Source: https://wwwen.uni.lu/recherche/fdef/droit_des_medias/audiovisual_media_services_directive/news
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 18:45:34
Document Index: 783843654

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 4', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 14', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 23', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 15', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 101', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 22', 'Art. 258', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 15', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 2', 'Art 18', 'Art. 23']

AVMSD Reform Proposal 2016
Home // Research // FDEF // Media Law // Audiovisual... // News
May 2016:On the day of the publication of the Commission proposal for an amending directive concerning the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive the AVMSD project makes available a synopsis comparing the current Directive with the draft amendments. More information can be found here.
May 2016: Professor Cole gave an extensive interview to radio 100,7 for the news programme Panorama on the leaked version of the forthcoming Commission Proposal for an amending directive concerning the AVMSD. A podcast of the programme is available here (https://www.100komma7.lu/podcast/126182), the full interview here (https://www.100komma7.lu/article/aktualiteit/online-video-plattformen).
December 2015: Professor Cole was heard as expert on 16 December at the German parliament as part of the forthcoming review of the European Union’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).The Bundestag’s Media and Culture Committee consulted Prof. Cole for their evaluation of the directive. More information can be found here (https://wwwen.uni.lu/fdef/actualites/prof_mark_cole_consulted_as_expert_by_german_parliament)
December 2015: Results of a study into the independence of media regulatory bodies in European Union member states and accession countries carried out in the framework of the project were presented to the European Commission and the Contact Committee by Jenny Metzdorf. The AVMS-RADAR (AudioVisual Media Services-Regulatory Authorities’ InDependence And Efficiency Review) was commissioned by the European Commission and carried out by the Institute of European Media Law (EMR) together with the Research Unit in Law at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance. More information can be found here (https://wwwen.uni.lu/fdef/actualites/media_law_research_results_presented_to_european_commission).
November 2015: Prof. Cole co-organised and chaired a workshop on the future regulation of Audiovisual Media Platforms, hosted by the EBU in Geneva. More information and subsequent interviews with the participating experts can be found here (http://www.ebu.ch/news/2015/11/ebu-examines-future-platform-reg-1).
March 2015: Prof. Cole gave an extensive interview at the premises of radio 100,7 in Luxembourg on various aspects of the European Commission's Digital Agenda and current developments in the communications sector in particular regarding the protection of minors in the media. The interview, which took place in the Riicht eraus programme is available as a podcast here.
October 2014: The article entitled "The implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by national regulators, National responses to regulatory challenges" of PhD student Jenny Metzdorf was published in the fifth issue of JIPITEC and is available here. Jenny Metzdorf had presented this article at IViR's international conference in July in the context of the Young Scholars competition.
October 2014: Together with two of her colleagues and two Professors of the research unit in law, PhD student Jenny Metzdorf was given the chance to travel to the University of Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA. She attended several lectures at the Law School including the David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on "Big Surveillance: What the NSA is doing, why it matters, and how to address it" given by Prof. Solove. In a JSD seminar, she presented her PhD thesis and research interests to the American Professors and interested JSDs.
September 2014: The Commission published a feedback paper and an executive summary on the responses to its consultation on the Green Paper entitled "Preparing for a Fully Converged Audiovisual World: Growth, Creation and Values". Both documents are available here.
July 2014: In a press briefing at the European Parliament on July 23rd, Associate Prof. Cole and Assistant Prof. Franziska Boehm of the University of Münster, Germany holder of a doctorate of the University of Luxembourg presented an extensive study on the recent judgement of the Court of Justice that declared the Data Retention Directive void. The study was commissioned by the Group of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament on initiative of Jan Philipp Albrecht who is the Parliament’s rapporteur on the General Data Protection Regulation that is currently under debate. Aim of the research is to answer what consequences follow from the decision of the Court that declared the Directive void because of significant violations of fundamental rights. The study is now publicly available via the website of the Greens and can be downloaded here. See also the executive summary of the study.
