COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post REFIT evaluation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU 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) 170 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-post REFIT evaluation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU 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) 171 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 

2.  BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3 

2.1 Situation prior to Directive ............................................................................................... 3 

2.2 Baseline ............................................................................................................................ 4 

2.3 Description of the Directive and of its objectives ............................................................. 6 

3.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................... 9 

4.  METHOD ............................................................................................................................ 10 

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS) .................................................................... 13 

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ....................................................................... 16 

6.1 Material scope of application ......................................................................................... 16 

6.2. Geographical scope ........................................................................................................ 22 

6.3 Country of origin ............................................................................................................ 24 

6.4 Protection of minors ....................................................................................................... 27 

6.5 Ban on hate speech ......................................................................................................... 30 

6.6 Commercial communications ......................................................................................... 31 

6.7 Promotion of European works ........................................................................................ 36 

6.8 Independence of regulators and cooperation amongst regulators................................... 40 

6.9 Accessibility for persons with disabilities ...................................................................... 46 

6.10 Events of major importance for society and short news reports ................................... 49 

6.11 Right of reply ................................................................................................................ 51 

6.12 Self/co-regulatory initiatives in the context of the AVMSD ........................................ 52 

7.  CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 56 

8.  ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................... 57 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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)1 of the Audiovisual Media Services 
Directive (hereinafter "AVMSD").  
In line with the "Better Regulation" requirements2, 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 Europe3” announces 
that  the  Commission  will  examine  the  functioning  of  the  rules  currently  in  force  and  will 
review the AVMSD in 20164.  

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) 5. 

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 Directive6 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 
for  television  broadcasting  services  at  EU  level  served  two  primary  and  interconnected 
objectives: 

1 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. 
2 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). 
3 COM(2015) 192 final of 6 May 2015 
4 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.” 
5 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). 
6 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. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(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  19977  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 2009-20168.  

2.2 Baseline 

At the time the last revision was proposed in 20059, 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  Assessment10  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. 

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 

7  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 
8 Section 3.1 of SEC(2005) 1625/2  
9 Ref. Commission proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive 89/552/ECC, COM(2005) 646  
10 SEC(2005) 1625/2, Commission Staff Working Document – Annex to Commission proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive 
89/552/ECC, COM(2005) 646  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 
minors11)  with  often  diverging  requirements12.  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)  principle13. 
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 
treatment14.  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 
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 

11 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.  
12 See section 3.2.1 of the 2005 Impact Assessment  
13 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. 
14 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.  

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
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 States15. The decrease in those Member States ranged from -5% to -36%16.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 

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. 

15 DE, ES, FR, GB, IT and NL 
16 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 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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). 

7 

 
 
Intervention logic – 2007 revision 

8 

 
 
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 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
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. 

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 convergence17; 
2013  Public  consultation  on  independence  of  audiovisual  regulators18  and  2015  Public 
consultation on the AVMSD19 (the synopsis report is in Annex 2);  

o  Policy  discussions  with  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  the  Contact  Committee20 

meetings;  

o  Discussions with regulators within the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media 
Services (ERGA)21 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 regulators22 ;  

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

talks23”). 

  Recommendations,  reports  and  policy  discussions  with  other  EU  institutions,  namely  the 
European  Parliament24,  the  Council25,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee26  and  the 
Committee of the Regions27. 

17  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) 
18 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) 
19  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 
20 In the Contact Committee established pursuant to Article 29 AVMSD. 
21  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.  
22  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). 
23 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.  
24 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. 
25 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.   
26  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 
27 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 

Commission 

necessary 

evaluate 

which 

extent 

revise 

the 

the 

the 

on 

to 

to 

to 

is 

it 

10 

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

regulators within ERGA and to industry28. 

  Evidence  gathered  through  publicly-tendered  studies29  on  alcohol  advertising  exposure, 

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

  Commission's  monitoring  of  the  AVMSD  pursuant  to  Article  3330  of  the  Directive  (1st 
Application  report  for  the  years  2009-201031;  2nd  Application  report  on  the  AVMSD32  for  the 
years 2011-2013; Articles 16 and 1733). 

  Literature review (e.g. reports of the European Audiovisual Observatory34 (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. 

28 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 
29 http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:212396-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML&ticket=ST-1292379-
SKem8OGQ1reJn1IxAZqVGszP2zjXhYuZOoStsF8rBu0ZCOZKgO05NbMy9k6hQrTzIimWUTdcKGfvm49lhwu7y5m-Jj71zxYb8yr5J3R6eCTiGK-
TqeqixAzhASPjqjbmnf8X5hXPzlpiWbUx9btUwoJzMau 
30  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. 
31 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203 
32  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.  
33 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/avmsd-reports-european-works 
34 
(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 

on-line 

reports 

Public 

year 

per 

of 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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. 

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 

12 

 
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. 

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 3335 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 States36. 

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 

35 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. 
36 Ref. 1st Application report on the AVMSD 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(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  million37. 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 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 %)38. 

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 enterprises39.  

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 windows40) 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 201341. On average, 31% of the VoD services available in the Member States are established 
in another EU country42. 

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)43. 

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 201344.  

37 EAO Yearbook 2015: http://www.obs.coe.int/ 
38 Eurostat statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-xplained/index.php/Programming_and_broadcasting_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2  
39 Ibid 
40 Adaptations of a channel to the specificities of the target country in particular as regards advertising.  
41 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) 
42 EAO Yearbook 2015 
43 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 
44 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in linear television revenues 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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%45.  

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 
services46.  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 smartphones47. It must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  in  2014,  in  Europe,  Internet  video  stood  for  64%  of  total  consumer  internet 
traffic. This share is expected to increase up to 80% by 201948. The consumption of videos offered by 
video-sharing platforms is on the rise49. 

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 billion50.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 
market51.  

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 

45Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in video-on-demand revenues. 
46 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 
47 Ericsson mobility report; http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2014/emr-november2014-regional-appendices-europe.pdf 
48 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) 
49 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’ media use and attitudes, 2015 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). 
50 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 ) 
51 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments) 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 
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  reported52  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 201153  and 
then its update – the RADAR study of 201554. 

6. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS   

6.1 Material scope of application 

The  AVMSD  applies55  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 

52  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 
53 http://ec.europa.eu/archives/information_society/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/regulators/final_report.pdf 
54 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-audiovisual-media-services 
55 Article 1(1) AVMSD 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
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 
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 to56 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 decrease57. Most recently, the ECJ58  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  sections59  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 
media60 and this often coincides with a fall in audiences for traditional TV bulletins61. In 2014, the 
number of children who read or watched news online almost tripled as compared to 201062. Most 
recently,  the  ECJ63  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, 

56 Article 1(1) (b) AVMSD 
57 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. 
58 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).  
59 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). 
60 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. 
61 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 
62 EU Kids Online 2014, Children's online risks and opportunities  
63 In the New Media Online GmbH case 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  Directive  (also  in  conjunction  with  the  EU  eCommerce  Directive)  contributed  to  avoid 
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  platforms64  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 content65 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  online66  including  on  social 
media67. Consumer spending on digital video and this trend is related to the increasing popularity 
of connected TV and the soar in mobile usage68. 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 olds69. 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 olds70.  

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)71.  Watching  video  clips  is  the  second  prevalent  online 
activity  amongst  minors  aged  4-17,  after  listening  music  and  watching  films  and  cartoons72. 
Services  such  as  YouTube  are  widely  popular  among  children73.  Connected  devices  such  as 

it 

in 

three 

to  be 

is  very 

important 

64 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/ 
65 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. 
66  One 
consumers  believes 
http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2``015/consumerlab/ericsson-consumerlab-tv-media-2015.pdf 
67 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/ 
68  Video  viewing 
soar  by  55%  annually 
http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2015/ericsson-mobility-report-june-2015.pdf 
69 Ofcom's Adults’ media use and attitudes, 2015 report: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-lit-
10years/2015_Adults_media_use_and_attitudes_report.pdf 
70 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Internet_use_statistics_-_individuals 
71 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 on-demand TV services and 20% of watch television programmes on a tablet computer . 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-use-attitudes-14/Childrens_2014_Report.pdf   
72 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  
73 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) 

the  coming  years,  Ericsson  mobility 

to  watch  UGC  on 

time  on  mobile 

is  expected 

at  home. 

their  TV 

report; 

able 

sets 

to 

in 

18 

 
 
 
                                                            
mobile  phones,  tablets  and  games  consoles  are  increasingly  used  by minors,  often  without  adult 
supervision74. More than half of YouTube views come from mobile devices75. 

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 2011-201476.  

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  style77.  In  other  cases,  online  versions  of  newspapers  were  not  deemed  to  constitute  an 
audiovisual media service78. 

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 

74 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.  
75 https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html 
76 EAO report on the measurement of fragmented European audiences, September 2015 
77 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. 
78 See Ofcom's Sunvideo decision (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/video-on-demand-services/sun-video-decision-appendices/ 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
their  terms  of  service/Community  guidelines79.  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 AVMSD80.  In another case, while YouTube removed a 
video  of  a  woman  being  forced  by  her  husband  to  walk  naked  in  the  street81  for  violation  of 
YouTube's Community guidelines, the same video still appears on the website Liveleak.com82.  

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 risks83. 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%)84.  
In the UK, ATVOD85 found that at least 44 000 primary school children accessed an adult website in 
one  month  alone86.  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  content87.  Potential  exposure  to  harmful  content  or  content  inciting  to  hatred  may  also  be 
fostered by new social media features such as live streaming88. 

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 

79 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). 
80 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 
82 http://www.liveleak.com/ 
83 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 
84 Ibid 
85 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. 
86 2014 report "For adults only? Underage access to online porn".  
87 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/).  
88 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. 

20 

 
 
                                                            
recommendations  on  material  scope89  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 others90. 
"TV-likeness", also being subject to diverging interpretations91. 

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 administrative92 and compliance93 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. 

89 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) 
90 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). 
91 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".   
92 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. 
93 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). 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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  media  service  providers94  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 ratings95. 

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)96and  is  without 
prejudice  to  the  ECD  system  of  limited  liability97.  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 intermediaries98 
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  applies99  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 Union100. 

Relevance of the current rules 
In the 2015 Public consultation on the  AVMSD, a majority101 of respondents belonging to different 
categories  of  stakeholders  groups  flagged  that  the  relevance  of  the  AVMSD  rules  on  geographical 
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.  

94 MEDIASET (IT), WUAKI TV (ES, and DRAMAPASSION (ES) 
95 BBFC Online Music Video rating Research Findings study: 
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Music%20Video%20Rating%20Pilot%20%20-%20Presentation%20of%20findings.pdf 
96 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') 
97 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. 
98 Services of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature implying neither knowledge of nor control over content  
99 Article 2 AVMSD 
100 Recital 54 AVMSD 
101 With the exception of Internet and satellite industries which consider the rules to be still relevant.  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 States102. 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 protection103. 
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 minors104. 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 time105. 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  
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.  

102  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   
103 Some consumer organisations identify the source of the ineffectiveness of the rules in the lack of criteria related to the targeting of the consumer. 
104 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). 
105 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. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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  

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.106 

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.107  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 

106 Article 3 AVMSD 
107 Article 3 AVMSD 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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.108  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 report109 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 windows110) 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 2013111. 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 content112 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 principle113.  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 sector114. This was confirmed by the majority of respondents across various 
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  clarifications115  regarding  the 
application of the derogation and circumvention procedures. 

108 Article 4 AVMSD  
109 Sections 2.2 and 4 of the 2nd AVMSD Application Report. 
110 Adaptations of a channel to the specificities of the target country in particular as regards advertising.  
111 EAO Refit data: Note A1: Linear Audiovisual Media Services 
112 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 
113 Ibid 
114 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. 
115.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. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 (Slovenia116 and Cyprus117) or the transposition 
of  the  rule that  services  intended  exclusively  for  reception in  third  countries  are  not  covered  by  the 
AVMSD  (Finland118).  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  procedure119.  Similar  jurisdiction  issues  arose  in  an  earlier 
decision of the Commission regarding notifications of serious infringements of the rules on protection 
of  minors120.  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  (e.g.  Belgium121,  Bulgaria122  and 
Lithuania123) 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  Lithuania124,  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.125  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."126 

Except  for  one  case,  the  circumvention  procedure  has  not  been  used  in  practice127.  The  only  case 
notified to the Commission concerned alcohol advertising in Sweden128 and is mentioned in the 2nd 
Application report on the AVMSD. The case highlighted certain procedural problems. 

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 

116 EU Pilot 3440/12/INSO. 
117 EU Pilot 2268/11/INSO. 
118 EU Pilot 1888/11/INSO. 
119 See Commission Decision of 10.7.2015, C(2015) 4609 final, http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=24517 
120 Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television, Extasi TV. 
121 EU Pilot 4882/13/CNCT. 
122 EU Pilot 1884/11/INSO. 
123 EU Pilot 2019/11/INSO, NIF 2013/2212. 
124 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. 
125 "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. 
126 Council document no. 8965/15. 
127  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. 
128 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. 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 ongoing129. 

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 involved130.  

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 initiatives131. In addition, it is coherent with the ECD, including as regards the grounds 
for derogation from the freedom to provide services132. 

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 

129 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 
130 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.  
131 This latter point was also highlighted by a number of contributors to the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD 
132 Article 3 ECD  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
may  include  potentially  harmful  programmes  (erotic  content  and  mild  violence)  if  children  will  not 
normally hear or see them133.  
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 
content134. 

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 
scope135. 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  minors136,  certain  concepts  and  rating 
systems for both broadcast and on-demand services are not harmonised at EU level137. 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 level138. 

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 

133 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." 
134 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." 
135 Some figures on children's viewing patterns were already provided in the sub-section Effectiveness in section 7.1 (Material scope).  
136 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-report-protection-minors-converged-environment 
137 Although it is unlikely that fragmentation of rating systems constitutes a negative incentive for businesses from offering services cross-border. 
138 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. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 checks139. 

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 consultation140 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 
services141, 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 States142. 

  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. 
The  rule  strictly  restricts  minors'  access  to  any  kind  of  harmful  content  and  compliance  costs143  for 
broadcasters did not increase since the last revision in 2007, as those providers were already subject to 
this rule.  

139 2nd Application report on the AVMSD. The reasons for this lack of proactive monitoring are unknown, and they possibly differ across Member States. 
140 On this point, the views of the industry in the context of the 2015 Public consultation were however split  
141 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. 
142 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  
143  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.  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 
consumer144.  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 similarities145.  

Finally, as indicated by media service providers146 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 ratings147. 

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 

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  matter148  confirmed  the  continued  relevance  of  the  rules. 

144 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 
145 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". 
146 MEDIASET (IT), WUAKI TV (ES, and DRAMAPASSION (ES) 
147 BBFC Online Music Video rating Research Findings study: 
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/sites/default/files/attachments/Music%20Video%20Rating%20Pilot%20%20-%20Presentation%20of%20findings.pdf 
148 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.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
However, 4 Member States149 indicated that the list of grounds under which hate speech is banned in 
Article 6 is excessively limited150.  

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 broadcasting151. 
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 
reported152. 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 States153, 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  orientation154  and  disability155.  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. 

Article 6 is  however not fully coherent with Article 21156 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.   

149 FR, BE-Vl, IE, LV 
150 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. 
151 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. 
152 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.  
153 BG, CY, IT, MT, UK for VoD 
154 BE-French community; BE-German community; CR; DA; FI; FR; GR; IRL;  LT; NL; PT; RO; SE; UK 
155155 AT; BE French community; BE-German community; CR; FI; FR; GR; LV; NL; PL; PT; UK 
156 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. 

31 

 
 
                                                            
Article  6  is  neither  fully  coherent  with  the  grounds157  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 sponsorship158 
and product placement159 as well as alcohol160 and tobacco161 advertising. 

The  AVMSD  also  lays  down  detailed  rules  applying  only  to  television  broadcasting.  These  set  a 
maximum of 12 minutes of advertising per hour162 for traditional broadcasting (so-called "12-minutes 
rule"), define how often TV films, cinematographic works and news programmes can be interrupted 
by advertisement163 and set the minimum duration of teleshopping windows164. 

Relevance of the current rules 
The  rules  on  audiovisual  commercial  communications  contribute165  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 foods166 (qualitative 
rules) remains unquestioned167 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 channels168. 

Moreover, television advertising in the EU has been shrinking in 2013 as compared to 2012169, while 
the total size of online advertising market in the EU in 2013 increased by 11.6% compared to 2012. 
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%)170.  In  Europe,  online 
display  advertising  is  the  most  dynamic  form  of  advertising  with  video  ads  accounting  for  16%  of 
online advertising171.  

157 Article 1 (1) (a) AVMSD mentions race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin 
158 Article 10 AVMSD 
159 Article 11 AVMSD 
160 Article 9(1)((e) for all AVCC and  stricter content requirements in Article 22 for television advertising 
161 Article 9(1)(d) AVMSD 
162 Article 23 AVMSD 
163 Article 20 AVMSD 
164 Article 20(2) AVMSD 
165 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. 
166 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. 
167 In the 2015 Public consultation, various stakeholders including consumer organisations  (also from the health sector) acknowledged the relevance of 
the rules 
168 http://television.telerama.fr/television/etats-unis-et-maintenant-moins-de-coupures-de-publicite,138319.php  
See in particular TNT: http://www.adweek.com/news/television/turners-chief-creative-cutting-tnt-ad-loads-50-percent-dramatic-overhaul-168893, 
VIACOM: http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/viacom-primetime-tv-advertising-cuts-1201598646/   
169  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). 
170 Source: European Audiovisual Observatory/WARC 
171 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 ". 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  2013,  advertising  on  TV  broadcasting  represented  33%  of  TV  broadcasters'  revenues172.  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 States173. 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 2014174 which represents 0.7% of the revenues generated 
by French TV broadcasters in 2013175. 

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"176.  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 limitation177, at present, 13 Member States have stricter rules though 
those  rules  apply  in  most  cases  (10  Member  States)  to  public  service  broadcasters'  channels.  The 
ceiling178  of  the  12-minutes  rule  was  regularly  exceeded  in  a  number  of  Member  States.  This  is 
primarily  due  to  divergent  national  interpretations  of  various  notions  as  mentioned  above179. 
Consumers still have concerns about excessive advertising on TV180.  

As to the effectiveness of qualitative rules, 24 Member States have adopted stricter rules for alcohol 
advertising  (involving  channels,  advertised  products  or  time  slots)181.  2  Member  States  prohibit 

172 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) -  Trends in linear television revenues 
173 On-demand Audiovisual Markets in the European Union (2014 and 2015 developments)  
174 Etude CNC l’économie de la télévision de rattrapage en 2014 
175 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) -  Trends in linear television revenues 
176 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. 
177 BG, DK, DE, IE, FR, IT, LV, NL, AT, PT, RO, SK, UK 
178  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"  
179  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.  
180 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”180. 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  
181 http://ec.europa.eu/archives/information_society/avpolicy/docs/reg/tvwf/contact_comm/35_table_1.pdf  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
  
                                                            
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 advertising182 shows that 
on average, during one year (2013), a child in the EU saw 200 alcohol impacts183 and an adult over 
450 on television. A number of consumer organisations in favour of volume restrictions184 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  hour185  was  lower  than  those  in  Germany,  the  UK  or  the  Czech 
Republic186 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  watershed187.  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  organisations188  pointed  to  the  blurring  lines  between 
broadcast  and  on-demand  services;  to  the  voluntary  character  of  some  rules189  and  the  lengthy 
procedures to review complaints in self-regulation arrangements; the focus on restricting the content 
of  alcohol  advertising  rather  than  on  restricting  the  volume  of  advertisement190;  the  links  between 
alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sport events. Stakeholders in different industries191 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 broadcasters192 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 

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   
183 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. 
184 E.g. STAP, ACTIVE, EUCAM, Lithuanian tobacco and alcohol control coalition and viewers' association AUC, IOGT NTO 
185 Between 17:00 and 20:59 
186 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. 
187 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. 
188 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. 
189 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. 
190 As highlighted by associations protecting consumers from alcohol abuse 
191 Some public service and commercial broadcasters as well as advertisers who point in particular to the rules on self-and cross-promotion 
192 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. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                            
not  regulated  by  the  AVMSD).  The  consequences  of  this  differential  treatment  are  even  more 
remarkable when millennials are targeted193. 

