  provided  for  simultaneous 
viewing on the basis of a programme schedule, contrary to a non-linear service (i.e. on-demand 
service) that will be available at the moment chosen by the user, at his request and on the basis 
of a catalogue. 

Media Pluralism 
Embraces a number of ideas, eg diversity of ownership, variety of sources of information and 
range of content available. In the political debate, media pluralism has come to mean, almost 
exclusively,  pluralism  of  ownership.  Media  pluralism  however  includes  all  measures  that 
ensure citizen's access to a variety of information sources, opinion, voices etc. in order to form 
their opinion without undue influence of one dominant opinion forming power. 

Media Service provider 
Media service provider means the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility for 
the  choice  of  the  audiovisual  content  of  an  audiovisual  media  service  and  determines  the 
manner  in  which  it  is  organised.  This  does  not  include  natural  or  legal  persons  who  merely 
transmit programmes for which the editorial responsibility lies with third parties. 

New Advertising Techniques 
New  advertising  techniques  such  as  Interactive  Advertising,  Split-screen  and  Virtual 
Advertising have emerged over the past few years. The AVMSD recognizes the specificity of 
new advertising techniques stating that the separation principle should not prevent the use of 
new advertising techniques. 

On-demand audio-visual media services 
On-demand / non-linear audio-visual media services are provided by a media service provider 
for  the  viewing  of  programmes  at  the  moment  chosen  by  the  user  and  at  his/her  individual 
request on the basis of a catalogue of programmes selected by the media service provider. 

Parental controls 
Automated tools to help parents protect their children and set restrictions for using devices and 
services. These controls may include: alerting a parent when their child's device leaves school, 
limiting  their car speed to a certain maximum speed, controlling the content which  the child 
views on a device connected to the Internet, or limiting the amount of time they can use their 
device. 

Pay TV 
Users obtain access to additional  or  premium content  in  return for  a specific  fee e.g.  regular 
subscription  or  'pay  per  use'.  Pay-TV  channels  broadcast  in  an  encoded  (encrypted)  form  so 
that access (via a decoder) is limited to only those people who have subscribed to the Pay-TV 
offers.  Pay-television  services,  as  audiovisual  media  service  providers,  are  covered  by  the 
AVMS Directive. 

Protection of Minors 
Programmes  which  might  seriously  harm  minors  are  prohibited  on  TV.  Programmes  which 
might  be  harmful  must  be  encrypted  or  shown  at  a  time  when  minors  will  normally  not  see 
them, contain an acoustic warning or made identifiable by a visual symbol. The provisions of 

356 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the Directive are complemented by Recommendations on the protection of minors and human 
dignity, and by the Communication "European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children". 

Public Service Broadcaster, Amsterdam protocol 
Broadcaster entrusted with a public service mandate. According to the Protocol on the System 
of  public  broadcasting  in  the  Member  States  attached  to  the  Treaty  of  Amsterdam,  public 
broadcasting is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and 
to  the  need  to  preserve  media  pluralism.  The  definition  of  the  public  service  mandate  falls 
within the competence of the Member States, which can decide at national, regional or local 
level. 

Surreptitious audiovisual commercial communication 
Prohibited  by  Article  9(a)  of  the  AVMS  Directive.  AVMSD  (Article  1(1)(j))  defines 
surreptitious  audiovisual  commercial  communication  as  "the  representation  in  words  or 
pictures of goods, services, the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer of goods or 
a  provider  of  services  in  programmes  when  such  representation  is  intended  by  the  media 
service provider to serve as advertising and might mislead the public as to its nature". 

Telepromotion 
A  form  of  television  advertising.  Studio  programmes  (e.g.  game  shows)  are  interrupted  by 
slots  devoted  to  the  presentation  of  products  or  services.  The  programme  presenters 
momentarily  swap  their  role  for  one  as  "promoters"  of  the  goods  or  services  which  are  the 
object  of  the  advertising  presentation.  The  Commission  considers  that  telepromotions  are 
compatible  with  the  AVMSD,  provided  they  are  kept  quite  separate  from  other  parts  of  the 
programme  service  by  optical  and/or  acoustic  means  enabling  viewers  to  readily  recognise 
their commercial nature. 

Teleshopping 
Direct offers broadcast to the public for the supply of goods or services, including immovable 
property,  rights  and  obligations,  in  return  for  payment.  There  are  Teleshopping  Spots, 
Teleshopping  windows  and  there  are  channels  devoted  to  teleshopping,  i.e.  Teleshopping 
Channels. 

Television broadcast 
Transmission  over  air,  cable  or  satellite  for  public  viewing.  Under  the  AVMS  Directive  the 
media  service  provider  is  the  natural  or  legal  person  who  has  editorial  responsibility  for  the 
choice  of  the  audiovisual  content  of  the  service  and  determines  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
organised. For television broadcasts, this will be done on the basis of a programme schedule 
for simultaneous viewing. 

Video-on-demand (VOD) 
A  system  allowing  viewers  to  order  and  see  a  programme  at  the  exact  time  the  viewer 
specifies.  VOD  can  be  offered  through  streaming  of  the  content  through  a  set-top  box,  a 
computer or other device, allowing viewing in real time, or by download to a device such as a 
computer,  for  viewing  at  any  time.  Traditionally  VOD  meant  that  the  viewer  paid  per 
programme.  However,  other  forms  of  on-demand  services,  such  as  "subscription  video  on 
demand"  (SVOD),  that  requires  users  to  pay  a  monthly  fee  to  access  the  catalogue  are 
becoming very popular. 

Watershed: 
The  watershed  is  the  point  in  time  after  which  programmes  with  adult  content  may  be 
broadcast. In the same way that a watershed refers to the crest dividing two drainage basins, a 
broadcasting watershed serves as a dividing line. It divides the day into the overnight period 

357 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
where  family-oriented  programming  suitable  for  children  may  be  aired  and  where 
programming aimed at or suitable for a more adult audience is permitted, though not required. 
It  may  also  mean  the  period  of  time  during  which  programmes  with  adult  content  may  be 
broadcast.  

358