Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU
Date: 2022-09-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: advertising, communications industry, dissemination of information, mass media, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, service, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.9.2022  COM(2022) 457 final 2022/0277 (COD)  Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU (Text with EEA relevance) {SEC(2022) 322 final} - {SWD(2022) 286 final} - {SWD(2022) 287 final}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

This  explanatory  memorandum  accompanies  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament and Council establishing a common framework for media services in the internal 
market  (the  ‘European  Media  Freedom  Act’).  The  proposal  delivers  on  the  political 
commitment by President von der Leyen, who announced the initiative in her 2021 State of 
the  Union  address.  In  her  speech,  she  stressed  the  role  of  information  as  a  public  good, 
acknowledging that media companies cannot be treated as any other businesses and that their 
independence  must  be  protected  at  EU  level1.  The  initiative  has  been  included  in  the 
Commission’s 2022 work programme2. 
The  media  sector  is  part  of  the  cultural  and  creative  industries  ecosystem3,  one  of  the  14 
industrial ecosystems that are key for an inclusive and sustainable recovery and for the twin 
(green  and  digital)  transition  of  the  EU  economy.  At  the  same  time,  media  services  are  not 
only  an  important  and  dynamic  economic  sector,  they  are  also  essential  for  a  healthy  civic 
sphere and for economic freedoms and fundamental rights, including equality4.  Independent 
media, and in  particular  news media,  provide access  to  a plurality of views and  are  reliable 
sources  of  information  to  citizens  and  businesses  alike.  They  contribute  to  shaping  public 
opinion and help people and companies form views and make informed choices. They play a 
crucial role in preserving the integrity of the European information space and are essential for 
the functioning of our democratic societies and economies. With digital technologies, media 
services  can  increasingly  be  accessed  across  borders  and  through  various  means,  while 
competition  in  the  digital  media  space  is  increasingly  international.  The  European  Union  is 
already  a  global  standard  setter  in  this  field,  with  this  proposal  further  strengthening  and 
organising the European information space.  

Against  this  background,  the  proposal  seeks  to  tackle  a  series  of  problems  affecting  the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  media  services  and  the  operation  of  media  service 
providers.  In  particular,  media  companies  face  obstacles  hindering  their  operation  and 
impacting  investment  conditions  in  the  internal  market  such  as  different  national  rules  and 
procedures related to media freedom and pluralism. These rules include in particular scrutiny 
of  market  concentrations  for  media  pluralism  purposes  and  protectionist  measures  affecting 
the  operation  of  media  companies.  Such  rules  have  created  fragmentation  in  the  internal 
market,  impacting  legal  certainty  for  media  market  players  and  resulting  in  additional  costs 
when operating across borders. 

The  picture  is  further  complicated  by  insufficient  cooperation  among  national  media 
regulators5.  The  European  Regulators  Group  for  Audiovisual  Media  Services  (ERGA)  has 
limited  scope  for  action,  and  that  scope  is  related  to  audiovisual  media  services  only. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

5 

2021 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen, Strasbourg, 15 September 2021. 
COM(2021) 645 final. 
COM/2021/350 final and SWD/2021/351 final. 
Additionally  media  services  should  be  provided  in  compliance  with  the  accessibility  requirements  of  Directive  (EU)  2019/882 
(the European Accessibility Act), OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70-115. 
In order to respond to the need for increased cooperation in the field of audiovisual media services, ERGA members have agreed 
a  voluntary  Memorandum  of  Understanding,  which  sets  out  non-binding  mechanisms  for  cross-border  cooperation.  In  the 
Communication  on  Europe’s  Media  in  the  Digital  Decade  -  an  Action  Plan  to  Support  Recovery  and  Transformation,  the 
Commission announced that it would follow the application of the Memorandum of Understanding closely to assess whether the 
cooperation within ERGA would need to be further reinforced. In light of such assessment the Commission considers that there is 
a need for a legal framework for structured cooperation between media regulatory authorities or bodies. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
Moreover, ERGA does not have sufficient tools and resources to contribute to solving cross-
border matters or practical issues in key areas of media regulation. The resulting insufficient 
regulatory  convergence  affects  media  market  players,  in  particular  providers  of  audiovisual 
media services and video-sharing platforms, and harms the public interest. The role of media 
regulators  is  also  key  in  the  protection  from  rogue  media  service  providers,  including  those 
that are state-controlled, be it financially or editorially by certain third countries, which may 
prejudice or pose risks of prejudice to public security and defence.   

European media service providers also face increasing interference in their editorial decisions 
and ability to provide quality media services (i.e. services produced independently and in line 
with journalistic standards) in the internal market, as evidenced by the Commission’s annual 
rule of law reports6 and the Media Pluralism Monitor7. The problem is driven by fragmented 
safeguards  to  prevent  interference  in  the  editorial  freedom  of  all  media  and  uneven 
independence  guarantees  for  public  service  media8,  leading  to  distortions  of  competitive 
conditions in the internal market.   

Finally, internal market barriers and an uneven playing field result from the opaque and unfair 
allocation  of  economic  resources.  In  particular,  the  opacity  of  and  biases  inherent  to 
proprietary  systems  of  audience  measurement  skew  advertising  revenue  flows,  affecting 
negatively in particular media service providers and disadvantaging competitors that provide 
audience measurement services abiding by industry-agreed standards9. The internal market is 
also distorted by the opaque and unfair allocation of state advertising (i.e. public funds used 
for advertising purposes), which may be allocated preferentially to incumbent national service 
providers  or  used  to  favour  and  covertly  subsidise  certain  media  outlets  that  provide 
government-friendly views. The regulation in this area is fragmented and limited10, with many 
Member  States  lacking  specific  rules  and  the  existing  rules  varying  in  scope11,  to  the 
detriment of legal certainty and with the ensuing risk of arbitrary or discriminatory decisions. 

While  the  gravity  of  the  problems  varies  across  the  EU,  overall  they  make  it  difficult  for 
media  service  providers  to  use  the  internal  market  to  its  full  potential,  maintain  economic 
sustainability  and  properly  fulfil  their  societal  role  to  inform  people  and  businesses.  The 
recipients  of  media  services  are  also  negatively  impacted  by  an  insufficient  or  non-
independent media offer, the uneven playing field and the lacking protection of their interests.  
Both Parliament12 and Council13 have repeatedly called on the Commission to take action to 
lift  barriers  to  the  functioning  of  the  internal  media  market  and  promote  pluralism  and 

6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

11 
12 

2020 Rule of Law Report, Communication and Country Chapters (COM(2020) 580 final and SWD(2020) 300-326 final); 2021  
Rule of Law Report, Communication and Country Chapters (COM(2021) 700 final and SWD(2021) 701-727 final); 2022 Rule of 
Law Report, Communication and Country Chapters (COM(2022) 500 final and SWD(2022) 501-527 final). 
Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, Media Pluralism Monitor. 
Public service media occupy a crucial place in the media market, given their public service mission. They constitute an important, 
if not the essential, source of media for a substantial number of citizens and companies.  
Audience measurement has a direct impact on the allocation and the prices of advertising, which represents a key revenue source 
for the media sector. It is a crucial tool to evaluate the performance of media content and understand the preferences of audiences 
in order to plan the future production of content. Relevant market players have traditionally agreed upon a set of methodological 
standards  to  develop  impartial  benchmarks  to  assess  the  return  on  their  investments.  Self-regulation  mechanisms  bringing 
together  key  stakeholders  of  the  media  and  advertising  industry,  such  as  self-regulatory  Joint  Industry  Committees,  have  been 
established  in  several  Member  States  in  order  to  organise  and  carry  out  audience  measurement  in  a  transparent,  inclusive  and 
reliable manner. 
The distribution and transparency of state advertising are in some regards regulated through a fragmented framework of media-
specific measures and general public procurement laws, which, however, do not cover all state advertising expenditure nor offer 
sufficient  protection  against preferential  or  biased distribution.  In  particular,  Directive 2014/24/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  does  not  apply  to  public  service  contracts  for  the  acquisition, development,  production  or  co-production  of 
programme material intended for audiovisual media services or radio media services. 
See also analyses of national state advertising rules in the annual Rule of Law Report. 
Resolution  of  21  May  2013  on  the  EU  Charter,  2011/2246(INI);  Resolution  of  3  May  2018  on  Media  pluralism  and  media 
freedom in the EU, 2017/2209(INI); Resolution of 25 November 2020 on strengthening media freedom: protecting journalists in 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
 
independence in  that market.  In the  final  report of the  Conference on the Future of Europe, 
published  on  9  May  2022,  in  their  proposals,  citizens  called  on  the  EU  to  further  promote 
media  independence  and  pluralism,  in  particular  by  introducing  a  legislation  addressing 
threats  to  media  independence  through  EU-wide  minimum  standards.  They  also  called  to 
defend  and  support  free,  pluralistic  and  independent  media,  to  step  up  the  fight  against 
disinformation and foreign interference, and to ensure the protection of journalists14.   

Against  this  background,  the  proposal  for  a  European  Media  Freedom  Act  aims  to  improve 
the functioning of the internal media market. 

The proposal is articulated around four specific objectives: 

 

 

 

 

Fostering  cross-border  activity  and  investment  in  media  services  by 
harmonising  certain  elements  of  the  diverging  national  media  pluralism 
frameworks, in particular to facilitate cross-border service provision. Through 
coordination  at  EU  level,  the  proposal  aims  to  ensure  that  when  assessing 
media market concentrations independent national authorities approach media 
pluralism and media independence in a consistent manner. 

Increasing  regulatory  cooperation  and  convergence  through  cross-border 
coordination  tools  and  EU-level  opinions  and  guidelines.  This  will  promote 
consistent approaches to media pluralism and media independence, and provide 
effective  protection  for  users  of  media  services  from  illegal  and  harmful 
content, including online and with regard to service providers (including from 
third countries) not following EU media standards. 

Facilitating  provision  of  quality  media  services  by  mitigating  the  risk  of 
undue public and private interference in editorial freedom. The proposal  aims 
to  guarantee  that  journalists  and  editors  can  work  without  interference, 
including  when  it  comes  to  protecting  their  sources  and  communications.  By 
fostering  editorial  independence,  it  also  guarantees  better  protection  for  the 
interests of recipients of media services. 

Ensuring  transparent  and  fair  allocation  of  economic  resources  in  the 
internal  media  market  by  enhancing  transparency  and  fairness  in  audience 
measurement and allocation  of state advertising.  The proposal  aims to ensure 
transparency, non-discrimination, proportionality, objectivity and inclusiveness 
of  audience  measurement  methodologies,  in  particular  online.  It  will  also 
ensure  transparency,  non-discrimination,  proportionality  and  objectivity  in 
allocation of state advertising to media outlets, in order to minimise the risks of 
the  misuse  of  public  funding  for  partisan  interests,  to  the  detriment  of  other 
market  players.  It  will  thus  promote  fair  competition  in  the  internal  media 
market.  

Europe,  hate  speech,  disinformation  and  the  role  of  platforms  (2020/2009(INI));  Resolution  of  20  October  2021  on  Europe’s 
Media  in  the  Digital  Decade:  an  Action  Plan  to  Support  Recovery  and  Transformation  (2021/2017(INI));  Resolution  of  11 
November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the EU, 2021/2036(INI); Resolution of 9 March 
2022 on foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation (2020/2268(INI)). 
Council  conclusions  on  media  freedom  and  pluralism  in  the  digital  environment,  OJ  C  32,  4.2.2014;  Council  conclusions  on 
safeguarding a free and pluralistic media system, OJ C 422, 7.12.2020; Council conclusions on ‘Europe’s Media in the Digital 
Decade:  An  Action  Plan  to  Support  Recovery  and  Transformation’,  8727/21,  18.5.2021;  Council  conclusions  on  building  a 
European  Strategy  for  the  Cultural  and  Creative  Industries  Ecosystem,  OJ  C  160,  13.4.2022;  Declaration  of  the  European 
Ministers responsible for Culture, Audiovisual and Media meeting in Angers on 7 and 8 March 2022. 
Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, in particular Proposal 27 (1) and 37 (4). 

13 

14 

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
The legislative proposal is accompanied by a Recommendation, which sets out a catalogue of 
voluntary  good  practices  for  media  companies  to  promote  editorial  independence  and 
recommendations to media companies and Member States aimed to increase media ownership 
transparency.  The  Recommendation  will  contribute  to  mitigating  the  risks  of  unjustified 
interference  in  individual  editorial  decisions  and  enhancing  access  to  information  on  media 
ownership15. 

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

This  proposal  is  consistent  with  the  existing  EU  horizontal  and  sectoral  rules  concerning 
media and online services. It seeks to address regulatory gaps, which affect the functioning of 
the internal media market.  

The proposal does so firstly by building on the revised Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
(AVMSD)16,  which  governs  EU-wide  coordination  of  national  legislation  for  audiovisual 
media. It steps up cooperation within the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media 
Services  (ERGA)  set  up  by  the  Directive  by  transforming  it  into  the  European  Board  for 
Media Services (‘the Board’) and giving it a broader scope of action and additional tasks17.  

The proposal lays down new rules related to media services, such as those on the protection of 
journalistic  sources  and  communications,  state  advertising  and  audience  measurement.  By 
doing so, it complements the copyright reform18, which supports the financial sustainability of 
the press. 
The proposal is fully consistent with, and complements the e-Commerce Directive19 and the 
Regulation  on  platform-to-business  relations  (P2B)20.  It  is  also  consistent  with  and 
complements the Digital Services Act (DSA)21 and the Digital Markets Act (DMA)22, which 
provide horizontal frameworks setting out harmonised rules for online services. The proposal 
addresses remaining sector-specific issues which the two horizontal instruments do not fully 
address. 

The  proposal  complements  the  EU  competition  rules,  which  do  not  directly  address  the 
impacts that market concentrations could have on media pluralism or independence, and State 
aid  rules,  which  are  applied  on  a  case-by-case  basis  (often  ex  post)  and  do  not  sufficiently 
address the problems created by the unfair allocation of state resources to  the media service 
providers. The proposal ensures that state advertising is systematically subject to ex ante rules 
on  transparency,  notably  as  regards  the  beneficiaries  and  the  amounts  spent,  and  on  fair 
allocation of such advertising. The proposal, and in particular the state advertising provisions, 

15 
16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
22 

See also analyses of transparency of media ownership in the annual Rule of Law Report. 
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 service, OJ 
L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1-24, as revised by Directive (EU) 2018/1808, OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69-92. 
 For this reason the proposal contains a targeted amendment of Directive 2010/13/EU, limited to repealing its Article 30b, which 
establishes ERGA, and a replacement of references to ERGA and its tasks as a consequence. In accordance with the notion of the 
‘parallélisme  des  formes’,  a  legal  instrument  should  in  principle  be  amended  by  a  legal  instrument  of  the  same  form.  The 
amendment  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  by  this  Regulation  is  targeted  and  limited  to  a  provision  which  does  not  need  to  be 
transposed by Member States. It is therefore justified.  
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the 
Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 92-125. 
Directive  2000/31/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  8  June  2000  on  certain  legal  aspects  of  information 
society  services,  in  particular  electronic  commerce,  in  the  Internal  Market  ('Directive  on  electronic  commerce'),  OJ  L  178, 
17.7.2000, p. 1-16. 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  promoting  fairness  and 
transparency for business users of online intermediation services, OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57-79. 
COM(2020) 825 final. 
COM(2020) 842 final. 

EN 

4 

  EN 

                                                 
are consistent with the proposal for a Regulation on the transparency and targeting of political 
advertising23. 

Moreover,  the  proposal  is  complementary  to  and  does  not  affect  existing  EU  rules  on 
transparency  of  ownership.  The  Anti-Money  Laundering  (AML)  Directive24  is  the  main 
instrument  to  ensure  beneficial  ownership  transparency,  while  the  EU  Company  Law 
Directive25  regulates  the  information  that  in  particular  limited  liability  companies  need  to 
disclose in business registers. The AVMSD encourages Member States to adopt measures to 
make accessible information on the ownership structure of  audiovisual  media. The proposal 
will  complement  the  existing  framework  by  requiring  all  media  service  providers  providing 
news and current affairs content to provide information on media ownership in particular on 
direct, indirect and beneficial owners, to recipients of media services.  

The proposal is also consistent with the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the 
Member  States  (the  Amsterdam  Protocol)26,  which  recognises  the  competence  of  Member 
States  to  define  the  public  service  remit  of  public  service  media  and  to  provide  for  their 
funding insofar as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the EU 
to  an  extent  that  would  be  contrary  to  the  common  interest.  The  Amsterdam  Protocol 
implicitly confirms that public service media are within the scope of the internal market. 
The  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  Strategic  Compass  for  Security  and  Defence27  and  relevant 
Council Conclusions28. By strengthening the role and cooperation between media regulators, 
including  in  matters  affecting  the  EU’s  information  space,  the  proposal  complements  the 
actions  taken  to  develop  the  EU’s  toolbox  on  Foreign  Information  Manipulation  and 
Interference.  

The proposal is  in  line with  the Council of Europe’s Recommendation  of the Committee of 
Ministers  to  Member  States  on  public  service  media  governance29.  The  recommendation 
states that public service media need to  operate  and evolve within a sustainable  governance 
independence  and  public 
framework,  which  secures  both 
accountability.  

the  necessary  editorial 

In  view  of  the  recent  threats  to  journalistic  sources,  the  proposal  adds  a  targeted  safeguard 
against the deployment of spyware in devices used by media service providers or journalists, 
building on protections provided by Directive 2002/58/EC (the ePrivacy Directive), Directive 
2016/680/EU (the Law Enforcement Directive) and Directive 2013/40/EU on attacks against 
information systems.   

23 

24 

25 
26 

27 
28 

29 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  transparency  and  targeting  of  political 
advertising, COM/2021/731 final. 
Directive  (EU)  2015/849  of  20  May  2015  on  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money 
laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC, OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73–117. 
Directive (EU) 2017/1132 of 14 June 2017 relating to certain aspects of company law, OJ L 169, 30.6.2017, p. 46–127. 
Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain 
related acts - Protocol annexed to the Treaty of the European Community - Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the 
Member States, OJ C 340 , 10.11.1997, p. 109. 
Strategic Compass for Security and Defence. 
Council  Conclusions.  Complementary  efforts  to  enhance  resilience  and  counter  hybrid  threats,  14972/19,  10.12.2019;  Council 
conclusions on strengthening resilience and countering hybrid threats, including disinformation in the context of the COVID-19 
pandemic,  14064/20,  15.12.2020,  and  Council  conclusions  on  Foreign  Information  Manipulation  and  Interference  (FIMI), 
11429/22, 18.7.2022. 
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on public service media governance (Adopted 
by the Committee of Ministers on 15 February 2012 at the 1134th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies). 

EN 

5 

  EN 

                                                 
Consistency with other Union policies 

• 
The  proposal  builds  on  the  European  democracy  action  plan30  in  which  the  Commission 
proposed  a  set  of  measures  to  promote  democratic  participation,  fight  disinformation  and 
support  free  and  independent  media.  By  strengthening  the  protection  of  journalistic  sources 
and  communications,  the  initiative  complements  the  Recommendation  on  the  protection, 
safety  and  empowerment  of  journalists31,  as  well  as  the  proposal  for  a  Directive32  and 
Recommendation33 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly 
unfounded  or  abusive  court  proceedings  (‘Strategic  lawsuits  against  public  participation’). 
The  proposal  provides  concrete  actions  in  response  to  the  European  Declaration  on  Digital 
Rights  and  Principles  for  the  Digital  Decade34,  which  calls  for  safeguarding  the  freedom  of 
expression  and  information  online,  and  supports  the  implementation  of  the  Media  and 
audiovisual  action  plan35, in  which the Commission set  out  a series of actions to  strengthen 
financial sustainability and digital transformation of the media sector. 

The  proposal  aims  at  strengthening  editorial  independence  of  media  service  providers.  In 
parallel,  financial  sustainability  is  a  key  element  for  protecting  editorial  independence  from 
external  and market  pressures. As raised by stakeholders during the public consultation,  the 
fragile economic situation of the media sector remains an issue, and has been exacerbated by 
the  COVID-19  crisis.  Securing  diverse  and  sufficient  financing  sources  could  bolster  the 
resilience  and  independence  of  media,  and  support  the  provision  of  quality  services  to 
Europeans.  