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  rules194.  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  specifically195)  and  compliance  costs  for  broadcasters196,  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 States197 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%198.  If product placement rules were simpler, product placement revenues could see 
a  10%-15%  increase199.  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 periods200. 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. 

193 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". 
194 Only Denmark kept the prohibition of product placement for programmes produced in Denmark 
195 Study on Defining a framework for the monitoring of advertising rules under the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
196  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. 
197 Ofcom, EL, NL 
198 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. 
199 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." 
200 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. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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.201  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  ECD202  as  an  information  society 
service.  Outside  the  domains  covered  by  the  AVMSD  that  regulate  specific  aspects  of  unfair 
commercial practices, the Unfair Commercial practices Directive203 (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).  

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.204  

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.205  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).  

201 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".  
202  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). 
203 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. 
204 Article 16 AVMSD 
205 Article 13 AVMSD 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 content206. 
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  time207.In  2011  and  2012  the  average  transmission  time 
dedicated to European works by all reported channels was 64.1%208.  

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 2012209. 

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)210.  

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  States211.  Annex  4 

206  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. 
207 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” 
208 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. 
209 Second Report on the application of Articles 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU for the period 2011-2012 (pending publication). 
210 Study on the promotion of European works: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-promotion-european-works 
211 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 
37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
provides an overview of the diverse national approaches adopted. Fragmentation and lack 
of data regarding shares of European works in on-demand catalogues212 (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 catalogues213, on-demand 
providers'  investments  in  content  production  are  lower  than  those  of  broadcasters214  and 
on-demand  catalogues  may  contain  a  lower  share  of  European  works  than  broadcasters' 
programmes do215. 

-  Some  VoD  service  providers  are  established  in  one  Member  State  but  mainly  target  a 
different  Member  State216  because  they  often  choose  to  establish  themselves  in  countries 
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  billion217  in  2013,  i.e.  24%  of  TV 
broadcasters  revenues  (EUR  85  billion)218  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)219.  

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.   

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).  
212 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.  
213 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). 
214  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 
215 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%. 
216  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) 
217 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Trends in linear television revenues  
218 Study on data and information on the costs and benefits of the Audiovisual Media Service Directive (AVMSD) - Investments in original content by 
audiovisual services 
219 Ibid 

38 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                          
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 services220 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"221 and the obligations to 
be met by TV broadcasters222 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  compliance223  and  on  the  number  of  channels  operating  in  the  Member  State. 
For  compliance  costs  in  particular  for  commercial  broadcasters224  can  be  high  as  compared  to 
producing  and/or  acquiring  European  content  from  other  Member  States  than  foreign  content  from 
third countries225. 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 costly226 and reporting obligations for providers may 

220 EAO REFIT data - Note B.2: market revenues and investments – VoD 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 
221 Although some stakeholders argued in the 2015 Public consultation that this notion is unclear  
222  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)] 
223  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.   
224 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.  
225 Second Report on application of Articles 16 and 17  
226 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) 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
be medium-high227, 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 concerned228. 

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 works229, 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 
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  law230,  Member  States  should  adopt  national  laws  enabling  the 
impartial application of the objectives of EU law. 

Relevance of the current rules 

227 VoD service providers have reported medium to high administrative costs in relation to reporting obligations on the promotion of European works (ref 
ERGA questionnaire).  
228 Two Protocols on cultural cooperation are attached respectively to the EU-CARIFORUM Economic Partnership Agreement and to the EU-South 
Korea Free Trade Agreement.  
229 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. 
230 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. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In the 2015 Public consultation, an overwhelming majority of respondents across various stakeholder 
categories231 confirmed the relevance of having independent, well-resourced and suitably empowered 
regulators.  The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  2013  Public  consultation  on  independence  of 
regulators232  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 AVMSD233. While most regulators fulfil what are considered 
the main criteria for independence234, important features for regulatory independence are missing in a 
number  of  Member  States235.  The  Council  of  Europe  Recommendation  (2000)23236  on  the 
independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector as well as a number 
of  studies  and  reports237  ,  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) financial238, 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:  

231 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. 
232 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions 
233 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).    
234 As set out by the 2011 INDIREG study : http://www.indireg.eu/ 
235 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.   
236 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=393649& 
237 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 
238 In line with the INDIREG study, financial autonomy means "that the regulator is equipped with sufficient financial resources". 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
-  As regards (i), 5 national regulatory authorities239 are not fully separated from ministerial bodies 

or government.  

-  As regards (ii), 4 Member States do not have any transparency provisions at the moment240 and 2 

Member States241 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.242  As  regards  rules  on  conflict  of  interest  for  appointments,  no 
such rules exist in 6 countries243, there are no rules against conflict of interest with government244 
in  6  countries,  and  9  do  not  have  rules  on  conflict  of  interest  with  Parliament  and  political 
parties.245 A small number of countries neither have rules on the possible conflict of interest with 
industry  (5)246.    In  a  few  countries,  no  specific  rules  exist  to  protect  Board  members  against 
arbitrary dismissal (5). 247 

-  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 budgetary248 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 countries249. The same can be said as regards 
staffing250.  In  this  context,  the  RADAR  study  also  concluded  that  the  level  of  staff  has  been 
considered  to  be  problematic  for  several  regulators251.  A  more  qualitative  assessment  by  ERGA 
gave  a  close  conclusion252.  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 instructions253 to regulators.  

-  As  regards  (vi),  five  regulators  report  that  they  do  not  have  powers  to  enforce  their  decisions 

autonomously254. 

-  As regards (vii), no particular issue has been identified255.   

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 

239 CY, EE, FI, LV, LT. Source: ERGA Report.   
240 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; cf. Bundesverfassungsgericht, Judgment of 25 March 2014, case no. 1 BvF 1/11 and 1 BvF 4/11, 
ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2014:fs20140325.1bvf000111  
241 Estonia and Luxembourg. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
242 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR, p. 43-60 and ERGA Report p 17-21.   
243 AT, BG, DE (some Länder) , DK, RO, UK. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
244 DE (some Länder and ZDF), ES, Pl, RO, SI, UK. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
245 BE (all communities), EE, ES, FR, DE, NL, PT, RO ,SI.  
246 BE, DE (only RBB), EE, ES and FR.  
247 BE (VRM), DK, EE, LU, SE. Source: Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 
248 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR   
249 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). 
250 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR Staff ranges from 2 persons in Iceland to 306 persons in France or 790 in the UK 
251 German speaking community of BE, CY, CZ, EL, HR, IE and RO . 
252 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). 
253 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). 
254 Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden report that they do not have powers to enforce its decisions autonomously; see ERGA report 
255 Final Report of AVMS-RADAR 

42 

 
 
                                                            
independence and which  affected negatively Public Service Broadcasters (PSB), commercial 
broadcasters and sometimes all players256. 

  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 regulators257. The Commission’s Country Reports 
pointed  to  problems  with  conflict  of  interest  and  the  political  nature  of  the  nomination  and 
appointment procedures in Bulgaria258 and Romania259. 

  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 
measure260.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  Pluralism261 
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 
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.262 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.263 

256 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)  
257  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.  
258 Report On Progress in Bulgaria under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism for  the year xxx  
259  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 
260  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 
261  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.  
262  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. 
263  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  

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  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 protected264. 

  Moreover, regulatory authorities lacking independence are not in a position to guarantee media 
freedom and pluralism265. In many countries where independence of national regulatory bodies 
is weak, challenges to media freedom and pluralism over the last years have been reported266. 
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  body267.  The  same  happened  in  Hungary  in  2010,  where  a  number  of 
provisions of a draft law raised concerns related to media pluralism. The Commission268, the 
European Parliament269, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media270, the Council of 
Europe271 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 
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  reported272.  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  body273.  The  same  happened  in  Hungary  in  2010,  where  a  number  of 
provisions  of  a  draft  law  raised  concerns  related  to  media  pluralism.  The  Commission274,  the 

264 E.g. reply to the 2015 public consultation by UK Government or FOX  International channels. 
265 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." 
266 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  
267Progress Reports  http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 
268 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  
269 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 
270 Press release: http://www.osce.org/fom/90823 and  http://www.osce.org/fom/74687 
271http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/media/publications/Hungary/Hungary%20Media%20Acts%20Analysis%20-%20Final%2014-05-
2012%20(2).pdf 
272 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  
273Progress Reports  http://ec.europa.eu/cvm/docs/com_2013_47_en.pdf 
274 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  
44 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
European  Parliament275,  the  OSCE  Representative  on  Freedom  of  the  Media276,  the  Council  of 
Europe277  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 chairman278. 

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 States279.  

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 markets280. 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. . 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 license281. 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 regulator282 that led to the preliminary ruling by ECJ. 283  

275 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 
276 Press release: http://www.osce.org/fom/90823 and  http://www.osce.org/fom/74687 
277http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/media/publications/Hungary/Hungary%20Media%20Acts%20Analysis%20-%20Final%2014-05-
2012%20(2).pdf 
278 http://www.osce.org/fom/167586 
279 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 
280 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 
281 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. The Commission sent in this context two administrative letters (EU Pilot letter 3161/12/INSO and 
administrative letter Ares (2013) 3366906). 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/). 
282 The case was launched under 1971/11/INSO in Pilot following formal complaint CHAP(2011)00417), subsequently infringement procedure was 
initiated No 2011/4127. 
283 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  
45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 
States284.  

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 
in  some  Member  States  electronic 
communications  and  audiovisual  media  services  are  already  under  the  supervision  of  the  same 
regulator. 

regulators,  particularly  as 

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)23285 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 concentration286; 
and Resolution No. 2 of the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy287 on cultural 
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.   

284 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 
285https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2000)23&Language=lanEnglish&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&
BackColorLogged=FDC864 
286 https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1089615 
287 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/DH-MM(2006)004_en.pdf 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 States288 or voluntary commitments by the audiovisual media service 
providers289. Voluntary codes  for broadcasting services have been  introduced  in  7 Member States290 
and for on-demand in 5291. 

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.292 

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.293 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 
(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).294  Overall,  persons  affected  by 
disabilities still face significant barriers when accessing audiovisual content in the EU.295 

In the 2015 Public consultation, viewers and regulators296 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. 

288 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). 
289 1st and 2nd Application reports on the AVMSD.  
290 DE, FR, CY, LT, MT, PL, NL 
291 AT, DE, CZ, IE, UK  
292 E-accessibility study: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news-redirect/12306 
293 Ibidem 
294 Ibidem 
295  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. 
296 ATVOD, OFCOM, ES CNMC.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Finally,  evidence297  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 States298 have introduced statutory rules requiring providers to adopt measures to 
facilitate  accessibility.  While  some  Member  States  have  very  detailed  statutory299  or  self-  or  co-
regulatory rules300, others have only very general provisions. Some limit the accessibility obligation to 
public service broadcasters (included  in the  public service contracts)301. In some Member States, an 
accessibility  obligation  is  included  in  the  broadcasters'  licenses  for  the  provision  of  broadcasting 
services.302As regards on-demand services, only 2 countries (Belgium and Greece) impose targets on 
the share of accessibility services303. 

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. 

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  States304  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 service305. 

297 E-accessibility study   
298 All the Member States with the exception of BG, LU, LV   
299 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. 
300 DE, FR, CY, LT, MT, PL, NL and for on-demand AT, DE, CZ, IE, UK 
301 BE,DK, ES, FR, UK, HR, IE, PT, RO, SE;  
302 BG, DE, DK, EE, SE, UK 
303 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.  
304 BE, EE, FI, FR, LU, NL, UK 
305 Reply by OFCOM and ATVOD to the 2013 Green paper Public consultation on AVMSD and to the 2015 AVMSD Public Consultation 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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.306 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 
output307. 

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 platforms308. 

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  2010-2020309  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-
2010310. 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 
EMPL)  311.  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 

306 Sky plc reported a EUR 6.3 million, Canal + Groupe EUR 2.1 million of yearly costs. 
307 Peter Olaf Looms, The production and delivery of DTV Access Services, EBU Technical review – 2010 Q3 
308 Ibidem 
309 COM(2010) 636 final 
310 COM(2003) 650 final 
311 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=89&newsId=2400&furtherNews=yes 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
television312. The AVMSD mentions the football World Cup and the European football championship 
as examples of such events313. 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 decision314 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 
designation315. 

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.316  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 proportionality317. 

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, 

312 Article 14 AVMSD 
313 Recital 49 AVMSD 
314OJ L 187 of 17.07 2012, pages 57-61 
315 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, C-201/11 P - UEFA v Commission http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-201/11 
316 Article 15 AVMSD 
317 Case C-283/11 Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-283+/11 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
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. 

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 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
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 Reply318 
(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 Recommendation319. 

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 programmes320. 

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 

318 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006H0952&from=EN 
319 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31998H0560&from=EN 
320  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. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 scheme321.  

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 
States322  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  beverages323  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  conduct324.  There  are  still  a 
number of Member States where there are no relevant measures in place325 or the existing legislation 
only  encourages  the  developments  of  such  codes326.  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 

321 See Annex 10. 
322 BE (fr), IE, ES, PL 
323 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.  
324 MS with new codes: EE, EL, PL; MS where codes were updated: IE, ES, NL, FR, PT. 
325 LU, HU, MT – but now legislation has been proposed 
326 CY, LT, LV 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
increase  compared  to  2008,  when  estimates  were  1  in  4327.  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 strengthened328. 

As  regards  protection  of  minors,  many  Member  States  have  in  place  codes  of  conduct  on  minors' 
protection329 or other self-regulatory systems330.  

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)331 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 Directive332. 

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 ERGA333 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  Media334).  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  terrorists335"  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 

327 EU Action Plan on Childhood Obesity 2014-2020 
(http://ec.europa.eu/health/nutrition_physical_activity/docs/childhoodobesity_actionplan_2014_2020_en.pdf) 
328 1st Application Report of May 2012 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203&from=EN) 
329 AT, BE-V, BE-Fr, BG, CZ, DE, ES, IE, IT, SE 
330 EL, FR, HU, LV, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI, UK 
331 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/536460/IPOL_STU(2015)536460_EN.pdf 
332 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. 
333 ERGA recommendations on protection of minors in a converged environment  
334 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. 
335 http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/06/social-media-companies-step-up-battle-against-militant-propaganda/ 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
moderation  and  YouTube  also  relies  on  the  support  of  a  network  of  external  organisations336).  
Activists  have  demonstrated  that  Facebook  enacts  different  standards  for  content  moderation  i.e. 
nudity images are removed more quickly than incitement to violence337. YouTube primarily relies on 
the number of complaints received to review content338 and this has shortcomings339. The Council of 
Europe reported that community guidelines are ineffective against hate speech340. 

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 
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  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. 

336 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. 
337 http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/3/9662836/facebook-hate-speech-germany-protest-topless-photo-racism 
338  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 
339 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. 
340https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/youth/Source/Resources/Publications/2014_Starting_Points_for_Combating_Hate_Speech_Online.pdf 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
These  SROs  are  either  funded  by  membership  fees  (18  of  them)  or  a  levy  system  (5)  from  the 
industry. 341 

Coherence 
The 2001 White Paper on European Governance342 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 making343 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 Union344 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   

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 
sector345. 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. 

341 Source: EASA (European Advertising Standards Alliance) 
342 COM (2001) 428. 
343 OJ C 321, 31.12.2003. 
344 COM (2005)97 final 
345 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. 

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 reported346. 
This may hamper the effective application of the AVMSD and have a negative impact on pluralism, 
media freedom and the level playing field. 

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  

2.  Synopsis report on the results of the 2015 Public consultation on the AVMSD 

346 Culture Council Conclusions of 26 November 2013.  

57 

 
 
 
                                                            
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  

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 

58 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG: DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology 

Agenda planning: 2015/CNECT/006 

Organisation and timing:  

The evaluation took place between March and December 2015. The evaluation draws from evidence gathered 
prior to and during this evaluation period. Preparatory work on the evaluation of the AVMSD started as early 
as in 2013, following the acknowledgement in the 1stAVMSD Application report for the years 2009-2010of the 
need to the test the AVMSD against market developments. 

The evaluation has been carried out by Unit G.1 "Converging Media and Content" of the European 
Commission, DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology. The evaluation 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 DG 
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.  Evidence  used.  The  Commission  gathered  qualitative  and  quantitative  evidence  from 

various sources. The following elements constituted the evidence base: 

  Stakeholder consultations (see ANNEX 2).  

  The findings of the Commission's monitoring of the AVMSD pursuant to Article 33347 of the Directive (1st 
Application report for the years 2009-2010348; 2nd Application report on the AVMSD349 for the years 2011-
2013; reports on Articles 16 and 17350). 

  Policy  recommendations  from  other  EU  institutions,  namely  the  EP351,  the  Council352,  the  European 

Economic and Social Committee353 and the Committee of the Regions354.  

347 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. 
348 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0203 
349 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.  
350 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/avmsd-reports-european-works 
351 Three Own-initiative reports adopted by the European Parliament. A) 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; B)the July 2013 "Connected TV" report (Rapporteur MEP Petra Kammerevert (S&D, DE)) calling on the Commission to 
evaluate the extent to which it is necessary to revise 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 
59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Survey on AVMSD cost and benefits. 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 (ERGA355), 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  studies356  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 required357.  

   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 of the audiovisual media 

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. 
352 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 
353 Opinion adopted by the 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 
354 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 
355 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-decision-establishing-european-regulators-group-audiovisual-media-services 
356http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:212396-2015:TEXT:EN:HTML&ticket=ST-1292379-
SKem8OGQ1reJn1IxAZqVGszP2zjXhYuZOoStsF8rBu0ZCOZKgO05NbMy9k6hQrTzIimWUTdcKGfvm49lhwu7y5m-Jj71zxYb8yr5J3R6eCTiGK-
TqeqixAzhASPjqjbmnf8X5hXPzlpiWbUx9btUwoJzMau 
357 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-exposure-minors-alcohol-advertising-tv-and-online-services 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                          
services  regulatory  bodies.  The  draft  final  report  was  delivered  to  the  Commission  in  October  2015 
and published358 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-22-201359. 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)"360  
and "on-demand markets in the European Union – 2014 and 2015 developments"361) 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:  

MAVISE362 
IRIS Merlin363 
Eurostat 
EPRA database364 

EU infringement cases365 
Freedom of press index 
AVMSDatabase366 
National  audiovisual  services 
databases367 

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. 
Data on infringement cases related to AVMSD. 
Data on media freedom.  
National legislation transposing specific AVMSD Articles 
Data on market share of audiovisual service providers 

358 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-audiovisual-media-services 
359 http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:279501-2014:TEXT:EN:HTML 
360 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/study-data-and-information-costs-and-benefits-audiovisual-media-service-
directive-avmsd 
361 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/demand-audiovisual-markets-european-union-smart-20120028 
362 http://mavise.obs.coe.int/  
363 http://merlin.obs.coe.int/  
364 http://www.epra.org/articles/media-legislation and http://www.epra.org/organisations  
365 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/infringements-proceedings/infringement_decisions/?lang_code=en  
366 http://avmsd.obs.coe.int/cgi-bin/search.php 

61 

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

context of the studies mentioned above. 

3.  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  Paper368  "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 2014369. 
In 2013, the Commission launched a Public consultation370 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.371  

  Survey 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 AVMSD372. 

  Discussions with Member States audiovisual regulators within the ERGA373.  
 

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 Parliament374, the Council375, the European Economic and Social Committee376 and 
the Committee of the Regions377. 

367 For example, http://www.tns.lt/, http://www.tns.lv/, http://www.finnpanel.fi/, http://www.agtt.at/, http://www.kek-online.de/. 
368 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/consultation-green-paper-preparing-fully-converged-audiovisual-world-growth-creation-and-values  
369 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/publication-summaries-green-paper-replies  
370 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-independence-audiovisual-regulatory-bodies-read-contributions  
371 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-framework-21st 
372 The Agendas and minutes of the AVMSD Contact Committee meetings are available online at https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/avmsd-
contact-committee 
373 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 
374 Two Own-initiative reports adopted by the European Parliament. A) The July 2013 "Connected TV" report (Rapporteur MEP Petra Kammerevert 
(S&D, DE)) calling on the Commission to evaluate the extent to which it is necessary to revise 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. 
375 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 

62 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                          
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. 