July 2014: A majority of the media law research team attended the Information Influx Conference celebrating the 25th anniversary of IViR, the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam. Ph.D. researcher Jenny Metzdorf was shortlisted for the Young Scholars Award and presented her paper on “The implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by national regulatory authorities – National responses to regulatory challenges” on 2 July 2014. The paper will soon be published in JIPITEC.
June 2014: With effect from July 1st 2014 Associate Prof. Cole has been nominated Director for Academic Affairs of the Institute of European Media Law (EMR). See the press release of the University of Luxembourg and the press release of the EMR.
March 2014: The Commission asked national regulators about national measures put in place to promote the distribution and production of European works in on-demand services. In line with Art. 13 AVMSD, such promotion could relate to financial contributions or to the share of European works in provider's catalogues. The Commission's questionnaire as well as the replies by regulators can be found here.
March 2014: At the beginning of February, the Commission established a European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services by a Decision. The group is composed of the heads of national regulatory authorities and advices the Commission in matters relating to the audiovisual market and the implementation of the AVMSD. The group's inaugural meeting took place at the beginning of March. The agenda of the meeting and its minutes are available here.
October 2013: A consolidated version of the Luxembourg Law on Electronic Media has been published here. The consolidated version includes the amendments of the law of 27 August 2013 (ALIA law) which establishes a new regulatory authority (ALIA) for Luxembourg.
July 2013: On 18th of July, the Court rendered its judgment in case C-234/12 Sky Italia which concerned the interpretation of the advertising limit outlined in Art. 23 AVMSD. The Court judges the Italian rule which lays down stricter hourly limits for pay-TV operators to be compatible with Union law as long as the principle of proportionality is respected. Member States are in principle allowed to adopt stricter rules in line with Art. 4 (1) AVMSD. It is for the referring Italian court to decide whether the Italian rule has established an adequate balance between the competing interests of consumers (protection against excessive advertising) and broadcasters (refinancing of services).
July 2013: On the same day (18th of July), the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected the appeal brought by UEFA and FIFA against the judgment of the General Court in cases C-201/11P, C-204/11P and C-205/11P. The CJEU acknowledged that the right to draw up lists of major events which have to be broadcast on free TV pursuant to Art. 14 AVMSD infringed UEFA's and FIFA's rights (property rights, right to freely provide services). The obstacles were, however justified by the objective of protecting the right to informaion. The CJEU thus confirmed Member States' discretion for determinig major events.
July 2013: A comparative commentary will soon be published by Beck/Hart/Nomos on the transposition of the AVMSD in the EU Member States. Please find an extract of the brochure here. More information will follow soon.
July 2013: On 3rd of July, a work in progress seminar was held at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance of the University of Luxembourg. Associate Prof. Mark Cole and his research associate Jenny Metzdorf presented the objectives, approach and outcome of the research project on the transposition of the AVMSD. They furthermore highlighted certain aspects of the implmementation of the Directive by way of examples from different Member States. The slides are available here.
May 2013: The European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Implementation of the AVMSD on May 22nd. In its resolution, Parliament examines the current state of play and encourages the Commission to revise certain rules contained in the Directive in order to make them more effective in view of convergence of media. These are for instance the rule on accessibility of audiovisual productions for people with disabilities (Art. 7 AVMSD), exclusive rights and short news reports (Art. 14 and 15 AVMSD), the promotion of European works (Art. 13 and 17 AVMSD), the protection of minors in on-demand services (Art. 12 AVMSD) and advertising rules (in particular Art. 23 AVMSD).