Consequently, the media sector has been increasingly turning to the EU for financial support, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Commission  has  for  long  co-financed  the  independent  media 
coverage of European affairs to foster a European public sphere. While inevitably limited in 
amount  relative  to  the  scale  and  importance  of  the  sector,  European  funding  is  indeed  well 
placed to  contribute to  the recovery of the sector from  the COVID-19 pandemic,  the digital 
transformation of news, and the experimenting across borders of new formats or new models 
to monetise content online.  

As  a  result,  following  the  adoption  of  the  Media  and  audiovisual  action  plan  in  December 
2020, the Commission  has bundled actions geared to  support news media, in  full  respect of 
editorial  independence.  For  example,  it  has  set  up  MEDIA  INVEST,  a  dedicated  equity 
investment  instrument  under  the  InvestEU  programme,  designed  to  foster  the  financial 
capacity of European audiovisual companies. Equity support is also available to news media 
since  2022,  combined  with  investment  readiness  actions  to  mobilise  private  investors  and 
increase equity investment volumes. In parallel, the Commission is supporting the launch of a 
dedicated  co-investment  facility  under  the  InvestEU  programme  with  foundations  and 
philanthropic  organisations  in  order  to  target  three  specific  mission  areas,  including  ‘Media 
pluralism,  democracy  and  culture’36.  Innovation  is  another  focus  of  the  bundle:  under  the 
research  and  innovation  and  digital  programmes,  financing  is  offered  to  develop  innovative 
solutions, including in particular a soon-to-be-launched call to develop a European media data 
space. In addition, innovative research funded under Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe helps 

30 
31 
32 
33 

34 
35 
36 

COM(2020) 790 final. 
C(2021) 6650 final. 
COM(2022) 177 final. 
Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/758 of 27 April 2022 on protecting journalists and human rights defenders who engage 
in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings (‘Strategic lawsuits against public participation’) 
OJ L 138, 17.5.2022, p. 30–44. 
COM(2022) 28 final. 
COM(2020) 784 final. 
The other two mission areas are the ‘societal transformations related to the green transition’ and ‘equality and inclusion’. 

EN 

6 

  EN 

                                                 
to  understand  the  impact  of  the  media  on  citizens  and  democracy,  and  provide  tools  and 
strategies  to  foster  a  healthier  and  more  diverse  media  landscape,  tackling  online 
disinformation and improving journalistic standards. Regular exchanges with the industry in 
the context of the European News Media Forum, also contribute to monitoring innovation in 
the sector, and provide a forum to discuss the EU agenda on the matter. 

Following  the  Media  and  audiovisual  action  plan,  the  news  media  sector  has  become  a 
dedicated  focus  of  the  Creative  Europe  programme,  designed  to  support  the  cultural  and 
creative  sectors.  The  programme  can  finance  partnerships  between  media  organisations  in 
order to innovate, test new formats or share good business practices across borders. Creative 
Europe  also  co-finances  projects  that  promote  a  more  pluralistic  media  environment:  grants 
allow  to  provide  protection  for  reporters  (including  legal  support)  and  cover  areas  such  as 
fact-finding,  monitoring,  advocacy  work,  informing  the  public  and  awareness  raising.  EU 
funding also supported the operations of media councils, as well as the activities of the Media 
Pluralism Monitor. As of 2023, the Commission will also allocate dedicated funding under the 
Creative  Europe  programme  to  support  media  that  serve  the  public  interest,  such  as 
investigative  outlets,  thus  contributing  to  a  pluralistic  debate  across  borders  and  a  more 
healthy democracy.  

The demand for media funding exceeds the funds available. The European Parliament called 
for  the  reinforcement  of  the  funding  opportunities  for  the  news  media  sector,  in  particular 
through  a  permanent  News  Media  Fund  and  by  strengthening  the  budgets  for  the  Cross-
sectoral and Media strands under Creative Europe37. The Council also invited the Commission 
to  strengthen  funding  for  independent  journalism38.  With  a  view  to  complementing  current 
EU policies, and ultimately reinforcing the financial resilience of the sector, the Commission 
will  map  public  financial  schemes  and  initiatives  developed  by  Member  States  and  identify 
financing trends and gaps.  

2. 

• 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

The  legal  basis  for  this  proposal  is  Article  114  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU), which provides for the adoption of measures for the approximation 
of  the  provisions  laid  down  by  law,  regulation  or  administrative  action  in  Member  States 
which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. 

The proposal aims to address the fragmented national regulatory approaches related to media 
freedom and pluralism and editorial independence. This will foster a common approach and 
coordination  at  EU  level,  ensure  the  optimal  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  media 
services,  and  prevent  the  emergence  of  future  obstacles  to  the  operation  of  media  service 
providers across the EU.  

In  particular,  the  proposal  aims  at  tackling  the  following  issues  hindering  the  provision  of 
media services in the internal market: 

 

national  restrictions  related  to  sources  and  communications  of  journalists  as 
service providers, affecting the production and provision of media services; 

37 

38 

European Parliament, Committee on Culture and Education, Report on Europe’s Media in the Digital Decade: an Action Plan to 
Support Recovery and Transformation (2021/2017(INI)).  
Council conclusions on the protection and safety of journalists and other media professionals, OJ C 245, 28.6.2022. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

                                                 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

interference  in  the  operation  of  media  service  providers,  including  their 
editorial  decisions,  and  diverging  approaches  to  protection  of  editorial 
independence; 

the risk of state interference in public service media, to the detriment of a level 
playing field in the single market and quality of public service media; 

the  market  operations  of  rogue  operators  (including  media  service  providers 
that  are  state-controlled,  be  it  financially  or  editorially,  by  certain  third 
countries)  that  create  tensions  in  the  application  of  the  free  movement  rules 
within the Union; 

given  the  increasing  digitalisation  of  media  service  distribution,  the  risks  to 
free  provision  of  media  services  on  very  large  online  platforms,  to  the 
detriment of a level playing field in the internal market; 

national  media  market  measures  affecting  the  operation  of  media  service 
providers restricting the free movement in the Union, thereby fragmenting the 
internal  market  and  leading  to  legal  uncertainty;  the  same  applies  to  national 
rules  and  procedures  for  the  assessment  of  the  impact  of  media  market 
concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence; 

in  audience  measurement  systems  and 
opacity  and  possible  biases 
methodologies,  leading  to  market  distortion,  to  the  detriment  of  the  level 
playing field in the internal market; 

unfair  and  un-transparent  allocation  of  state  advertising  expenditure  to  media 
service providers, to the detriment of other media service providers, including 
those established in other Member States. 

In addition, Article 114 TFEU is an appropriate legal basis for the creation of new structures 
under  EU  law.  This  is  particularly  relevant  given  the  governance  aspect  of  the  initiative, 
which aims to foster closer cooperation between national media regulators within an EU-level 
Board,  which  would  be  tasked  to  promote  the  effective  and  consistent  application  of  EU 
media rules. 

The EU legislator must not only comply with fundamental rights when regulating the internal 
market39, but  also  balance competing fundamental rights40. The present  Regulation  proposal 
constitutes a harmonious, coordinated and multi-pronged legislative framework by which the 
legislator  contributes  to  the  development  and  protection  of  the  internal  market  for  media 
services,  thereby  also  pursuing  several  further  legitimate  public  interests  (including  the 
protection  of  users)  and  reconciling  in  a  fair  manner  the  fundamental  rights  of  all  the 
individuals concerned.  

• 

Subsidiarity  

The objectives of the intervention cannot be achieved by Member States acting alone, as the 
problems  are  increasingly  of  a  cross-border  nature  and  not  limited  to  individual  Member 
States  or  to  a  subset  of  Member  States.  Production,  distribution  and  consumption  of  media 
content, including news, are increasingly digital and cross-border as the internet continues to 

39 

40 

Judgments  of  13  December  1979,  Hauer, 44/79,  EU:C:1979:290, paragraphs  14-16;  20 May  2003,  Österreichischer Rundfunk, 
joined  Cases  C-465/00,  C-138/01  and  C-139/01,  EU:C:2003:294,  paragraphs  68  et  seq.;  of  9  November  2010,  Schecke,  joined 
cases C-92/09 and C-93/09, EU:C:2010:662, paragraph 46. 
Judgments  of  15  September  2016,  Mc  Fadden,  C-484/14,  EU:C:2016:170,  paragraphs  68  et  seq.;  of  26  April  2022,  Poland  v 
Parliament and Council (“copyright Directive”), C‑401/19, EU:C:2022:29, paragraph 66. 

EN 

8 

  EN 

 
                                                 
drive  the  transformation  of  traditional  media  business  models.  The  provision  of  media 
services across the EU is increasingly affected by global platforms, which act as gateways to 
media content while being prominent online advertising providers. 

A  common  EU  approach,  promoting  convergence,  transparency,  legal  certainty  and  a  level 
playing  field  for  the  relevant  media  market  players  is  the  best  way  to  advance  the  internal 
media market. It will reduce the burden for media service providers, who have to comply with 
different national legal regimes when they operate in several Member States. It will enhance 
legal certainty for media market players, thereby promoting fair competition and cross-border 
investment.  It  will  also  enable  media  regulators  to  adopt  coordinated  responses  in  matters 
affecting  the  EU’s  information  space  and  in  particular  the  protection  of  EU  consumers’ 
interests. 

The initiative takes  due account of the Protocol on  the system of  public broadcasting in  the 
Member States (the Amsterdam Protocol) and Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union 
(TEU).  It  will  not  interfere  with  Member  States’  competence  to  provide  funding  to  public 
service  media  so  that  they  can  fulfil  their  public  service  remit,  as  conferred,  defined  and 
organised at national level, nor will it interfere with national identities or regulatory traditions 
in  the  media  field.  It  also  takes  due  account  of  stakeholders’  views;  it  thus  follows  the 
proposition  that  exceedingly  uniform  and  detailed  EU  media  pluralism  rules  would  be 
undesirable  and  disproportionate,  as  such  rules  must  be  adapted  to  the  historic  and  cultural 
background  of  each  Member  State.  Instead,  the  initiative  strikes  the  right  balance  between 
generally couched provisions and more specific rules to reach the policy objectives. 

• 

Proportionality 

The  initiative  builds  on  existing  legal  frameworks  and  will  only  focus  on  areas  where 
additional  EU  action  appears  necessary  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  media 
market, including to ensure a level playing field and independent operation of media market 
players  across  the  EU.  It  is  limited  to  issues  on  which  Member  States  cannot  achieve 
satisfactory solutions on their own, and provides for a well-calibrated harmonisation that does 
not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  objective  of  establishing  a  common 
framework  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  media  services,  while 
guaranteeing  the  quality  of  such  services.  The  fact  that  several  of  the  proposed  rules  are 
principle-based also contributes to ensuring the proposals’ proportionality. 

The proposal gives rise to limited compliance and enforcement costs that will likely be offset 
by significant benefits for media market players and citizens. By enhancing transparency and 
reducing regulatory fragmentation in the market, the proposal will enhance legal certainty and 
fair  competition  while  reducing  market  distortions.  This  will  increase  investors’  confidence 
and  make  cross-border  media  market  transactions  less  burdensome,  creating  a  positive 
environment for investments and free provision of media services across the EU. Citizens and 
businesses  will  also  benefit  from  a  more  diverse  and  plural  media  offer,  increased 
transparency and improved access to information.   

• 

Choice of the instrument 

The proposal takes the form of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. In 
view  of  the  issues  to  be  addressed  and  given  the  economic,  social  and  political  context,  a 
regulation  is  more  suitable  than  a  directive  to  ensure  a  consistent  level  of  protection 
throughout  the  EU  and  reduce  regulatory  divergences  that  would  hamper  the  independent 
provision of media services in the internal market. It will allow for a quick application of the 
new  EU  rules,  thus  addressing  the  problems  faster.  This  will  avoid  a  lengthy  transposition 
process,  prevent  potential  divergences  or  distortions  during  the  transposition  process,  by 

EN 

9 

  EN 

stipulating  directly  applicable  provisions  and  avoiding  situations  where  Member  States  use 
the  transposition  process  as  a  pretext  to  introduce  or  keep  legislative  measures  that  in 
substance  run  against  independent  media  service  providers  or  are  otherwise  discriminatory. 
The  recourse  to  a  regulation  is  also  preferable  given  the  initiative’s  institutional  component 
(the  establishment  of  the  Board).  The  choice  of  a  regulation  is  equally  justified  by  the 
increasing digitalisation and cross-border provision of media services, which calls for a swift, 
consistent approach across the internal market. By establishing directly applicable provisions, 
the  proposed  regulation  will  also  ensure  effective  and  efficient  cooperation  among  national 
media regulatory authorities and bodies of the Member States. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EVALUATIONS, 

POST 

OF 

EX 

STAKEHOLDER 

Stakeholder consultations 

The proposal is based on extensive consultation with stakeholders, in the light of the general 
principles and standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission. 

A call for evidence  announcing the initiative was published on 21 December 2021 and  was 
open for feedback until 25 March 2022. A total of 1 473 responses were received41. A public 
consultation was open from 10 January to 25 March 2022 and attracted 917 responses42. They 
were both promoted through the Commission’s website, as well as through social media and 
specific  networks.  While  the  call  for  evidence  aimed  at  gathering  general  feedback  in 
response  to  the  Commission’s  announcement  of  the  initiative,  the  public  consultation 
collected views through a structured questionnaire containing specific questions regarding the 
initiative. 

In addition, the Commission organised meetings with key stakeholders and experts to gather 
additional  evidence  and  data  on  the  specific  problems  to  be  addressed  by  the  initiative,  the 
policy  approach  and  its  impact,  as  well  as  technical  information  about  existing  industry 
practices.  It  also  conducted  targeted  workshops  and  analysed  numerous  position  and 
analytical papers received in the context of the initiative’s preparation. The preparation of the 
impact  assessment  underpinning  the  initiative  was  supported  by  two  external  studies 
encompassing a series of individual consultations with key stakeholders43. 

Furthermore, the Commission discussed the initiative with members of the AVMSD Contact 
Committee  and  ERGA.  These  expert  groups  provided  a  direct  channel  to  consult  the  most 
relevant  authorities  at  Member  State  level.  To  gather  views  of  researchers  and  experts  with 
particular expertise in relevant areas (such as public and constitutional law as well as media 
freedom  and  internal  market),  a  specific  workshop  with  representatives  from  academia, 
ERGA and the Commission was organised on 18 February 2022.  

The  idea  of  a  legislative  proposal,  regulating  at  least  certain  substantive  areas,  received 
support from citizens and most other stakeholders, including the media freedom community, 
consumer organisations, media regulators and ERGA, public and private broadcasters, content 

41 

42 
43 

European Commission (2022). Outcome of the Call for Evidence. A total of 1 470 submissions were received via the Have your 
say portal, while three additional ones were received outside the site but within the timeline of the consultation and were therefore 
included in the responses. 
European Commission (2022). Outcome of the public consultation. 
PwC,  Intellera and Open evidence, “Support for the preparation of an impact assessment to accompany an EU initiative on the 
European Media Freedom Act”, VIGIE 2021-644; European University Institute, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Universiteit van 
Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, “Study on media plurality and diversity online”, VIGIE 2020-825. 

EN 

10 

  EN 

                                                 
distributors  and  advertising  ecosystem  players.  Among  those  stakeholders,  there  is  wide 
support for a principle-based approach as opposed to no action or detailed standard-setting.  

Non-governmental  organisations  and  public  service  broadcasters  particularly  supported  EU-
level  action  to  introduce  safeguards  for  editorial  independence,  including  that  of  public 
service media, while recalling the importance of the Amsterdam Protocol. Public broadcasters 
specifically support safeguards for editorial integrity online and guidance on the appropriate 
prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest. 

Private  broadcasters  were  especially  in  favour  of  common  principles  for  media  pluralism 
measures  and audience measurement transparency, objectivity and verifiability, on the latter 
aspect  agreeing  with  publishers  and  the  advertising  ecosystem  players.  Publishers,  who  are 
traditionally  unregulated,  expressed  a  general  preference  for  self-regulation  or  a 
recommendation.  However,  they  did  support  EU-wide  measures  both  on  protection  of 
journalistic  sources  and  on  state  advertising.  Citizens  strongly  agreed  with  the  need  for 
transparency  and  fairness  in  the  allocation  of  state  advertising.  Broadcasters  and  publishers 
called for effective regulation of online platforms. 

As  regards  governance,  there  is  overall  wide  support  for  oversight  based  on  ERGA  but 
differing views as to its potential future status. Regulators and the media freedom community 
are  in  favour  of  strengthening  ERGA,  while  companies  and  business  associations  would 
rather  keep  it  in  its  current  form.  Public  authorities  supported  in  particular  regulatory 
cooperation  at  EU  level  to  facilitate  common  standards  for  media  pluralism  and  the 
strengthening of the role and resources of ERGA for further EU coordination. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

The Commission has relied on a wide array of expertise for the preparation of this proposal. 

In addition to the public consultation and other stakeholder consultations described above, the 
Commission  contracted  two  external  studies  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  coherence  and 
comparability of analysis for all potential policy approaches. 

The  European  Audiovisual  Observatory  of  the  Council  of  Europe  also  produced  a  special 
report  on  governance  and  independence  of  public  service  media44.  The  publication  is 
accompanied  by  a  comprehensive  overview  on  the  main  governance  safeguards  for  public 
service media in Europe.  

The  Commission’s  rule of  law  reports,  the  annual  reports  produced  by  the  Media  Pluralism 
Monitor  as  well  as  some  Eurobarometer  surveys  provided  evidence  and  analysis  on  many 
relevant issues. These sources were used to identify the problems, their scale in the internal 
media  market  and  their  drivers.  The  Commission  has  also  built  on  the  relevant  Council  of 
Europe Recommendations, which were agreed on by all Member States45. 

Finally,  to  further  support  evidence-based  analysis,  the  Commission  conducted  a  review  of 
relevant case law and an extensive literature review, covering academic literature and a wide 
spectrum  of  policy  studies  and  reports,  including  by  NGOs  active  in  the  area  of  media 
freedom and pluralism. 

44 

45 

F.J.  Cabrera  Blázquez,  M.  Cappello,  J.  Talavera  Milla,  S.  Valais,  Governance and independence  of  public  service  media,  IRIS 
Plus, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2022; and ERGA, Internal Media Plurality in Audiovisual Media Services 
in the EU: Rules & Practices, 2018. 
See  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2012)1  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  States  on  public  service  media  governance 
(Adopted  by  the  Committee  of  Ministers  on  15  February  2012  at  the  1134th  meeting  of  the  Ministers’  Deputies)  and 
Recommendation  CM/Rec(2018)1[1]  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  States  on  media  pluralism  and  transparency  of 
media ownership. 

EN 

11 

  EN 

                                                 
• 

Impact assessment 

In line with its ‘Better Regulation’ policy, the Commission conducted an impact assessment 
for  this  proposal,  examined  by  the  Commission's  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB).  The 
impact assessment report was first submitted to the RSB on 13 May, and was discussed with it 
during a hearing on 8 June. Following a negative opinion delivered on 10 June, the report was 
substantially revised and re-submitted to the RSB on 11 July. The RSB delivered a positive 
opinion  with  reservations  on  27  July.  The  impact  assessment  report  was  further  revised  to 
accommodate  the  RSB’s  suggestions  for  improvement.  The  opinions  of  the  RSB,  and  the 
comments and explanations of how they have been taken into account, are presented in Annex 
1 to the impact assessment. 

The  Commission  examined  different  policy  options  to  achieve  the  proposal’s  general 
objective, which is to improve the functioning of the internal media market. 

Three policy options of different degrees of regulatory intensity were assessed: 

 

 

 

Option  1:  Recommendation  on  media  pluralism  and  independence, 
encouraging  Member  States  and,  in  certain  areas,  companies  in  the  media 
market  to  implement  a  set  of  actions  to  promote  media  pluralism,  editorial 
independence and transparency and fairness in the media market. 