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.   
376 Opinion adopted by the 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 
377 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 

63 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                          
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  Consultation378  on  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  Audiovisual  Media  Services379  (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 Europe380, 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: 

378 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-framework-21st 

379 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 

380 COM (2015) 192 final, 6 May 2015. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Convergence  of  views  across  stakeholders  regarding  the  need  for  possible  changes  of  the  rules  on  the 
scope  of  application  of  the  Directive,  although  there  is  no  common  pattern  or  clarity  amongst 
stakeholders as regards the way forward, as well as on the independence of national regulators. 

 

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 category381  

Survey Category 

Number of 
Respondents 

% 

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 

27 

47 

4 

62 

15 

32 

20 

76 

79 

14 

4 

4 

6 

48 

0 

0 

0 

6% 

11% 

1% 

14% 

3% 

7% 

5% 

17% 

18% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

1% 

11% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

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

65 

 
 
 
                                                            
TOTAL 

438 

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   

66 

 
 
 
 
 
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.  

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 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.  

67 

 
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  an  extension  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) 

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. 

68 

 
 
 
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. 

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. 

69 

 
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.  

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 

70 

 
 
 
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'  categories 
supported  the  reinforcement  of  the  AVMSD  rules  on  independence  of  the  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies. 
Those  respondents  favoured  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)  

71 

 
 
 
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.  

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. 

72 

 
 
 
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. 

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. 

73 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3 - MAIN DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING THE EU MARKET FOR AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA 
SERVICES 

  The audiovisual sector mainly comprises large companies which account for an absolute majority 
(more than half) of the workforce in 10 of these. 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 %). 382 

  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.  It  was,  however,  more  common  to  find  that  the 
majority of the workforce was engaged by large enterprises. 383 

  The overall size of the European audiovisual sector in 2014 was around EUR 105.790 million384. 
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  markets385  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  2018386.  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 2018387.  

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)388. 
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 

382 Eurostat statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-xplained/index.php/Programming_and_broadcasting_statistics_-_NACE_Rev._2  
383 Ibid 
384 EAO Yearbook 2015 

385 AU, BE, HR, CZ, DK, Fin, FR, DE, GR, HU, Irl, IT, LX, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, ES, SW, and UK 
386 Data covering 21 MS. Source: IHS technology database. 
387 Data covering 21 MS. Source: IHS technology database 
388 EAO REFIT Data – Note A2 on-demand audiovisual services 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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  389. 
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 
countries  like  Romania,  Portugal  and  Hungary  the  viewing  time  reaches  5:42,  4:56  and 
4:49minutes 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 declined390.  
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%)391. 
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%392. 
A  recent  Eurobarometer393  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 viewers394 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).  

389 EAO based Eurodata TV worldwide report – The development of the European market for on-demand audiovisual services, page 319. The figures 
include linear TV as well as short term catch-up (up to 7 days in some countries.) 
390 EAO report on measurement of fragmented audiovisual audiences (2015 update) 
391http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/yearFrom/1973/yearTo/2014/surveyKy/2041 
392 EAO REFIT data – Note B2 market revenues and investments – VoD revenues 
393 Eurobarometer 411, "Cross border access to online content", August 2015 
394 EAO report on measurement of fragmented audiovisual audiences (2015 update) 

75 

 
 
                                                            
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). 

  Audiovisual  content  is  increasingly  offered  in  innovative  (namely  shorter)  formats.  Mobile 
video  traffic  grew  to  55%  by  the  end  of  2014395.  It  is  estimated  that  nearly  3/4  of  the  world’s 
mobile  data  traffic  will  be  video  by  2019396.  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%)397. 
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  EU398,  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)399.  
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)400. 
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.  

395http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white_paper_c11-520862.html 
396 Source: Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update 2014–2019 White Paper 
397 Source: European Audiovisual Observatory/WARC 
398 Published in September 2015  
399 Source: WARC 
400 Source: European Audiovisual Observatory; Yearbook 2014 and 2012 

76 

 
 
                                                            
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. 

77 

 
ANNEX 4 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON THE PROMOTION OF EU WORKS AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

Article 13 

Member 
State 

No specific 
national 
measures  

Austria         

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 

Financial Contribution 
Public services - No                                                        

Commercial services - No 

proportion 

On  demand  services  offered 
by  the  Austrian  Broadcasting 
Corporation    shall  reserve  the 
majority 
of 
to  European 
programmes 
works.  Other  on  demand 
services  providers  shall  give 
due 
European 
their 
prominence 
catalogues  or  appropriately 
designate them 

works 
in 

to 

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 
promote 
media 
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 
the 
12:  Without 
requirements  of  §  4e  and  §  4f  in 
connection with the provisions of Part 
1a, 
the  majority  proportion  of 
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 
services 
audiovisual 
(Audiovisual 
Services 
Directive),  OJ  No.  L  95,  of  15  April 

media 
Media 

regulation 

law, 

by 

78 

 
 
 
  
  
 
  
                                                       
                                                   
 
Belgium FL 

 X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. By means of 
example 
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. 

On  demand  services  must 
place  particular  emphasis  on 
European  works  by  using  an 
attractive  presentation  in  their 
catalogues.  Two 
types  of 
financial  contribution:  For 
"éditeurs 
services 
de 
télévisuels": up to 2,2% of all 
revenues  generated  by  audio-
for 
visual 
broadcasters  as  well  as  VoD 
service 
a 
providers). 
audiovisual  service  provider 
offers  programmes  in  French 

services 

(valid 

If 

share 

acquisition 

on  Radio 

considerable 

-  Consolidated 

2010, page 1. 
and  Television 
Act 
12 
Broadcasting 
August  2014  –  Article  157:  The  non-
linear 
television  broadcasters  will 
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 
rights 
of  European 
productions  or  to  the  share  and/or 
prominence  of  European  productions 
the  catalogue  of  programmes 
in 
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 
down 
the  potential  resources  and 
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 
they  place  particular 
ensure 
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 
highlight  the  list  of  European  works 
available. 
Article 41: 

that 

of 

79 

 
 
  
Bulgaria 

No 

Yes  

No 

de 

and  Dutch,  only  the  French-
speaking  programmes  will  be 
taken  into  account  for  the 
revenue  calculation.  For  "tout 
distributeur 
services 
télévisuels": either 2€ per user 
or  2,5%  of 
the  revenues. 
Financial contributions can be 
made 
co-
productions and/or acquisition 
of  rights  OR  in  the  for  of  a 
the  Cinema  and 
levy 
Audiovisual Center. 
On  demand  services  shall  use 
an  accesible  and  attractive 
of  European 
presentation 
works on their catalogues.  

directly 

to 

to 

Croatia 

Yes (20%) 

Yes  

OR  

OR 

Yes (in proportion with EU 
works missing from 
programme catalogue to 
comply with the quota) 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. By means of 
example 
financial 
through: 
contributions,  shares  and/or 
prominence measures. 

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.  

for 

Audiovisual  media 

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 
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 

80 

 
  
  
 
 
 
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. 
(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, 
where  practicable  and  by  appropriate 
means, the production of and access to 
European works. 
the 
(b)  In  order 
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 
percentage 
revised 
periodically by the Authority following 
consultations  with 
the  audiovisual 
media service providers. 
Act 132/2010 on On-demand 
Audiovisual Media Services - Article 

Audiovisual  media 

to  comply  with 

may 

be 

81 

Cyprus 

Yes (20%) 

No 

No 

demand 

audiovisual 
On 
services providers shall ensure 
that their catalogues include at 
least  20%  of  European  works 
titles.  

*Please note that according to 
the  suggested  amendment  of 
the  Radio  and  Television 
(1998-
Organizations  Laws 
2015), 
been 
has 
submitted  to  the  House  of 
awaiting 
Parliament 
examination)  the  percentage 
is 10%. 

that 

Czech 
Republic 

Yes (10%) 

No 

Yes (1% total revenues) 

On  demand  services  must 
reserve  at  least  10%  of  the 

 
  
 
  
their 

catalogues 

total  number  of  programmes 
in 
to 
European  works  OR  spend  at 
least  1%  of 
total 
revenues  on  production  or 
right  acquisition  of  European 
works.  

their 

Denmark 

X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall  use 
appropriate  means  to promote 
European 
when 
possible.  

works 

or 

events, 

provider 

7.  (1) and (2): 
(1)  An  on-demand  audiovisual  media 
shall,  where 
service 
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 
European  works 
the  on-
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. 
The 
Television 
Broadcasting  Act  -  consolidated  6 
May 2010 - Article 48:  
The minister for Culture may lay down 
rules 
programming 
the 
activities,  including  rules  about  the 
content, promotion of European works 

through 

Radio 

about 

and 

82 

 
Estonia 

No 

Yes 

Yes (not speficied) 

support 
or 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  by, 
among other means, providing 
for 
financial 
production 
rights 
acquisition  AND  highlighting 
European  works 
their 
catalogues  (including  recent 
works)  presenting  their  origin 
and year of production.  

in 

Germany 

No 

No 

No 

No national 
implementation measures 
have been notified for the 
promotion of European works.  

broadcasting 

and  rules  of 
the  availability  of 
programs.  In  context  with  rules  about 
the 
the 
programs 
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. 

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 
accessibility 
to  European  works 
means,  among  other,  for  on-demand 
audiovisual media service provider: 
1)  provision  of  financial  support  for 
the  production  of  European  works, 
ordering of the works or obtaining the 
rights for the transmission thereof; 
2) highlighting European works in the 
programme  catalogue,  including  the 
five 
works  completed  during 
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: 

last 

83 

 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Finland 

X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  by, 
as  a  means  of  example, 
financial 
contributions, 
enhanced  visibily  or  other 
means. 

France 

Yes (60%) 

Yes 

Yes (15%-26% net 
revenues) In the form of a 
levy (extraterritorial 
application envisaged) 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  by 
means  of:  (i)  reserving  60% 
share  (progressively  applied) 
to 
of 

catalogues 

their 

competitive 

entertainment 

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. 
Further  provisions  on  what 
is 
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 
Council on the coordination of certain 
provisions 
law, 
regulation  or  administrative  action  in 
the 
Member 
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: 

promote 
distribution 

States 
of 

concerning 

shall 
and 

issued 

down 

shall 

laid 

be 

by 

84 

 
  
in 

European  works;  displaying 
an  adequate  proportion  of 
their 
European  works 
financially 
homepage;  and 
contributing 
the 
to 
development  of  European 
cinematographic 
and 
audovisual  works  by  at  least 
12%  to  26%  (depending  on 
the  kind  of  service)  of  their 
net revenues. 

of 

year 

both 

works, 

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  previous 
The  provisions  of 
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 
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, 
works. 
shall 
The 
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 

cinematographic 

proportion 

year 

to 

85 

 
and 

year, 

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 
which the threshold has been reached. 
Art. 5 
those 
I.  ―  Services  other 
in  Articles  3  and  4, 
mentioned 
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 
production 
European 
of 
cinematographic  works,  of  which  at 
least  12%  to  expenditure  contributing 
to  the  development  of  the  production 
of 
French-language 
original 
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 

from 

from 

than 

86 

 
to 

contributing 

mentioned  in  the  fifth  paragraph  of 
Article  1609  sexdecies  B  of 
the 
to  expenditure 
General  Tax  Code 
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 
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 
services 
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 

audiovisual 

the 
of 

works 

shall 

87 

Greece 

X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. By means of 
example 
financial 
through: 
contributions,  shares  and/or 
prominence measures. 

 
Hungary 

Yes (25%) 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall 
allocate at least one quarter of 
length  of 
the 
programmes 
to 
European works. 

total  annual 

available 

services 

time  of 

transmission 

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. 
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, 
and  at  least  eight  percent  of  its 
to  broadcasting 
transmission 
such  Hungarian  works 
that  were 
ordered  by  it  from  an  independent 
or  were 
production 
company, 
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. 

time 

Ireland 

X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. By means of 
financial 
through: 
example 

European Communities (Audiovisual 
Media Services) Regulations 2010 
(S.I. No. 258 of 2010) – Article 11 
(1)(2)(3): 

88 

 
  
 
 
contributions,  shares  and/or 
prominence measures. 

to 

in 

the 

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 
  catalogue  of 
works 
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 
in  Article  3i  of  the  Directive,  it  shall 
be 
complied  with  by 
media service provider. 

the  audiovisual 

Italy 

Yes (20%) 

No 

Yes (5% total revenues)  

OR 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  by 
reserving  a  20%  share  for 
in 
European  works 
their 
catalogues 
(5%  during  a 
transition  period  of  4  years) 

(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 

Audiovisual  media 

89 

 
 
 
 
  
 
by 

the 

during 

OR 
contributing 
financially  with  a  5%  of  their 
a 
(2% 
revenues 
transition period of 4 years) to 
or 
production 
the 
right 
acquisition 
European 
of 
works. In 2015, after a public 
regulation 
consultation, 
establishing the EU quotas has 
been 
the 
amended,  with 
introduction of prominence as 
a third criterion for promoting 
EW  on  VOD.  Due  to  the  co-
regulatory principle expressed 
in art. 44, para 7, of the Italian 
AVMS Code, the definition of 
the 
technical  and  editorial 
criteria  of  prominence  has 
been 
a 
Technical  Table  seeing  the 
participation  of  the  interested 
stakeholders 
(AVMS 
associations 
providers, 
representing 
and 
producers).  The  adherence  to 
prominence is voluntary. 

determined 

authors 

by 

Latvia 

Yes (not 
specified) 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall 
include  European  works  in 
their catalogues 

shall, 

circulation  of  European  audiovisual 
production. 
4.  On-demand  audiovisual  media 
services  providers  under 
Italian 
jurisdiction 
taking  market 
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-
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. 
Electronic  Mass  Media  Law  -  Section 
23. (5): 
An  electronic  mass  medium  which 
audiovisual 
provides 

on-demand 

services, 

90 

 
 
Lithuania 

Yes (50%) 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall 
ensure  that  their  catalogues 
include  at 
least  50%  of 
European titles.  

Luxembourg  X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. 

Malta 

No 

No 

Yes (10% the 
first two years 
and 15% from 
the third year) 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. By means of 
example 
financial 
through: 
contributions,  shares  and/or 
prominence measures. 

shall 

shall 

ducal 

regulation 

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 
Lithuania 
promote,  where 
practicable and by appropriate means, 
the  production  of  and  access 
to 
European works. 
2.  In  pursuing  the  activities  specified 
in  paragraph  1  of 
this  Article, 
providers  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
media  services  shall  ensure  that  at 
least  half  of  the  programmes  in  the 
catalogue  of  on-demand  audiovisual 
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 

the  works  of 

under 

of 

in 

91 

 
  
 
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 
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  

culturally 

and 

Netherlands 

X 

No 

No 

No 

Poland 

Yes (20%) 

Yes 

No 

On  demand  services  promote 
the  production  and  access  to 
European works. 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  in 
(i)  giving 
particular  by: 
prominence by identifying the 
origine  of  works,  creating  a 
search  option  for  European 
providing 
works 

and 

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, 
the  Polish 
produced  originally 

in 

92 

 
 
 
  
information  and  materials; 
AND  (ii)  reserving  at  least 
20%  of  their  catalogues  to 
European works. 

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 

to 
OR 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works 
financial 
a 
through 
their 
contribution 
production 
their 
progressive  incorporation  to 
their  catalogues  AND  giving 
them 
visibility. 
(Article  45  (2)  and  (3)  of  the 
TV  Act  2007). 
  Financial 
contribution  goes  directly  in 

particular 

in 

in 

in 

available 

language, in particular by: 
1)    proper  identification  of  origin  of 
the 
programmes 
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 
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 
in 
the  catalogue  during  a  given 
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 
progressive 
the 
respective catalogue. 
3  -  On-demand  audiovisual  services 
are  to  give  particular  visibility  to 

to 
through 

incorporation 

contributions 

into 

or 

to 

93 

 
  
 
 
Romania 

Yes (20%) 

Yes 

No 

and 

production 
rights 
acquisition  and  the  amounts 
not allocated to investment are 
delivered  to  the  Cinema  and 
audiovisual  institute.  (Article 
16  (2),(3)  and  (4)  of  Law 
55/2012). 

On  demand  services  will, 
insofar as it is feasible and by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
European works. By means of 
financial 
through: 
example 
contributions,  shares  and/or 
prominence measures. 

European  works  in  their  catalogue, 
implementing  features  which  enable 
the public to search for such works by 
their origin.  

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 
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.  

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. 

Slovakia 

Yes (20%) 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  by 
reserving  a  20%  share  for 

Act 308/2000 on Broadcasting and 
Retransmission and on the amendment 
of Act No. 195/2000on 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Slovenia 

Yes (10%) 

No 

Yes (1% total revenues) 

OR 

Spain 

Yes (30%) 

No 

Yes (5% of turnover) 

AND 

European  works 
catalogues. 

in 

their 

On  demand  services  shall 
promote  European  works  by 
reserving a 10% share in their 
catalogues  OR,  if  not  met,  by 
financially  contributing  with 
at  least  1%  of  their  total 
revenues. 

30% 

On  demand  services  shall 
of 
reserve 
their 
catalogues 
European 
for 
works  (half  of  these  in  an 
language) 
Spanish  official 
AND 
financially 
contribute  to  the  funding  of 
audiovisual  content  with  at 

shall 

of 

an 

for  at 
in 
of 

Telecommunications - consolidated 3 
February 2015 - § 27a (1): 
on-demand 
provider 
The 
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. 
Audiovisual Media Services Act 
(ZAvMS) - Art. 16 (2) and (3): 
(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. 
(3)  A 
on-demand 
of 
audiovisual media services that fails to 
attain the proportion referred to in the 
preceding  paragraph  must,  every 
calendar 
funds 
amounting  to  at  least  one  per  cent  of 
its  audiovisual 
from 
all  revenues 
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 
[…] 
Providers 
of 
a 
programmes  shall  reserve  30%  of  the 
catalogue for European works. Half of 

catalogue 

provider 

earmark 

year, 

of 

95 

 
  
 
  
 
least 5% of their turnover.  

Sweden 

X 

No 

No 

No 

United 
Kingdom 

X 

No 

No 

No 

On  demand  services  shall, 
when practicable, use suitable 
methods to promote European 
works. 

On  demand  services  shall, 
where  practicable  and  by 
appropriate  means,  promote 
production  and  access 
to 
European works.  

to 

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 
contribute  annually 
the  early 
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 
that  broadcast 
these  audiovisual 
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 

96 

 
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 
Services Directive). 

97 

 
ANNEX 5 – 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 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
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 

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, 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

21.02.2013 

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 
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.  

to 

the 

Further 
law,  broadcasters 
participate  in  the  system  of  protecting 
minors through the creation of internal 
viewing  committees 
in  charge  of 
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  

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 
up  criteria  for 
the  assessment  of 
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 

“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-
on 
screen 
electronic  programme  guide  and 
acoustic  warning  or  screen  icon 
during  diffusion  if  no  access  code 
(Art. 9.2a) SMA).  

In  practice,  acoustic  warning  is  not 
currently used.  

Integrated  approach  across  all 
audiovisual  media 
services 
regarding  protection  of  minors 
(including general prohibition for 
“seriously 
impair”  content  on 
VOD). 

“Seriously impair”: banned. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
access restrictions. 

icons 

or 
On-screen 
required  by 
warnings 
technical 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

acoustic 
law  + 
or 

Parental  code  (PIN  code)  +  on- 
on 
screen 
electronic  programme  guide  and 
catalogues (Art. 9.2b) SMA). 

age-related 

icons 

impair” 
banned 

(restrictive 
on  VOD 

“Seriously 
definition): 
services. 
“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

Technical access restrictions, such as 
filtering, 
pre-
locking/PIN  codes  or  other  age 
verification systems). 

encryption, 

approach  between 
Graduated 
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. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

CZ 

DE 

Art. 19(5) (a)-(c): linear 
services / Art. 181 (1) – (2): 
non-linear services 

Regulations of Radio and 
Television Stations  
Reg. 21(6)-(7) 

Media literacy policies are encouraged. 