May 2013: Advocat General Kokott delivered her opinion in case C-234/12 Sky Italia on 16 May 2013. The case concerns the compatibility of the Italian rule which sets out different hourly limits for television advertising for free-to-air broadcasters and pay-TV broadcasters. Sky Italia submitted that the regulation violated Art. 4 (1) AVMSD (which allows Member States to adopt stricter or more detailed rules in the fields coordinated by the AVMSD), in particular the principle of equal treatment as well as Art. 11 CFR and fundamental freedoms. AG Kokott considers that the compatibility of the Italian rule depends upon the objective pursued by the Italian legislation and it is essentially for the referring court to decide whether the rule pursues a purely economic aim incompatible with Union law (by ensuring that free-to-air broadcasters receive higher advertising revenues) or a legitimate objective capable of restricting fundamental freedoms (protection of consumers).
April 2013: The Commission published its Green Paper preparing for a fully converged audiovisual world on 24 April 2013. The Green Paper treats diverse aspects of the phenomenon of Connected TV like the interoperability of platforms, media freedom and pluralism, audiovisual commercial communication and the protection of minors. The Commission seeks the views of the public on several questions formulated in the Green Paper. The consultation will run until the end of August 2013.
February 2013: Several Member States like the Flemish Community of Belgium, Italy, Spain, Poland and Slovakia have amended their national laws transposing the AVMSD during the past months. The original amending acts as well as their English translations are available at the respective country section under "national execution measures".
January 2013: The Committee on Culture and Education of the European Parliament headed by rapporteur Petra Kammerevert delivered its draft report on Connected TV on January 31st. The draft report emphasizes that availability, accessibility and findability of media content are key to reforming the existing EU legislation and it calls into question the current graduated regulatory scheme set out in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive.
January 2013: On 22 January 2013, the Court of Justice rendered its judgment in case C-283/11 Sky Österreich GmbH v Österreichischer Rundfunk concerning the interpretation of Art. 15 AVMSD which sets out rules on the right to short news reports. The national proceeding opposed Sky Austria which had acquired exclusive broadcasting rights of the Europa League matches for the Austrian territory to ORF, Austria's public broadcaster which requested access to Sky's footage in order to produce short news reports. ORF paid EUR 700 per minute for such reports to Sky Austria. Art. 15 (6) AVMSD requires that "where compensation is provided for, it shall not exceed the additional costs directly incurred in providing access." In its ruling, the Court recognized that the right to short news reports interferred with the freedom to conduct a business as laid down in Art. 16 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Yet, this intereference could be justified by the fundamental freedom to receive information and the freedom and pluralism of the media. The Court thus considered that by adopting Art. 15 AVMSD, the European Union legislature had adequately balanced the freedoms at stake.
November 2012: On November 26th and 27th, an expert workshop on the transposition of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive in several Member States will take place at the Weicker building of the University of uxembourg where the research unit in law is seated. The workshop will gather renowned experts from different EU Member States (see list of participants) who will be discussing the implementation of the Directive in their respective country in addition to topical issues like product placement, the protection of minors in on-demand services or Connected/Smart TV (see schedule). More information will be published soon.
September 2012: On September 24th, the European Commission published it first report on the application of Articles 13, 16 and 17 of the AVMSD concerning quotas for the promotion and distribution of European works and works of independent producers in linear and non-linear audiovisual media services. The Commission considered application of the provisions in 2009 and 2010 on the basis of information provided by the Member States and an independent study.
June 2012: At the end of June, the European Commission decided to bring Poland before the Court of Justice for failure to implement the AVMSD. The Commission argues that Poland has not implemented the rules concerning on-demand audiovisual media services. The CJEU is to decide on the financial penalties proposed by the Commission. For more information see the press release. The case is pending before the CJEU and has been registered as C-333/12.
June 2012: On 12 June 2012, Advocate General Bot delivered his opinion in case C-283/11 Sky Österreich v ORF concerning the right to short news reports as laid down in Art. 15 AVMSD. AG Bot finds that Art. 15 AVMSD infringes the rights recognised by Art. 16 (freedom to conduct a business) and 17 (right to property) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.This interference can nevertheless be justified by the freedom of expression and information which the AVMSD seeks to further. Since Art. 15 AVMSD sets limits to the right to short news reports, the interference is proportionate. AG Bot concludes that the provision in the Directive remains valid. For the opinion of AG Bot see here and for the press release see here.