Option  2:  Legislative  proposal  and  recommendation  on  media 
independence, the former providing common rules for the internal market for 
media services and the latter encouraging media companies and Member States 
to foster media independence and transparency. 

Option 3: Enhanced legislative proposal adding on top of all the legislative 
elements  of  Option  2  further  obligations  for  companies  in  the  media  market 
and  regulators  to  foster  the  availability  of  quality  media  services  and 
transparent and fair allocation of economic resources in the media market. 

Two  sub-options  were  considered  for  the  governance  of  the  legislative  instrument  under 
options 2 and 3: 

 

 

Sub-option  A:  a  governance  system  based  on  a  board  supported  by  a 
Commission secretariat; 

Sub-option  B:  a  governance  system  based  on  a  board  assisted  by  an 
independent EU office. 

According  to  the  Commission’s  established  methodology,  each  policy  option  was  evaluated 
for economic, social and fundamental rights impacts. The preferred option is  Option 2 Sub-
option  A.  This  option  will  meet  the  general  objective  of  the  intervention  in  an  efficient, 
coherent, proportionate and largely effective way.  

In particular, the proposed legislative instrument will establish some core principles and rules 
for  the  media  market,  and  assign  important  tasks  to  the  Board,  as  the  collective  body  of 
independent  media  regulators,  including  tasks  to  provide  expert  advice  on  regulatory, 
technical or practical aspects of media regulation, to issue opinions on market concentrations 
likely to affect the functioning of the internal market and to coordinate actions with regard to 
media service providers (including from third countries) not following EU media standards. It 
will  be  possible  to  rely  on  the  principles  and  rules  established  in  the  legislative  instrument 
before national courts, and the Commission will be able to launch infringements proceedings, 
inter  alia  in  case  of  systemic  issues.  The  non-binding  element  of  the  policy  package  -  the 
Recommendation - will suggest voluntary actions on two specific issues: media independence 

EN 

12 

  EN 

safeguards  and  media  ownership  transparency.  Such  a  multi-layered  and  flexible  approach 
will bring the desired benefits while optimising the costs for media market players and public 
authorities, also taking into account the lower cost of a Commission secretariat compared to 
the EU office. 

The  impacts  of  the  policy  options  on  different  categories  of  stakeholders  are  explained  in 
detail in Annex 3 to the impact assessment. 

• 

Fundamental rights 

The proposed regulation, by enhancing regulatory convergence in the internal media market, 
safeguarding  editorial  independence  in  conjunction  with  media  service  providers’  business 
freedom,  and  increasing  transparency  and  fairness  in  the  allocation  of  economic  resources, 
will facilitate the provision of independent and quality media services across borders, hence 
promoting  media  freedom  and  pluralism.  The  key  role  of  the  Board  in  the  new  framework, 
fully independent from governments and any other public or private entities, will contribute to 
effective  and  impartial  upholding  of  freedom  of  expression  across  the  EU,  protected  by 
Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), which 
corresponds to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The proposed regulation will also have a positive impact on the freedom to conduct a business 
(Article 16 of the Charter), by lifting obstacles to the freedom to provide services and limiting 
the risks of certain media market players being subject to discriminatory treatment.  

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

The  budgetary  impact  of  the  proposal  for  this  regulation  will  be  covered  by  the  allocations 
laid down in the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework under the financial allocations 
for  the  Creative  Europe  programme,  as  detailed  in  the  legislative  financial  statement 
accompanying the proposal. 

5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

The  Commission  will  establish  a  comprehensive  framework  to  continuously  monitor  the 
output,  results  and  impact  of  this  legislative  instrument.  This  includes  in  particular  a  new 
independent  monitoring  mechanism  to  identify  and  assess  risks  to  the  functioning  of  the 
internal  market  for  media  services.  An  evaluation  of  the  instrument  and  a  report  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  are 
envisaged within 4 years from its entry into force and every 4 years thereafter. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Chapter  I sets  out  the subject  matter and scope of the Regulation  and the definitions of key 
terms used in the Regulation. In particular, it states that Chapter II and Chapter III, Section 5 
of the Regulation are minimum harmonisation provisions.  

Chapter II contains rights of recipients of media services and rights of media service providers 
in  the  internal  market.  It  also  sets  out  safeguards  for  the  independent  functioning  of  public 
service media and duties of media service providers in the internal market.  

Chapter III lays out a framework for regulatory cooperation and a well-functioning market for 
media services.  

Section  1  provides  that  the  independent  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies  of  the 
Member States  that  are in charge of implementation  of the  AVMSD  are  responsible for the 

EN 

13 

  EN 

application of this Chapter and grants them  appropriate powers of investigation to carry out 
their tasks. 

Section  2  establishes  the  European  Board  for  Media  Services,  the  collective  body  of 
independent  media  regulators, replacing and succeeding the European Regulators  Group for 
Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA). It sets out the requirements for the independence of the 
Board  and  specifies  its  structure.  The  Board  will  receive  administrative  and  organisational 
support,  required  for  carrying  out  its  tasks,  from  a  secretariat  provided  by  the  Commission. 
The Chapter lists the tasks of the Board under the Regulation. 

Section 3 establishes rules and procedures for regulatory cooperation and convergence in the 
internal  media  market,  comprising  a  mechanism  for  structured  cooperation,  requests  for 
enforcement  measures,  guidance  on  media  regulation  matters  and  coordination  of  measures 
concerning  third-country  media  services.  The  provisions  are  intended  to  ensure  a  closer 
cooperation  among  national  regulatory  authorities  and  bodies  in  different  areas  of  media 
regulation. 

Section  4  addresses  specific  issues  concerning  the  provision  of  media  services  in  a  digital 
environment.  Regarding  the  provision  of  media  services  on  very  large  online  platforms,  it 
builds  on  existing  horizontal  legislation  by  providing  additional  safeguards  for  editorial 
integrity  of  content  provided  online  by  media  service  providers  that  adhere  to  certain 
regulatory  or  self-regulatory  standards,  and  establishing  a  structured  dialogue  between  very 
large online platforms and relevant media ecosystem counterparts. The Section also provides 
for  the  right  of  customization  of  audiovisual  media  offer  in  devices  and  user  interfaces 
controlling  access  to  audiovisual  media  services  and  the  corresponding  obligation  of 
manufacturers and developers to technically enable such customisation. 

Section 5 sets out  a legal framework for national measures affecting the operation of media 
service providers and lays down requirements for national rules and procedures related to the 
assessment  of  the  impact  of  media  market  concentrations  on  media  pluralism  and  editorial 
independence.  The  Board  will  be  given  the  task  of  taking  position  on  instances  where  the 
functioning of the internal market may be affected. 

Section  6  establishes  requirements  for  audience  measurement  systems  and  methodologies 
deployed  by  relevant  market  players.  The  rules  are  accompanied  by  an  encouragement  to 
draw up codes of conduct and to foster exchanges of best practices.  Section 6 also provides 
for common requirements on the allocation of state advertising expenditure to media service 
providers, without affecting the public procurement rules and the State aid rules. 

Chapter  IV  sets  out  final  provisions,  in  particular  concerning  monitoring,  evaluation  and 
reporting. The Regulation includes a mechanism for the Commission to monitor risks to the 
functioning of the internal market for media services on a regular basis, in consultation with 
the  Board.  The  Chapter  also  repeals  the  relevant  Article  of  the  AVMSD  and  specifies  the 
entry into force and the start of application of the Regulation.  

EN 

14 

  EN 

2022/0277 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European 
Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 114 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, 

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,  

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Independent media services play a unique role in the internal market. They represent a 
fast-changing and economically important sector and at the same time provide access 
to  a plurality of views and reliable sources of information  to  citizens  and  businesses 
alike,  thereby  fulfilling  the  general  interest  function  of  ‘public  watchdog’.  Media 
services are increasingly available online and across borders while they are not subject 
to the same rules and the same level of protection in different Member States. 

Given their unique role, the protection of media freedom and pluralism is an essential 
feature  of  a  well-functioning  internal  market  for  media  services  (or  ‘internal  media 
market’).  This  market  has  substantially  changed  since  the  beginning  of  the  new 
century,  becoming  increasingly  digital  and  international.  It  offers  many  economic 
opportunities but also faces a number of challenges. The Union should help the media 
sector  seize  those  opportunities  within  the  internal  market,  while  at  the  same  time 
protecting  the  values,  such  as  the  protection  of  the  fundamental  rights,  that  are 
common to the Union and to its Member States. 

In the digital media space, citizens and businesses access and consume media content, 
immediately available on their personal devices, increasingly in a cross-border setting. 
Global online platforms act as  gateways to media content, with business  models that 
tend  to  disintermediate  access  to  media  services  and  amplify  polarising  content  and 
disinformation.  These  platforms  are  also  essential  providers  of  online  advertising, 
which  has  diverted  financial  resources  from  the  media  sector,  affecting  its  financial 
sustainability,  and  consequently  the  diversity  of  content  on  offer.  As  media  services 
are knowledge- and capital-intensive, they require scale to remain competitive and to 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
(4) 

thrive  in  the  internal  market.  To  that  effect,  the  possibility  to  offer  services  across 
borders and obtain investment including from or in other Member States is particularly 
important. 

However, the internal market for media services is insufficiently integrated. A number 
of national restrictions hamper free movement within the internal market. In particular, 
different  national  rules  and  approaches  related  to  media  pluralism  and  editorial 
independence,  insufficient  cooperation  between  national  regulatory  authorities  or 
bodies  as  well  as  opaque  and  unfair  allocation  of  public  and  private  economic 
resources  make  it  difficult  for  media  market  players  to  operate  and  expand  across 
borders and lead to an uneven level playing field across the Union. The integrity of the 
internal  market  for  media  services  may  also  be  challenged  by  providers  that 
systematically  engage  in  disinformation,  including  information  manipulation  and 
interference,  and  abuse  the  internal  market  freedoms,  including  by  state-controlled 
media service providers financed by certain third countries.  

(5)  Moreover,  in  response  to  challenges  to  media  pluralism  and  media  freedom  online, 
some  Member  States  have  taken  regulatory  measures  and  other  Member  States  are 
likely  to  do  so,  with  a  risk  of  furthering  the  divergence  in  national  approaches  and 
restrictions to free movement in the internal market. 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

46  

Recipients  of  media  services  in  the  Union  (natural  persons  who  are  nationals  of 
Member  States  or  benefit  from  rights  conferred  upon  them  by  Union  law  and  legal 
persons  established  in  the  Union)  should  be  able  to  effectively  enjoy  the  freedom  to 
receive  free  and  pluralistic  media  services  in  the  internal  market.  In  fostering  the 
cross-border  flow  of  media  services,  a  minimum  level  of  protection  of  service 
recipients should be ensured in the internal market. That would be in compliance with 
the  right  to  receive  and  impart  information  pursuant  to  Article  11  of  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (‘the  Charter’).  It  is  thus  necessary  to 
harmonise certain aspects of national rules related to media services. In the final report 
of  the  Conference  on  the  Future  of  Europe,  citizens  called  on  the  EU  to  further 
promote  media  independence  and  pluralism,  in  particular  by  introducing  legislation 
addressing threats to media independence through EU-wide minimum standards46. 

For the purposes of this Regulation, the definition of a media service should be limited 
to services as defined by the Treaty and therefore should cover any form of economic 
activity. This definition should exclude user-generated content uploaded to an online 
platform  unless 
it  constitutes  a  professional  activity  normally  provided  for 
consideration  (be  it  of  financial  or  of  other  nature).  It  should  also  exclude  purely 
private  correspondence,  such  as  e-mails,  as  well  as  all  services  that  do  not  have  the 
provision of audiovisual or audio programmes or press publications as their principal 
purpose,  meaning  where  the  content  is  merely  incidental  to  the  service  and  not  its 
principal  purpose,  such  as  advertisements  or  information  related  to  a  product  or  a 
service  provided  by  websites  that  do  not  offer  media  services.  The  definition  of  a 
media  service  should  cover  in  particular  television  or  radio  broadcasts,  on-demand 
audiovisual  media  services,  audio  podcasts  or  press  publications.  Corporate 
communication  and  distribution  of  informational  or  promotional  materials  for  public 
or private entities should be excluded from the scope of this definition. 

In  the  digitalised  media  market,  providers  of  video-sharing  platforms  or  very  large 
online  platforms  may  fall  under  the  definition  of  media  service  provider.  In  general, 

Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, in particular proposal 27 (1) and 37 (4). 

EN 

16 

  EN 

                                                 
(9) 

such  providers  play  a  key  role  in  the  content  organisation,  including  by  automated 
means  or  algorithms,  but  do  not  exercise  editorial  responsibility  over  the  content  to 
which  they  provide  access.  However,  in  the  increasingly  convergent  media 
environment, some providers of video-sharing platforms or very large online platforms 
have  started  to  exercise  editorial  control  over  a  section  or  sections  of  their  services. 
Therefore, such an entity could be qualified both as a video-sharing platform provider 
or a very large online platform provider and as a media service provider. 

The  definition  of  audience  measurement  should  cover  measurement  systems 
developed  as  agreed  by  industry  standards  within  self-regulatory  organisations,  like 
the Joint Industry Committees, and measurement systems developed outside such self-
regulatory  approaches.  The  latter  tend  to  be  deployed  by  certain  online  players  who 
self-measure or provide their proprietary audience measurement systems to the market, 
which do not necessarily abide by the commonly agreed industry standards. Given the 
significant  impact  that  such  audience  measurement  systems  have  on  the  advertising 
and media markets, they should be covered by this Regulation. 

(10)  State  advertising  should  be  understood  broadly  as  covering  promotional  or  self-
promotional  activities  undertaken  by,  for  or  on  behalf  of  a  wide  range  of  public 
authorities or entities, including governments, regulatory authorities or bodies as well 
as  state-owned  enterprises  or  other  state-controlled  entities  in  different  sectors,  at 
national  or  regional  level,  or  local  governments  of  territorial  entities  of  more  than  1 
million  inhabitants.  However,  the  definition  of  state  advertising  should  not  include 
emergency messages by public authorities which are necessary, for example, in cases 
of natural or sanitary disasters, accidents or other sudden incidents that can cause harm 
to individuals. 

(11) 

In  order  to  ensure  that  society  reaps  the  benefits  of  the  internal  media  market,  it  is 
essential not only to guarantee the fundamental freedoms under the Treaty, but also the 
legal  certainty  which  the  recipients  of  media  services  need  for  the  enjoyment  of  the 
corresponding benefits. Such recipients should have access to quality media services, 
which have been produced by journalists and editors in an independent manner and in 
line with  journalistic standards and hence provide trustworthy information, including 
news  and  current  affairs  content.  Such  right  does  not  entail  any  correspondent 
obligation  on  any  given  media  service  provider  to  adhere  to  standards  not  set  out 
explicitly  by  law.  Such  quality  media  services  are  also  an  antidote  against 
disinformation, including foreign information manipulation and interference.  

(12)  This  Regulation  does  not  affect  the  freedom  of  expression  guaranteed  to  individuals 
under the Charter. The European Court of Human Rights has observed that in such a 
sensitive  sector  as  audiovisual  media,  in  addition  to  its  negative  duty  of  non-
interference,  the  public  powers  have  a  positive  obligation  to  put  in  place  an 
appropriate 
to  guarantee  effective 
pluralism47. 

legislative  and  administrative 

framework 

(13)  The  free  flow  of  trustworthy  information  is  essential  in  a  well-functioning  internal 
market  for  media  services.  Therefore,  the  provision  of  media  services  should  not  be 
subject to any restrictions contrary to this Regulation or other rules of Union law, such 

47 

Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no 38433/09, § 134, ECHR 2012. 

EN 

17 

  EN 

 
                                                 
as  Directive  2010/13/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council48  providing 
for measures necessary to protect users from illegal and harmful content. Restrictions 
could also derive from measures applied by national public authorities in compliance 
with Union law.  

(14)  The protection of editorial independence is a precondition for exercising the activity of 
media  service  providers  and  their  professional  integrity.  Editorial  independence  is 
especially  important  for  media  service  providers  providing  news  and  current  affairs 
content given its societal role as a public good. Media service providers should be able 
to exercise their economic activities freely in the internal market and compete on equal 
footing in an increasingly online environment where information flows across borders.  

(15)  Member  States  have  taken  different  approaches  to  the  protection  of  editorial 
independence, which is increasingly challenged across the Union. In particular, there 
is growing interference with editorial decisions of media service providers in several 
Member  States.  Such  interference  can  be  direct  or  indirect,  from  the  State  or  other 
actors,  including  public  authorities,  elected  officials,  government  officials  and 
politicians, for example to obtain a political advantage. Shareholders and other private 
parties who have a stake in media service providers may act in ways which go beyond 
the necessary balance between their own business freedom and freedom of expression, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  editorial  freedom  of  expression  and  the  information  rights  of 
users, on the other hand, in pursuit of economic or other advantage. Moreover, recent 
trends  in  media  distribution  and  consumption,  including  in  particular  in  the  online 
environment, have prompted Member States to consider laws aimed at regulating the 
provision of media content. Approaches taken by media service providers to guarantee 
editorial independence also vary. As a result of such interference and fragmentation of 
regulation  and  approaches,  the  conditions  for  the  exercise  of  economic  activities  by 
media  service  providers  and,  ultimately,  the  quality  of  media  services  received  by 
citizens  and  businesses  are  negatively  affected  in  the  internal  market.  It  is  thus 
necessary  to  put  in  place  effective  safeguards  enabling  the  exercise  of  editorial 
freedom across the Union so that media service providers can independently produce 
and  distribute  their  content  across  borders  and  service  recipients  can  receive  such 
content.  

(16) 

Journalists  and  editors  are  the  main  actors  in  the  production  and  provision  of 
trustworthy media  content,  in  particular  by reporting on news or current  affairs.  It  is 
essential therefore  to  protect  journalists’  capability  to  collect,  fact-check and analyse 
information,  including  information  imparted  confidentially.  In  particular,  media 
service providers  and journalists (including those operating in  non-standard forms  of 
employment,  such  as  freelancers)  should  be  able  to  rely  on  a  robust  protection  of 
journalistic sources and communications, including against deployment of surveillance 
technologies, since without such protection sources may be deterred from assisting the 
media  in  informing  the  public  on  matters  of  public  interest.  As  a  result,  journalists’ 
freedom to exercise their economic activity and fulfil their vital ‘public watchdog’ role 
may  be  undermined,  thus  affecting  negatively  access  to  quality  media  services.  The 
protection of journalistic sources contributes to the protection of the fundamental right 
enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter. 

48 

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) (OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1-24). 

EN 

18 

  EN 

                                                 
(17)  The  protection  of  journalistic  sources  is  currently  regulated  heterogeneously  in  the 
Member States. Some Member States provide an absolute protection against coercing 
journalists  to  disclose  information  that  identify  their  source  in  criminal  and 
administrative  proceedings.  Other  Member  States  provide  a  qualified  protection 
confined  to  judicial  proceedings  based  on  certain  criminal  charges,  while  others 
provide protection in the form of a general principle. This leads to fragmentation in the 
internal  media  market.  As  a  result,  journalists,  which  work  increasingly  on  cross-
border projects and provide their services to cross-border audiences, and by extension 
providers  of  media  services,  are  likely  to  face  barriers,  legal  uncertainty  and  uneven 
conditions  of  competition.  Therefore,  the  protection  of  journalistic  sources  and 
communications needs harmonisation and further strengthening at Union level. 