Acoustic  warnings  of  news  stories 
unsuitable  for  minors  are  given  more 
than once (that is required by law). 

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.   

“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 

“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 

of 

voluntary 

Co-regulatory  system  applicable 
to 
both  linear  and  non-linear  services: 
organisations 
self-
regulation  formally  approved  by  the 
Commission  for 
the  Protection  of 
Minors  in  Electronic  Media  (KJM) 
of 
under 
part 
JMStV 
classification  agreements  with 
the 
(German  “Länder”) 
federal 

states 

the 

or 

On-screen 
warnings required by law. 

icons 

+ 

acoustic 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”  (absolute  illegal 
content 
/  pornography,  certain 
indexed content and contents which 
ex. 
impairs  minors: 
seriously 
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 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

(Länder), Art. 5, Art. 11 
(applicable to broadcasting 
and telemedia services) 

under the Youth Protection Act, check 
that  the  provisions  of  the  JMStV  are 
adhered to by their members.  

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection. 

“Likely  to  impair”:  allowed  with 
some form of protection:  

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 
requirements 
the 
protection  of  minors  (KJM  sets  out  a 
catalogue  of  criteria  for  the  regulation 
AVMS 
in 
(‘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. 

broadcasting 

is  also 

relation 

and 

to 

in 

of 

voluntary 

Organisations 
self-
regulation  can  also  be  established  for 
on-demand  AVMS.  The  multimedia 
voluntary  self-regulatory  association 
FSM 
the  biggest  self-
regulatory  organisations.  Its  code  of 
conduct  for  providers  covers  both 
linear and nonlinear audiovisual media 
services. 

is  one  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 

of 

Watershed  +  on-screen  icons  or 
acoustic warnings required by law + 
technical 
or 
devices 
filtering 
software used by broadcasters. 

a 

sufficient 

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 
card checks, passport number checks 
and combinations thereof. 

“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  Youth 
Protection  Act.  Certified  technical 
systems for the protection of minors 
for “telemedia” content which could 
impair minors (Art. 11 JMStV). 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

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 
protection 
he/she 
issues; 
usually decides on all age classification 
within companies. 

related 

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). 

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 

“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 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

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 
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 
impair” 
“seriously 
regarding 
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 

Technical 
restrictions 
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 
in  Spain  signed  a  Self-
providers 
regulation  Code  for  the  audiovisual 
content and minors.  

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding  “seriously 
impair”’ 
contents. 

“Seriously  impair”  (pornography, 
gratuitous violence, gender violence 
and mistreatment): banned. 

Non-compliance  with  self-regulatory 
of 
codes 
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. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
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 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
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. 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
in  May 
two  deliberations 
adopted 
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. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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). 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
from 
accessing harmful contents. 

the  development  of 

to  prevent  minors 

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). 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
if  a  media 
access 
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 

“Likely 
impair”:  allowed  for 
private  media.  Allowed  for  public 
service  media 
access 
restrictions:  if  public  service  media 
is  affiliated  with  NICAM,  respects 
the  watersheds  and  shows 
the 
applicable symbols (age and content 
descriptors  based  on  Kijkwijzer 
system). 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Graduated 
approach  between 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

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 

“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 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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  + 
Pre-locking 
the 
systems 
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.  

to 

Graduated  approach  with  respect 
to  “likely 
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 
violence  of 
realistic  nature  or 
pornographic.  On-screen  icons  are 
encouraged but not required by law. 

law 

to 

the 

the  broadcasting 
According 
licenses, 
broadcasting 
organisations shall take into account 
the impact of radio and television in 
terms  of  format,  topics  and  time  of 
transmission.  This  provision 
is 
applied 
evaluation  of 
the 
programmes  that  contain  or  deal 

in 

public 

“Seriously  impair”:  allowed  with 
access  restrictions,  except  for  VOD 
broadcaster 
service 
by 
(banned). 
“Likely  to  impair:  allowed  with 
some  form  of  protection,  except  for 
VOD  by  public  service  broadcaster 
(banned).  

restrictions 

(age 
Labelling 
technical  access 
classification)  + 
restrictions 
filtering, 
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). 

114 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
technical 
and 
from 
measures 
accessing harmful contents.  

the  development  of 

to  prevent  minors 

approach  between 
Graduated 
linear  and  non-linear  services 
regarding 
impair” 
“seriously 
contents. 

guidance 

Regulatory  authorities  have 
issued 
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 
linear  and  non-linear 
content 
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 
role  in  this  self-regulatory  system.  In 
2013,  the  eight  most  important  VOD 
providers  renewed  the  agreement  and 

such 

broadcasting 

subject  matter 

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. 

(hard 
“Seriously 
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. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

CO/SELF REGULATION 

APPROACHES LINEAR / 
NON-LINEAR AVMS 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN 
LINEAR SERVICES 

PROTECTION TOOLS IN NON-
LINEAR SERVICES 

the code of 2011.  

SK 

NO 

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 

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 

through 

approach 

all 
Integrated 
regulated  audiovisual  sector  regarding 
age  classification  system  and  labelling 
(with  certain  specificities  for  each 
sector). 

approach  between 
Graduated 
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 

through 

approach 

Integrated 
all 
regulated  audiovisual  sector  regarding 
age  classification  system  and  labelling 
(with  certain  specificities  for  each 
sector). 

The new law on the protection of 
minors,  which  might  come  into 
the  1  July  2015, 
force  on 
introduces 
platform-
a 
independent  approach.  Its  scope 
television,  on-
includes 
demand  audiovisual 
services, 
screening  at  public  gatherings  in 
Norway  (including  at  a  cinema) 
and making videograms available 
(including 
public 
to 
distribution of DVD/Blu-ray).  

linear 

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. 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Watershed period in broadcasting services 

Comparative table across Europe 401 

Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

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 

401 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 
to  protect  young  people  from 
necessary  steps 
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 

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 

impair” 
programmes not allowed (programmes must 
be “family-friendly”) 

“Likely 

20:15: 

to 

-  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). 
scenes  of  physical  or 
-12: 
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 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

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) 

watersheds on linear services or parental PIN code). 

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 

channels  and  only  accessible  through  parental 
access code.  

These watersheds are not applied to non-linear 
services (VOD) or to linear services accessible 
by personal access code. 

“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. 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
the 
rated  by 
programme  not 
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 
rating. 

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

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).  

transmitted 

The possessor of a broadcasting licence must ensure 
that  no  programme  are 
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. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
is 
unsuitable  to  them  by  appropriate  rating  (under 
the age of 10/12/16/18) and scheduling time. 

that 

“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.  

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

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 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. 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

123 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

124 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 programmes: prohibited from television 
altogether,  with 
the  only  exception  of 
satellite  and  cable  premium  adult  channels 
and VOD 

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. 

125 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

determine 

Broadcasters  themselves  are  obliged  to  assess 
and 
“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.  

126 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 

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 

-  “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. 

-  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 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
analogue 
01:00 
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 

linear  and  non-linear 
Same  approach  between 
services 
impair”  contents 
(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 rating (PG) for supervision 
of parents or legal guardians. 

-  “-12”  (occasional  and  moderate  violence, 
tobacco/alcohol, 
sex 

horror  scenes,  use  of 
inappropriate 
discreet 
language, 
scene..): allowed after 21:00 + rating. 

-  “-15”(frequent 

violence, 
dangerous scene, horror, discrimination, sex 

moderate 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

LEGAL BASIS 

PRINCIPLE AND RULES 

NATURE OF CONTENT 

WATERSHEDS 

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 

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 

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. 

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). 

“Likely to impair”: allowed in linear services with some form 
protection (on-screen icons required by law) / allowed without 
protection. 

“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.  

scenes, etc.) : allowed after 22:00 + rating. 
-  “-18”  (severe  violence,  suffering,  intense 
horror scene, nudity and sex, discrimination, 
etc.):  allowed after 24:00 + rating. 

-  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). 

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. 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
131 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6 – IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS AT NATIONAL LEVEL 

Transposition of Product Placement rules (Article 11(2)-(4) AVMSD) 

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 

Federal Act on 

Art. 11 (2) 

Art. 11 (3) 

Art. 11 (4) 

§ 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. 

§ 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 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the Austrian 
Broadcasting 
Corporation 
(ORF-G) - 
consolidated 13 
August 2015 

§ 16.  (1) 
Product placement (§ 
1a paragraph 1 
subparagraph 10) 
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 

provisions of § 13, 
programmes may not include 
product placement for the 
benefit of undertakings whose 
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. 

133 

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; 
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 

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 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
  
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 

BG 

YES 
PP prohibited in the 
news, religious 
programmes (without 
derogations) and 
audiovisual media 

Radio and 
Television Act - 
Consolidated 
version of 24 
December 2014 

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 
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. 

Art. 84  (3) 
Programmes must not contain 
product placement of: 
1. cigarettes or tobacco 
products or product placement 
of similar products from 

135 

 
 
 
  
 
services of public-
service providers 
(derogations 
concerning 
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 

undertakings whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products; 
2. specific medicinal products 
available only on prescription, 
or medical treatment available 
only on prescription. 

(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 
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 

136 

 
 
 
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. 

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. 
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, 

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. 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
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 

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 
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 

§ 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. 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

media service provider as a controlling or controlled entity 
under other legislation). 

§ 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; 

§ 53a.  (4)(4) Programme 
units 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; 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 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Provisional 
Tobacco Act - 
consolidated 31 
August 2015 

use the waiver and 
not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider 

products are prohibited.  

[Prohibition of medical 
products included in § 10 
HWG.] 

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, 
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 

140 

 
 
 
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 
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. 

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 

Detailed rules 
with respect to 

§ 31. (1) 
Product placement in 

§ 32. (1) 1)-4), (4) and (5) 
(1) Notwithstanding section 31 (1), product placement in 

 § 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. 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
programmes on 
television and in on-
demand audiovisual 
media services shall 
be prohibited; but 
see  Section 32 

product 
placement are 
laid down in 
Executive 
Order on 
advertising and 
sponsorship - 
consolidated 21 
June 2013 

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 
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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

142 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and sale of cigarettes and 
other tobacco products; 
2) prescription medicinal 
products or medical 
treatments available only on a 
medical prescription. 

amount to a stricter 
rule. 

Detail: MS chose to 
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 

production props and prizes, with a view to their inclusion in a 
programme. 
(4) A programme containing product placement shall meet the 
following requirements: 
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 

143 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
[FI] Information 
Society Code - 
consolidated 18 
September 2015  

not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
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. 

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. 

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 

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. 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
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 

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 
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 

 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. 

145 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
EL 

NO 

Decree No. 109  Article 12  1.Product 

placement shall be 
prohibited. 

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, 

Act CLXXXV 
of 2010 on 
Media Services 
and Mass 

30. §  (1) 
With the exceptions 
provided under 
Paragraph (2), 

cinématographiques, les fictions audiovisuelles et les 
vidéomusiques, sauf lorsqu'elles sont destinées aux enfants. 
  Il est interdit dans les autres programmes. 

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 

  Les produits ou services du 
parrain d'une émission ne 
peuvent faire l'objet d'un 
placement dans cette 
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: 

146 

 
 
 
Communication 
- Consolidated 1 
July 2015 

product placement in 
media services shall 
be prohibited. 

religious programmes 
and reporting official 
events even as 
product props. 

"Children" - minors 
under the age of 14. 

HR 

NO 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 

The Electronic 
Media Act - 
Official Gazette 
No. 

Art. 18  (1) 
Product placement 
shall be prohibited. 

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 
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 

(a) tobacco products, 
cigarettes or other products 
originating from undertakings, 
the primary activity of which 
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: 

147 

 
 
 
153/09,84/11, 
94713, 136/13 

not apply 
identification 
requirement to 
programmes neither 
produced nor 
commissioned by the 
AVMS provider. 

- tobacco products or 
cigarettes or product 
placement of natural and legal 
persons whose principal 
activity is the manufacture or 
sale of cigarettes and other 
tobacco products, or 
- specific medicinal products 
or medical treatments 
available only on prescription. 

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 
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. 

148 

 
IE 

NO 

Broadcasting 
Act - 
consolidated 1 
December 2014 

BAI General 
Commercial 
Communication
s Code 

Section 42. (2) (j) 
Broadcasting codes 
shall provide— 
(j) for the matters 
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. 

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. 

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). 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

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. 
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 

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. 

150 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Section 13(1) Media 
service providers of 
on-demand 
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. 

provider,  when a programme resumes  after  an advertising 
break, in order  to avoid any confusion  on the part  of the 
viewer. 

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 

9. Programmes shown on an 
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 

151 

IT 

NO 

Audiovisual 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Media Services 
Code - 
Consolidated 13 
August 2015 

Detail: MS chose to 
use the waiver and 
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 

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 
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; 

tobacco products or cigarettes, 
or products from companies 
whose main activity is the 
manufacture or sales of 
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. 

152 

 
 
 
  
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 

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 
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 

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 

153 

 
 
 
the programmes of an 
electronic mass 
medium is prohibited 
except for the cases 
referred to in Section 
45, Paragraph one of 
this Law. 

MT 

YES 
No derogation 
concerning product 
props in the 
programmes for 
children 

No product 

Broadcasting 
Act 350 - 
consolidated as 
latest amended 
in 2015 

16M  (1) 
Subject to the 
provisions of this 
article, product 
placement shall be 
prohibited. 

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, 
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 

following goods and services 
in the broadcasts of an 
audiovisual electronic media 
is prohibited: 
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 

154 

 
 
placement of alcohol 
and gambling 
services during 
certain times of the 
day (watershed) 

Waiving possibility 
left to the Authority 

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 
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. 

manufacture or sale of 
cigarettes and other tobacco 
products; or 
(b) specific medicinal 
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. 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Act no 552 
amending the 
Media Act 2008 
and the Tobacco 
Act for the 
implementation 
of the Audio-
Visual Media 
Services 
Directive 

Art PSB: 2.88b 3.b  
The media output 
contains no product 
placement.  
Art. 3.19a  1. In 
programming of 
commercial 
broadcasting services 
product placement is 
prohibited.   

NL 

YES 
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 

Art. 3.19a  2.Unless the programming is specially intended for 
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 

Article 5.2 of the Tobacco Act 
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 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
the product or the 
service shall be 
inserted at the end of 
the programme 

PT 

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  

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) 

provisions relating to 
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 

product or an entity providing the placed service as well as on 
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 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
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) 

their nature, or by the recurrent form in which such items are 
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, 

158 

 
 
 
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 

Chapter 6  Section 
11. Television or on-
demand television 
programmes must not 
include product 

according to the highest television advertising price rate 
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 

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 

159 

 
 
 
placement unless 
Section 2 determines 
otherwise. 

Complemented 
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 

under 12 years of age nor to 
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. 

be broadcast if the programme does not unduly promote 
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 

160 

 
 
 
 
 § 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 

programme, and when a programme resumes after an 
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 

§ 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. 

161 

 
 
 
 
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. 

intended for minors up to 12 years of age. 
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 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
trade mark that is not allowed 
to be advertised on 
television. 

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. 

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 

Transposition of the 12-minute advertising limitation (Article 23 AVMSD) 

Stricter rule for 12-
minute limitation 

Legal basis 

MS 

Article 23(1) AVMSD 
The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20 %. 

Article 23(2) AVMSD 
Paragraph 1 shall not apply to announcements 
made by the broadcaster in connection with its 
own programmes and ancillary products 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

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. 

Czech 
Republic 

NO 

Act 231/2001 on Radio and 
Television Broadcasting and on 

For  PSB  channels  (BNT):  15  minutes 
over a period of 24 hours and 4 minutes 
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 

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. 

shall not apply to a broadcaster’s notification 
concerning its own programmes and ancillary 

164 

 
 
 
 
amendment to other acts - 
Consolidated 21 April 2010 - § 
50(2) and 50(4) 

allocated to advertising and teleshopping 
spots shall not exceed 12 minutes. 

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. 

Denmark 

YES for all types of 
channels 

Order on advertising and 
sponsorship - consolidated 21 June 
2013 - § 6 (1) 

The Radio and Television 
Broadcasting Act - consolidated 6 
May 2010 - § 75. (1) 

Germany 

YES for PSB  

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 

Advertisements on radio and television 
may occupy a maximum of 12 minutes 
per hour. 
Section 75 of the Radio and Television 
Broadcasting Act: 
"Advertisements on radio and television 
may occupy a maximum of  15% of the 
individual licensee's daily broadcast time 
and a maximum of  12 minutes per hour" 

Time devoted to teleshopping spots is 
counted in the time limit for advertising 
and is submitted to a specific limit of 1 
hour per day. 

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.  

After 8 p.m. as well as on Sundays and 
on public holidays celebrated in the 
whole of Germany, advertising may not 
be broadcast.   

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 
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. 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia 

NO 

Media Service Act - Consolidated 
22 May 2013 - § 29.  (1) 

The hourly transmission time of television 
and radio advertising spots and 
teleshopping shall not exceed 12 minutes 

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." 

Ireland 

YES for all types of 
channels 

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. 

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. 
The proportion of television advertising 
spots and teleshopping spots within a 
given clock hour shall not exceed 20%. 

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), 
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. 

166 

 
 
 
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. 

Television media service providers may 
exercise that right by broadcasting 12 
minutes of advertisements per clock hour.  

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." 

France 

YES  
for channels covering 
areas of 10 million 
inhabitants and for 
PSB 

Law n° 86-1067 of 30 September 
1986 on the Freedom of 
communication - consolidated 16 
October 2015 - Art. 15  V. of 
Décret n°92-280 du 27 mars 1992 

Croatia 

NO  

Electronic Media Act - 
Consolidated 8 July 2011 - Art. 
32  (1)-(2) 

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 
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 

For PSB channels: no advertising between 
8pm and 6am 
The duration of advertising spots and 
teleshopping spots within a given clock 
hour (…) shall not exceed 12 minutes. 

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 made by the 
television broadcaster in connection with its own 
programmes and ancillary products directly 
derived from those programmes, sponsorship 
announcements and product placements. 
"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." 

167 

 
 
 
 
 
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 
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). 

The time reserved for advertising and 
teleshopping (…) may not exceed 20 per 

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 

168 

 
 
 
 
Lithuania 

NO 

Luxembour
g 

NO 

Hungary 

NO 
but more details on 
advertisements 
included in the limit 
and daily limit on 
teleshopping 

Law on the Provision of 
Information to the Public - 
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) 

Malta 

NO 

Broadcasting Act 350 - 
consolidated as latest amended in 
2015 - Article 19 (2)  15 and 16. 

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 
given clock hour must not exceed 20%.  

The amount of broadcasting time devoted 
to advertising and to teleshopping 
programs within one hour must not exceed 
20 %. 

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%. 

Netherlands  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 - 

The programming on a programme 
channel consists of a maximum of twelve 
minutes per hour of advertisement and 
teleshopping messages. 

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 
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." 

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." 
[seems for the database and our assessment that  
there is no transposition, so stricter rule] 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
Austria 

YES for PSB 

Art. 3.8  1. 

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) 

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. 

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 

Television Law no. 8/2011 - 
Article 40  1 and 2. 

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. 

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.  

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, and do not apply to 
the promotion of associated products, including 
where not directly related to the programmes of 
the television operators." 

170 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Romania 

Yes for PSB 

The Audiovisual Law - 
consolidated 22 November 2009 - 
Art. 35 (1)-(2) 

Slovenia 

NO 

Audiovisual Media Services Act 
(ZAvMS) - Art. 32 (1) and (4) 

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 
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) 

Finland 

NO 

Information Society Code - 
consolidated 18 September 2015 - 
222 § 

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. 
The proportion of broadcasting time 
devoted to teleshopping spots and 
television advertising shall not exceed 12 
minutes per hour of daily broadcasting 
time (…). 

Sweden 

NO 

Radio and Television Act - 
consolidated 17 June 2010 - 
Chapter 8  1§  para. 1 and 16§. 

Promotional messages may be broadcast 
on television for no more than 12 minutes 
per full clock hour. 