May 2012: As an additional offer, the consolidated regulations on audiovisual commercial communication and European quotas of Luxembourg are now published in English. The unofficial consolidated acts have been prepared by the uni.lu team on the basis of the regulations of 2001 and 2010. They are available here.
May 2012: The European Commission has published its first report on the application of the AVMS Directive. In its report, the Commission comments upon the transpositions of the Member States with respect to the different rules of the Directive. It also announces that the Commission’s interpretative communication on advertising of 2004 will be up-dated in 2013 to take into account new advertising techniques (like product placement) and the content analysis of the qualitative advertising rules (for example alcohol advertising). In addition, the Commission places emphasis on convergence and will launch a consultation process on Connected TV. The report and a background document are available here.
May 2012: An English translation of the Luxembourgish Law on Freedom of Expression in the Media in a consolidated version is now available under the section "Texts" of this webpage (see here).
March 2012: New legislation on audiovisual media services has been adopted in the Basque Autonomous Community implementing the Spanish New General Law of Audiovisual Communications (see here for the original legal act). More information is available here.
January 2012: The national execution measures of Slovenia are now available in Slovenian and English. A synopsis of the Slovenian act with the AVMSD has also been prepared and is available here.
January 2012: The first IRIS Newsletter of 2012 contains two articles written by Associate Prof. Mark Cole concerning the transposition in Luxembourg of the European legislative framework for electronic communications services and networks. The two articles examine the implementation into Luxembourg law of Directive 2009/136/EC (see here) and Directive 2009/140/EC respectively (see here).
January 2012: The IRIS Special entitled "The Regulation of On-demand Audiovisual Media Services, Chaos or Coherence?" was published in mid-December 2011 by the European Audiovisual Observatory (see press release). The IRIS Special is also available in French ("La réglementation des services audiovisuels à la demande: chaos ou cohérence?") and German ("Die Regulierung audiovisueller Abrufdienste: Chaos oder Kohärenz?").
Associate Prof. Mark Cole has contributed to this book by an article on "The European Legal Framework for On-demand Services: What Directive for which Services?". Apart from the analysis of the legal nature of on-demand audiovisual media services, this IRIS Special provides case studies of Italy, Germany and the Netherlands as well as different perspectives from consumers, the industry and policy-makers. For more details on its content and on how to order, see here.
November 2011: On November 24th, the Court of Justice decided on the infringement procedure against Spain concerning the latter's advertising rules in case C-281/09. The Court finds, in line with the Advocate General's opinion that Spain had failed to fulfill its obligations under European Union law. It stresses that all types of advertising broadcast during programmes, whatever their formal nomination, are covered by the TWFD (AVMSD) and Spain is required to implement the hourly advertising limit in respect of these forms of advertising.
November 2011: Slovenia transposed the AVMS Directive in mid-November 2011. On November 17th, the Slovenia legal act entered into force. For a copy of the legal act in Slovenian see here. A translation of the Slovenian implementing law will soon be available under the section "National execution measures" of this website.
October 2011: At the beginning of October, the Court of Justice handed down its ruling in joined cases C-403, 429/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd. a.o. v QC Leisure a.o. and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services. The decision concerns the exclusive marketing of the matches of the British Premiere League on a territorial basis by the Football Association. The broadcasters contracting with its Football Association undertake to encrypt their signal. The consumer, after having paid for the service receives access to the matches of the Premier Leage by means of so-called decoder cards. The dispute at issue results from attempts by some British pubs to circumvent the exclusivity by purchasing foreign decoders which are available at lower prices. The Football Association submits that the exclusivity of its content and its intellectual property rights are undermined by such practices. The Court points out (in line with the opinion of AG Kokott of February 2011, see press release) that the national measures prohibiting the purchase and use of foreign decoders are contrary to the freedom to provide services and therefore incompatible with the internal market. In addition, such measures are also considered an illegal agreement under Art. 101 TFEU. See also the press release.