(18)  Public  service  media  established  by  the  Member  States  play  a  particular  role  in  the 
internal media market, by ensuring that citizens and businesses have access to quality 
information  and  impartial  media  coverage,  as  part  of  their  mission.  However,  public 
service  media  can  be  particularly  exposed  to  the  risk  of  interference,  given  their 
institutional proximity to the State and the public funding they receive. This risk may 
be exacerbated by uneven safeguards related to independent governance and balanced 
coverage by public service media across the Union. This situation may lead to biased 
or  partial  media  coverage,  distort  competition  in  the  internal  media  market  and 
negatively  affect  access  to  independent  and  impartial  media  services.  It  is  thus 
necessary, building on the international standards developed by the Council of Europe 
in  this  regard,  to  put  in  place  legal  safeguards  for  the  independent  functioning  of 
public service media across the Union.  It is also necessary to  guarantee that, without 
prejudice  to  the  application  of  the  Union’s  State  aid  rules,  public  service  media 
providers benefit from sufficient and stable funding to fulfil their mission that enables 
predictability  in  their  planning.  Preferably,  such  funding  should  be  decided  and 
appropriated  on  a  multi-year  basis,  in  line  with  the  public  service  mission  of  public 
service  media  providers,  to  avoid  potential  for  undue  influence  from  yearly  budget 
negotiations.  The  requirements  laid  down  in  this  Regulation  do  not  affect  the 
competence  of  Member  States  to  provide  for  the  funding  of  public  service  media  as 
enshrined in Protocol 29 on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union.  

(19) 

It is crucial for the recipients of media services to know with certainty who owns and 
is behind the news media so that they can identify and understand potential conflicts of 
interest which is a prerequisite for forming well-informed opinions and consequently 
to  actively  participate  in  a  democracy.  Such  transparency  is  also  an  effective  tool  to 
limit risks of interference with editorial independence. It is thus necessary to introduce 
common information requirements for all relevant media service providers across the 
Union 
to  disclose  ownership 
information. In this context, the measures taken by Member States under Article 30(9) 
of Directive (EU) 2015/84949 should not be affected. The required information should 
be disclosed by the relevant providers on their websites or other medium that is easily 
and directly accessible.  

include  proportionate  requirements 

that  should 

49 

Directive  (EU)  2015/849  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  May  2015  on  the  prevention  of  the  use  of  the 
financial  system  for  the  purposes  of  money  laundering  or  terrorist  financing,  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  648/2012  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and 
Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73-117). 

EN 

19 

  EN 

                                                 
(20)  Media integrity also requires a proactive approach to promote editorial independence 
by  news  media  companies,  in  particular  through  internal  safeguards.  Media  service 
providers should adopt proportionate measures to guarantee, once the overall editorial 
line has  been agreed between  their owners and  editors, the freedom  of the editors to 
take individual decisions in the course of their professional activity. The objective to 
shield  editors  from  undue  interference  in  their  decisions  taken  on  specific  pieces  of 
content as part of their everyday work contributes to ensuring a level playing field in 
the internal market for media services and the quality of such services. That objective 
is  also  in  conformity  with  the  fundamental  right  to  receive  and  impart  information 
under  Article  11  of  the  Charter.  In  view  of  these  considerations,  media  service 
providers should also ensure transparency of actual or potential conflicts of interest to 
their service recipients. 

(21)  To mitigate regulatory burdens, micro enterprises within the meaning of Article 3 of 
Directive  2013/34/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council50  should  be 
exempted from the requirements related to information and internal safeguards with a 
view  to  guaranteeing  the  independence  of  individual  editorial  decisions.  Moreover, 
media service providers should be free to tailor the internal safeguards to their needs, 
in particular if they are small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of that 
Article. The Recommendation that accompanies this Regulation51 provides a catalogue 
of  voluntary  internal  safeguards  that  can  be  adopted  within  media  companies  in  this 
regard. The present Regulation should not be construed to the effect of depriving the 
owners  of  private  media  service  providers  of  their  prerogative  to  set  strategic  or 
general goals and to foster the growth and financial viability of their undertakings. In 
this  respect, 
the  goal  of  fostering  editorial 
independence needs to be reconciled with the legitimate rights and interests of private 
media owners. 

this  Regulation  recognises 

that 

(22) 

Independent national regulatory authorities or bodies are key for the proper application 
of media law across the Union. National regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in 
Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU are best placed to ensure the correct application of 
the  requirements  related  to  regulatory  cooperation  and  a  well-functioning  market  for 
media  services,  envisaged  in  Chapter  III  of  this  Regulation.  In  order  to  ensure  a 
consistent application of this Regulation and other Union media law, it is necessary to 
set  up  an  independent  advisory  body  at  Union  level  gathering  such  authorities  or 
their  actions.  The  European  Regulators  Group  for 
bodies  and  coordinating 
Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA), established by Directive 2010/13/EU, has been 
essential in promoting the consistent implementation of that Directive. The European 
Board for Media Services (‘the Board’) should therefore build on ERGA and replace 
it.  This  requires  a  targeted  amendment  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  to  delete  its  Article 
30b,  which  establishes  ERGA,  and  to  replace  references  to  ERGA  and  its  tasks  as  a 
consequence. The amendment of Directive 2010/13/EU by this Regulation is justified 
in  this  case  as  it  is  limited  to  a  provision  which  does  not  need  to  be  transposed  by 
Member States and is addressed to the institutions of the Union. 

(23)  The  Board  should  bring  together  senior  representatives  of  the  national  regulatory 
authorities or bodies referred to  in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU, appointed by 

50 

51 

Directive  2013/34/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  June  2013  on  the  annual  financial  statements, 
consolidated  financial  statements  and  related  reports  of  certain  types  of  undertakings,  amending  Directive  2006/43/EC  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 
19-76). 
OJ C , , p. .  

EN 

20 

  EN 

                                                 
such  authorities  or  bodies.  In  cases  where  Member  States  have  several  relevant 
regulatory  authorities  or  bodies,  including  at  regional  level,  a  joint  representative 
should be chosen through appropriate procedures and the voting  right  should remain 
limited to one representative per Member State. This should not affect the possibility 
for the other national regulatory authorities or bodies to participate, as appropriate, in 
the  meetings  of  the  Board.  The  Board  should  also  have  the  possibility  to  invite  to 
attend  its  meetings,  in  agreement  with  the  Commission,  experts  and  observers, 
including  in  particular  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies  from  candidate  countries, 
potential  candidate  countries,  EEA  countries,  or  ad  hoc  delegates  from  other 
competent  national  authorities.  Due  to  the  sensitivity  of  the  media  sector  and 
following  the  practice  of  ERGA  decisions  in  accordance  with  its  rules  of  procedure, 
the Board should adopt its decisions on the basis of a two-thirds majority of the votes. 

(24)  Without  prejudice  to  the  powers  granted  to  the  Commission  by  the  Treaties,  it  is 
essential that the Commission and the Board work and cooperate closely. In particular, 
the  Board  should  actively  support  the  Commission  in  its  tasks  of  ensuring  the 
consistent  application  of  this  Regulation  and  of  the  national  rules  implementing 
Directive  2010/13/EU.  For  that  purpose,  the  Board  should  in  particular  advise  and 
assist  the  Commission  on  regulatory,  technical  or  practical  aspects  pertinent  to  the 
application  of  Union  law,  promote  cooperation  and  the  effective  exchange  of 
information, experience and best practices and draw up opinions in agreement with the 
Commission or upon its request in the cases envisaged by this Regulation. In order to 
effectively fulfil its tasks, the Board should be able to rely on the expertise and human 
resources  of  a  secretariat  provided  by  the  Commission.  The  Commission  secretariat 
should  provide  administrative  and  organisational  support  to  the  Board,  and  help  the 
Board in carrying out its tasks.  

(25)  Regulatory cooperation between independent media regulatory authorities or bodies is 
essential to make the internal market for media services function properly.  However, 
Directive  2010/13/EU  does  not  provide  for  a  structured  cooperation  framework  for 
national regulatory authorities or bodies. Since the revision of the EU framework for 
audiovisual  media  services  by  Directive  2018/1808/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council52,  which  extended  its  scope  to  video-sharing  platforms,  there  has 
been  an  ever-increasing  need  for  close  cooperation  among  national  regulatory 
authorities  or  bodies,  in  particular  to  resolve  cross-border  cases.  Such  a  need  is  also 
justified  in  view  of  the  new  challenges  in  the  EU  media  environment  that  this 
Regulation seeks to address, including by entrusting national regulatory authorities or 
bodies with new tasks.  

(26)  To  ensure  the  effective  enforcement  of  Union  media  law,  to  prevent  the  possible 
circumvention of the applicable media rules by rogue media service providers and to 
avoid the raising of additional barriers in the internal market for media services, it is 
essential  to  provide  for  a  clear,  legally  binding  framework  for  national  regulatory 
authorities or bodies to cooperate effectively and efficiently. 

(27)  Due  to  the  pan-European  nature  of  video-sharing  platforms,  national  regulatory 
authorities or bodies need to have a dedicated tool to protect viewers of video-sharing 
platform  services  from  certain  illegal  and  harmful  content,  including  commercial 

52 

Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 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 (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (OJ L 303, 
28.11.2018, p. 69-92). 

EN 

21 

  EN 

                                                 
communications.  In particular, a mechanism is needed to allow any relevant national 
regulatory  authority  or  body  to  request  its  peers  to  take  necessary  and  proportionate 
actions  to  ensure  enforcement  of  obligations  under  this  Article  by  video-sharing 
platform providers.  In  case the use of such mechanism does  not  lead to  an amicable 
solution,  the  freedom  to  provide  information  society  services  from  another  Member 
State  can  only  be  restricted  if  the  conditions  set  out  in  Article  3  of  Directive 
2000/31/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council53  are  met  and  following 
the procedure set out therein.   

(28)  Ensuring  a  consistent  regulatory  practice  regarding  this  Regulation  and  Directive 
2010/13/EU is essential. For this purpose, and to contribute to ensuring a convergent 
implementation  of  EU  media  law,  the  Commission  may  issue  guidelines  on  matters 
covered  by  both  this  Regulation  and  Directive  2010/13/EU  when  needed.  When 
deciding to issue guidelines, the Commission should consider in particular regulatory 
issues  affecting  a  significant  number  of  Member  States  or  those  with  a  cross-border 
element. This is the case in particular for national measures taken under Article 7a of 
Directive 2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of 
general  interest.  In  view  of  the  abundance  of  information  and  the  increasing  use  of 
digital means to access the media, it is important to ensure prominence for content of 
general interest, in order to help achieving a level playing field in the internal market 
and compliance with the fundamental right to receive information under Article 11 of 
the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  Union.  Given  the  possible  impact  of  the 
national  measures  taken  under  Article  7a  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  media 
market, guidelines by the Commission would be important to achieve legal certainty in 
this  field.  It  would  also  be  useful  to  provide  guidance  on  national  measures  taken 
under  Article  5(2)  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  with  a  view  to  ensuring  the  public 
availability  of  accessible,  accurate  and  up-to-date  information  related  to  media 
ownership.  In  the  process  of  preparing  its  guidelines,  the  Commission  should  be 
assisted by the Board. The Board should in particular share with the Commission its 
regulatory, technical and practical expertise regarding the areas and topics covered by 
the respective guidelines.  

(29) 

In order to ensure a level playing field in the provision of diverse audiovisual media 
services  in  the  face  of  technological  developments  in  the  internal  market,  it  is 
necessary to find common technical prescriptions for devices controlling or managing 
access to and use of audiovisual media services or carrying digital signals conveying 
the  audiovisual  content  from  source  to  destination.  In  this  context,  it  is  important  to 
avoid  diverging  technical  standards  creating  barriers  and  additional  costs  for  the 
industry and consumers while encouraging solutions to implement existing obligations 
concerning audiovisual media services. 

(30)  Regulatory  authorities  or  bodies  referred  to  in  Article  30  of  Directive  2010/13/EU 
have specific practical expertise that allows them to effectively balance the interests of 
the  providers  and  recipients  of  media  services  while  ensuring  the  respect  for  the 
freedom  of  expression.  This  is  key  in  particular  when  it  comes  to  protecting  the 
internal  market  from  activities  of  media  service  providers  established  outside  the 
Union that target audiences in the Union where, inter alia in view of the control that 

53 

Directive  2000/31/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  8  June  2000  on  certain  legal  aspects  of  information 
society  services,  in  particular  electronic  commerce,  in  the  Internal  Market  ('Directive  on  electronic  commerce')  (OJ  L  178, 
17.7.2000, p. 1-16).  

EN 

22 

  EN 

                                                 
 
may  be  exercised  by  third  countries  over  them,  they  may  prejudice  or  pose  risks  of 
prejudice  to  public  security  and  defence.  In  this  regard,  the  coordination  between 
national regulatory authorities or bodies to face together possible public security and 
defence  threats  stemming  from  such  media  services  needs  to  be  strengthened  and 
given  a legal  framework to  ensure the effectiveness  and possible coordination of the 
national measures adopted in line with Union media legislation. In order to ensure that 
media  services  suspended  in  certain  Member  States  under  Article  3(3)  and  3(5)  of 
Directive  2010/13/EU  do  not  continue  to  be  provided  via  satellite  or  other  means  in 
those Member States,  a mechanism of accelerated mutual cooperation and assistance 
should also be available to guarantee the ‘effet utile’ of the relevant national measures, 
in compliance with Union law. Additionally, it is necessary to coordinate the national 
measures that may be adopted to counter public security and defence threats by media 
services  established  outside  of  the  Union  and  targeting  audiences  in  the  Union, 
including  the  possibility  for  the  Board,  in  agreement  with  the  Commission,  to  issue 
opinions on such measures, as appropriate. In this regard, risks to public security and 
defence need to be assessed with a view to all relevant factual and legal elements, at 
national and European level. This is without prejudice to the competence of the Union 
under Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

(31)  Very  large  online  platforms  act  for  many  users  as  a  gateway  for  access  to  media 
services.  Media  service  providers  who  exercise  editorial  responsibility  over  their  
content play an important role in the distribution of information and in the exercise of 
freedom of information online. When exercising such editorial responsibility, they are 
expected to act diligently and provide information that is trustworthy and respectful of 
fundamental rights, in line with the regulatory or self-regulatory requirements they are 
subject  to  in  the  Member  States.  Therefore,  also  in  view  of  users’  freedom  of 
information,  where  providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  consider  that  content 
provided  by  such  media  service  providers  is  incompatible  with  their  terms  and 
conditions,  while it is  not  contributing to  a systemic risk referred to  in  Article 26 of 
Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [the  Digital  Services  Act],  they  should  duly  consider 
freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the 
Digital Services Act] and provide, as early as possible, the necessary explanations to 
media  service  providers  as  their  business  users  in  the  statement  of  reasons  under 
Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council54.  To 
minimise  the  impact  of  any  restriction  to  that  content  on  users’  freedom  of 
information, very large online platforms should endeavour to submit the statement of 
reasons  prior  to  the  restriction  taking  effect  without  prejudice  to  their  obligations 
under  Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [the  Digital  Services  Act].  In  particular,  this 
Regulation  should  not  prevent  a  provider  of  a  very  large  online  platform  to  take 
expeditious measures either against illegal content disseminated through its service, or 
in order to mitigate systemic risks posed by dissemination of certain content through 
its service,  in compliance with  Union law, in  particular  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU) 
2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act]. 

(32) 

It  is  furthermore  justified,  in  view  of  an  expected  positive  impact  on  freedom  to 
provide services and freedom of expression, that where media service providers adhere 
to certain regulatory or self-regulatory standards, their complaints against decisions of 

54 

Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  on  promoting  fairness  and 
transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57-79). 

EN 

23 

  EN 

                                                 
providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  are  treated  with  priority  and  without  undue 
delay. 

(33)  To this end, providers of very large online platforms should provide a functionality on 
their  online  interface  to  enable  media  service  providers  to  declare  that  they  meet 
certain requirements, while at the same time retaining the possibility not to accept such 
self-declaration  where  they  consider  that  these  conditions  are  not  met.  Providers  of 
very  large  online  platforms  may  rely  on  information  regarding  adherence  to  these 
requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative 
or  other  relevant  codes  of  conduct.  Guidelines  by  the  Commission  may  be  useful  to 
facilitate an effective implementation of such functionality, including on modalities of 
involvement  of  relevant  civil  society  organisations  in  the  review  of  the  declarations, 
on consultation  of the regulator of the country  of establishment, where  relevant,  and 
address any potential abuse of the functionality.   

(34)  This  Regulation  recognises  the  importance  of  self-regulatory  mechanisms  in  the 
context  of  the  provision  of  media  services  on  very  large  online  platforms.  They 
represent  a  type  of  voluntary  initiatives,  for  instance  in  a  form  of  codes  of  conduct, 
which  enable  media  service  providers  or  their  representatives  to  adopt  common 
guidelines, including on ethical standards, correction of errors or complaint handling, 
amongst  themselves  and  for  themselves.  Robust,  inclusive  and  widely-recognised 
media self-regulation represents an effective guarantee of quality and professionalism 
of media services and is key for safeguarding editorial integrity. 

(35)  Providers of very large online platforms should engage with media service  providers 
that respect standards of credibility and transparency and that consider that restrictions 
on  their  content  are  frequently  imposed  by  providers  of  very  large  online  platforms 
without  sufficient  grounds,  in  order  to  find  an  amicable  solution  for  terminating  any 
unjustified restrictions and avoiding them in the future. Providers of very large online 
platforms should engage in such exchanges in good faith, paying particular attention to 
safeguarding media freedom and freedom of information. 

(36)  Building  on  the  useful  role  played  by  ERGA  in  monitoring  compliance  by  the 
signatories of EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Board should, at least on a 
yearly  basis,  organise  a  structured  dialogue  between  providers  of  very  large  online 
platforms,  representatives  of  media  service  providers  and  representatives  of  civil 
society  to  foster  access  to  diverse  offers  of  independent  media  on  very  large  online 
platforms,  discuss  experience  and  best  practices  related  to  the  application  of  the 
relevant  provisions  of  this  Regulation  and  to  monitor  adherence  to  self-regulatory 
initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including those aimed at 
countering disinformation. The Commission may, where relevant, examine the reports 
on  the  results  of  such  structured  dialogues  when  assessing  systemic  and  emerging 
issues across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act] and 
may ask the Board to support it to this effect. 

(37)  Recipients  of  audiovisual  media  services  should  be  able  to  effectively  choose  the 
audiovisual content they want to watch according to their preferences. Their freedom 
in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, 
namely  agreements  for  content  prioritisation  between  manufacturers  of  devices  or 
providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual 
media  services,  such  as  connected  televisions,  and  media  service  providers. 
Prioritisation  can  be  implemented,  for  example,  on  the  home  screen  of  a  device, 
through  hardware  or  software  shortcuts,  applications  and  search  areas,  which  have 

EN 

24 

  EN 

implications on the recipients’ viewing behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to 
choose certain audiovisual media offers over others. Service recipients should have the 
possibility  to  change,  in  a  simple  and  user-friendly  manner,  the  default  settings  of  a 
device  or  user  interface  controlling  and  managing  access  to,  and  use  of,  audiovisual 
media services, without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of 
audiovisual  media  services  of  general  interest  implementing  Article  7a  of  Directive 
2010/13/EC, taken in the pursuit of legitimate public policy considerations.  

(38)  Different  legislative,  regulatory  or  administrative  measures  can  negatively  affect  the 
operation of media service providers in the internal market. They include, for example, 
rules  to  limit  the  ownership  of  media  companies  by  other  companies  active  in  the 
media  sector  or  non-media  related  sectors;  they  also  include  decisions  related  to 
licensing,  authorisation  or  prior  notification  for  media  service  providers.  In  order  to 
mitigate their potential negative impact  on the functioning of the internal market  for 
media services and enhance legal certainty, it is important that such measures comply 
with  the  principles  of  objective  justification,  transparency,  non-discrimination  and 
proportionality. 

(39) 

It is also key that the Board is empowered to  issue an opinion, on the Commission’s 
request,  where  national  measures  are  likely  to  affect  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market  for  media  services.  This  is,  for  example,  the  case  when  a  national 
administrative measure is addressed to a media service provider providing its services 
towards more than one Member State, or when the concerned media service provider 
has a significant influence on the formation of public opinion in that Member State. 