+additional rule on minimum time:  "The 
total time devoted to promotional 

"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 
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, "  

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. " 

171 

 
 
 
 
United 
Kingdom 

YES for PSB and 
other channels 

Ofcom Code on the Scheduling of 
Television Advertising – 4 and 7 

messages in a television broadcast may 
not be less than one minute in any given 
case(…)" 
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. 

Various rules including alcohol advertising, advertising in children's programmes and showing of a sponsorship logo in children's programmes 

172 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prohibition of advertising in 
children's programmes 

Additional  prohibition /regulation of 
alcohol/spirits advertising 

Prohibition of sponsorship logo in children's 
programmes 

(Article 10(4)) AVMSD) 

Austria 

NO 

YES 

NO 

not 

PSB  must 
broadcast 
targeting  minors 
advertising 
immediately  before  and  after 
children's programmes 

No spirits advertising  

Belgium 

YES 

YES  

YES on PSB and local televisions 

(French 
Community) 

No spirits advertising on PSB  

Broadcasters  advertising  alcohol  should  provide 
equivalent free space for prevention campaigns 

BE 

YES 

YES  

YES for PSB 

(Flemish 
Community) 

No  alcohol  advertising  before  and  after 
children's programmes 

No  sponsoring  of  children's  programmes  by 
alcohol producers 

Bulgaria 

NO 

YES 

YES 

No direct spirits advertising  

No indirect spirits advertising before 22.00 

173 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus 

NO 

Czech 
Republic 

NO 

Denmark 

NO 

Germany 

YES 

Greece 

Estonia 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

YES 

No  advertising  on  PSB  after  20.00,  on  Sundays 
and official holidays 

NO 

YES 

No alcohol advertising on PSB 

No alcohol advertising between 7.00 and 21.00 

Finland 

NO 

YES 

No spirits advertising   

No alcohol advertising between 07.00 and 21.00 

France 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

174 

 
 
 
 
No alcohol advertising  

Hungary 

NO 

YES 

No alcohol advertising on PSB 

No  spirits advertising between 18.30 and 21.30 

Ireland 

NO 

YES 

No spirits advertising  

No  alcohol  advertising  in  or  around  children's 
programmes  

Italy 

NO  

YES 

but protected time slot between 
16.00  and  19.00  and  during 
children  programmes 
(no 
alcohol,  call  and  contraceptive 
advertising) 

No spirits advertising between 16.00 and  9.00 

No spirits advertising during breaks immediately 
before or after children programmes 

Lithuania 

YES 

YES 

for PSB 

No alcohol advertising 18.00 and 23.00 

As of 2012, no alcohol advertising  

Latvia 

NO 

YES  

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

175 

 
 
 
 
No spirits advertising  

Luxemburg 

NO 

Malta 

NO 

NO 

YES  

No alcohol advertising between 06.00 and 21.00 

Netherlands 

YES 

YES 

No alcohol advertising between 06.00 and 21.00 

Poland 

YES 

YES 

No alcohol advertising except beer 

No  beer  advertising  06.00  and  20.00  (except 
during sporting games) 

Portugal 

NO  

YES 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

NO 

No alcohol advertising between  7.00 and 22.30. 

but no split screen advertising in 
children's  programmes  and  no 
interactive  advertising 
in  and 
around children's programmes 

No  advertising  for  HFFS  during 
children's  programmes  and  no 
teleshopping  

176 

 
  
 
Romania 

NO  

YES 

but  prohibition  of  split  screen 
advertising 
programmes 
in 
destined to minors 

No spirits advertising between 06.00 and 22.00 

Slovakia 

NO 

YES 

No  alcohol  advertising  except  beer  and  wine 
between 06.00 and 22.00 

No wine advertising between 06.00 and 20.00 

Slovenia 

NO 

YES 

No alcohol advertising  

Spain 

NO 

YES 

No spirits advertising  

No alcohol advertising between 6.00 and 20.30. 

NO 

NO 

NO 

NO 

177 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden 

YES 

YES 

No alcohol advertising  

United 
Kingdom 

NO  

 YES 

NO 

YES 

No  low/  no  alcohol  drinks  advertising  adjacent 
to programmes for young audiences  

is  prohibited 

Product  placement 
in 
children’s  programmes.  Where  a  sponsor 
is  prohibited  from  product  placing  in  the 
programme  it  is  sponsoring,  sponsorship 
credits  may  not  be  shown  during  the 
sponsored programme. 

but may not be advertised in or 
adjacent  to  :  *programmes  for 
minors audiences : 

-Gambling 
(with 
exceptions) / betting 

some 

-Slimming products / treatments 
/establishments 

-Certain religious matters  

-Live premium rate services   

*programmes 
audiences : 

for 

young 

-Lotteries/gaming/betting 

-Medicines,  vitamins  or  dietary 

178 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

Transposition of article 9(2) AVMSD  on fatty food  

179 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Country 

Statutory instrument/ 

Self-regulation 

General provisions in the law 
(encouragement) 

Co-regulation 

Austria  

BGB1  I  No  50/2010  requires  from  public 
service  broadcasters  and  private  media 
providers  to  issue  guidelines  for  commercial 
in  and 
communications  of  HFSS 
between children's programmes. 

foods 

Belgium 

French  
communit
y 

Since  February  2010  Code  of  Conduct  by  Austrian 
broadcasters, enforced by the Austrian Advertising Council. 

§ 36 (3) AMS-Act; § 13 (8) ORF-Act 

In  the  event  of  adverse  decision  by  the  Council  the 
broadcasters  commit  not  to  broadcast  the  audiovisual 
commercial communication concerned.      

FEVIA code – ICC food framework enforced by JEP (Belgian 
Advertising Ethics Board)  

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. 

Belgium  

Art.77 of the Decree of 27 March 2009 
stipulates that commercial communications 

FEVIA code – ICC food framework enforced by JEP (Belgian 
Advertising Ethics Board) 

Federal competence.  

Art. 7 of the "health law"  states that 

180 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for children and young people may not 
encourage or condone excessive 
consumption of HFSS foods 

Flemish 
communit
y 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

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. 

Bulgaria's National Council for Self-regulation (Advertising 
industry + TV and radio broadcasters)  : 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 

181 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
(HURA)  and  the  specialized  agency 

for 
communication 
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  purpose  of 
improving the regulatory framework concerning the protection 
of 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 
Cyprus  Association  of  Advertisers, 
the  Association  of 
Advertisements  and  Communications  and  the  majority  of 
Cyprus Media has drafted a code of conduct for foods high in 
fat, 
online: 
salt. 
http://www.fed.org.cy/fed/page.php?pageID=180&mpath=/13
8/265) 

(available 

sugar 

and 

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. 

182 

Cyprus 

 
 
Czech 
Rep. 

Denmark 

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 

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. 

183 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
guide  explaining  which  foods  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. 

Estonia 

Finland 

Original text available: Relevant Code of 
conduct 
http://www.tja.ee/public/documents/Elektro
oniline_side/Sideteenused/Meediateenused/
Lastele_suunatud_reklaami_eneseregulatsio
on.pdf    

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. 

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. 

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.  

France 

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 
TV 
advertising 
broadcasters, 

industry, 

184 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany 

producers and Author's Union. 

force 

In November 2013 a new charter to promote 
a  favorable  diet  and  physical  activity  to 
in  programs  and  advertisements 
health 
broadcast on television was signed. It entered 
into 
2014.  
1 
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. 

January 

on 

also 

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)  which 
audiovisual 
are 
commercial  communication  and  are  to  be 
observed  in  the  commercial  communication 
of  HFSS  foods,  provided  this  is  aimed  at 
children. Section 6 of the Interstate Treaty on 
the Protection of Minors, which entered into 
in  2011,  specifically  governs 
force 
the 
to 
regard 
protection  of  minors  with 
electronic  information  and  communication 

applicable 

for 

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.  

Under  the  auspices  of  the  ZAW,  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 for self-regulation in advertising in Germany. 
trade,  media,  communication  agency  and 
The 

food, 

185 

 
 
 
media. 

the 

The 
Interstate 
thirteenth  amending 
Treaty on Broadcasting, which transposed the 
AVMS  Directive,  makes  reference  to  these 
code  of  conduct  by  the  German  Advertising 
Standards Council, in force since July 2009. 

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, 
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 
at 
codes 
http://www.werberat.de/lebensmittel.  

balanced. 

found 

The 

can 

be 

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 

186 

 
Greece 

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. 

Additionally,  there  exist  specific  voluntary  commitments  by 
media service providers: 

The pay -TV and -radio service provider Multichoice Hellas 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, 

Article 10(5) of Presidential decree 
109/2010 obliges audiovisual media 
providers to draw up codes of 
conducts related to inappropriate av 
cc of HFSS foods accompanying or 
included in children's programmes, 
within one year  of commencing their 
programme 

National Broadcasting Council should 
review the codes every two years.  

code  has  not 

The 
established.   

yet  been 

187 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary 

NO RULES  

Italy 

having  knowledge 
marketing.  

in  the  areas  of  pedagogy, 

law  and 

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. 

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 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
recommended”. 

Ireland 

Statutory rules:  

Linear services: 

The  Code  of  Conduct  for  On-demand  Audiovisual  Media 
Service  Providers  commits  on-demand  providers  to  develop  a 
code  of  conduct  on  audiovisual  communications  of  HFSS  that 
target children.  

The BAI has updated (in June 2013) 
broadcasting codes and rules to 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 

Furthermore,  service  providers  are  advised  to  take  on  board 
provisions  of  the  BAI  Commercial  Communications  Code  with 
regard to children’s advertising for foods and beverages in the 
development of their codes. 

rules 

state 

these 

summary, 

In 
that 
commercial  communications  for  HFSS  food 
(including  drinks)  shall  not  be  permitted  in 
children’s  programmes.  In  addition,  content 
commercial 
rules 
communications  for  HFSS  food  broadcast 
outside  of  children’s  programmes  but  which 
are  directed  at  children.  Such  commercial 
communications shall not: 

apply 

will 

to 

 

 

 

Include celebrities or sports stars; 
Include programme characters; 
Include licensed characters e.g. 
characters and personalities from 

189 

 
 
 
 
 
cinema releases; 

  Contain health or nutrition claims; 
 

Include promotional offers; 

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. 

On-demand services: 

BAI  has  approved 
(further  to  statutory 
instrument  258/2010)    self-regulatory  Code 
for  On-demand  Audiovisual 
of  Conduct 
Media Service Providers 

Latvia 

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. 

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. 

190 

 
 
 
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.  

Lithuania 

Luxembou
rg 

Malta 

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 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 

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 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 

191 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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”.  

proposed 

legislation 

The 
prohibits 
audiovisual  commercial  communication  of  a 
number  of  HFSS  products  thirty  minutes 
before  during  and  thirty  minutes  after  the 
children’s programme.  

include:  soft 
Those  prohibited  products 
drinks,  cordials,  fruit  juices,  whether  natural 

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 

192 

 
 
 
 
 
or  concentrated,  water  with  added  vitamins, 
mineral water with different flavours, energy 
and  sports  drinks  and  drinks  with  caffeine 
content.  Also  other  audiovisual  commercial 
communication for food and drink containing 
a  high  content  of  trans  fats,  salt  or  sugar, 
sweet 
artificial 
preservatives  will  be  prohibited.  This 
proposal is included in a recommendation by 
the  RA  to  be  taken  into  account  in  the  new 
the 
legislation  amending 
Protection of Minors. 

the  Code 

chemicals 

syrups, 

for 

or 

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 
providing broadcasting services in Malta, as 
the Authority may consider suitable for 

inclusion in the code; 

minors place in parents, teachers or 
other persons, or unreasonably show 
minors in dangerous situations.” 

193 

 
 
 
 
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 

194 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland 

advertising and media industry).  

+ other initiatives by broadcasters (Kids Vitaal) and food 
industry (FNLI – Dutch Food Industry Website) targeting 
children up to age of 12 years 

On  29  October  2014  7  major  broadcasters  signed  an 
agreement  (self-regulation)  according  to  which  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.  

Nutritional  criteria  for  self-regulation  on  food  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.  

Polish Advertising Council – Commission of Ethic in advertising 
enforces  ICC  framework  for  responsible  food  and  beverage 
marketing communication.    

 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. 

195 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Portugal 

(Civil 

Institute 

for  Self-Discipline 

in  Commercial 
ICAP 
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.  

the  General  Direction 

Also 
issued 
recommendations regarding nutrition and health claims made 
about foods. 

for  Consumers 

Agreement  on  diet,  physical  activity  and  health  and  publicity 
targeted  at  children  of  5  November  2009  made  within  the 
framework of the Portuguese 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   

Romania 

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 

196 

 
 
 
 
 
 
for 

food 

responsible 

the Code of Advertising Practice that includes 
framework 
and 
beverage  marketing  communications  on 
advertising  aimed  at  children.  Where  a 
commercial 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. 

Slovakia 

Rules regulating the audiovisual 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 advertisement 
focused on food should present 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 junk food or 
downplays  or  denies  the  nutritional  or  physiological  effect  of 

197 

 
 
 
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). 

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 

(1) 
codes of conduct regarding 
inappropriate audiovisual commercial 
communications, accompanying or 
included in children’s programmes, of 
foods and beverages containing 
nutrients and substances with a 
nutritional or physiological effect, in 
particular those such as fats, 
transfatty acids, salt/sodium and 

198 

 
 
 
 
 
sugars, excessive intakes of which in 
the overall diet are not 
recommended, and publish these 
codes of conduct. 

The codes of conduct must 

(2) 
be 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) 
the 
Providers  must  send 
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. 

199 

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 

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  

 
rules  concern  the  restrictions  on  sales 
pressure, 
nutritional 
information,  presentation  and  information 
about products etc 

education 

and 

In  2015  a  new  Code  to  protect  children  has 
been published 

Sweden 

Sweden bans TV advertising aimed at 
children   

UK 

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 )  

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. 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Administered by ASA on behalf of Ofcom.  

The  rules  also  require  that  advertising  for 
HFSS  products  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,  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 
legislation  requiring  Ofcom  or  its  designated 
co-regulator  (ASA)  to  ensure  that  providers 
comply with the rules of Article 9.2 AVMSD.  

201 

 
 
 
 
 
In  case  of  non-compliance  with  ASA 
adjudication  case 
is  referred  to  Ofcom, 
empowered  to  impose  sanctions,  including 
financial penalty.  

202 

 
 
 
ANNEX 7 - SECOND REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE AVMSD   

Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

2.8. 

2.9. 

3. 

Introduction – Background to this Report ........................................................................... 203 

Application of the Directive ................................................................................................. 204 

Material scope ..................................................................................................................... 204 

Country of origin, jurisdiction and free circulation .............................................................. 205 

Public policy objectives: protection of minors and incitement to hatred ........................... 206 

Audiovisual media services for all: accessibility .................................................................. 207 

Freedom of expression: right to information ...................................................................... 207 

Cultural diversity: promotion of European and independent works ................................... 208 

Commercial communications .............................................................................................. 210 

Self-regulatory initiatives ..................................................................................................... 211 

Cooperation between regulators: European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media 
Services (ERGA) .................................................................................................................... 213 

Recent technological and market developments for audiovisual media services in Europe
 ............................................................................................................................................. 214 

203 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, XXX  […](2016) XXX draft   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Second report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 2010/13/EU "Audiovisual Media Services Directive"  
 
 
 
 
4. 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 216 

204 

 
 
(1) 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE 

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

Second report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European 
Economic and Social Committee on the application of Directive 2010/13/EU "Audiovisual Media 
Services Directive" 

1. 

INTRODUCTION – BACKGROUND TO THIS REPORT 

Article 33 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, ‘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.  This  is  the  second  application  report  on  the  AVMSD  and 
covers the period 2011-2013. Developments in 2014 and 2015 are covered where appropriate. 

2014 marked the 25th anniversary of the Television Without Frontiers Directive and of the AVMSD. In 25 
years, the number of channels and cross-border services has risen enormously. As of end 2013, 5141 TV 
channels were established in the EU (without counting local channels and specific advertising windows). 
Almost 1900 of them (about 37% of the total established channels) targeted foreign markets (either EU 
or  extra  EU)402.  Concerning  on-demand  audiovisual  services403  at  large404,  data  as  of  December  2014 
indicate  that  2563  of  such  services  were  established  in  the  EU.  Video-on-demand  (VoD)  services  and 
catch-up  television  services  taken  together  represented  73%  of  the  total  number  of  services.  On 
average, 22% of all VoD services available in a given country were established in another EU country405.  

Convergence of media is materialising and has an impact on the way in which audiovisual services are 
consumed and delivered. This has prompted debates in the EU. This is why the Commission published in 
2013  the  Green  Paper  "Preparing  for  a  Fully  Converged  Audiovisual  World:  Growth,  Creation  and 
Values"406 followed by a public consultation. The objective was to open a broad public discussion on the 
implications  of  the  on-going  transformations  of  the  audiovisual  media  landscape,  characterised  by  a 
steady increase in the convergence of media services. This led in 2015 to the AVMSD being subject to an 
evaluation under REFIT, the European Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance programme. In 
this  exercise,  considerations  relating  to  simplification  and  administrative  burdens  are  assessed  jointly 
with the overall functioning of the Directive. 

The  main  objective  of  this  report  is  to  present  the  most  distinctive  elements  of  how  Member  States 
have applied the AVMSD during the reporting period. It takes into account recent developments such as 
the  replies  to  Green  Paper  consultation407,  Court  cases  and  trends  witnessed  by  the  Commission 

402 

403 

404 

Source: EAO Refit exercise: contribution of Data and Information by the European Audiovisual 
Observatory - Note A1: Linear Audiovisual Media Services 
Source: European Audiovisual Observatory, Report on VOD EU market, p.21 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-
agenda/en/news/demand-audiovisual-markets-european-union-smart-20120028  
It includes: branded channels of open platforms, catch-up TV services, news portals, generalists, music, 
films and TV fiction, documentary, for children/animation, archives, film trailers, sport, lifestyle, general 
interest, adult content and other . 
Source: EAO Refit exercise: contribution of Data and Information by the European Audiovisual 

405  
Observatory - Note A2: On-Demand Audiovisual Media Services 
406 
407 

COM(2013) 231 final 
A feedback paper and an executive summary have been publish to report on the results of the public consultation: 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/publication-summaries-green-paper-replies  

205 

 
 
                                                            
services. It is also based on the replies from Member States to a questionnaire sent by the Commission 
services  in  2014.  The  amount  of  information  provided  by  Member  States  and  its  level  of  detail  vary 
deeply across Member States. 

The present report constitutes an input to the REFIT process and does not prejudice its outcome. 

APPLICATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

Services falling under the scope of application of the AVMSD 

Article 1(1)(a)(i) AVMSD defines an audiovisual media service. The following seven cumulative408 criteria 
need  to  be  met:  1)  a  service,  2)  under  the  editorial  responsibility  of  a  media  service  provider,  3)  the 
principal purpose of which is, 4) the provision of programmes, 5) to inform, entertain or educate 6) the 
general public, 7) by electronic communications networks. Services meeting these criteria will be subject 
to the AVMSD. 

Most Member States have simply transposed this definition into their national legislation. A number of 
Member  States  have  adopted  guidelines,  in  particular  to  clarify  which  service  providers  should  notify 
their services to the regulatory bodies when such a system is in place.  

Some  national  regulators  and  courts  have  adopted  decisions  or  judgments  in  application  of  Article 
1(1)(a)(i) AVMSD.  