September 2011: At the end of September, the Court of Justice published its ruling in joined cases C-244-245/10 Mesopotamia Broadcast METV and Roj TV v Germany concerning the interpretation of Art. 22a TWFD (Art. 6 AVMSD) in conjunction with Art. 2a TWFD (Art. 3 AVMSD).The German Ministry of the Interior had issued a prohibition for the two Danish undertakings to carry out their activities in Germany. The TWFD/AVMSD, however, provide for the country of origin principle and home country control. In its judgement, the Court relies on AG Bot's (see further below, May 2011) interpretation of the term "incitement to hatred" of Art. 22a TWFD which requires first, "an action intended to direct specific behaivour" and second, "a feeling of animosity or rejection with regard to a group of persons". Thus, an infringement of the principle of international understanding is covered by Art. 22a TWFD. The conduct of the two Danish undertakings violates the said principle. However, under the TFWD/AVMSD, the Member State where the broadcaster is established (Denmark) is to verify whether the broadcaster complies with the rules of the Directive. As a result, it is for the German court to decide whether the national measure prohibits or prevents the retransmission per se of the programmes of Mesopotamia Broadcast METV and Roj TV. If that was the case, the German measure would not be in compliance with the Directive. See also the press release.
September 2011: On 31 August 2011, the European Commission has sent a second round of fact-finding letters to eight EU Member States seeking information about the national implementing measures as concerns the AVMSD. It had already sent letters to the other 16 Member States in March 2011. In general, these letters do not imply that the AVMSD has been incorrectly transposed by these Member States but help the Commission to clarify some remaining questions. The Member States have been asked to send their responses within 10 weeks. In addition, the Commission has initiated infringement procedures under Art. 258 TFEU against Slovenia (which still has not notified any implementing measures) and Poland (which has only notified several measures) and is currently reviewing the transposition measures of Portugal. For further information, see the press release.
August 2011: A question for preliminary ruling has been referred by the Austrian Bundeskommunikationssenat concerning the right to short news report laid down in Art. 15 AVMSD. The parties of the proceeding C-283/11 are the ORF (Austrian public broadcaster) and Sky Österreich which had purchased exclusive rights for the three subsequent seasons of 2009/2010 until 2011/2012 of the UEFA Europa League for the matches of the Austrian teams. A contractual agreement had been signed allowing the ORF to chose extracts from Sky Österreich's broadcasting signal to report on events of high interest to the Austrian public for the purpose of general news programmes. The question at stake is whether the ORF is required to pay compensatory fees to Sky Österreich. Art. 15 (6) AVMSD stipulates that such compensation should not go beyond the costs incurred in providing access. The Bundeskommunikationssenat therefore asks whether Art. 15 (6) AVMSD complies with Art. 16 (freedom to conduct a business) and 17 (right to property) of the EU Charta of Fundamental Rights, or respectively Art. 1 (1) of the first protocol to the ECHR (protection of property).
July 2011: The Austrian Bundeskommunikationssenat has referred a question for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the term television advertising. The case, registered as C-162/11 concerns in particular an announcement by the Austrian public television of one of its own programmes which read "Dancing Stars ab Freitag 20:15" (Dancing Starts starts Friday 8:15 p.m.) during a feature film. The Publikumsrat submits that this information was in fact self-advertising, thus a form of commercial communication which consequently was to respect the rules on advertising of the AVMSD. The Austrian public television ORF, however, argues that the contested message was a programme element. The Court of Justice will have to decide whether such announcements made by the television broadcaster in its own programmes constitute television advertising within the meaning of the AVMSD.
July 2011: The webpage medialaw.lu has been officially promoted by the newsletter of the University of Luxembourg as well as a press release which has also been placed in the news section at uni.lu as well as the FDEF webpage.