(40)  Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in 
democratic  processes.  This  is  why  Member  States  should  provide  for  rules  and 
procedures in their legal systems to ensure assessment of media market concentrations 
that  could  have  a  significant  impact  on  media  pluralism  or  editorial  independence. 
Such  rules  and  procedures  can  have  an  impact  on  the  freedom  to  provide  media 
services  in  the  internal  market  and  need  to  be  properly  framed  and  be  transparent, 
objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Media market concentrations subject 
to  such  rules  should  be  understood  as  covering  those  which  could  result  in  a  single 
entity  controlling  or  having  significant  interests  in  media  services  which  have 
substantial  influence  on  the  formation  of  public  opinion  in  a  given  media  market, 
within  a  media  sub-sector  or  across  different  media  sectors  in  one  or  more  Member 
States. An important criterion to be taken into account is the reduction of competing 
views within that market as a result of the concentration.  

(41)  National  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies,  who  have  specific  expertise  in  the  area  of 
media pluralism, should be involved in the assessment of the impact of media market 
concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence where they are not the 
designated  authorities  or  bodies  themselves.  In  order  to  foster  legal  certainty  and 
ensure  that  the  rules  and  procedures  are  genuinely  geared  at  protecting  media 
pluralism and editorial independence, it is essential that objective, non-discriminatory 
and  proportionate  criteria  for  notifying  and  assessing  the  impact  of  media  market 
concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence are set out in advance.  

(42)  When  a  media  market  concentration  constitutes  a  concentration  falling  within  the 
scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200455, the application of this Regulation or 

55 

Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger 
Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1-22). 

EN 

25 

  EN 

                                                 
of any rules and procedures adopted by Member States on the basis of this Regulation 
should  not  affect  the  application  of  Article  21(4)  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004. 
Any  measures  taken  by  the  designated  or  involved  national  regulatory  authorities  or 
bodies  based  on  their  assessment  of  the  impact  of  media  market  concentrations  on 
media  pluralism  and  editorial  independence  should  therefore  be  aimed  at  protecting 
legitimate  interests  within  the  meaning  of  Article  21(4),  third  subparagraph,  of 
Regulation  (EC) No 139/2004, and  should be in  line with  the  general  principles and 
other provisions of Union law. 

(43)  The Board should be empowered to provide opinions on draft decisions or opinions by 
the  designated  or  involved  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies,  where  the 
notifiable concentrations may affect the functioning of the internal media market. This 
would  be  the  case,  for  example,  where  such  concentrations  involve  at  least  one 
undertaking  established  in  another  Member  State  or  operating  in  more  than  one 
Member  State  or  result  in  media  service  providers  having  a  significant  influence  on 
formation  of  public  opinion  in  a  given  media  market.  Moreover,  where  the 
concentration  has  not  been  assessed  for  its  impact  on  media  pluralism  and  editorial 
independence  by  the  relevant  national  authorities  or  bodies,  or  where  the  national 
regulatory authorities or bodies have not consulted the Board regarding a given media 
market  concentration,  but  that  media  market  concentration  is  considered  likely  to 
affect  the functioning of the internal  market  for media services, the Board should be 
able  to  provide  an  opinion,  upon  request  of  the  Commission.  In  any  event,  the 
Commission  retains  the  possibility  to  issue  its  own  opinions  following  the  opinions 
drawn up by the Board. 

(44)  With  a  view  to  ensuring  pluralistic  media  markets,  the  national  authorities  or  bodies 
and the Board should take account of a set of criteria. In particular, impact on media 
pluralism should be considered, including notably the effect on the formation of public 
opinion,  taking  into  account  of  the  online  environment.  Concurrently,  it  should  be 
considered  whether  other  media  outlets,  providing  different  and  alternative  content, 
would  still  coexist  in  the  given  market(s)  after  the  media  market  concentration  in 
question.  Assessment  of  safeguards  for  editorial  independence  should  include  the 
examination  of  potential  risks  of  undue  interference  by  the  prospective  owner, 
management  or  governance  structure  in  the  individual  editorial  decisions  of  the 
acquired  or  merged  entity.  The  existing  or  envisaged  internal  safeguards  aimed  at 
preserving  independence  of  the  individual  editorial  decisions  within  the  media 
undertakings  involved  should  also  be  taken  into  account.  In  assessing  the  potential 
impacts, the effects of the concentration in question on the economic sustainability of 
the  entity  or  entities  subject  to  the  concentration  should  also  be  considered  and 
whether, in the absence of the concentration, they would be economically sustainable, 
in  the  sense  that  they  would  be  able  in  the  medium  term  to  continue  to  provide  and 
further  develop  financially  viable,  adequately  resourced  and  technologically  adapted 
quality media services in the market. 

(45)  Audience  measurement  has  a  direct  impact  on  the  allocation  and  the  prices  of 
advertising, which represents a key revenue source for the media sector. It is a crucial 
tool to  evaluate the performance of media content  and understand the preferences of 
audiences in order to plan the future production of content. Accordingly, media market 
players, in particular media service providers and advertisers, should be able to rely on 
objective audience data stemming from transparent, unbiased and verifiable audience 
measurement solutions. However, certain new players that have emerged in the media 
ecosystem  provide  their  own  measurement  services  without  making  available 

EN 

26 

  EN 

(46) 

information  on  their  methodologies.  This  could  result  in  information  asymmetries 
among  media  market  players  and  in  potential  market  distortions,  to  the  detriment  of 
equality of opportunities for media service providers in the market. 

In  order  to  enhance  the  verifiability  and  reliability  of  audience  measurement 
methodologies, in particular online, transparency obligations should be laid down for 
providers  of  audience  measurement  systems  that  do  not  abide  by  the  industry 
benchmarks agreed within the relevant self-regulatory bodies. Under these obligations, 
such actors, when requested and to the extent possible, should provide advertisers and 
media service providers or parties acting on their behalf, with information describing 
the methodologies employed  for the measurement  of the audience.  Such  information 
could  consist  in  providing  elements,  such  as  the  size  of  the  sample  measured,  the 
definition of the indicators that are measured, the metrics, the measurement  methods 
and the margin of error as well as the measurement period. The obligations imposed 
under this Regulation are without prejudice to any obligations that apply to providers 
of  audience  measurement  services  under  Regulation  2019/1150  or  Regulation  (EU) 
2022/XX  [Digital  Markets  Act],  including  those  concerning  ranking  or  self-
preferencing. 

(47)  Codes of conduct, drawn up either by the providers of audience measurement systems 
or by organisations or  associations representing  them, can  contribute to  the effective 
application  of  this  Regulation  and  should,  therefore,  be  encouraged.  Self-regulation 
has  already  been  used  to  foster  high  quality  standards  in  the  area  of  audience 
measurement.  Its  further  development  could  be  seen  as  an  effective  tool  for  the 
industry  to  agree  on  the  practical  solutions  needed  for  ensuring  compliance  of 
audience  measurement  systems  and  their  methodologies  with  the  principles  of 
transparency,  impartiality,  inclusiveness,  proportionality,  non-discrimination  and 
verifiability. When drawing up such codes of conduct, in consultation with all relevant 
stakeholders and notably media service providers, account could be taken in particular 
of  the  increasing  digitalisation  of  the  media  sector  and  the  objective  of  achieving  a 
level playing field among media market players. 

(48)  State advertising is an important source of revenue for many media service providers, 
contributing  to  their  economic  sustainability.  Access  to  it  must  be  granted  in  a  non-
discriminatory way to any media service provider from any Member State which can 
adequately reach some or all of the relevant members of the public, in order to ensure 
equal  opportunities  in  the  internal  market.  Moreover,  State  advertising  may  make 
media  service  providers  vulnerable  to  undue  state  influence  to  the  detriment  of  the 
freedom to provide services and fundamental rights. Opaque and biased allocation of 
state  advertising  is  therefore  a  powerful  tool  to  exert  influence  or  ‘capture’  media 
service  providers.  The  distribution  and  transparency  of  state  advertising  are  in  some 
regards  regulated  through  a  fragmented  framework  of  media-specific  measures  and 
general public procurement laws, which, however, may not cover all state advertising 
expenditure nor offer sufficient protection against preferential or biased distribution. In 
particular, Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council56 does 
not  apply  to  public  service  contracts  for  the  acquisition,  development,  production  or 
co-production of programme material intended for audiovisual media services or radio 
media  services.  Media-specific  rules  on  state  advertising,  where  they  exist,  diverge 
significantly from one Member State to another. 

56 

Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February  2014 on public procurement and repealing 
Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65-242). 

EN 

27 

  EN 

                                                 
(49) 

requirements  of 

to  establish  common 

In  order  to  ensure  undistorted  competition  between  media  service  providers  and  to 
avoid the risk of covert subsidies and of undue political influence on the media, it is 
necessary 
transparency,  objectivity, 
proportionality  and  non-discrimination  in  the  allocation  of  state  advertising  and  of 
state  resources  to  media  service  providers  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing  goods  or 
services from them other than state advertising,  including the requirement  to  publish 
information  on  the  beneficiaries  of  state  advertising  expenditure  and  the  amounts 
spent.  It  is  important  that  Member  States  make  the  necessary  information  related  to 
state advertising publicly accessible in an electronic format that is easy to view, access 
and  download,  in  compliance  with  Union  and  national  rules  on  commercial 
confidentiality. This Regulation shall not affect the application of the State aid rules, 
which are applied on a case-by-case basis. 

(50)  Risks  to  the  functioning  and  resilience  of  the  internal  media  market  should  be 
regularly  monitored  as  part  of  the  efforts  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market for media services. Such monitoring should aim at providing detailed data and 
qualitative  assessments  on  the  resilience  of  the  internal  market  for  media  services, 
including as regards the degree of concentration of the market at national and regional 
level  and  risks  of  foreign  information  manipulation  and  interference.  It  should  be 
conducted independently, on the basis of a robust list of key performance indicators, 
developed and regularly updated by the Commission, in consultation with the Board. 
Given  the  rapidly  evolving  nature  of  risks  and  technological  developments  in  the 
internal media market, the monitoring should include forward-looking exercises such 
as stress tests to assess the prospective resilience of the internal media market, to alert 
about vulnerabilities around media pluralism and editorial independence, and to help 
efforts  to  improve  governance,  data  quality  and  risk  management.  In  particular,  the 
level of cross-border activity and investment, regulatory cooperation and convergence 
in media regulation, obstacles to the provision of media services, including in a digital 
environment, as well as transparency and fairness of allocation of economic resources 
in  the  internal  media  market  should  be  covered  by  the  monitoring.  It  should  also 
consider  broader  trends  in  the  internal  media  market  and  national  media  markets  as 
well  as  national  legislation  affecting  media  service  providers.  In  addition,  the 
monitoring should provide an overview of measures taken by media service providers 
with  a  view  to  guaranteeing  the  independence  of  individual  editorial  decisions, 
including  those  proposed  in  the  accompanying  Recommendation.  In  order  to  ensure 
the  highest  standards  of  such  monitoring,  the  Board,  as  it  gathers  entities  with  a 
specialised media market expertise, should be duly involved. 

(51)  To prepare the ground for a correct implementation of this Regulation, its provisions 
concerning independent media authorities, the Board and the required amendments to 
Directive  2010/13/EU  (Articles  7  to  12  and  27  of  this  Regulation)  should  apply  3 
months  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Act,  while  all  other  provisions  of  this 
Regulation  will  apply  6  months  after  the  entry  into  force  of  this  Regulation.  In 
particular, this is needed to ensure that the Board will be established in time to ensure 
a successful implementation of the Regulation. 

(52)  Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely ensuring the proper functioning of the 
internal  market  for  media  services,  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member 
States,  because  they  cannot  or  might  not  have  incentives  to  achieve  the  necessary 
harmonisation  and  cooperation  acting  alone,  but  can  rather,  by  reasons  of  the 
increasingly  digital  and  cross-border  production,  distribution  and  consumption  of 
media content as well as the unique role of media services, be better achieved at the 

EN 

28 

  EN 

Union  level,  the  Union  may  adopt  measures,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity  as  set  out  in  Article  5  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union.  In  accordance 
with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not 
go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives. 

(53)  This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 
in particular by the Charter, in particular Articles 7, 8, 11, 16, 47, 50 and 52 thereof. 
Accordingly,  this  Regulation  should  be  interpreted  and  applied  with  due  respect  to 
those  rights  and  principles.  In  particular,  nothing  in  this  Regulation  should  be 
interpreted  as  interfering  with  freedom  of  information  or  freedom  of  the  press,  or 
incentivising  Member  States  to  introduce  requirements  for  editorial  content  of  press 
publications. 

(54)  The  European  Data  Protection  Supervisor  was  consulted  in  accordance  with  Article 
42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council57 
and delivered an opinion on XX XX 2022.  

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Chapter I 
General Provisions 

Article 1 
Subject matter and scope 

1. 

This Regulation lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the internal 
market  for  media  services,  including  the  establishment  of  the  European  Board  for 
Media Services, while preserving the quality of media services.  

2. 

This Regulation shall not affect rules laid down by: 

(a)  Directive 2000/31/EC; 

(b)  Directive 2019/790/EU;  

(c)  Regulation 2019/1150;  

(d)  Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act];  

(e)  Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Markets Act];  

(f)  Regulation  (EU) 2022/XXX [Regulation  on  the  transparency  and targeting of 

political advertising]. 

This  Regulation  shall  not  affect  the  possibility  for  Member  States  to  adopt  more 
detailed  rules  in  the  fields  covered  by  Chapter  II  and  Section  5  of  Chapter  III, 
provided that those rules comply with Union law. 

Regulation  (EU)  2018/1725  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2018  on  the  protection  of  natural 
persons  with  regard  to  the  processing  of  personal  data  by  the  Union  institutions,  bodies,  offices  and  agencies  and  on  the  free 
movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 
39-98). 

3. 

57 

EN 

29 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Article 2 

Definitions 

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

(13) 

(14) 

‘media service’ means a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty, where 
the  principal  purpose  of  the  service  or  a  dissociable  section  thereof  consists  in  
providing  programmes  or  press  publications  to  the  general  public,  by  any  means,  in 
order  to  inform,  entertain  or  educate,  under  the  editorial  responsibility  of  a  media 
service provider; 

‘media service provider’ means a natural or legal person whose professional activity is 
to  provide a media service and who has  editorial responsibility for the choice of the 
content of the media service and determines the manner in which it is organised; 

‘public  service  media  provider’  means  a  media  service  provider  which  is  entrusted 
with  a public service mission under national  law  or  receives national  public funding 
for the fulfilment of such a mission;  

‘programme’ means a set of moving images or sounds constituting an individual item, 
irrespective  of  its  length,  within  a  schedule  or  a  catalogue  established  by  a  media 
service provider; 

‘press  publication’  means  a  publication  as  defined  in  Article  2(4)  of  Directive 
2019/790/EU; 

‘audiovisual  media  service’  means  a  service  as  defined  in  Article  1(1),  point  (a),  of 
Directive 2010/13/EU;  

‘editor’ means a natural person or a number of natural persons possibly grouped in a 
body,  regardless  of  its  legal  form,  status  and  composition,  that  takes  or  supervises 
editorial decisions within a media service provider;  

‘editorial  decision’  means  a  decision  taken  on  a  regular  basis  for  the  purpose  of 
exercising  editorial  responsibility  and  linked  to  the  day-to-day  operation  of  a  media 
service provider; 

‘editorial responsibility’ means the exercise of effective control both over the selection 
of the programmes or press publications and over their organisation, for the purposes 
of  the  provision  of  a  media  service,  regardless  of  the  existence  of  liability  under 
national law for the service provided; 

‘provider of very large  online platform’ means  a  provider of an online  platform  that 
has  been  designated  as  a  very  large  online  platform  pursuant  to  Article  25(4)  of 
Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act]; 

‘video-sharing platform service’ means a service as defined in Article 1(1), point (aa), 
of Directive 2010/13/EU; 

‘national  regulatory  authority  or  body’  means  the  authority  or  body  designated  by 
Member States pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU; 

‘media  market  concentration’  means  a  concentration  as  defined  in  Article  3  of 
Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one media service provider;  

‘audience  measurement’  means  the  activity  of  collecting,  interpreting  or  otherwise 
processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media services for the 
purposes  of  decisions  regarding  advertising  allocation  or  prices  or  the  related 
planning, production or distribution of content; 

EN 

30 

  EN 

(15) 

(16) 

‘State  advertising’  means  the  placement,  publication  or  dissemination,  in  any  media 
service, of a promotional or self-promotional message, normally in return for payment 
or for any other consideration, by, for or on behalf of any national or regional public 
authority, such as national, federal or regional governments, regulatory authorities or 
bodies  as  well  as  state-owned  enterprises  or  other  state-controlled  entities  at  the 
national or regional level, or any local government of a territorial entity of more than 1 
million inhabitants; 

‘spyware’  means  any  product  with  digital  elements  specially  designed  to  exploit 
vulnerabilities  in  other  products  with  digital  elements  that  enables  the  covert 
surveillance  of  natural  or  legal  persons  by  monitoring,  extracting,  collecting  or 
analysing  data  from  such  products  or  from  the  natural  or  legal  persons  using  such 
products, in particular by secretly recording calls or otherwise using the microphone of 
an end-user device, filming natural persons, machines or their surroundings, copying 
messages, photographing, tracking browsing activity, tracking geolocation, collecting 
other  sensor  data  or  tracking  activities  across  multiple  end-user  devices,  without  the 
natural or legal person concerned being made aware in a specific manner and having 
given their express specific consent in that regard; 

(17) 

‘serious crime’ means any of the following criminal offences listed in Article 2(2) of 
the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA58: 

(a) terrorism,  

(b) trafficking in human beings,  

(c) sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,  

(d) illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,  

(e) murder, grievous bodily injury,  

(f) illicit trade in human organs and tissues,  

(g) kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,  

(h) organised or armed robbery,  

(i) rape,  

(j) crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. 

Rights and duties of media service providers and recipients  

Chapter II 

Article 3 

Rights of recipients of media services  

Recipients of media services in the Union shall have the right to receive  a plurality of news 
and  current  affairs  content,  produced  with  respect  for  editorial  freedom  of  media  service 
providers, to the benefit of the public discourse. 

58 

Council  Framework  Decision  2002/584/JHA  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the  surrender  procedures 
between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1-20). 

EN 

31 

  EN 

 
                                                 
Article 4 

Rights of media service providers 

1. 

2. 

Media service providers shall have the right to exercise their economic activities in 
the internal market without restrictions other than those allowed under Union law.  

Member States shall  respect effective editorial  freedom  of media service providers. 
Member States, including their national regulatory authorities and bodies, shall not: 

(a) 

(b) 

interfere  in  or  try  to  influence  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  editorial 
policies and decisions by media service providers; 

 detain,  sanction,  intercept,  subject  to  surveillance  or  search  and  seizure,  or 
inspect  media  service  providers  or,  if  applicable,  their  family  members,  their 
employees or their family members, or their corporate and private premises, on 
the ground that they refuse to disclose information on their sources, unless this 
is  justified  by  an  overriding  requirement  in  the  public  interest,  in  accordance 
with Article 52(1) of the Charter and in compliance with other Union law;  

(c)   deploy spyware in any device or machine used by media service providers or, 
if  applicable,  their  family  members,  or  their  employees  or  their  family 
members,  unless  the  deployment  is  justified,  on  a  case-by-case  basis,  on 
grounds  of  national  security  and  is  in  compliance  with  Article  52(1)  of  the 
Charter  and  other  Union  law  or  the  deployment  occurs  in  serious  crimes 
investigations  of  one  of  the  aforementioned  persons,  it  is  provided  for  under 
national law and is in  compliance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and  other 
Union  law,  and  measures  adopted  pursuant  to  sub-paragraph  (b)  would  be 
inadequate and insufficient to obtain the information sought. 

Without  prejudice  and  in  addition  to  the  right  to  effective  judicial  protection 
guaranteed  to  each  natural  and  legal  person,  Member  States  shall  designate  an 
independent  authority  or  body  to  handle  complaints  lodged  by  media  service 
providers  or,  if  applicable,  their  family  members,  their  employees  or  their  family 
members,  regarding  breaches  of  paragraph  2,  points  (b)  and  (c).  Media  service 
providers shall have the right to request that authority or body to issue, within three 
months of the request, an opinion regarding compliance with paragraph 2, points (b) 
and (c). 

Article 5 

Safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers 

Public  service  media  providers  shall  provide  in  an  impartial  manner  a  plurality  of 
information and opinions to their audiences, in accordance with their public service 
mission. 