Two  Member  States  have  examined  the  case  of  audiovisual  information  offered  in  retail  and  public 
places  (i.e. screens  showing audiovisual  content  in places  such as  supermarkets,  local authorities  etc.) 
and  have  found  that  they  did  not  constitute  audiovisual  media  services.  One  Member  State  assessed 
several cases of user-generated content services but deemed that they were out of the AVMSD scope 
due  to  the  providers'  lack  of  editorial  responsibility  over  the  content.  Another  Member  State  faced  a 
number  of  cases.  For  example,  the  relevant  regulatory  body  ruled  that  two  YouTube  channels  of 
broadcasters were not audiovisual media services. The regulatory body also found that an online service 
providing  music  video  clips  was  an  audiovisual  media  service.  Several  services  offering  online  adult 
audiovisual content were also deemed to be within the AVMSD scope. In this same Member State, the 
regulator  considered  that  audiovisual  content  provided  by  online  versions  of  newspapers  did  not 
constitute an audiovisual media service409. This approach diverges  from the one adopted in two other 
Member  States  where  the  regulators  considered  such  services  to  be  audiovisual  media  services410.  In 
case C-347/14 (New  Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat), the ECJ 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.  The  ECJ  also  clarified  that  the 
AVMSD applies when audiovisual media content is in content and form independent of the main service 
offered by a provider (whether this main service is press articles, personal messaging or User Generated 
Content - UGC). This is the case even when the main service is of a different nature, e.g. text, and the 

408 

409  
appendices/) 
410 

As underlined in Recital 29 of the Directive: "[a]ll the characteristics of an audiovisual media service set out in its definition and 
explained in recitals 21 to 28 should be present at the same time." 
Ofcom's Sunvideo decision (http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/video-on-demand-services/sun-video-decision-

See for example the Swedish Broadcasting Commission's decisions nos 12/00777, 778, 779 and 780 
(http://www.radioochtv.se/CaseDecisions/206404.pdf, http://www.radioochtv.se/CaseDecisions/206405.pdf, 
http://www.radioochtv.se/CaseDecisions/206406.pdf, http://www.radioochtv.se/CaseDecisions/206407.pdf). 

206 

 
 
                                                            
 
audiovisual content 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  addition,  there  are  services  that  could  fall  within  the  scope  of  other  regulatory  frameworks  (for 
example,  the  e-Commerce  Directive).  This  was  in  particular  mentioned  by  one  Member  State  who 
encountered difficulties in assessing these services. This same Member State considered that the online 
video catalogues of several radio stations constituted audiovisual media services.  

In the replies to the Green Paper consultation, some stakeholders considered that new types of services 
should be covered by the AVMSD. Others think that regulating new services will have a negative impact 
on innovation. Some respondents claim that it is too early to assess.  

Free circulation of services across Member States 

If an audiovisual media service provider falls under the jurisdiction of a third country, the AVMSD and its 
procedures  will  not  be  applicable.  Most  Member  States  do  not  report  any  issues  with  broadcasters 
located outside the EU. As to on-demand audiovisual media services provided from outside the EU, the 
few  cases  mentioned  concern  services  that  offer  adult  programmes  and  do  not  have  the  necessary 
safeguards in terms of protection of minors. 

Article 2 AVMSD comprises a number of criteria to determine whether a service falls under a Member 
State's jurisdiction (where the provider has its head office, where editorial decisions are taken, where a 
significant part of the workforce operates etc.). In case these criteria do not apply, Article 2(4) mentions 
the  place  where  the  satellite  up-link  is  situated  or  where  the  satellite  capacity  is  used.  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 originating from third countries 
(but using this Member State's satellite capacity) since 2012. 

The  main  objective  of  the  AVMSD  is  to  ensure  the  free  circulation  in  the  EU  of  audiovisual  media 
services under the jurisdiction of EU Member States. This is enshrined in Article 3(1) AVMSD. Member 
States  can  restrict  the  reception  and  retransmission  of  such  services  on  their  territory  only  in  limited 
cases and following the procedures laid down in Articles 3 and 4 AVMSD. 

For television broadcasting, such restrictions are limited to cases of incitement to hatred and protection 
of  minors.  The  procedure  includes  a  first  cooperation  phase  where  the  Member  State  concerned 
contacts  the  transmitting  Member  State  to  try  to  produce  an  amicable  settlement.  A  few  Member 
States have encountered issues regarding protection of minors and have cooperated fruitfully with their 
counterparts. One of these Member States highlighted that cooperation proved to be difficult with the 
concerned regulatory bodies that did not have recordings of the programmes in question.  

In  relation  to  incitement  to  hatred,  in  the  course  of  spring  2014,  the  Latvian  and  Lithuanian  national 
audiovisual  regulators  decided  to  suspend  the  rebroadcasting  of  certain  Russian-language  television 
channels in Latvia and Lithuania. This  case, discussed at a Contact Committee meeting, has raised the 
issue  of  how  to  draw  a  line  between  hate  speech  and  propaganda,  in  the  perspective  of  national 
security  and  public  order.  It  has  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  exchanging  information  between 
regulators and the Commission to determine jurisdiction. The discussion has also allowed to underline 
the  importance  of  procedures  in  Articles  3  and  4,  and  their  appropriateness  to  deal  with  emergency 

207 

 
 
situations  was  questioned.  On  10  July  2015,  the  Commission  adopted  a  decision  on  the  compatibility 
with EU law of the Lithuanian measures as regards RTR Planeta, pursuant to Article 3(2) AVMSD411. 

In case a Member State has adopted stricter rules in an area coordinated by the AVMSD and encounters 
issues  with  a  television  broadcast  mostly  or  wholly  directed  towards  its  territory,  it  can  use  the 
procedure provided for in Article 4(2) AVMSD. One Member State reported a case on alcohol advertising 
and  was  considering  applying  the  procedure  to  its  full  extent.  Another  Member  State  mentioned  two 
separate  issues  linked  to  protection  of  minors  and  public  health  for  which  compromises  have  been 
found.  

In the Green Paper public consultation, many respondents found the country of origin principle valuable 
and  fundamental  to  the  single  market.  Some  believed  that  its  effectiveness  should  be  improved.  A 
minority supported moving to a country of destination principle, in all or limited cases. 

Protection of minors  

To protect minors from content which might impair their development, the majority of Member States 
have  chosen  –  for  linear  services  –  to  use  techniques  based  on  the  time  at  which  the  content  is 
transmitted,  i.e.  watershed-based  restrictions.  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 
contents.  

As regards non-linear services, the majority of Member States require, from service providers, 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 measures. 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  (e.g.  the  on-demand  offer  of  the  public  service  broadcaster)  or  situations  (e.g.  the  parental 
control mechanism is linked to the time of transmission and/or labelling). 

In most Member States, the audiovisual regulatory bodies monitor and enforce compliance with these 
requirements in linear services. In some cases, monitoring is carried out on the basis of complaints or on 
a case by case basis. Monitoring can be based on a systematic recording of all television programmes or 
on  selected  annual/yearly  checks,  conducted  either  by  the  regulatory  authority  itself  or  by  an 
independent professional service. In one Member State, the authority evaluates the functioning of the 
self-regulatory system. 

In non-linear services, the majority of the Member States who replied to this question do not monitor 
regularly  compliance  with  the  rules  for  on-demand  audiovisual  services.  Only  some  Member  States 
monitor it through selected checks or on the basis of complaints.  

As  regards  the  number  of  cases  reported,  most  Member  States  claim  to  have  dealt  with  a  limited 
number of them concerning on-demand services412. Only one Member State registered a higher number 
of  complaints.  For  linear  services,  most  Member  States  report  issues  which  range  from  a  few  cases  a 

411  
Commission Decision of 10.7.2015, C(2015) 4609 final http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=24517  
Differences in the regulatory approach to different types of content on screen might moreover make it 
412  
difficult for users to determine which regulatory bodies to complain to. For example, the portal Parentport is a 
common media regulatory bodies' website in the UK to make a complaint. 

208 

 
 
                                                            
year to more frequent occurrences, while two Member States report a high number of cases (more than 
100).  However,  most  Member  States  do  not  monitor  on-demand  services,  while  they  do  actively 
monitor linear services.  

Most  respondents  to  the  Green  Paper  consultation  have  raised  concerns  in  the  area  of  protection  of 
minors, in particular as regards on-demand services and services not covered by the AVMSD. However, 
there were different views on whether and how these concerns should be addressed by a change of the 
AVMSD rules on protection of minors. 

Accessibility for visually and hearing impaired persons 

Since the first application report, the proportion of audiovisual media services accessible to people with 
visual or hearing disabilities has increased. 

Almost  all  Member  States  have  introduced  statutory  rules  requiring  services  providers  to  adopt 
measures to facilitate the accessibility of audiovisual services to visually and hearing impaired persons. 
In a number of countries, the measures are set in the public service contracts and licence agreements. 
Some Member States set quotas of accessible programming to be reached by broadcasters and, in a few 
cases, also by on-demand audiovisual media service providers. Others provided for state aid.  The most 
used  technique  is  subtitling,  followed  by  audio-description  and  sign  language.  Some  Member  States 
have  introduced  the  obligation  to  inform  about  the  accessibility  services.  Nine  countries  report 
voluntary agreements between the broadcasters and/or on-demand service providers.  

Statutory  rules  on  accessibility  services  include  reporting  obligations  and/or  monitoring  activities.  In 
case of non-compliance, regulators may impose financial sanctions. 

As  regards  voluntary  agreements  among  providers  of  audiovisual  media  services,  compliance  is 
monitored by themselves.  

In  the  public  consultation  on  the  Green  Paper,  respondents'  views  diverged  as  to  whether  additional 
standardisation  efforts  are  needed  in  the  field  of  accessibility  services.  Different  incentives  were 
suggested to encourage investment in innovative services, such as national subsidies, tax incentives or 
industry-led initiatives. 

Freedom of expression: right to information 

On  21  December  2011,  the  Commission  adopted  a  positive  decision413  on  the  list  of  events  of  major 
importance  for  society  proposed  by  Italy.  The  public  has  therefore  the  possibility  to  view  these  listed 
events on free television.  

On  17  February  2011,  the  Court  of  Justice  adopted  three  judgements  concerning  the  list  of  events  of 
major importance of Belgium and the United Kingdom. FIFA and UEFA had challenged the Commission's 
decisions,  arguing  that  not  all  listed  World  Cup  and  EURO  matches  constitute  events  of  major 
importance  for  the  general  public.  The  General  Court  dismissed  their  actions  and  FIFA  and  UEFA  had 
appealed these judgments. 

In the appeal judgments414, the Court of Justice pointed out that the Commission has to limit its review 
to the effects of a Member State's designation of events as being of major importance on the freedoms 

413 

OJ L 187 of 17.07 2012, pages 57-61 

209 

 
 
                                                            
and  rights  recognised  under  EU  law  which  exceed  those  which  are  intrinsically  linked  to  such  a 
designation. 

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. Contrary to 
the findings in the judgments under appeal, 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. As those errors did not have any impact in the present cases, the Court dismissed the 
appeals brought by FIFA and UEFA in their entirety. 

In  order  to  ensure  the  public's  access  to  information  on  events  of  high  interest,  Member  States  must 
ensure  that  any  broadcaster  established  in  the  Union  has  access  to  short  extracts  of  events  of  high 
interest  to  the  public  which  are  transmitted  on  an  exclusive  basis.  According  to  the  relevant  AVMSD 
provision,  Member  States  shall  define  the  modalities  and  conditions  for  the  provisions  of  such  short 
news reports. In doing so, Member States can also provide for compensation arrangements. In a request 
for  a  preliminary  ruling,415  the  Court  of  Justice  held  that  the  compensation  can  be  limited  to  the 
additional costs directly incurred in providing access to the signal. 

In addition, on 25 February 2014, the Commission adopted a decision416 concerning the modification of 
an existing list in Belgium. Finally, on 21 November 2014, the Commission adopted a decision417 on the 
list of events of major importance for society proposed by Poland and on 8 April 2015, the Commission 
adopted a decision418 on the list proposed by Denmark. 

Cultural diversity: promotion of European works in on-demand services 

The first  report on the application  of  Articles  13,  16  and  17  AVMSD  covered  the  period  2009-2010419. 
The report, which was published on 24 September 2012, also covered, for the first time, the promotion 
of  European  works  in  on-demand  services  (Article  13  AVSMD).  In  this  area,  Member  States  have 
flexibility  as  to  the  means  to  implement  Article  13.  The  Directive  only  gives  three  examples:  financial 
contributions made by such services to the production and rights acquisition of European works or the 
share and/or prominence of European works in the catalogue of programmes offered by the on-demand 
audiovisual  media  service.  The  report  revealed  a  lack  of  uniformity  in  implementing  this  obligation. 
However, at the time of the report, only 14 Member States had provided information.   

Given  that  on-demand  services  become  particularly  relevant  in  the  context  of  convergence  and 
connected devices, the Commission carried a further fact-finding exercise. A detailed questionnaire was 
sent to national regulatory bodies asking for their views and experiences regarding the implementation 
of  Article  13  AVMSD.  This  was  followed  by  a  stakeholder  event  on  18  November  2013,  with  the  title 
"Hearing on the promotion of European films and TV series on-line". Stakeholders discussed the three 

414 

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, C-201/11 P - UEFA v 
Commission http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-201/11 
C-283/11 - Sky Österreich http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-283/11  
Commission Decision (EU) 2014/110 of 25 February 2014, OJ L 59 of 28.2.2014, p. 59-42 
Commission Decision (EU) 2015/163 of 21 November 2014, OJ L 27, 3.2.2015, p. 37-41 
Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1097 of 8 April 2015, OJ L 177, 8.7.2015, p. 54–59 
First Report on the Application of Articles 13, 16 and 17 of Directive 2010/13/EU for the period 2009-2010 

415 
416  
417  
418  
419 
Promotion of European works in EU scheduled and on-demand audiovisual media services COM/2012/0522 final  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52012DC0522  

210 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
methods mentioned by the AVMSD. Panels consisted of VoD players, regulators and other stakeholders 
from the sector (a representative of a film fund, a broadcaster, a film marketing expert and a producer).  

On the basis of this input, the services of DG CONNECT published the document "Promotion of European 
works  in  practice"420  in  July  2014.  The  document  gives  an  overview  of  the  national  legislative 
frameworks  and  approaches  to  promote  European  works  on  VoD  services.  The  document  shows  that 
Member  States  have  taken  very  diverse  approaches.  They  range  from  very  extensive  and  detailed 
measures to a general obligation to promote European works. Some of the tools adopted by Member 
States seem to be particularly effective in practice: for example, prominence tools giving more visibility 
and  publicity  to  European  films  seem  to  be  efficient  and  put  a  less  heavy  burden  on  VoD  operators. 
Input  received  shows  that  tools  of  this  nature  are  the  least  intrusive  instrument,  while  if  well 
implemented,  can  deliver  good  results.  The  close  co-operation  with  the  industry  regarding  the  use  of 
such tools seemed to be of crucial importance for the success of such measures. Several Member States 
have imposed on VoD providers the obligation to reserve a share of European works in their catalogue. 
The required shares vary considerably (10-60%). While some regulators saw such a share as an efficient 
tool, others, and several stakeholders from the industry claimed that this measure is not appropriate for 
the  promotion  of  European  works  in  on-demand  services  and  may  be  even  contra  productive.  Views 
regarding financial contributions were also split. While several regulatory authorities see this method as 
most efficient, others stressed that they put the heaviest burden on operators. It was also argued that at 
the current early stage of the development it may halt the growth of the VoD market. 

In the responses to the Green Paper consultation, many questioned whether the AVMSD "toolbox" for 
the creation and distribution of European works is indeed adequate in an online world. However, views 
diverged among respondents: some considered the current rules sufficient while others saw them as no 
longer  fit  for  purpose.  Views  regarding  the  methods  set  down  in  Article  13  showed  a  diverse  picture. 
Some (notably some public bodies) favoured financial contributions; others felt that such rules should 
not extend to new players. Many expressed doubts about the effectiveness of obligatory shares in VoD 
catalogues. Many saw prominence well suited for the on-line environment, and there were almost no 
views  expressed  against  prominence  requirements.  Some  consumer  organisations  and  network 
operators  feel  that  rules  on  promoting  EU  works  in  non-linear  services  (Article  13  AVMSD)  are 
implemented  unevenly.  Others  favour  flexibility  for  Member  States.  Some  respondents  (particularly 
from  France)  supported  moving  to  a  country  of  destination  principle  regarding  the  promotion  of 
European works.  

On  4  March  2014,  Germany  notified  to  the  Commission,  in  the  context  of  the  state  aid  procedure 
SA.38418,  an  amendment  to  the  Film  Promotion  Act  (Filmförderungsgesetz).  The  amended  Act  - 
adopted on 12 June 2013 - imposes a levy obligation on cinema operators, broadcasters and the video 
industry at large within Germany. The levy obligation applies also to revenues of providers of video-on-
demand services not established in Germany, if these revenues have been realized through an internet 
presence in the German language with customers in Germany. This raises questions as to whether the 
levy is subject to the AVMSD, in particular Article 13. The Commission's investigation is ongoing.  

420  

http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news/promotion-european-works-practice  

211 

 
 
                                                            
Commercial communications 

In  a  request  for  a  preliminary  ruling421,  the  Court  found  that  the  Italian  rule  on  television  advertising, 
which  lays  down  lower  hourly  limits  for  advertising  for  pay-TV  broadcasters  than  for  free-to-air  TV 
broadcasters, is, in principle, compatible with European Union law. The principle of proportionality must 
however be observed. 

Since the last application report, the Commission monitored advertising practices in ten Member States. 
In  all  monitored  Member  States,  the  12-minute  limitation  of  advertising  spots  has  been  overpassed. 
However,  this  varies  widely  between  very  marginal  numbers  of  occurrences  to  important  numbers  of 
occurrences if other kinds of commercial communications are taken into account. The qualification and 
inclusion of these types of commercial communications in the 12-minute limitation is disputed by most 
Member States. On the basis of these findings, administrative letters were sent to the Member States 
concerned to raise these issues with them. 

Similarly  to  the eight  previous  Member  States  monitored,  the monitoring  of  advertising practices  also 
revealed  a  number  of  issues  in  the  areas  of  sponsorship,  self-promotion  and  product  placement, 
concerning in particular the interpretation of some of the related concepts. Those divergences have led 
to fragmentation between Member States and have in some cases increased the number of occurrences 
in which the 12-minute limitation has been overpassed in case these commercial communications were 
qualified as advertising spots (rather than sponsorship announcements or self-promotion, for example). 
For sponsorship announcements, the main issue was thus their potential undue promotional character 
and the interpretation of this notion. In some Member States, these sponsorship announcements were 
closer to shorter forms of advertising spots. In punctual cases, there may also be a lack of identification 
of the sponsorship agreement. In a much more minor way, another issue related to the prohibition of 
sponsorship  for  news  and  current  affairs  programmes.  Product  placement  raised  the  issue  of  undue 
prominence in two Member States and there may also be a lack of indication of product placement in 
some  programmes  in  a  few  Member  States.  More  marginally,  it  also  seems  that  some  spots  did  not 
always clearly fulfil the characteristics of self-promotion and would have to be counted in the 12-minute 
rule.  In  some  Member  States,  a  few  cases  where  products  appeared  in  some  programmes  without 
sponsorship  or  product  placement  indications  raised  the  issue  of  the  presence  of  surreptitious 
advertising  and  recognisability  of  advertising.  In  two  Member  States,  there  were  issues  with  longer 
forms of advertising and with prize draws which could constitute teleshopping.  

The  qualitative  provisions  concerning  alcohol  advertising,  gender  discrimination  and  advertising 
targeting minors were also monitored during the reference period422. 

In the monitored Member States, alcohol advertising represented between 0,7% and 2,4% of the overall 
advertising  activity.  The  percentages  are  based  on  the  total  number  of  spots  broadcast  over  the 
monitored  period.  In  one  of  the  monitored  Member  States,  advertising  for  alcohol  products  is 
prohibited. 

A significant proportion of the analysed advertising spots contained elements which might be linked to 
some of the characteristics banned by the AVMSD, although in view of the detailed requirements of the 
AVMSD they fell short of constituting a clear cut infringement. The main issue was the use of techniques 

421 
422 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0125&from=EN  

C-234/12 - Sky Italia http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-234/12  
Content analysis was considered to be the most appropriate methodology. For a description, see SWD(2012) 125 final  

212 

 
 
                                                            
that could attract the attention of a young audience (humour, music, young-looking protagonists etc.). 
The  monitoring  also  showed  a  few  cases  where  alcohol  is  symbolically  associated  with  physical 
performance and social and sexual success. However, as in the previous monitoring exercise, no cases of 
clear infringements have been found. 