June 2011: On 9 June 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CoJ) rendered its preliminary ruling in case C-52/10 Eleftheri tileorasi and Giannikos in which it interpreted Art. 1 (c) and 1 (d) of the Television Without Frontiers Directive 89/552/EEC (now Art. 1 (1) (i) and 1 (1) (j) Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EU), concerning the definitions of television advertising and surreptitious advertising. The case concerned a Greek private television channel which was sanctioned by the Greek media authority for having infringed the prohibition of surreptitious advertising. Due to different linguistic versions of the Directive, the CoJ took recourse to the aim and purpose of the TWFD to clarify that the definition of surreptitious advertising is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of payment or of similar consideration is not a necessary condition for establishing the element of intent.
June 2011: Extra time for cases T-385/07 FIFA v Commission, T-55/08 UEFA v Commission and T-68/08 FIFA v Commission: On 17 February 2011, FIFA and UEFA have appealed against the ruling of the General Court of the European Union, now registered as cases C-201/11P UEFA v Commission, C-204/11P FIFA v Commission and C-205/11 P FIFA v Commission which concern the Belgian and British list of major events. The General Court had found the Commission’s assessment of the conformity of these national lists drawn up in accordance with Art. 14 AVMSD was adequate. Ultimately, all football matches of the European championship and the world cup must be shown on free television in the UK and Belgium.
June 2011: The famous Infront saga continues: After the General Court in its judgement in T-33/01 Infront v Commission, upheld by the Court of Justice in its ruling in C-125/06P Commission v Infront, an application for annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Commission, refusing access to certain documents was filed by Mr. Batchelor, the legal counsel for Infront. Case T-250/08 Batchelor v Commission essentially concerns the right to access documents exchanged in the course of the assessment of the compatibility with Union law of the British list of major events for the purposes of Art. 3a Television Without Frontiers Directive 97/36/EC (Art. 14 AVMSD). The General Court orders the partial annulment of the contested decision, grating access to certain documents to the applicant.
May 2011: Advocate General Yves Bot in his opinion of 5 May 2011 in joined cases C-244-245/10 Mesopotamia Broadcast METV and Roj TV v Germany took a position on jurisdictional issues of the AVMSD and the interpretation of the terms "incitement" and "hatred" for the purposes of Art. 2a of Directive 97/36/EC (now Art. 3 AVMS Directive 2010/13/EU). The case concerns a Danish broadcaster transmitting some of its broadcasts to Germany which consequently blocked the retransmission of these programmes for their violation of public international law, more in particular for their incitement to hatred and violence for the pursuit of the political goals of the Kurdish PKK in Turkey. The General Advocate suggests that the terms "incitement to hatred" and "violation of public international law" were equivalents and to be interpreted widely. As a derogation from the country of origin principle, the Gernal Advocate points out that the measures Germany had taken were in conformity with Art. 2a of the TWF Directive as the discriminatory character of the programmes could vary from one Member State to another.
April 2011: On 7 April 2011 Advocate General Yves Bot delivered his opinion in case C-281/09 Commission v Spain which is a preliminary reference on the interpretation of the terms "television advertising spot" and "other television advertising" respectively within the meaning of Art 18 Directive 97/36/EC (now Art. 23 AVMS Directive 2010/13/EU). The Commission had introduced an infringement procedure against Spain for its violation of the hourly advertising limit. As the Spanish law does not define infomercials, telepromotions, sponsoring spots and micro spots as "television advertising", these four types of spots were broadcast in addition to the 12 minutes allowed by the AVMSD. Advocate General Bot proposes to include these contested spots in the definition of "other television advertising" as it would otherwise make it easy for providers of advertising to circumvent the rules by producing only these four forms of advertising. Above all, the overarching goal of the rules of the AMVSD, namely to protect the consumer against excessive advertising would be guaranteed.
April 2011: The European Commission has terminated its preliminary assessment it initiated at the end of March of the national execution measures of 16 Member States of the Union with respect to the AVMSD. The Member States were given 10 weeks to send their replies to the fact-finding letters. As a result, the Commission has initiated infringement procedures against Poland, Portugal and Slovenia and now turns to analyse the implementing measures of the remaining Member States.