The head of management and the members of the governing board of public service 
media  providers  shall  be  appointed  through  a  transparent,  open  and  non-
transparent,  objective,  non-
discriminatory  procedure  and  on 
discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance by national law.  

the  basis  of 

The  duration  of  their  term  of  office  shall  be  established  by  national  law,  and  be 
adequate and sufficient to ensure effective independence of the public media service 
provider.  They  may  be  dismissed  before  the  end  of  their  term  of  office  only 
exceptionally where they no longer fulfil the  legally predefined  conditions required 

3. 

1. 

2. 

EN 

32 

  EN 

 
3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

for  the  performance  of  their  duties  laid  down  in  advance  by  national  law  or  for 
specific  reasons  of  illegal  conduct  or  serious  misconduct  as  defined  in  advance  by 
national law.  

Dismissal decisions shall be duly justified, subject to prior notification to the person 
concerned, and include the possibility for judicial review. The grounds for dismissal 
shall be made available to the public.  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  public  service  media  providers  have  adequate  and 
stable  financial  resources  for  the  fulfilment  of  their  public  service  mission.  Those 
resources shall be such that editorial independence is safeguarded. 

Member States shall designate one or more independent authorities or bodies in order 
to monitor compliance with paragraphs 1 to 3.  

Article 6 

Duties of media service providers providing news and current affairs content  

Media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall make easily 
and directly accessible to the recipients of their services the following information: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

their legal name and contact details; 

the  name(s)  of  their  direct  or  indirect  owner(s)  with  shareholdings  enabling 
them to exercise influence on the operation and strategic decision making; 

the name(s) of their beneficial owners within the meaning of Article 3, point 6 
of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 

Without prejudice to national constitutional laws consistent with the Charter, media 
service providers providing news and current affairs content shall take measures that 
they  deem  appropriate  with  a  view  to  guaranteeing  the  independence  of  individual 
editorial decisions. In particular, such measures shall aim to: 

(a) 

(b) 

guarantee  that  editors  are  free  to  take  individual  editorial  decisions  in  the 
exercise of their professional activity; and  

ensure  disclosure  of  any  actual  or  potential  conflict  of  interest  by  any  party 
having a stake in media service providers that may affect the provision of news 
and current affairs content.  

3. 

The obligations under this Article shall not apply to media service providers that are 
micro enterprises within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2013/34/EU.  

Framework for regulatory cooperation and a well-functioning internal market for 
media services 

Chapter III 

Section 1  

Independent media authorities 

Article 7 

National regulatory authorities or bodies  

EN 

33 

  EN 

 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

The  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies  referred  to  in  Article  30  of  Directive 
2010/13/EU shall be responsible for the application of Chapter III of this Regulation. 

The national regulatory authorities or bodies shall be subject to the requirements set 
out  in  Article  30  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  in  relation  to  the  exercise  of  the  tasks 
assigned to them by this Regulation.  

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies  have 
adequate financial, human and technical resources to carry out their tasks under this 
Regulation. 

Where  needed  for  carrying  out  their  tasks  under  this  Regulation,  the  national 
regulatory authorities or bodies shall have appropriate powers of investigation, with 
regard to the conduct of natural or legal persons to which Chapter III applies.  

Those  powers  shall  include  in  particular  the  power  to  request  such  persons  to 
provide,  within  a  reasonable  time  period,  information  that  is  proportionate  and 
necessary  for  carrying  out  the  tasks  under  Chapter  III;  the  request  can  also  be 
addressed  to  any  other  person  that,  for  purposes  related  to  their  trade,  business  or 
profession, may reasonably be in possession of the information needed.  

Section 2 

European Board for Media Services 

Article 8 

European Board for Media Services 

The European Board for Media Services (‘the Board’) is established.  

The Board shall replace and succeed the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual 
Media Services (ERGA) established by Directive 2010/13/EU. 

Article 9 

Independence of the Board 

The Board shall act in full independence when performing its tasks or exercising its powers. 
In  particular,  the  Board  shall,  in  the  performance  of  its  tasks  or  the  exercise  of  its  powers, 
neither seek nor take instructions from any government, institution, person or body. This shall 
not affect the competences of the Commission or the national regulatory authorities or bodies 
in conformity with this Regulation. 

Article 10 

Structure of the Board 

The Board shall be composed of representatives of national regulatory authorities or 
bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU.  

Each member of the Board shall have one vote.  

34 

  EN 

1. 

2. 

EN 

 
 
 
3. 

4.  

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Where  a  Member  State  has  more  than  one  national  regulatory  authority  or  body, 
those regulatory  authorities or bodies shall coordinate with  each other as  necessary 
and appoint a joint representative which shall exercise the right to vote.  

The  Board  shall  be  represented  by  its  Chair.  The  Board  shall  elect  a  Chair  from 
amongst its members by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights. The 
term of office of the Chair shall be two years. 

The Commission shall designate a representative to the Board. The representative of 
the Commission shall participate in all activities and meetings of the Board, without 
voting rights. The Chair of the Board shall keep the Commission informed about the 
ongoing  and  planned  activities  of  the  Board.  The  Board  shall  consult  the 
Commission in preparation of its work programme and main deliverables.  

The Board, in agreement with the Commission, may invite experts and observers to 
attend its meetings. 

The Board shall take decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting 
rights.  

The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a two-thirds majority of its members 
with voting rights, in agreement with the Commission. 

Article 11 

Secretariat of the Board 

The Board shall have a secretariat, which shall be provided by the Commission.  

The main task of the secretariat shall be to contribute to the execution of the tasks of 
the Board laid down in this Regulation and in Directive 2010/13/EU. 

The  secretariat  shall  provide  administrative  and  organisational  support  to  the 
activities of the Board. The secretariat shall also assist the Board in carrying out its 
tasks.  

Article 12 

Tasks of the Board 

Without prejudice to the powers granted to the Commission by the Treaties,  the Board shall 
promote  the  effective  and  consistent  application  of  this  Regulation  and  of  national  rules 
implementing Directive 2010/13/EU throughout the Union. The Board shall: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

support  the  Commission,  through  technical  expertise,  in  ensuring  the  correct 
application  of  this  Regulation  and  the  consistent  implementation  of  Directive 
2010/13/EU  across  all  Member  States,  without  prejudice  to  the  tasks  of  national 
regulatory authorities or bodies; 

promote cooperation and the effective exchange of information, experience and best 
practices between the national regulatory authorities or bodies on the application of 
the Union and national rules applicable to media services, including this Regulation 
and  Directive  2010/13/EU,  in  particular  as  regards  Articles  3,  4  and  7  of  that 
Directive; 

advise the Commission,  where  requested by it, on regulatory, technical  or practical 
aspects pertinent to the consistent application of this Regulation and implementation 
of  Directive  2010/13/EU  as  well  as  all  on  other  matters  related  to  media  services 

EN 

35 

  EN 

within its competence. Where the Commission requests advice or opinions from the 
Board, it may indicate a time limit, taking into account the urgency of the matter; 

(d) 

when  requested  by  the  Commission,  provide  opinions  on  the  technical  and  factual 
issues that arise with regard to Article 2(5c), Article 3(2) and (3), Article 4(4), point 
(c) and Article 28a(7) of Directive 2010/13/EU; 

(e) 

in agreement with the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to: 

(i) 

(ii) 

requests  for  cooperation  and  mutual  assistance  between  national  regulatory 
authorities or bodies, in accordance with Article 13(7) of this Regulation;  

requests  for  enforcement  measures  in  case  of  disagreement  between  the 
requesting authority or body and the requested authority or body regarding the 
actions recommended pursuant to Article 14(4) of this Regulation; 

(iii)  national  measures  concerning  media  service  providers  established  outside  of 

the Union, in accordance with Article 16(2) of this Regulation; 

(f) 

upon request of the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to: 

(i) 

national  measures  which  are  likely  to  affect  the  functioning  of  the  internal 
market for media services, in accordance with Article 20(4) of this Regulation; 

(ii)   media  market  concentrations  which  are  likely  to  affect  the  functioning  of  the 
internal  market  for  media  services,  in  accordance  with  Article  22(1)  of  this 
Regulation; 

(g) 

draw  up  opinions  on  draft  national  opinions  or  decisions  assessing  the  impact  on 
media  pluralism  and  editorial 
independence  of  a  notifiable  media  market 
concentration where such a concentration may affect the functioning of the internal 
market, in accordance with Article 21(5) of this Regulation; 

(h) 

assist the Commission in drawing up guidelines with respect to: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the  application  of  this  Regulation  and  of  the  national  rules  implementing 
Directive 2010/13, in accordance with Article 15(2) of this Regulation. 

factors  to  be  taken  into  account  when  applying  the  criteria  for  assessing  the 
impact of media market concentrations, in accordance with Article 21(3) of this 
Regulation; 

(iii) 

the application of Articles 23(1), (2) and (3) pursuant  to  Article 23(4)  of this 
Regulation. 

upon  request  of  at  least  one  of  the  concerned  authorities,  mediate  in  the  case  of 
disagreements between national regulatory authorities or bodies, in accordance with 
Article 14(3) of this Regulation; 

foster cooperation on technical standards related to digital signals and the design of 
devices or user interfaces, in accordance with Article 15(4) of this Regulation;   

coordinate national measures related to the dissemination of or access to content of 
media service providers established outside of the Union that target audiences in the 
Union,  where  their  activities  prejudice  or  present  a  serious  and  grave  risk  of 
prejudice  to  public  security  and  defence,  in  accordance  with  Article  16(1)  of  this 
Regulation; 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

EN 

36 

  EN 

(l) 

(m) 

organise  a  structured  dialogue  between  providers  of  very  large  online  platforms, 
representatives  of  media  service  providers  and  of  civil  society,  and  report  on  its 
results to the Commission, in accordance with Article 18 of this Regulation;  

foster  the  exchange  of  best  practices  related  to  the  deployment  of  audience 
measurement systems, in accordance with Article 23(5) of this Regulation. 

Section 3 

Regulatory cooperation and convergence  

Article 13 

Structured cooperation 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

A  national  regulatory  authority  or  body  may  request  (‘requesting  authority’) 
cooperation  or  mutual  assistance  at  any  time  from  one  or  more  national  regulatory 
authorities  or  bodies  (‘requested  authorities’)  for  the  purposes  of  exchange  of 
information  or taking measures  relevant  for the  consistent and effective  application 
of this Regulation or the national measures implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.  

Where  a  national  regulatory  authority  or  body  considers  that  there  is  a  serious  and 
grave risk of prejudice to the functioning of the internal market for media services or 
a serious and grave risk  of prejudice to  public security and defence, it may request 
other national regulatory authorities or bodies to provide accelerated  cooperation or 
mutual assistance, while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights, in particular 
freedom of expression.  

Requests for cooperation or mutual assistance, including accelerated cooperation or 
mutual assistance, shall contain all the necessary information, including the purpose 
of and reasons for it.  

The  requested  authority  may  refuse  to  address  the  request  only  in  the  following 
cases:  

(a) 

(b) 

it is not competent for the subject matter of the request or for the measures it is 
requested to take;  

execution of the request would infringe this Regulation, Directive 2010/13/EU 
or other  Union legislation or Member State law  compliant with  Union law  to 
which the requested authority is subject. 

The requested authority shall provide reasons for any refusal to address a request. 

The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority of the results achieved 
or of the progress of the measures taken in response to the request.  

The  requested  authority  shall  do  its  utmost  to  address  and  reply  to  the  request 
without  undue  delay.  The  requested  authority  shall  provide  intermediary  results 
within the period of 14 calendar days from the receipt of the request, with subsequent 
regular  updates  on  the  progress  of  execution  of  the  request.  In  case  of  requests  for 
accelerated  cooperation  or  mutual  assistance,  the  requested  authority  shall  address 
and reply to the request within 14 calendar days. 

Where  the  requesting  authority  does  not  consider  the  measures  taken  by  the 
requested authority to be sufficient to address and reply to its request, it shall inform 
the requested authority without undue delay, explaining the reasons for its position. 

EN 

37 

  EN 

 
If  the  requested  authority  does  not  agree  with  that  position,  or  if  the  requested 
authority’s  reaction  is  missing,  either  authority  may  refer  the  matter  to  the  Board. 
Within  14  calendar  days  from  the  receipt  of  that  referral,  the  Board  shall  issue,  in 
agreement with the Commission, an opinion on the matter, including recommended 
actions. The requested authority shall do its outmost to take into account the opinion 
of the Board. 

Article 14  

Requests for enforcement of obligations by video-sharing platforms 

Without  prejudice  to  Article  3  of  Directive  2000/31/EC,  a  national  regulatory 
authority or body may request another national regulatory authority or body to take 
necessary and proportionate actions for the effective enforcement of  the obligations 
imposed on video-sharing platforms under Article 28b of Directive 2010/13/EU.   

The  requested  national  authority  or  body  shall,  without  undue  delay  and  within  30 
calendar  days,  inform  the  requesting  national  authority  or  body  about  the  actions 
taken or planned pursuant to paragraph 1. 

In the event of a disagreement between the requesting national authority or body and 
the  requested  authority  or  body  regarding  actions  taken  pursuant  to  paragraph  1, 
either authority or body may refer the matter to the Board for mediation in view of 
finding an amicable solution. 

If  no  amicable  solution  has  been  found  following  mediation  by  the  Board,  the 
requesting national authority or body or the requested national authority or body may 
request  the  Board  to  issue  an  opinion  on  the  matter.  In  its  opinion  the  Board  shall 
assess whether the requested authority or body has complied with a request referred 
to  in  paragraph  1.  If  the  Board  considers  that  the  requested  authority  has  not 
complied with such a request, the Board shall recommend actions to comply with the 
request.  The  Board  shall  issue  its  opinion,  in  agreement  with  the  Commission, 
without undue delay. 

The  requested  national  authority  or  body  shall,  without  undue  delay  and  within  30 
calendar days at the latest from the receipt of the opinion referred to in paragraph 4, 
inform  the  Board,  the  Commission  and  the  requesting  authority  or  body  of  the 
actions taken or planned in relation to the opinion. 

Article 15 

Guidance on media regulation matters 

The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices among the national regulatory 
authorities  or  bodies,  consulting  stakeholders,  where  appropriate,  and  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  Commission,  on  regulatory,  technical  or  practical  aspects 
pertinent  to  the  consistent  and  effective  application  of  this  Regulation  and  of  the 
national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.  

Where the Commission issues guidelines related to the application of this Regulation 
or the national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU, the Board shall assist it by 
providing  expertise  on  regulatory,  technical  or  practical  aspects,  as  regards  in 
particular: 

(a) 

the  appropriate  prominence  of  audiovisual  media  services  of  general  interest 
under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU; 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

EN 

38 

  EN 

3. 

4. 

(b)  making  information  accessible  on  the  ownership  structure  of  media  service 

providers, as provided under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU. 

The  Commission  may  issue  an  opinion  on  any  matter  related  to  the  application  of 
this  Regulation  and  of  the  national  rules  implementing  Directive  2010/13/EU.  The 
Board shall assist the Commission in this regard, where requested. 

The Board shall foster cooperation between media service providers, standardisation 
bodies  or  any  other  relevant  stakeholders  in  order  to  facilitate  the  development  of 
technical  standards  related  to  digital  signals  or  design  of  devices  or  user  interfaces 
controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services.  

Article 16  

Coordination of measures concerning media service providers established outside the Union 

1. 

2. 

The  Board  shall  coordinate  measures  by  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies 
related to the dissemination of or access to media services provided by media service 
providers  established  outside  the  Union  that  target  audiences  in  the  Union  where, 
inter alia in view of the control that may be exercised by third countries over them, 
such  media  services  prejudice  or  present  a  serious  and  grave  risk  of  prejudice  to 
public security and defence. 

The  Board,  in  agreement  with  the  Commission,  may  issue  opinions  on  appropriate 
national  measures  under  paragraph  1.  All  competent  national  authorities,  including 
the  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies,  shall  do  their  utmost  to  take  into 
account the opinions of the Board.  

Section 4 

Provision of media services in a digital environment 

Article 17  

Content of media service providers on very large online platforms 

1. 

Providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  shall  provide  a  functionality  allowing 
recipients of their services to declare that:  

2. 

(a) 

it is a media service provider within the meaning of Article 2(2);  

(b) 

it is editorially independent from Member States and third countries; and  

(c) 

it  is  subject  to  regulatory  requirements  for  the  exercise  of  editorial 
responsibility in one or more Member States, or adheres to a co-regulatory or 
self-regulatory  mechanism  governing  editorial  standards,  widely  recognised 
and accepted in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States. 

Where a provider of very large online platform decides to suspend the provision of 
its online intermediation services in relation to content provided by a media service 
provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, on the 
grounds that such content is incompatible with its terms and conditions, without that 
content  contributing  to  a  systemic  risk  referred  to  in  Article  26  of  the  Regulation 
(EU)  2022/XXX  [Digital  Services  Act],  it  shall  take  all  possible  measures,  to  the 
extent consistent with their obligations under Union law, including Regulation (EU) 
2022/XXX  [Digital  Services  Act],  to  communicate  to  the  media  service  provider 

EN 

39 

  EN 

 
3. 

4. 

concerned  the  statement  of  reasons  accompanying  that  decision,  as  required  by 
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, prior to the suspension taking effect. 

Providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  shall  take  all  the  necessary  technical  and 
organisational  measures  to  ensure  that  complaints  under  Article  11  of  Regulation 
(EU) 2019/1150 by media service providers that submitted a declaration pursuant to 
paragraph 1 of this Article are processed and decided upon with priority and without 
undue delay. 

Where a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 
considers  that  a  provider  of  very  large  online  platform  frequently  restricts  or 
suspends  the  provision  of  its  services  in  relation  to  content  provided  by  the  media 
service  provider  without  sufficient  grounds,  the  provider  of  very  large  online 
platform shall engage in a meaningful and effective dialogue with the media service 
provider, upon its request, in good faith with a view to finding an amicable solution 
for  terminating  unjustified  restrictions  or  suspensions  and  avoiding  them  in  the 
future. The media service provider may notify the outcome of such exchanges to the 
Board. 

5.  

Providers of very large online platforms shall make publicly available on an annual 
basis information on: 

6. 

1. 

(a) 

the number of instances  where they imposed any restriction  or suspension on 
the  grounds  that  the  content  provided  by  a  media  service  provider  that 
submitted  a  declaration  in  accordance  with  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  is 
incompatible with their terms and conditions; and 

(b) 

the grounds for imposing such restrictions. 

With a view to facilitating the consistent and effective implementation of this Article, 
the  Commission  may  issue  guidelines  to  establish  the  form  and  details  of  the 
declaration set out in paragraph 1. 

Article 18  

Structured dialogue 

The Board shall regularly organise a structured dialogue between providers  of very 
large online platforms, representatives of media service providers and representatives 
of civil society to discuss experience and best practices in the application of Article 
17 of this Regulation, to foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very 
large online platforms and to monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed 
at  protecting  society  from  harmful  content,  including  disinformation  and  foreign 
information manipulation and interference. 

2. 

The Board shall report on the results of the dialogue to the Commission.  

Article 19 

Right of customisation of audiovisual media offer 

1. 

Users  shall  have  a  right  to  easily  change  the  default  settings  of  any  device  or  user 
interface controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services in 
order  to  customise  the  audiovisual  media  offer  according  to  their  interests  or 
preferences  in  compliance  with  the  law.  This  provision  shall  not  affect  national 
measures implementing Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU. 

EN 

40 

  EN 

2. 

When  placing  the  devices  and  user  interfaces  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  on  the 
market,  manufacturers  and developers  shall  ensure  that they include  a functionality 
enabling  users  to  freely  and  easily  change  the  default  settings  controlling  or 
managing access to and use of the audiovisual media services offered. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4.  

5. 

Requirements for well-functioning media market measures and procedures 

Section 5 

Article 20  

National measures affecting the operation of media service providers  

Any legislative, regulatory or administrative measure taken by a Member State that is 
liable to affect the operation of media service providers in the internal market shall 
be  duly  justified  and  proportionate.  Such  measures  shall  be  reasoned,  transparent, 
objective and non-discriminatory. 