The Commission has launched a study on minors' exposure to alcohol advertising423. The study showed 
that 7.3% of the total number of impacts to alcohol advertising424 in the EU on linear audiovisual media 
services in 2013 were seen by minors (under age 18). This means that on average, a minor in the EU saw 
200 alcohol impacts during one year (as compared to over 450 by an adult). The study revealed a great 
number of measures put in place by the industry to prevent exposure of minors to alcohol advertising. 
Yet at the same time, minors perceived to have been exposed to alcohol advertising online. There was a 
wide  variety  of  themes  used  in  the  advertisements.  The  most  typical  ones  were  the  association  of 
alcohol with sociability and depicting drinking with humorous tone. As such, 25% of the advertisements 
(TV and online) contained at least one of the elements described in the AVMSD, though this does not 
imply  that  the  Directive  was  necessarily  breached.  These  results  are  taken  into  account  in  the  REFIT 
exercise. 

The  AVMSD  also  regulates  advertising  targeting  children.  Content  analysis  of  the  100  most  frequently 
broadcast  advertising  spots  showed  that  the  Directive’s  provisions  on  the  protection  of  minors  in 
advertising were seldom contravened.  As with alcohol advertising, because of the detailed wording of 
the relevant  provisions,  there  are  few  infringements  of  the AVMSD.  Nevertheless,  it does  appear  that 
advertising techniques geared towards minors are used in television advertising.  

As  reported  in  the  previous  report,  14  Member  States  have  adopted  stricter  rules  for  advertising  in 
children’s  programmes.  During  the  reference  period,  three  Member  States  have  reported  having 
adopted  new  rules  in this  area.  In  general,  advertising is  the  main area  in which  Member  States  have 
adopted new stricter rules during the reference period. Protection of minors is the other area in which 
stricter rules have been adopted over this period.  

In the replies to the Green Paper consultation, many considered that the qualitative AVMSD advertising 
rules should continue, though some public bodies felt that rules on product placement and sponsorship 
were  difficult  to  apply.  Some  would  rather  tighten  advertising  rules  for  non-linear  players.  Some, 
however, claimed that additional rules on advertising for non-linear services might be too strict to allow 
for innovation. In contrast, many believed that quantitative rules should disappear or be more flexible. 

In  order  to  maximise  the  overall  added  value  of  monitoring  the  advertising  rules  of  the  AVMSD,  the 
Commission  has  launched  a  study  to  help  define  the  future  framework  for  the  monitoring  of  these 
provisions. This will allow building further synergies with Member States to ensure a better cost/benefit 
ratio. This study has been combined with the provision of some elements supporting the AVMSD impact 
assessment process. Results are expected in the first quarter of 2016. 

Self-regulatory initiatives 

Since  the  last  application  report,  four  Member  States  have  adopted  new  self-/co-regulation  systems, 
mostly in the field of protection of minors (in particular in on-demand services) and accessibility. 

423  
services, including a content analysis  
424  

Study on the exposure of minors to alcohol advertising on linear and non-linear audio-visual media services and other online 

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. 

213 

 
 
                                                            
In  the  specific  area  of  codes  of  conduct  on  audiovisual  commercial  communications  of  food  and 
beverages high in fat, salt and sugars (HFSS) to children (Article 9(2)), most Member States did neither 
update the current codes nor develop new codes of conduct. There are still a number of Member States 
where  there  are  no  relevant  measures  in  place  or  where  the  existing  legislation  only  encourages  the 
developments  of  such  codes.  In  many  cases  the  existing  codes  do  not  specifically  address  audiovisual 
commercial communications of HFSS food products addressed to children. They refer in general to the 
advertising of food products or focus on the promotion of a healthy diet. In only eight cases have codes 
been updated or have new codes been set up since the last application report. In two Member States, 
new legislation or co-regulatory measures are at a drafting stage. In two other Member States, new self-
regulation is being developed.   

For the advertising and marketing of food to children, self-regulatory practices have also been promoted 
at EU level through the EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. The Platform has so 
far promoted a total of more than 300 stakeholder commitments, some of which cover the area of food 
and drink marketing (namely targeting children). Responsible commercial communication for alcoholic 
beverages  also  accounts  for  28%  of  300  commitments  undertaken  in  2007-2014  by  members  of  the 
European Alcohol and Health Forum. Self-regulation of marketing and advertising of alcoholic beverages 
has  thus  substantially  improved  from  2007  to  2010  and  stayed  stable  from  2010  to  2014  in  terms  of 
media services and Member States covered. 

The majority of regulatory bodies do not monitor the implementation of the codes of conduct, except 
where co-regulatory systems are in place. They rely on the monitoring carried out by the 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.   

In  2013  the  Commission  launched  a  Community  of  Practice425  (CoP).  The  initiative's  objectives  are  to 
promote  "the  Principles  for  Better  self-  and  co-regulation"426.  They  reflect  current  good  practice  and 
offer  a  benchmark  for  effective  self-/co-regulation  actions.  The  Community  also  aims  at  supporting 
capacity-building in the use of "the Principles" and at developing a culture of self- and co-regulation. The 
Community works both through plenary meetings (so far five meetings were held: one in 2013, two in 
2014 and two in 2015) and an online platform. All stakeholders are invited to join the CoP in order to 
improve and promote "the Principles". 

Many respondents to the public consultation launched by the Green Paper expressed the view that in 
particular  in  the  area  of  advertising  regulation,  protection  of  minors  and  accessibility  of  audiovisual 
content, more room should be given to self- and co-regulation.  

While the Commission is aware that there is a range of self-regulatory approaches in EU Member States 
in various areas related to the AVMSD, it would benefit from additional information on the effectiveness 
of  self-regulatory  approaches.  In this  context,  the  Commission  has  launched  a  study  to  provide  up-to-
date knowledge on the state of play of self- and co-regulatory systems in the field of audiovisual media 
services  in  the  28  Member  States.  This  study  will  also  assist  the  Commission  in  assessing  the 
effectiveness  of  the  identified  rules,  as  well  as  their  acceptance  by  various  stakeholders,  using  "the 
Principles" as a benchmark. Results are expected in the first quarter of 2016. 

425 
426 

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/community-practice-better-self-and-co-regulation-0  
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/CoP - Principles for better self- and co-regulation.pdf  

214 

 
 
                                                            
Cooperation between regulators: European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) 

Article 30 AVMSD acknowledges the role of the independent regulatory bodies in enforcing the national 
measures transposing the provisions of the AVMSD. At the same time, the Commission has been faced 
with  the  limitations  of  Article  30  that  does  not  guarantee  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory 
bodies. The limitations of this provision were also visible in the pre-accession negotiation process where 
the Commission lacked a binding instrument to require the independence of newly created audiovisual 
regulatory bodies.  

In order to provide for clear guidelines on how to assess the independence of the regulatory bodies in 
the  audiovisual  sector,  the  Commission  requested  a  study427  which  provided  a  set  of  criteria  for  the 
independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies  such  as  status  and  powers,  financial  autonomy, 
autonomy  of  decision  makers,  knowledge,  transparency  and  accountability.  In  order  to  update  the 
information  as  regards  the  independence  of  the  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies  in  Member  States  and 
candidate countries, the Commission has launched an update of this study. The final report of the study 
was  published  on  8  December  2015.  The  study provides  an  updated  analysis  of  the  institutional,  legal 
and regulatory framework governing the regulatory bodies competent for audiovisual media services in 
EU Member States and candidate countries. It also comprises the analysis of the implementation of the 
said framework in practice and its effectiveness.  

In 2013, the Commission launched a public consultation on the independence of audiovisual regulatory 
bodies. All the respondents considered that the independence of audiovisual regulatory bodies is very 
relevant  for  the  preservation  of  free  and  pluralistic  media  when  applying  the  AVMSD  and  for  the 
effective  transposition  and  application  of  the  AVMSD.  They  also  agreed  that  cooperation  between 
regulatory  bodies  is  crucial  in  the  convergent  environment  and  supported  the  legally  mandated 
gathering of these bodies at European level. Similar conclusions were reached by the High Level Group 
on Media Freedom and Pluralism428. The report by the Group recommended that all regulators should 
be independent, with appointments being made in transparent manner, with all appropriate checks and 
balances. They also recommended that cooperation between regulatory bodies should be reinforced. 

The  importance  of  strengthening  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory  bodies  was  also 
recognised for the first time by the Culture Council conclusions of November 2013 on media freedom 
and  pluralism.  They  invited  Member  States  to  ensure  the  independence  of  audiovisual  regulatory 
bodies.  They  also  invited  the  Commission  to  strengthen  cooperation  between  Member  States' 
audiovisual regulatory bodies.  

As a follow-up to the abovementioned calls for action, on 3 February 2014 the Commission adopted a 
Decision429 establishing the European Regulator's Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA). 

ERGA  is  a  Commission's  expert  group  composed  of  independent  national  regulatory  bodies  of  EU 
Member  States  in  the  field  of  audiovisual  media  services.  They  are  represented  by  the  heads  or  by 
nominated  high  level  representatives  of  the  national  regulatory  body  with  primary  responsibility  for 
overseeing audiovisual media services. ERGA's tasks consist in advising and assisting the Commission in 

"Indicators for independence and functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies for the purpose of enforcing the rules 

427 
in the AVMS Directive",  
http://ec.europa.eu/archives/information_society/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/regulators/final_report.pdf  
428 
429 
services  

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/HLG%20Final%20Report.pdf  
http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-decision-establishing-european-regulators-group-audiovisual-media-

215 

 
 
                                                            
its  work  to  ensure  consistent  implementation  of  the  AVMSD  and  other  related  fields  in  which  the 
Commission can act. It facilitates  cooperation  between regulatory  bodies  in the EU, and  allows  for  an 
exchange of experience and good practice. The inaugural meeting of ERGA took place on 4 March 2014.  

The Group's work is based on the input produced by the sub-groups and approved by all the members. 
The  first  outcome  of  ERGA's  work  is  the  statement  on  independence430  adopted  during  the  second 
plenary  meeting  of  ERGA  on  21  October  2014.  This  statement  underlines  certain  characteristics  of 
independence.  It  also  requests  the  Commission,  as  the  initiator  of  European  legislation,  to  take  these 
considerations and the following work into account in the context of the upcoming REFIT exercise of the 
AVMSD.  

On 15 December 2015, ERGA adopted three reports431 feeding into the AVMSD review process: report 
on the independence of national regulatory authorities, report on the protection of minors and report 
on material jurisdiction.  

RECENT TECHNOLOGICAL AND MARKET DEVELOPMENTS FOR AUDIOVISUAL MEDIA SERVICES IN EUROPE 

Viewing time for linear TV channels in 2014 in the EU was about 224 minutes, a stable figure compared 
to 2012432. The traditional provision of audiovisual content via broadcasting remains the most popular 
model.  However,  its  importance  is  reduced  for  younger  generations.  For  example,  in  the  UK,  children 
aged 12-15 spend more time online than watching television (17.2 vs. 15.7 hours per week)433. Watching 
video clips is the second prevalent online activity amongst minors aged 4-17, after listening music and 
watching films and cartoons434. Services such as YouTube are widely popular among children435.  

In a dynamic perspective, it must be noted that the growth rate for TV broadcasting has decreased from 
an average annual rate of 2.8% from 2009 to 2013, to only 0.3% in 2013436. In the meantime the total 
on-demand consumer revenues in the 28 Member States 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 %437.  

In 2013, advertising on TV broadcasting represented 33% of TV broadcasters' revenues438. While those 
revenues  increased by  a 1.3%  CAGR for  the period  2009-2013, TV  broadcasters  experienced instead  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  spend,  just  behind  TV 
advertising, though it surpassed TV advertising in 2014 in a number of Member States439. 

Study on the exposure of minors to alcohol advertising on linear and non-linear audio-visual media services and other online 

Source Eurodata TV, this data is an arithmetical average of national viewing times not weighted for the population 
Source: Ofcom's Report on children and parents: media use and attitudes report: seven in ten children aged 5-15 have access to a 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=7310  
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/erga-published-two-reports-protection-minors-and-scope-audiovisual-media-

430 
431  
services-directive  
432 
433  
tablet computer at home, one-third watch on-demand TV services and 20% watch television programmes on a tablet computer . 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-literacy/media-use-attitudes-14/Childrens_2014_Report.pdf   
434  
services, including a content analysis  
435  
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) 
436  
investments  - linear revenues 
437  
438  
and investment – linear revenues 

Source to be confirmed by COBA 
Source: Refit exercise: contribution of Data and Information by the European Audiovisual Observatory, Note B1: Market revenues 

Refit exercise: contribution of data and information by the European Audiovisual Observatory - Note B.1: market revenues and 

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 

216 

 
 
                                                            
In addition, the use of mobile devices to connect to the Internet and watch videos is increasing. In 2014, 
smartphones  and  tablets  penetration440  reached  respectively  84%  (52%  in  2010,  an  increase  by  32%) 
and 38% (6% in 2010, also an increase by 32%) for the generation of 16-24s in the UK. The traditional TV 
screen  has  lost  its  role  as  unique  possibility  to  consume  audiovisual  content  at  home.  In  addition  to 
watching audiovisual content on smartphones or tablets - on the go as well as at home - these "second" 
screens can be also linked with the content on the "main" TV screen.  

All  these  developments  have  the  potential  to  bring  new  opportunities  for  consumers  and  companies 
alike.  They  offer  a  broader  range  of  content  and  an  enriched  content  quality.  This  includes  access  to 
audiovisual and non-audiovisual online content, catch-up services, programme-related information (e.g. 
electronic  programme  guides)  and  general  information  such  as  weather  or  traffic.  Social  information, 
e.g. governmental information or sign language is also possible. Over-the-top players offer their content 
directly to the living room TV screen. Broadcasters enrich their linear offer with non-linear services. New 
players,  in  particular  those  offering  subscription  VoD  services  (such  as  Netflix),  have  also  started  to 
invest  in  the  creation  of  new  content.  This  often  happens  in  the  form  of  financing  original  content 
released on the platform on an exclusive basis to create a stable subscription base. Examples include the 
successful original series developed by some players, already followed by other services in the US. It is 
likely that this trend will also increasingly appear on the European market. 

With  new  feedback  channels  between  consumers,  providers  and  producers,  users  become  more 
proactive and interactive. Second screens and other devices also make it easy for consumers to produce 
content. There might be a future shift from lean-back consumption to active participation and creation. 

Media literacy - as the ability to access, understand, critically evaluate, and communicate via different 
types of media441 - constitutes an important set of skills that users should possess. Most Member States 
organise  or  support  media  literacy  initiatives  such  as  web  portals,  multi-stakeholder  working  groups, 
education  campaigns  and  information  activities  in  schools,  studies  and  research.  However,  only  few 
Member States carry out a formal assessment of media literacy levels and only two provide data. In the 
UK, Ofcom's latest Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes report442 shows that a majority of TV 
viewers and internet users aged 12-15 feel that these media help them understand what is going on in 
the world, make them aware of different types of people and opinions and help them form their own 
opinions. Increasingly, over half of 12-15s agree that some sites listed by a search engine will be truthful 
while  others  may  not  be  (52%  vs.  45%  in  2013),  and  although  one  in  five  12-15s  still  believe  that  if  a 
search engine lists a result it must be truthful, this is less likely than in 2013 (20% vs. 32% in 2013). The 
changes  in  these  findings  suggest  an  increase  in  critical  awareness  of  the  truthfulness  of  online 
information. In Germany443, almost half of young people have already made videos, while one third has 
been involved in a newspaper and 29 % have created a homepage. Some Member States have created 
ad  hoc  institutions  to  promote  media  literacy  (for  instance,  the  "Conseil  Supérieur  de  l'éducation  aux 

Source: Ofcom's Adults’ media use and attitudes Report 2015, http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-

Source: EAO, Online Advertising in the EU, 2015 Update, September 2015. This varies widely across Member States: online ad spend 
439  
per capita ranges from €138 in the UK to €2 in Romania, while the top three countries for online ad spend in the EU in 2014 (UK, Germany and 
France) accounted for 66.7% of online advertising in Europe.  
440 
research/other/research-publications/adults/media-lit-10years/  
441  
442 
literacy/media-use-attitudes-14/Childrens_2014_Report.pdf  
443  

Media literacy is defined in the Commission Communication on media literacy in a digital environment, COM(2007)833 
Ofcom's 2014 Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-

http://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-pdf13/JIMStudie2013.pdf  

217 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                
médias444" in the Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles or the French Observatory on Media and Education445 in 
2014).  

As  a  follow  up  to  the  study  on  testing  and  refining  criteria  to  assess  media  literacy  levels  in  Europe 
carried out in 2011, the Commission launched a pilot exercise for the assessment of media literacy levels 
in the frame of which a number of Member States carried out relevant projects446.  

In the contributions to the Green Paper public consultation, respondents broadly agreed on the need to 
increase media literacy actions throughout the EU. But views differed on how to do it, and on the EU's 
role.  

CONCLUSION 

This  report  shows  that  the  AVMSD  has  functioned  as  an  effective  regulatory  framework  enabling  the 
development and free circulation of audiovisual media services in the EU. 

However,  some  issues  call  for  attention  in  order  for  the  AVMSD  rules  to  remain  fit  to  attain  their 
objectives.  

Jurisdiction  has  proved  difficult  to  determine  in  some  cases  and  the  procedures  to  derogate  the 
freedom of reception and retransmission in restricted situations proved difficult to apply. Such practical 
difficulties will certainly be further discussed in the meetings of the Contact Committee and ERGA. 

As  regards  European  works,  Member  States  have  taken diverse  approaches  to  promote  them on  VoD 
services.  

In  addition,  monitoring  reports  have  shown  that  advertising  rules  could  be  difficult  to  apply  across 
Member States, in particular regarding the interpretation of certain related concepts, raises concerns. 

Changing viewing habits among children may also raise concerns as to the protection of minors. 

However,  on  most  of  these  topics  discussed  in  the  Green  Paper  consultation,  there  were  no  clear 
tendencies among respondents and views are indeed quite split on most of the areas. This was also the 
case  on  other  important  questions  such  as  the  scope  of  application  or  the  regulatory  distinction 
between  linear  and  non-linear  services.  These  questions  have  been  further  addressed  in  the  Public 
Consultation on "A media framework for the 21st century"447. 

The Commission  is  examining these  issues  thoroughly  in  parallel, in the  context of  the  REFIT exercise. 
This  wide-ranging  evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  the  Directive  comprises  several  studies  and  a 
comprehensive stakeholder dialogue as a follow up to the Green Paper. The Commission will also take 
into account all recent technological and market developments to shed light on the current state of play 
of the audiovisual regulatory framework. The Commission will in particular assess the changes in viewing 
patterns,  with  audiovisual  services  being  increasingly  consumed  on-demand  and  online,  and  the 
resulting consequences. 

http://www.educationauxmedias.eu/ 

444  
445 http://www.csa.fr/Espace-Presse/Communiques-de-presse/Groupe-de-travail-Audiovisuel-et-education-creation-d-un-observatoire 
446  
literacy levels in eight volunteer Member States. http://www.eavi.eu/joomla/images/stories/About_EAVI/assessing.pdf 
447  
framework-21st  

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/public-consultation-directive-201013eu-audiovisual-media-services-avmsd-media-

An update of this study was published by the European Association for Viewers Interests (EAVI) in March 2015. It assesses media 

218 

 
 
                                                            
ANNEX  8  -  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   

219 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
    
    
  
  
1. INTRODUCTION 

This Report is drawn up pursuant to Article 16 (3) of Directive 2010/13/EU (hereafter referred to as 
‘AVMS Directive’) 448. 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 
17449  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 countries450
 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"451 
and  Member  States  who  joined  the  EU  at  an  earlier  stage452  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%).  

448 
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. 
449 
450 
451  
452  

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) 

220 

 
 
 
                                                            
At the same time a decrease was registered in the total number of channels covered453 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.454  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 2011'455 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 States456 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.  

453 
'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  
454 
1,093 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.  
455 
services-avms 
456  

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/revised-guidelines-monitoring-application-articles-16-and-17-audiovisual-media-

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 

Germany and Poland 

221 

 
 
                                                            
2.1.2.2. Monitoring 

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.457 

According to the French national report the French regulation contains stricter and more complex rules than the ones set out in 

457  
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.  

222 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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. 

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 Directive458. 