April 2011: Poland has notified to the European Commission its first measure implementing the AVMS Directive. The new Radio and Television Act (here) adopted on 31 March 2011 was published in the Polish official journal on 22 April 2011 and will enter into force on 22 May 2011. It will soon be translated and available on this webpage in the English language.
April 2011: On 20 April 2011, Prof. Dr. Mark D. Cole and his research assistant Jenny Metzdorf participated in the OBS/EMR workshop entitled "Whose boots are made for walking? On-demand services - a case for passing regulation, entrusting self-/co-regulation or leaving it to general legislation?" which took place at the London City University, School of Law. Prof. Cole reported on the topic of the "European legal framework: what directives for which services?". In his speech, Prof. Cole elaborated on the scope of application of the AVMS Directive and the E-Commerce Directive and the difficulty to classify 'new media services' such as Google TV, You Tube or Dailymotion. The workshop was visited by numerous international experts in the field of media law and a vivid discussion followed each report. The contributions of the speakers will be published in an IRIS Special in the summer of 2011.
April 2011: In April 2011, Portugal notified to the European Commission its national execution measure. Law number 8/2011 (here) which amends several national acts such as the Television Act was published in the Official government journal on April 11 of 2011. The Portuguese implementing measures will soon be translated and will be available under the section “National execution measures”.
April 2011: Until the end of April 2011, Slovenia has not yet transposed the AVMS Directive.
March 2011: At the end of March 2011, the European Commission has asked 16 different Member States to provide information on the implementation of the AVMS Directive. The Commission clarifies that these requests do not imply incorrect or incomplete transposition of the directive but instead are undertaken in order to guarantee the uniform application of Union law. Issues to be dealt with by the Member States are, for instance jurisdiction and the country of origin principle, rules on audiovisual commercial communication and the protection of minors, the promotion of European works, the list of major events and short news reports. The press release is available here.
March 2011: On December 21 of 2010, Hungary adopted a new Media Act. This act constitutes a fundamental reform of the Hungarian media law landscape and transposes among others, the AVMS Directive (more information here ). However, the European Commission pointed out that certain aspects of the law are not in conformity with European law. A stage of negotiation between the Hungarian government and the European Commission in February 2011 resulted in the Hungarian’s commitment to change the controversial issues (more information here). Similarly, the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights critically examined the developments in Hungary in an opinion (here) published on 25 February 2011 (more information here). Only three days later, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in her analysis (here) expressed serious doubts whether Hungary's media law was in conformity with international OSCE standards on the freedom of expression and plurality of the media and the European Parliament issued a resolution (here) on Hungary's media law (more information here) on 11 March 2011. At the beginning of March, the Media Act is being amended as a reaction to the international criticism and will soon be made available.
January 2011: On December 17 of 2010 the Luxembourg government amended its Law on Electronic Media and a series of grand-ducal regulations (more information here). The Law on Electronic Media as well as the two executing acts namely the Regulation on Advertising, Teleshopping, Sponsorship and Self-promotion and the Regulation on European works implement the AVMS Directive.
January 2011: The negotiations of the revision of the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Transfrontier Television appear to have come to a halt.
The reason for the standstill is the question of competence for the negotiation of the new Convention (more information here).
January 2011: At the end of January 2011, students of the Master 1 in European Law attended seminars which concluded their class in “European Media Law” taught by Prof. Mark D. Cole. Students had the unique opportunity to meet at SES Astra in Betzdorf where they were also taken on a special tour of the company’s premises. The seminar imitated an intergovernmental conference on the AVMS Directive.The second venue was the Cité Judiciaire in Luxembourg where students from the Universität des Saarlandes, Germany and the Luxembourg students met to discuss current media law topics.(More information and pictures here).
October 2010: In October 2010, the second draft of the new media law of Slovenia was published (here). It is to implement the AVMS Directive into Slovenian law.