Any national procedure used for the purposes of the preparation or the adoption of a 
regulatory or administrative measure as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to 
clear timeframes set out in advance.  

Without  prejudice  and  in  addition  to  its  right  to  effective  judicial  protection,  any 
media service provider subject to an administrative or regulatory measure referred to 
in paragraph 1 that concerns it individually and directly shall have the right to appeal 
against  that  measure  to  an  appellate  body.  That  body  shall  be  independent  of  the 
parties  involved  and  of  any  external  intervention  or  political  pressure  liable  to 
jeopardise its independent assessment of matters coming before it.  It shall have the 
appropriate expertise to enable it to carry out its functions effectively. 

The  Board,  upon  request  of  the  Commission,  shall  draw  up  an  opinion  where  a 
national  legislative,  regulatory  or  administrative  measure  is  likely  to  affect  the 
functioning of  the internal  market for media services. Following the opinion  of the 
Board, and without prejudice to its powers under the Treaties, the Commission may 
issue its own opinion on the matter. Opinions by the Board and, where applicable, by 
the Commission shall be made publicly available. 

Where  a  national  authority  or  body  adopts  a  measure  that  affects  individually  and 
directly a media service provider and is likely to affect the functioning of the internal 
market  for  media  services,  it  shall  communicate,  at  the  request  of  the  Board,  and 
where applicable, of the Commission, without undue delay and by electronic means, 
any  relevant  information,  including  the  summary  of  the  facts,  its  measure,  the 
grounds on which the national authority or body  has based its measure, and, where 
applicable, the views of other authorities concerned. 

Article 21  

Assessment of media market concentrations 

1. 

Member  States  shall  provide,  in  their  national  legal  systems,  substantive  and 
procedural  rules  which  ensure  an  assessment  of  media  market  concentrations  that 
could  have  a  significant  impact  on  media  pluralism  and  editorial  independence. 
These rules shall: 

(a) 

be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory; 

EN 

41 

  EN 

 
(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

require the parties to a media market concentration that could have a significant 
that 
impact  on  media  pluralism  and  editorial  independence  to  notify 
concentration in advance to the relevant national authorities or bodies;  

designate  the  national  regulatory  authority  or  body  as  responsible  for  the 
assessment of the impact of a notifiable concentration on media pluralism and 
editorial  independence  or  ensure  the  involvement  of  the  national  regulatory 
authority or body in such assessment; 

set out in advance objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for 
notifying media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on 
media  pluralism  and  editorial  independence  and  for  assessing  the  impact  of 
media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence.  

The assessment referred to in this paragraph shall be distinct from the competition law 
assessments  including  those  provided  for  under  merger  control  rules.  It  shall  be 
without prejudice to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, where applicable. 

2. 

In  the  assessment  referred  to  in  paragraph  1,  the  following  elements  shall  be  taken 
into account:  

(a) 

(b) 

the impact of the concentration on media pluralism, including its effects on the 
formation  of  public  opinion  and  on  the  diversity  of  media  players  on  the 
market,  taking  into  account  the  online  environment  and  the  parties’  interests, 
links or activities in other media or non-media businesses; 

 the  safeguards  for  editorial  independence,  including  the  impact  of  the 
concentration  on  the  functioning  of  the  editorial  teams  and  the  existence  of 
measures  by  media  service  providers  taken  with  a  view  to  guaranteeing  the 
independence of individual editorial decisions; 

(c)  whether, in the absence of the concentration, the acquiring and acquired entity 
would  remain  economically  sustainable,  and  whether  there  are  any  possible 
alternatives to ensure its economic sustainability. 

The  Commission,  assisted  by  the  Board,  may  issue  guidelines  on  the  factors  to  be 
taken  into  account  when  applying  the  criteria  for  assessing  the  impact  of  media 
market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence by the national 
regulatory authorities or bodies. 

The national regulatory authority or body shall consult the Board in advance on any 
opinion  or  decision  it  aims  to  adopt  assessing  the  impact  on  media  pluralism  and 
editorial  independence  of  a  notifiable  media  market  concentration  where  such 
concentrations may affect the functioning of the internal market. 

Within 14 calendar days from the receipt of the consultation referred to in paragraph 
4,  the  Board  shall  draw  up  an  opinion  on  the  draft  national  opinion  or  decision 
referred to it, taking account of the elements referred to in paragraph 2 and transmit 
that opinion to the consulting authority and the Commission. 

The national regulatory authority or body referred to in paragraph 4 shall take utmost 
account  of  the  opinion  referred  to  in  paragraph  5.  Where  that  authority  does  not 
follow the opinion, fully or partially, it shall provide the Board and the Commission 
with a reasoned justification explaining its position within 30 calendar days from the 
receipt  of  that  opinion.  Without  prejudice  to  its  powers  under  the  Treaties,  the 
Commission may issue its own opinion on the matter. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

EN 

42 

  EN 

1. 

2. 

3.  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Article 22 

Opinions on media market concentrations 

In the absence of an assessment or a consultation pursuant to Article 21, the Board, 
upon request of the Commission, shall draw up an opinion on the impact of a media 
market concentration on media pluralism and editorial independence, where a media 
market  concentration  is  likely  to  affect  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market  for 
media services. The  Board shall base its opinion  on the elements set  out  in  Article 
21(2).  The  Board  may  bring  media  market  concentrations  likely  to  affect  the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market  for  media  services  to  the  attention  of  the 
Commission. 

Following  the  opinion  of  the  Board,  and  without  prejudice  to  its  powers  under  the 
Treaties, the Commission may issue its own opinion on the matter.  

Opinions  by  the  Board  and,  where  applicable,  by  the  Commission  shall  be  made 
publicly available.  

Section 6 

Transparent and fair allocation of economic resources  

Article 23  

Audience measurement  

Audience measurement  systems  and methodologies shall comply with  principles of 
transparency,  impartiality,  inclusiveness,  proportionality,  non-discrimination  and 
verifiability.  

Without  prejudice  to  the  protection  of  undertakings’  business  secrets,  providers  of 
proprietary  audience  measurement  systems  shall  provide,  without  undue  delay  and 
free  of  costs,  to  media  service  providers  and  advertisers,  as  well  as  to  third  parties 
authorised  by  media  service  providers  and  advertisers,  accurate,  detailed, 
comprehensive, intelligible and up-to-date information on the methodology used by 
their audience measurement systems. This provision shall not affect the Union’s data 
protection and privacy rules. 

National regulatory authorities or bodies shall encourage the drawing up of codes of 
conduct by providers of audience measurement systems, together with media service 
providers, their representative organisations and any other interested parties, that are 
intended  to  contribute to  compliance with the principles referred  to  in  paragraph 1, 
including by promoting independent and transparent audits.  

The  Commission,  assisted  by  the  Board,  may  issue  guidelines  on  the  practical 
application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article.  

The  Board  shall  foster  the  exchange  of  best  practices  related  to  the  deployment  of 
audience  measurement  systems  through  a  regular  dialogue  between  representatives 
of  the  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies,  representatives  of  providers  of 
audience measurement systems and other interested parties. 

Article 24  

Allocation of state advertising  

EN 

43 

  EN 

 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Public funds or any other consideration or advantage granted by public authorities to 
media service providers for the purposes of advertising shall be awarded according to 
transparent,  objective,  proportionate  and  non-discriminatory  criteria  and  through 
open, proportionate and non-discriminatory procedures. This Article shall not affect 
public procurement rules. 

Public  authorities,  including  national,  federal  or  regional  governments,  regulatory 
authorities  or  bodies,  as  well  as  state-owned  enterprises  or  other  state-controlled 
entities at the national or regional level, or local governments of territorial entities of 
inhabitants,  shall  make  publicly  available  accurate, 
more 
comprehensive,  intelligible,  detailed  and  yearly  information  about  their  advertising 
expenditure  allocated  to  media  service  providers,  which  shall  include  at  least  the 
following details: 

than  1  million 

(a) 

(b) 

the  legal  names  of  media  service  providers  from  which  advertising  services 
were purchased;  

the total annual amount spent as well as the amounts spent per media service 
provider. 

National  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies  shall  monitor  the  allocation  of  state 
advertising in media markets.  In order to assess  the accuracy of the information  on 
state  advertising  made  available  pursuant  to  paragraph  2,  national  regulatory 
authorities or bodies may request from the entities referred to in paragraph 2 further 
information,  including  information  on  the  application  of  criteria  referred  to  in 
paragraph 1. 

The  allocation  of  state  resources  to  media  service  providers  for  the  purpose  of 
purchasing goods or services from them other than state advertising shall be subject 
to  the  requirements  set  out  in  paragraph  1.  This  Article  shall  not  affect  the 
application of the State aid rules. 

Chapter IV – Final Provisions 

Article 25  

Monitoring exercise  

The Commission  shall ensure an independent  monitoring of  the internal  market  for 
media services, including risks to and progress in its functioning and resilience. The 
findings of the monitoring exercise shall be subject to consultation with the Board.  

The  Commission  shall  define  key  performance  indicators  to  be  used  for  the 
monitoring referred in paragraph 1, in consultation with the Board.  

The monitoring exercise shall include:  

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

a  detailed  analysis  of  the  resilience  of  media  markets  of  all  Member  States, 
including  as  regards  the  level  of  media  concentration  and  risks  of  foreign 
information manipulation and interference; 

an  overview  and  forward-looking  assessment  of  the  resilience  of  the  internal 
market for media services as a whole;  

an  overview  of  measures  taken  by  media  service  providers  with  a  view  to 
guaranteeing the independence of individual editorial decisions. 

EN 

44 

  EN 

 
4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1.  

2. 

3.  

The monitoring shall be carried out annually, and its results shall be made publicly 
available.  

Article 26  

Evaluation and reporting 

By  [four  years after the  entry  into force of this  Regulation] at  the latest, and every 
four years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee. 

For the purposes of paragraph 1 and upon its request, Member States and the Board 
shall send relevant information to the Commission. 

In carrying out the evaluations referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall take 
into account:  

(a) 

the  positions  and  findings  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  other 
relevant bodies or sources; 

(b)  outcomes of the relevant discussions carried out in relevant fora; 

(c) 

relevant documents issued by the Board;  

(d) 

findings of the monitoring exercise referred to in Article 25.  

Article 27 

Amendments to Directive 2010/13/EU 

Article 30b of Directive 2010/13/EU is deleted. 

References  to  Article  30b  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  shall  be  read  as  references  to 
Article 12 of this Regulation. 

References in  Union law to the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media 
Services  (ERGA)  shall  be  read  as  references  to  the  European  Board  for  Media 
Services (the Board).  

Article 28  

Entry into force and application 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  twentieth  day  following  that  of  its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

This Regulation shall apply from [6 months after the entry into force].  

However,  Articles  7  to  12  and  27  shall  apply  from  [3  months  after  the  entry  into 
force] and Article 19(2) shall apply from [48 months after the entry into force].  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member 
States. 

EN 

45 

  EN 

 
Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

46 

  EN 

 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

1.1.  Title of the proposal/initiative 

1.2.  Policy area(s) concerned 

1.3.  The proposal/initiative relates to 

1.4.  Objective(s) 

1.5.  Grounds for the proposal/initiative 

1.6.  Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative 

1.7.  Management mode(s) planned 

  2 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules 

2.2.  Management and control system(s) 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities 

3. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE 

3.1.  Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected 

3.2.  Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations 

3.3.  Estimated impact on revenue 

EN 

47 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative 

Regulation  establishing  a  common  framework  for  media  services  in  the  internal 
market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU 

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned  

 

 

 

Internal market  

Investing in people, social cohesion and values 

A new push for EU democracy 

1.3. 

The proposal/initiative relates to:  

 a new action  
 a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action59  

 the extension of an existing action  

 a merger or redirection of one or more actions towards another/a new action  

1.4. 

Objective(s) 

1.4.1.  General objective(s) 

The general objective of the intervention is to improve the functioning of the internal 
media market. Improving the functioning of the internal media market will foster the 
provision  of quality media services  and thus  strengthen the integrity of the internal 
market  as  a  whole.  A  regulation  providing  common  rules,  underpinned  by  a 
structured cooperation framework for media regulators within a Board composed of 
representatives  of  the  relevant  national  independent  media  regulatory  authorities  or 
bodies, will achieve this objective. 

1.4.2. 

Specific objectives 

Fostering cross-border activity and investment in the internal media market  

The objective is to make it easier for media market players to expand their operations 
across the internal market, gradually increasing cross-border investments in terms of 
their  number  and  value.  To  this  end,  the  initiative  would  aim  to  coordinate  certain 
elements of the diverging national media pluralism frameworks in order to facilitate 
cross-border  service  provision.  It  will  aim  in  particular  at  ensuring  that  when 
assessing  media  market  transactions,  national  independent  authorities  approach 
media pluralism  consistently across the EU media market  through  common criteria 
and coordination at EU level.  

Increasing regulatory cooperation and convergence in the internal media market 

The objective is to strengthen regulatory cooperation to better enforce the EU media 
framework in the cross-border context and to foster regulatory convergence through 
EU-level  opinions  and  guidance,  promoting  thus  consistent  approaches  to  media 

59 

As referred to in Article 58(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

48 

  EN 

                                                 
independence  and  media  pluralism,  including  online.  The  goal  is  also  to  provide 
tools  for collective  -  EU-wide  - action by independent  regulators to  protect  the EU 
internal market from service providers (including from third countries) not following 
EU media standards  

Facilitating free provision of quality media services in the internal market 

The  objective  is  to  ensure  that  consumers  and  businesses  benefit  from  trustworthy 
content  provided  by  independent  media  in  an  increasingly  digital  and  inherently 
cross-border market for media services. In order to foster provision of quality media 
services in the internal market, the initiative will aim to mitigate the trend of undue 
public  and  private  interference  in  editorial  freedom.  It  will  enhance  media-specific 
ownership  transparency,  with  a  view  of  strengthening  media  accountability  and 
independence.  It  will  also  aim  to  promote  self-regulation  for  the  independent 
functioning  of  media  companies.  Moreover,  the  initiative  will  aim  to  ensure  that 
journalists can work without interference in particular when it comes to protection of 
their sources.  

Ensuring transparent and fair allocation of economic resources in the internal media 
market 

the 

The  objective  is  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for  media  market  players  by 
promoting  transparent  and  fair  allocation  of  economic  resources.  This  would  be 
achieved  by  enhancing 
transparency,  non-discrimination,  proportionality, 
objectivity and inclusiveness of audience measurement methodologies, in particular 
transparency,  non-discrimination, 
online. 
proportionality and objectivity of state advertising to media, in order to minimise the 
risks  of  favouring  pro-government  outlets  or  using  public  support  for  partisan 
interests,  to  the  detriment  of  other  players  in  the  market,  and  thus  promote  fair 
competition in the internal media market. 

It  would  also  aim  at  ensuring 

1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact 

It  is  expected  that  a  regulation  and  a  recommendation  to  media  companies  and 
Member States to foster media independence, underpinned by a governance structure 
consisting  of  the  Board  assisted  by  a  Commission  secretariat,  will  improve  the 
functioning of the internal media market through approximation of national rules and 
approaches  in  areas  related  to  media  pluralism  -  in  an  efficient,  coherent, 
proportionate and largely effective way.  

The  financial  modelling  for  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  proposal 
estimates  the  net  economic  benefits,  in  terms  of  increased  revenues,  at  EUR 2 885 
million  for  the  first  year  and  EUR 2 898.1  million  for  the  following  years.  Media 
market players will see direct regulatory benefits. 

The  audiovisual  sector  will  particularly  benefit  from  the  introduction  of  common 
requirements for national media pluralism laws and market scrutiny procedures and 
will enjoy economies of scale in a better functioning and more predictable, coherent 
and less protectionist internal media market.  

Broadcasters and providers of (audiovisual) news content and non-domestic entities, 
which are more likely to suffer from regulatory fragmentation, will be able to expand 
their operations in other Member States.  

Those  broadcasters  and  press  companies  that  take  up  the  recommendations  on 
safeguards  for  editorial  independence  will  strengthen  their  editorial  independence 

EN 

49 

  EN 

and increase their freedom to make decisions without public or private interference, 
expanding the plurality of voices or opinions expressed and issues analysed in their 
media content. Journalists will also be more independent vis-a-vis media owners due 
to the increased deployment of these safeguards within media companies. 

Greater  transparency  of  media  ownership  and,  in  particular  on  owners’  other 
business  interests,  will  enhance  fair  competition,  especially  in  the  press  sector 
(encompassing printed and online media) for which Member States typically do not 
have specific transparency tools, such as media registers. 

More  transparent  online  audience  measurement  systems  will  reduce  market 
distortions, further strengthen the level playing field between media service providers 
and online players and will particularly benefit audiovisual media services and online 
press,  as  well  as  online  advertisers.  Journalists  should  also  benefit,  as  they  will 
understand  better  how  online  players  measure  audiences  of  media  services.  The 
measures  on  transparency  and  fairness  of  state  advertising  will  reduce  market 
distortions  and  make  sure  that  a  wider  range  of  media  outlets  have  access  to  this 
revenue source. 

SMEs  will  benefit  from  more  certainty  and  lower  legal  costs.  Also,  potentially 
increased  access  to  state  advertising  will  represent  a  proportionally  bigger 
opportunity  for  smaller  companies.  Similarly,  SMEs  are  in  a  particularly  weak 
position  vis-a-vis  online  players  when  it  comes  to  online  audience  measurement, 
therefore the initiative will  help  balance the playing field  for SMEs to  compete for 
advertising revenues. 

1.4.4. 

Indicators of performance 

Proposed indicators and expected results  Baseline 

Indicator - number and value of cross-border 
investments  in  the  EU27  Member  States’ 
media markets (annual)  

Investments 2013-2021 by investors:  
-  EU: 478 transactions 
- 

non-EU: 389 transactions 

Expected  result  -  gradual  increase  in  cross-
border investments’ number and value 

Value of 60% of transactions: EUR 84 billion 

Indicator  -  number  of  opinions  by  the  Board 
on  national  media  market  scrutiny  decisions 
taken  into  account  by  the  relevant  national 
authority (annual) 

n/a 

Expected  result  –  share  of  opinions  by  the 
Board taken into account by Member States 

Indicator - share of cases solved by the Board 
under  the  cooperation  mechanism  and  the 
mutual assistance mechanism (annual) 

n/a 

Expected result - share of cases solved by the 
Board 

Indicator  -  number  of  guidance  documents 
/reports issued by the Commission and/or the 
Board,  as  the  case  may  be,  in  key  regulatory 
areas for media pluralism (each 3 years) 

n/a 

Expected  result  –  increased  number  of  areas 
pertinent  to  media  pluralism  covered  by  EU 
level guidance/reports 

EN 

50 

  EN 

Indicator - risk scores (annual) on: 

Respective 2021 MPM risk scores: 

-  political  independence  of  media  -  editorial 
autonomy 

independence  of  public  service  media 

- 
governance  

- commercial & owner influence over editorial 
content 

- protection of journalistic sources  

- transparency of media ownership 

- 54% 

- 55% 

- 50% 

- 60% 

- 16% 

- 58% 

Expected  result  -  gradual  reduction  in  risk 
scores 

Indicator  -  number  of  Member  States  with 
media self-regulatory bodies (annual)  

16 

Expected  result  -  gradual  increase  in  the 
self-
number  of  Member  States  with 
regulatory bodies 

Indicator  -  citizens’  perceived  trust  in  media 
(biannual)  

Percentage  of 
following media: 

respondents  who 

trust 

the 

Expected  result  -  gradual  increase  in  trust  in 
media 

58%: radio 

51%: television 

51%: press 

35%: internet 

Indicator  –  number  of  cases  related  to 
incompliance with the principles for audience 
measurement systems (annual) 

Nielsen:  61%  of  marketers  agree  to  have  access 
to  the  quality  audience  data  needed  to  get  the 
most of their media budget  

Expected  result 
-  gradual  decrease  of 
audience  measurement  systems  incompliant 
with the new EU framework 

Indicator 
distribution of state advertising  

-  risk  score 

(annual)  on 

the 

2021 MPM risk score on state advertising: 70% 

Expected result - gradual reduction in the risk 
score 

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term including a detailed timeline for 

roll-out of the implementation of the initiative 

Most of the provisions of the Regulation will be directly applicable from six months 
after its entry into force. To prepare the ground for a correct implementation of the 
European Media  Freedom  Act,  its provisions on independent  media  authorities and 
the  European  Board  for  Media  Services  and  the  related  amendment  of  the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD)  will already apply  3 months after 
the entry into force of the Act. This will ensure that the Board will be established in 
time to ensure a successful implementation of the Regulation. 