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.459 

EU-average  compliance  rates460  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 

According to Article 16 broadcasters shall reserve for European works a majority proportion of their transmission time, 

458  
excluding the time allotted to news, sports events, games, advertising, teletext services and teleshopping. 
459 
460  
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. 

See Staff Working Paper – Part II – Section 2 
The compliance rate is obtained by determining the number of channels achieving the required proportions under Articles 16 

223 

 
 
 
                                                            
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 17461. This section 
also  reports  on  the  broadcast  of  recent  European  works  by  independent  producers  (hereinafter 
"recent independent productions")462. 

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 rates463 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 

461  
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.  
462  
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. 
463 

i.e. works broadcast within five years of their production. The proportion of recent independent productions is obtained by 

See footnote 11 

224 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
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 
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 works464.  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 

464 See in particular Recital 67 of the Directive 

225 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
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  

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 

226 

 
 
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 

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.465   

227 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
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.

228 

 
 
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

2010
2011
IND4: Independent producers

2012

IND6: Recent works

229 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9 - 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 minors466. 

2.1 Coordination 

The  European  Strategy  for  a  Better  Internet  for  Children467  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 competitions468. 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  Manifesto469,  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)470. 

466 Final evaluation of the multi-annual Community programme Safer Internet 
467 COM(2012) 196 final 
468 http://www.bestcontentaward.eu/ 
469 http://www.youthmanifesto.eu/ 
470 Annual report INSAFE/INHOPE 2014: 

230 

 
 
 
                                                            
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).  

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  2014.471  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"472 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.473 

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.474  

2.2 Funding  

The  Telecom/Digital  Service  Infrastructure  funded  under  CEF475  allows  the  deployment  of  services 
that help make the Internet a trusted environment for children by providing a core platform for the 

 http://www.inhope.org/Libraries/Annual_reports/Joint_Insafe_INHOPE_Annual_Report_2014.sflb.ashx 
471 ttp://www.inhope.org/Libraries/Statistics_Infographics_2014/INHOPE_stats_infographics_for_2014.sflb.ashx  
472 http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops/list-of-published-workshop-proposals 
473 http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60512/1/EU%20Kids%20onlinie%20III%20.pdf 
474 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/study-better-internet-kids-policies-member-states 
475 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks and 
repealing Decision No1336/97/EC 

231 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
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.476 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 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  play477).  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 

476 https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/ 
477 http://www.pegi.info/en/index/id/1068/nid/50 

232 

 
 
                                                            
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.  

233 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX  10  –  MAIN  FINDINGS  OF  THE  “STUDY  ON  THE  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  SELF-
AND CO-REGULATION IN THE CONTEXT OF IMPLEMENTING THE AVMS DIRECTIVE” 
(SMART 2014/0054)  

The  study  assessed  the  effectiveness  of  self  and  co-regulation  in  two  areas  covered  by  the 
Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive:  audiovisual  commercial  communications  and  protection  of 
minors against harmful content.  

However, the big majority of the assessed codes have a wider scope than the AVMSD, extending to 
press  and  on-line  media.  Those  that  are  based  on  the  ICC  Code  on  Advertising  and  Marketing 
Communications  Practice  478  cover  "digital  interactive  media”,  defined  as  "any  media  platform, 
service  or  application  providing  electronic  communications,  using  the  Internet,  online  services, 
and/or  electronic  and  communication  networks,  including  mobile  phone,  personal  digital  assistant 
and interactive game consoles which allows the receiving party to interact with the platform, service 
or application".  

The assessment was carried out on the basis of the Principles of Better Self and co-regulation479:    

Conception 

Participants - As many as possible potential useful actors should be represented 

Openness  -  Envisaged  actions  should  be  prepared  openly  and  involve  all  interested 
parties 

Good faith - Different capabilities of participants should be taken into account, activities 
outside the action's scope should be coherent with the aim of the action and participants 
are expected to commit real effort to success 

Objectives – Must be set out clearly and unambiguously and include targets as well as 
indicators for evaluation purposes 

Legal  compliance  –  Actions  must  be  designed  in  compliance  with  applicable  law  and 
fundamental rights as enshrined in EU and national law 

Implementation 

478 Consolidated ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) Code of Advertising and Marketing Communications Practice: http://www.iccwbo.org/advocacy-
codes-and-rules/document-centre/2011/advertising-and-marketing-communication-practice-(consolidated-icc-code)/ 

479 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/best-practice-principles-better-self-and-co-regulation 

234 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Iterative  improvements  -  A  prompt  start,  with  accountability  and  a  process  of 
"learning by doing", with sustained interaction between all participants 

Monitoring - Conducted in a way that is sufficiently open and autonomous to command 
respect from all interested parties 

Evaluation  -  To  allow  participants  to  assess  whether  the  action  may  be  concluded, 
improved or replaced 

Resolving disputes - By ensuring they receive timely attention. Non compliance should 
be subject to a graduated scale of sanctions. 

Financing - Participants will provide the means necessary to fulfil the commitments, and 
participation of civil society organisations may be supported by public funders or others. 

  The main conclusions of the study are as follows: There is much more statutory regulation in 
place  and  consequently  less  self-  or  co-regulation  in  the  field  of  the  protection  of  minors 
from harmful audiovisual content. Protecting children across sectors is an important policy 
objective. In the audio-visual media sector, this observation is supported by the higher levels 
of governmental regulation for this area. Self- and co-regulatory schemes focussing on this 
area tend to take the form of media classification systems for television broadcasts though 
more specific codes focussing on children are in place as well. 

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. Some schemes have a more ethical or deontological focus, 
whereas  other  schemes  have  more  pragmatic,  specific  rules  in  place  for  commercial 
communications,  such  as  rules  on  content.  The  schemes  relating  to  commercial 
communications are often based on, or in line with the ICC code. 

  As prescribed by the Principles for Better Self- and Co-regulation, legal compliance 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.  In  most  cases,  a  country’s 
regulatory approach to structuring audiovisual media consists of broad statutory regulation 
such as a law on broadcasting or on audio-visual media, which is then complemented with 
more specific rules in a self- or co-regulatory scheme. The majority of the schemes identified 
are based on or connected with a specific law.  

  Another  general  observation  is  that  in  many  schemes,  issues  such  as  the  specification  of 
formal objectives and specified targets and indicators are generally not formalised and are 
kept implicit. Where goals and objectives are formulated, these generally do not follow the 
EU’s SMART criteria. Indeed, in EU policy making480, practices should have clearly identifiable 

480 European Commission, Better regulation, Brussels, 16 December 2015, see http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/index_en.htm. 

235 

 
 
 
                                                            
aims and objectives which are SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-
dependant. Having such objectives helps to better monitor and assess the effectiveness and 
impacts of practices, and allows policy makers to compare practices. Establishing baselines, 
targets, and indicators in an explicit manner are requirements from the Principles for Better 
Self- and Co-regulation which help to evaluate a scheme and improve it if needed. 

  Often  the  processes  of  monitoring  and  implementing  improvements,  were  present  but 
were not formalised or made systematic in the way prescribed by the Principles for Better 
Self- and Co-regulation. Complaints are collected in most of the schemes, and monitoring of 
the  complaints  does  take  place.  However,  from  the  perspective  of  the  Principles,  these 
processes are not fully formalised. Therefore, according to the Principles, many schemes do 
not fully adhere to the various requirements for the different criteria on monitoring and 
implementing improvements.  

  Informal  discussions  on  future  areas  of  improvement,  monitoring  of  effectiveness  and 
impacts  do  perhaps  not  generally  follow  the  requirements  set  out  in  the  Principles. 
Nonetheless,  the  observation  was  made  that  many  processes  in  place  are  simply  not 
formalised and implemented systematically. 

Despite  iterative  processes  not  being  universally  implemented  in  self-  and  co-regulatory 
schemes,  they  are  not  lacking  entirely.  A  common  trend  amongst  those  schemes  with  a 
system for making improvements was the use of consumer complaints as an indicator for 
compliance, as well as for identifying key areas of non-compliance. Those subjects or issues 
on  which  complaints  were  most  often  received  can  also  serve  as  indicators  for  the  main 
problem  areas  within  a  scheme.  Other  approaches 
include  regular  meetings  with 
stakeholders to discuss performance of a scheme and which areas the scheme is not being 
regulating  properly.  Other  schemes  go  beyond  internal  stakeholder  discussions  regarding 
the performance of a given self- or co-regulatory scheme and how best to remedy any issues 
encountered. Although in many cases there were processes for identifying improvements or 
new areas of focus, these were not always done systematically or made explicit. 

Furthermore,  there  appears  to  be  much  sharing  of  information  and  experiences  amongst 
Member  States  and  the  various  self-regulatory  organisations  (SROs)  and  scheme  owners. 
This is facilitated to a large extent through organisations such as the EASA Alliance, its best 
practice  recommendations,  and  its  system  for  cross-border  complaints.  Besides  this, 
information  collected  shows  that  informally,  there  is  also  knowledge  exchange  and 
collaboration between countries.  

  Good approaches to developing a self- or co-regulatory scheme are focused on a balanced 
representation  of  stakeholders.  Ideally  all  relevant  stakeholders  should  be  involved  in  the 
conception of a self- or co-regulatory scheme. In practice this means that stakeholders from 
media  and  broadcasting  companies  and  advertising  industries  should  be  involved  in  the 
development  phase  of  the  scheme,  along  with  public  authorities,  regulators,  civil  society, 

236 

 
 
and  consumer  protection  groups.  Where  specific  products  or  sectors  receive  extra  focus 
within  a  regulatory  scheme,  representatives  from  these  areas  should  naturally  be 
represented  as  well.  In  most  cases,  the  relevant  private  business  sector  was  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  groups  and  civil  society  organisations  were  often  not 
represented in the development of the majority of the schemes identified and analysed.  

In  some  cases,  indications  were  found  of  an  open  approach  to  developing  a  self-  or  co-
regulatory  scheme,  evidence  by  for  instance,  having  documents  readily  available  for  the 
different  stakeholders  involved.  Besides  open  information  sharing  and  provision  amongst 
participants  (through  the  internet),  stakeholder  access  to  the  negotiations  should  not  be 
restrictive  for  a  development  process  to  qualify  as  an  open  approach.  In  some  cases  the 
scheme  owners  undertook  workshops,  meetings  and  public  events  to  further  include  a 
variety of stakeholders. Such measures seek to involve both the industry and the public, thus 
contributing to the openness regarding the conception of a self- or co-regulatory scheme. 

Various  stakeholder  types  were  also  involved  in  the  implementation  phase.  Activities 
include regular meetings with stakeholders to discuss performance of a scheme and which 
areas  of  the  scheme  are  not  regulated  properly.  The  relevant  stakeholders  are  also  often 
involved in the organisation in the board through membership of the general assembly and 
participation  in  committees.  In  some  schemes  various  stakeholders  are  involved,  for 
example, in the handling of complaints in the adjudicating bodies. 

A  majority  of  the  schemes  examined  in  this  study  indicate  that  in  practice,  enforcement 
activities  are  rarely  needed  as  the  recommendations  or  decisions  of  a  self-regulatory 
organisation (SRO) are usually respected. The role of public opinion in promoting compliance 
with self- and co-regulatory schemes in both the protection of minors from harmful content, 
and  in  commercial  communications  should  not  be  underestimated.  Evidence  from  both 
industry  stakeholders,  regulators  and  other  interest  groups  all  point  to  the  value  which 
media,  advertising  and  broadcasting  companies  attach  to  a  good  public  image.  Regulators 
and  policy  makers  should  not  underestimate  the  fact  that  it  is  very  much  in  industry 
stakeholders’ own interests to comply with the rules they helped to set up in the first place. 
The  development  of  these  rules  also  centres  to  a  large  extent  on  what  are  deemed  to  be 
acceptable  advertising  and  broadcasting  practices  in  a  given  country  or  region.  For  the 
business sector consumer trust is one of the main assets to be secured.  

Public opinion and its role in bringing about compliance amongst industry regarding self- 
and co-regulatory codes is also important in its contribution to generating political will and 
support  for  a  scheme.  Evidence  collected  indicated  that  as  a  general  rule,  having  political 
will  and  support  for  a  self-  or  co-regulatory  scheme  is  a  success  factor  in  promoting 

237 

 
 
 
compliance. The indirect backing of the political level adds importance to an issue, as well as 
further legitimacy and authority for a scheme. 

A frequent observation which connects with the importance of political will and support is 
that  a  legislative  backstop  of  some  variety  is  an  important  success  factor  in  promoting 
compliance  with  a  self-  or  co-regulatory  code.  Even  where  the  threat  of  governmental 
sanctions or interference is distant, the fact that the government condones compliance with 
a  given  scheme  adds  legitimacy  and  importance  to  that  scheme.  In  a  similar  vein,  non-
compliance with a scheme implies a stronger sense of breaching the agreed upon principles 
and  rules.  Both  regulators,  NGOs  and  industry  stakeholders  point  to  the  importance  of 
political will and a legislative backstop self- or co-regulatory schemes. 

The  information  collected  on  the  self-  and  co-regulatory  schemes  show  that  complaints 
were  not  always  recorded  with  the  same  level  of  detail  by  the  regulatory  body  for  the 
scheme  in  question.  In  some  cases,  complaints  resolution  mechanisms  were  simply  not  a 
priority  for  the  regulatory  body.  This  can  be  because  compliance  with  the  rules  in  place  is 
generally  high  and  no  real  need  is  felt  for  a  complaints  resolution  system,  or  because  few 
complaints have been received generally regarding the scheme. 

Having  timely  responses  to  submitted  complaints  is  also  an  important  aspect  of  a 
complaints resolution system. There is an intuitive appeal in quick complaints resolutions as 
the  exposure  of  the  public  to  the  inappropriate  media  content,  be  it  general  content  or  a 
commercial  communication,  is  lower  with  a  quick  response  to  complaints.  Research  has 
shown  that  the  damage  can  be  done  quickly  with  an 
inappropriate  commercial 
communication  or  audiovisual  media  bearing  harmful  content.  In  the  case  of  advertising 
campaigns, these tend to last for a few weeks. If complaints resolution takes too long, the 
time  span  of  the  advertising  campaign  can  already  have  passed  by  the  time  a  response  is 
taken by the regulatory authority regarding the complaint. 

While not every self– or co-regulatory scheme has a complaints resolution system, in those 
cases where such a system was present, rules on response times varied. Where time limits 
on rulings were specified, the advocated response time to complaints varied from a matter 
of days to a matter of weeks or months. 

It became apparent from the schemes collected that the satisfaction of consumers with the 
complaints  procedure  was  not  often  measured  specifically.  In  those  cases  where  the 
number  of  complaints  received  was  recorded,  compared  to  the  number  of  complaints 
resolved,  the  rate  of  resolution  was  at  times  used  as  an  indicator  for  the  outcomes  of  the 
complaints resolution mechanism. Similarly, in some schemes the number of appeals made 
against  an  adjudicating  body’s  decision  was  used  as  an  indicator  of  the  outcome  of  the 
complaints system and was thought to provide insight into the level of consumer satisfaction 
with the system.  

238 

 
 
An important observation regarding complaints and consumer 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 
consumer this can feel unsatisfactory. 

  For the schemes identified, the presence and nature of sanctions and their enforcement was 
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. 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.  However,  it  can  also  be  a  weak  mechanism  depending  on  the  social  pressure 
attached  to  such  naming,  shaming  and  blaming.  There  is  much  diversity  in  how  well  this 
works  as  an  enforcement  mechanism.  Evidence  collected  throughout  this  study  indicates 
that a combination of softer and harder sanctions is a good approach to enforcing sanctions. 
Having a legislative backstop or more concrete sanctions in place for continued breaches of 
compliance  tends  to  give  a  self-  or  co-regulatory  scheme  more  proverbial  teeth.  Although 
such heavier measures are by no means the first resort for a regulator, information collected 
indicates that having a final, stricter enforcement frontier works well. 

In  connection  with  the  enforcement  of  rules  implemented  for  both  broadcasting  and 
advertising,  there  is  a  cultural  element  which  determines  what  sort  of  practices  are 
considered socially acceptable and which ones are less accepted. This cultural element also 
extends  to  what  sort  of  rules  are  therefore  appropriate  to  ensure  broadcasting  and 
advertising  which  adhere  to  national  norms  and  values.  Consequently  a  national  culture, 
specifically the regulatory culture, influences what sort of enforcement mechanisms are put 
in  place.  Public  faming  and  shaming  may  be  sufficient  in  some  countries  to  promote 
compliance  while  in  other  countries,  fines  or  removal  of  certain  content  from  its 
dissemination channel or platform are considered more effective and acceptable by both the 
public and the industry. This is not always the case however, as sanctions ought to maintain 
a  degree  of  proportionality  with  the  breach  in  compliance  and  what  is  considered  as 
proportional  can  vary  across  national  contexts.  This 
idea  of  proportionality  and 
appropriateness of certain types of sanctions is a fairly culturally determined idea.  

  Several  common  approaches  to  financing  of  schemes  are  identified.  In  several  cases  the 
scheme  relies  solely  on  membership  fees  as  the  source  of  financing. In  other  schemes  the 
financing  comes  from  membership  fees  as  well  as  public  funds.  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 

239 

 
 
be  an  extra  source  of  finance  for  a  scheme  owner,  or  the  classification  of  a  broadcast 
according  to  a  classification  system.  A  practice  which  is  considered  to  be  quite  effective 
when  financing  self-  and  co-regulatory  schemes  on  commercial  communications  is  that  of 
industry  wide  fees  for  advertisers  and  participants  of  the  schemes.  The  proportionality 
element  introduces  fair  contributions  from  the  participants  of  the  scheme.  The  level  and 
distribution of financing of self- and co-regulatory schemes was in the majority of schemes 
not publicly available. 

  Using  the  definition  of  the  criterion  “evaluation”  provided  in  the  Principles  for  Better  Self 
and  Co  Regulation,  it  becomes  clear  that  in  many  of  the  self-  and  co-regulatory  schemes 
identified,  a  formal  evaluation  process  was  often  not  in  place.  While  annual  reports  are 
developed, more than half of the schemes collected had no evaluation system in place in line 
with the requirements for this criterion.  

Complaints are often used as an indicator for  assessing the performance of a self- or co-
regulatory  scheme  and  used  in  monitoring  the  achievement  of  a  scheme’s  objective. 
However,  the  exact  connection  between  external  complaints  monitoring  and  the 
achievement  of  a  scheme’s  objective  are  usually  not  explicitly  defined;  complaints  are 
sometimes  used  as  a  catch-all  indicator  for  a  scheme  instead  of  a  concrete  monitoring 
system  of  the  achievement  of  specific  objectives  (where  specific  objectives  are  also  not 
defined often in the schemes encountered across the EU28). Using complaints to gauge the 
performance  of  a  scheme  however,  does  not  constitute  an  evaluation  in  the  sense 
prescribed by the Principles for Better Self- and Co-Regulation. 

Few evaluation systems were in place which undertook regular assessments of the scheme, 
possible  areas  for  improvement,  and  a  scheme’s  broader  impact.  In  general  these  were 
mainly  carried  out  for  schemes  that  were  developed  more  recently.  A  large  number  of 
schemes  were  developed  decades  ago  and  at  that  time  including  the  requirement  of 
conducting evaluations was not common. Other reasons for not carrying out evaluations are 
that  a  country  does  not  have  an  established  evaluation  culture  or  that  the  budget  of  the 
code owner is not sufficient to carry out a proper evaluation. 

The assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the schemes is based on the performance 
of  schemes  across  certain  criteria  from  the  Principles  for  Better  Self-  and  Co-Regulation. 
Besides stakeholder acceptance, the criteria of evaluation, reiterative improvements and the 
implementation  approach  are  taken  as  building  blocks  for  the  assessment  of  a  scheme’s 
effectiveness.  Since  the  objectives  are  often  not  SMART  formulated,  nor  are  targets  or 
indicators  determined,  it  is  hard  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  a  scheme.  Furthermore, 
evaluations  are  hardly  carried  out.  This  means  that  the  information  collected  for  each  of 
these aspects is mainly of a qualitative nature, relying on expert feedback and stakeholder 
input  as  to  the  effectiveness  and  overall  impact  of  the  scheme  in  working  towards  its 
objectives and policy goals.  

240 

 
 
241