The Board will succeed and replace the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual 
Media Services (ERGA) established by the AVMSD. It is renamed, to reflect a wider 
remit,  entrusted  with  additional  tasks  and  supported  with  additional  resources  (in 
particular  additional  staff  within  the  Commission,  DG  CNECT).  The  European 

EN 

51 

  EN 

Media Freedom Act will ensure that all references to the European Regulators Group 
for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) in EU law and in particular in the AVMSD 
are read as references to the European Board for Media Services (the Board). 

As  currently  the  case  for  ERGA,  the  Board  will  be  assisted  in  its  activities  by  a 
secretariat, provided by the Commission. The secretariat will continue to be located 
in  DG  CNECT.  The  secretariat  will  provide  administrative  and  organisational 
support  to  the  Board.  The  resources  envisaged  for  the  secretariat  under  the 
Regulation will enable it to assist the Board in carrying out its tasks. The secretariat 
for  the  Board  will  be  built  up  over  the  initial  two  years  of  the  implementation, 
beginning in 2024, with the full staff capacity to be reached in 2025.   

To support the implementation of the European Media Freedom Act, DG CNECT is 
expected  to  procure  external  studies.  Such  studies  may  also  be  used  to  support  the 
activities of the Board and informing its work. The relevant annual budget for these 
studies  will  be  available  from  the  expected  start  of  the  implementation  in  2024  by 
redeployment from the Creative Europe programme.  

1.5.2.  Added  value  of  Union  involvement  (it  may  result  from  different  factors,  e.g. 
coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities). For 
the purposes of this point 'added value of Union involvement' is the value resulting 
from  Union  intervention  which  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  been 
otherwise created by Member States alone 

Reasons for action at European level (ex-ante): The initiative aims to ensure that the 
internal  market  for  media  functions  better  by  improving  legal  certainty  and 
eliminating internal market obstacles. The rules will set out mechanisms to increase 
the transparency, independence and accountability of measures and actions affecting 
media markets, freedom and pluralism within the EU. 

Expected  generated  Union  added  value  (ex-post):  The  Impact  Assessment 
accompanying this proposal indicates that the intervention would reduce the burden 
for market players to comply with different national legal regimes when they operate 
in  several  Member  States.  It  would  also  increase  predictability  and  enhance  legal 
certainty  for  media  market  players,  thereby  promoting  fair  competition  and  cross-
border  investment.  It  would  also  allow  for  a  coordinated  response  of  media 
regulators  in  matters  affecting  the  EU’s  information  space.  The  net  economic 
benefits, in terms of increased revenues, are estimated at EUR 2 885 million for the 
first  year  and  EUR 2 898  million  for  the  following  years.  The  initiative,  by 
establishing a common EU framework fostering cross-border activity, strengthening 
cooperation  between  regulators,  promoting  provision  of  quality  media  content,  and 
addressing  practices  that  distort  competition,  would  create  conditions  more 
favourable  for  the  development  of  media  services  across  borders  and  increase 
consumer  choice  of  quality  media  content.  This  will  strengthen  the  internal  media 
market whilst promoting media freedom and pluralism, protected under the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights. 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

This  proposal  is  informed  by  the  experiences  of  the  Commission  with  the 
Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD), which was last reviewed in 2018 
and still needs to be transposed in some Member States. While there is not yet a full 
evaluation  of  the  revised  AVMSD,  the  Directive  contains  a  number  of  media 
regulatory measures  related to  consumer protection and promotion of public policy 

EN 

52 

  EN 

interests,  such  as  cultural  diversity.  However,  it  is  limited  to  audiovisual  media 
services  and  does  not  cover  issues  related  to  media  pluralism  and  independence 
(beyond independence of national regulatory authorities and bodies), to be addressed 
by the intervention. The main relevant lessons learnt are that a regulation is likely to 
achieve the desired results of the intervention much faster than a directive and that a 
stronger and better resourced institutional support structure is needed for an effective 
and consistent media regulation. 

1.5.4.  Compatibility  with  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  and  possible  synergies 

with other appropriate instruments 

This  proposal  is  reflected  under  the  heading  of  ‘A  New  Push  for  European 
Democracy’ in the Commission work programme 2022. 

The  European  Media  Freedom  Act  will  complement  the  relevant  framework  that 
includes  the copyright  rules, the revised AVMSD, and the  recently  adopted Digital 
Services  Act  (DSA)  and  Digital  Markets  Act  (DMA).  In  the  area  of  ownership 
transparency,  it  will  lead  to  synergies  with  the  Anti-Money  Laundering  (AML) 
Directive  and  the  EU  Company  Law  Directive.  Regarding  journalistic  sources,  the 
Act  will  add  a  targeted  robust  safeguard  against  the  deployment  of  spyware  in  the 
devices  used  by  the  media  service  providers  or  their  employees,  building  on 
protections provided by Directive 2002/58/EC, Directive 2016/680/EU and Directive 
2013/40/EU. 

The  Act  is  fully  compatible  with  the  financing  actions  undertaken  under  the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  Creative  Europe  programme,  in  particular 
concerning  monitoring  and  defending  media  freedom  and  pluralism  and  journalism 
partnerships. 

1.5.5.  Assessment  of  the  different  available  financing  options,  including  scope  for 

redeployment 

Based  on  the  current  experience  with  the  work  of  ERGA  and  its  secretariat,  the 
support  by  the  Commission  for  the  new  European  Board  for  Media  Services,  in 
particular by providing the Board’s secretariat, is estimated to require 8 to 10 FTEs. 
Other  potential  options  have  been  considered  in  the  accompanying  Impact 
Assessment. 

The additional studies to be procured by the Commission are expected to cost up to 
EUR 1 million per year. 

The functioning of the Board, in particular the reimbursement of travel expenses is 
expected to require about EUR 150 000 – 200 000 per year. 

The  recurrent  administrative  costs  for  national  regulatory  authorities  (NRAs)  for 
participating in the Board (such as salaries of staff employed for that purpose) would 
be covered by the NRAs, as is the case today with ERGA and comparable entities.  

Expenses for the activities of ERGA and procurement of AVMSD-related studies are 
currently financed from the Media strand of the Creative Europe programme (CRE). 

The Cross-sectoral strand of CRE aims to ‘promote cross-sectoral activities that aim 
at adjusting to the structural and technological changes faced by the media, including 
enhancing a free, diverse, and pluralistic media environment, quality journalism and 
media  literacy,  including  in  the  digital  environment’  (Article  7(1)(c)  of  the  CRE 
Regulation (EU) 2021/818).  

EN 

53 

  EN 

Therefore, the Cross-sectoral strand will be the source of funding of costs related to 
the functioning of the Board whose remit will cover different types of media market 
players in the audiovisual and other media sectors. 

The source for financing of studies will depend on the subject matter of such studies: 
those covering audiovisual matters only will continue to be financed from the Media 
strand of CRE, while other required studies will be financed from the Cross-sectoral 
strand. 

EN 

54 

  EN 

1.6. 

Duration and financial impact of the proposal/initiative 

 limited duration  

–    in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY  

–    Financial  impact  from  YYYY  to  YYYY  for  commitment  appropriations  and 

from YYYY to YYYY for payment appropriations.  

unlimited duration 

–  Implementation with a start-up period from 2024 to 2025, 

–  followed by full-scale operation. 

1.7.  Management mode(s) planned  

 Direct management by the Commission 

–   by its departments, including by its staff in the Union delegations;  

–    by the executive agencies  

 Shared management with the Member States  

 Indirect management by entrusting budget implementation tasks to: 

–   third countries or the bodies they have designated; 

–   international organisations and their agencies (to be specified); 

–   the EIB and the European Investment Fund; 

–   bodies referred to in Articles 70 and 71 of the Financial Regulation; 

–   public law bodies; 

–   bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that 

they are provided with adequate financial guarantees; 

–   bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with 
the  implementation  of  a  public-private  partnership  and  that  are  provided  with 
adequate financial guarantees; 

–    persons  entrusted  with  the  implementation  of  specific  actions  in  the  CFSP 

pursuant to Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act. 

– 

If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the ‘Comments’ section. 

Comments  

EN 

55 

  EN 

 
2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  

After  the  adoption  of  the  legislative  instrument,  Member  States  will  be  given 
between 3 and 6 months to adapt their national frameworks, where required. Its first 
evaluation  will  take  place  4  years  after  the  new  rules’  entry  into  force,  and 
subsequent  evaluations  will  be  carried  out  every  4  years.  The  monitoring  by  the 
Commission will be supported by the Board.   

A  specific  monitoring  scheme  will  also  be  envisaged  for  the  recommendation 
accompanying the proposal. It will combine targeted reporting by Member States and 
the new mechanism for the independent monitoring of risks to the functioning of the 
internal market for media services under the Regulation.  

2.2.  Management and control system(s)  

2.2.1. 

Justification of the management mode(s), the funding implementation mechanism(s), 
the payment modalities and the control strategy proposed 

Under  the  European  Media  Freedom  Act,  the  European  Regulators  Group  for 
Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) will evolve into the European Board for Media 
Services.  It  will  promote  the  effective  and  consistent  application  of  both  the 
European Media Freedom Act and AVMSD across the Member States. In line with 
its  tasks  under  EU  law,  the  Board  will,  amongst  others,  provide  expert  advice  on 
regulatory,  technical  or  practical  aspects  of  media  regulation,  opinions,  coordinate 
actions  with  regard  to  service  providers  (including  from  third  countries)  not 
following EU media standards, and promote cooperation and the effective exchange 
of information, experience and best practices between regulators.  

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  Board  fulfils  its  mandate,  it  is  foreseen  that  the 
Commission  will  be  in  a  close  contact  with  the  relevant  national  regulatory 
authorities and bodies. Moreover, the Regulation provides that the Chair of the Board 
must keep the Commission informed about the planned and ongoing activities of the 
Board. In addition, the Board is required to consult the Commission in preparation of 
its work programme and main deliverables, in accordance with its rules of procedure.  

In  line  with  current  practices  and  reflecting  the  chosen  policy  option,  the 
Commission will implement the intended funding under CRE via direct management. 
It  is  covered  by  the  respective  control  strategy.  The  controls  will  be  done  by  DG 
CNECT. 

2.2.2. 

Information concerning the risks identified and the internal control system(s) set up 
to mitigate them 

In order to ensure that the Board fulfils its mandate as established in this Regulation, 
a secretariat, provided by the Commission, is foreseen. It will assist the Board in its 
activities, provide administrative and organisational support.  

The envisaged control and support system allows for the mitigation of potential risks. 
As  the  Act  builds  on  an  existing  structure  and  taking  into  account  the  direct 
management of the  relevant  financial resources by  the Commission,  no major risks 
have been identified.  

The controls are part of DG CNECT’s internal control system. 

EN 

56 

  EN 

2.2.3.  Estimation and justification of the cost-effectiveness of the controls (ratio of "control 
costs ÷ value of the related funds managed"), and assessment of the expected levels 
of risk of error (at payment & at closure)  

DG  CNECT’s  internal  control  systems  and  procedures  will  be  used.  They  are 
functional and cost-effective. The aim is to ensure an error rate under the materiality 
threshold of 2%. 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

The existing fraud prevention measures applicable to the Commission will cover the 
additional appropriations necessary for this Regulation. 

EN 

57 

  EN 

3. 

3.1. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected  

  Existing budget lines  

Budget line 

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Number  

07.010401  –  Support  expenditure  for 
Creative Europe 

07.050300  –  Creative  Europe  Cross-
sectoral strand 

07.050200  –  Creative  Europe  Media 
strand 

  New budget lines requested  

2b 

2b 

2b 

N/A

Type of  
expenditure 

Diff./Non-
diff.60 

Contribution 

from 
EFTA 
countries
61 

from 
candidate 
countries62 

from third 
countries 

within the 
meaning of 
Article 21(2)(b) of 
the Financial 
Regulation 

Non-diff. 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

Diff 

Diff 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

YES 

YES 

YES 

NO 

60 
61 
62 

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations. 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association.  
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidates from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

58 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Estimated financial impact of the proposal on appropriations  

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Appropriations will be redeployed within the financial envelopes allocated to the Creative Europe Programme Media and Cross-sectoral strands 
as well as to the administrative support budget line in the 2021-2027 MFF. 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Heading 
framework  

DG CNECT 

of 

multiannual 

financial  

2b 

COHESION, RESILIENCE AND VALUES 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post-2027  TOTAL 

  Operational  appropriations  (reallocated  within  the  Creative  Europe 
programme) 

07.050200 – Creative Europe Media strand 

07.050300 – Creative Europe Cross-sectoral strand 

Commitments 

Payments 

Commitments 

Payments 

(1a) 

(2a) 

(1b) 

(2b) 

0.500 
0.250 
0.500 
0.250 

0.500 
0.500 
0.500 
0.500 

0.500 
0.500 
0.500 
0.500 

0.500 
0.500 
0.500 
0.500 

0.250 

0.250 

Appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature  financed  from  the  envelope  of 
specific programmes63  
07.010401  –  Support  expenditure  for  Creative 
Europe 

(3) 

TOTAL appropriations 
for DG CNECT 

Commitments 

Payments 

=1a+1b 
+3 

=2a+2b 

+3 

0.200 

0.200 

0.200 

0.200 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

0.700 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

0.500 

2.000 
2.000 
2.000 
2.000 

0.800 

4.800 

4.800 

63 

Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 TOTAL operational appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

 TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the 
envelope for specific programmes  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

1.000 

0.500 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.500 

0.200 

0.200 

0.200 

0.200 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADING 2b 
of the multiannual financial framework 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

0.700 

1.200 

1.200 

1.200 

0.500 

4.000 

4.000 

0.800 

4.800 

4.800 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Heading 
framework  

of 

multiannual 

financial  

7 

‘Administrative expenditure’ 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post-2027   TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

DG CNECT 
 Human resources  
 Other administrative expenditure  

0.644 

1.288 

1.288 

1.288 

TOTAL DG CNECT 

Appropriations  

0.644 

1.288 

1.288 

1.288 

TOTAL appropriations 
under HEADING 7 
of the multiannual financial framework 

(Total  commitments  =  Total 
payments) 

0.644 

1.288 

1.288 

1.288 

4.508 

4.508 

4.508 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 7 
of the multiannual financial framework 

Commitments 

1.844 

2.488 

2.488 

2.488 

Payments 

1.344 

2.488 

2.488 

2.488 

0.500 

9.308 

9.308 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post-2027  TOTAL 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

3.2.2.  Estimated output funded with operational appropriations  

N/A

EN 

61 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3. 

Summary of estimated impact on administrative appropriations  

–    The  proposal/initiative  does  not  require  the  use  of  appropriations  of  an 

administrative nature  

–    The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative 

nature, as explained below: 

EUR million (to three decimal places) 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

Post-2027 

TOTAL 

HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

0.644 

1.288 

1.288 

1.288 

4.508 

0.644 

1.288 

1.288 

1.288 

4.508 

Other administrative 
expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

64

Outside HEADING 7
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

Human resources  

Other expenditure  
of an administrative 
nature 

Subtotal  
outside HEADING 7 
of the multiannual 
financial framework 

TOTAL 

0.644 

1.288 

1.288 

1.288 

4.508 

The  appropriations  required  for  human  resources  and  other  expenditure  of  an  administrative  nature  will  be  met  by 
appropriations from the DG that are already assigned to  management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the 
DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which  may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual 
allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

64 

Technical  and/or  administrative  assistance  and  expenditure  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  EU programmes  and/or  actions 
(former ‘BA’ lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

62 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Estimated requirements of human resources 

–    The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.  

–    The  proposal/initiative  requires  the  use  of  human  resources,  as  explained 

below: 

Estimate to be expressed in full time equivalent units 

2024 

2025 

2026 

2027 

 Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff) 

20 01 02 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) 

3 

6 

6 

6 

20 01 02 03 (Delegations) 

01 01 01 01  (Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 11 (Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

 External staff (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)

65

20 02 01 (AC, END, INT from the ‘global envelope’) 

2 

4 

4 

4 

20 02 03 (AC, AL, END, INT and JPD in the delegations) 

XX 01  xx yy zz  

66

- at Headquarters 

- in Delegations  

01 01 01 02 (AC, END, INT - Indirect research) 

 01 01 01 12 (AC, END, INT - Direct research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

TOTAL 

5 

10 

10 

10 

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the 
action  and/or  have  been  redeployed  within  the  DG,  together  if  necessary  with  any  additional  allocation  which 
may  be  granted  to  the  managing  DG  under  the  annual  allocation  procedure  and  in  the  light  of  budgetary 
constraints. 

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary staff 

Supervision of the correct implementation of the obligations set by the Regulation for 
private  companies,  Member  States  and  the  national  regulatory  authorities  and  bodies 
gathered in the Board 

Represent  the  Commission  in  the  Board  and  engage  with  the  Board  on  its  activities, 
including also on the annual work programme and the rules of procedure 

Managing of procedures under the Regulation, in particular with regard to the tasks of 
the Board 

Providing support to the Board on its tasks under the Regulation 

Administrative  and  logistical  support  to  the  Board,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the 
organisation of the day-to-day organisation and the organisation of meetings 

Supporting  the  cooperation  and  coordination  of  national  regulatory  authorities  or 
bodies at EU level  

Procuring and managing external studies related to the Regulation and the activities of 

65 

66 

AC  =  Contract  Staff;  AL  =  Local  Staff;  END  =  Seconded  National  Expert;  INT  =  agency  staff;  JPD  = Junior  Professionals  in 
Delegations.  
Sub-ceiling for external staff covered by operational appropriations (former ‘BA’ lines). 

EN 

63 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
External staff 

Providing support to the Board on its tasks under the Regulation 

the Board 

Administrative  and  logistical  support  to  the  Board,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the 
organisation of the day-to-day organisation and the organisation of meetings 

Supporting  the  cooperation  and  coordination  of  national  regulatory  authorities  or 
bodies at EU level 

EN 

64 

  EN 

 
3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    can be fully financed through redeployment within the relevant heading of the 

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). 

Appropriations  will  be  redeployed  within  the  financial  envelope  allocated  to  the  Creative  Europe 
Programme  Media and Cross-sectoral strands as  well as to the administrative support budget line in 
the 2021-2027 MFF. It will not have a significant impact on any other activities of the Programme as 
it will be absorbed evenly across the actions.  

–    requires use of the unallocated margin under the relevant heading of the MFF 

and/or use of the special instruments as defined in the MFF Regulation. 

–    requires a revision of the MFF. 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions  

The proposal/initiative: 

–    does not provide for co-financing by third parties 

–    provides for the co-financing by third parties estimated below: 

Appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary 
to  show  the  duration  of  the 
impact (see point 1.6) 

Total 

Specify  the  co-financing 
body  

TOTAL 
co-financed  

appropriations 

EN 

65 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue  

–    The proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue. 

–    The proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

– 

– 

– 

 

 

on own resources  

on other revenue 

please indicate, if the revenue is assigned to expenditure lines  

     EUR million (to three decimal places) 

Appropriations 
for 
available 
current 
the 
financial year 

Budget revenue line: 

Article …………. 

Impact of the proposal/initiative67 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

Enter as many years as necessary to show 
the duration of the impact (see point 1.6) 

For assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected. 

Other  remarks  (e.g.  method/formula  used  for  calculating  the  impact  on  revenue  or  any  other 
information 

67 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts 
after deduction of 20 % for collection costs. 

EN 

66 

  EN