natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The limitations which may be imposed on it may therefore not exceed those provided for in Article 10(2) of the Convention, without prejudice to any restrictions which Community competition law may impose on Member States' right to introduce the licensing arrangements referred to in the third sentence of Article 10(1) of the ECHR.
The limitations which may be imposed on it may therefore not exceed those provided for in Article 10(2) of the Convention, without prejudice to any restrictions which Community competition law may impose on Member States' right to introduce the licensing arrangements referred to in the third sentence of Article 10(1) of the ECHR.
Paragraph 2 of this Article spells out the consequences of paragraph 1 regarding freedom of the media.
Paragraph 2 of this Article spells out the consequences of paragraph 1 regarding freedom of the media.
It is based in particular on Court of Justice case-law regarding television, particularly in case C-288/89 (judgement of 25 July 1991, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others [1991] ECR I-4007), and on the Protocol on the System of Public Broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the EC Treaty, and on Council Directive 89/552/EC (particularly its 17th recital).' .
It is based in particular on Court of Justice case-law regarding television, particularly in case C-288/89 (judgement of 25 July 1991, Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and others [1991] ECR I-4007), and on the Protocol on the System of Public Broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the EC Treaty, and on Council Directive 89/552/EC (particularly its 17th recital).' .
Content of the right
Content of the right
On the level of content, Article 11 sets out not only the 'active' freedom to express oneself but also the 'passive' freedom to be informed - a concept which is only implicit in the recognition of the individual's right to information that appears in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights A corollary of this principle is the positive correlation between the amount of information available and the effective protection of the right to information.
On the level of content, Article 11 sets out not only the 'active' freedom to express oneself but also the 'passive' freedom to be informed - a concept which is only implicit in the recognition of the individual's right to information that appears in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights A corollary of this principle is the positive correlation between the amount of information available and the effective protection of the right to information.
Conversely, a de facto or de jure limitation on access to the media (e.g. in the wake of excessive concentration) can entail the liability of a Member State, inter alia vis-à-vis the Strasbourg judges. .
Conversely, a de facto or de jure limitation on access to the media (e.g. in the wake of excessive concentration) can entail the liability of a Member State, inter alia vis-à-vis the Strasbourg judges. .
Like all other rights, the right to freedom of expression and information (and therefore, indirectly, the right to pluralism deriving therefrom) is limited by restrictions that are defined by the Charter itself, the Treaties, the ECHR or the case-law of the European Courts.
Like all other rights, the right to freedom of expression and information (and therefore, indirectly, the right to pluralism deriving therefrom) is limited by restrictions that are defined by the Charter itself, the Treaties, the ECHR or the case-law of the European Courts.
The latter have evolved a wealth of case-law which has made it possible to specify more clearly the relationships of this fundamental right with other criteria such as the protection of public morality Judgment of 7 December 1976, Handyside, and judgment of 29 October 1992, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman, Series A No 246 , the independence of the judiciary Judgment of 22 February 1988, Sunday Times and Barfod , the reputation and rights of others Decision of the Commission on Human Rights of 5 March 1990 on Appeal 1463/89 (Times Newspapers Ltd) , the right to political criticism Judgment of 8 July 1986, Lingens, Series A No 103 and judgment of 23 May 1991, Oberschlick, Series A No 204 , the right of reply Decision of the Commission on Human Rights of 12 May 1988 on Appeal 12194/86 (Kuhner) , and the fight against racism Judgment of 23 September 1994, Jersild, Series A No 298 .
The latter have evolved a wealth of case-law which has made it possible to specify more clearly the relationships of this fundamental right with other criteria such as the protection of public morality Judgment of 7 December 1976, Handyside, and judgment of 29 October 1992, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman, Series A No 246 , the independence of the judiciary Judgment of 22 February 1988, Sunday Times and Barfod , the reputation and rights of others Decision of the Commission on Human Rights of 5 March 1990 on Appeal 1463/89 (Times Newspapers Ltd) , the right to political criticism Judgment of 8 July 1986, Lingens, Series A No 103 and judgment of 23 May 1991, Oberschlick, Series A No 204 , the right of reply Decision of the Commission on Human Rights of 12 May 1988 on Appeal 12194/86 (Kuhner) , and the fight against racism Judgment of 23 September 1994, Jersild, Series A No 298 .
The Courts have also, on various occasions, ruled on the relationship between economic factors and issues of pluralism, as well as on the question of the legitimate limits on the activities of broadcasting organs.
The Courts have also, on various occasions, ruled on the relationship between economic factors and issues of pluralism, as well as on the question of the legitimate limits on the activities of broadcasting organs.
In the judgment in the case of Demuth v. Switzerland Judgment of 5 November 2002 , for example, the European Court of Human Rights referred to “ the legitimate need for the quality and balance of programs in general ” (...).
In the judgment in the case of Demuth v. Switzerland Judgment of 5 November 2002 , for example, the European Court of Human Rights referred to “ the legitimate need for the quality and balance of programs in general ” (...).
In view of their strong impact on the public, " domestic authorities may aim at preventing a one-sided range of commercial television programs on offer ” (§ 43).
In view of their strong impact on the public, " domestic authorities may aim at preventing a one-sided range of commercial television programs on offer ” (§ 43).
In the judgment in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights stressed the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society, "in particular, where, through the press, it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest, which the public is moreover entitled to receive ....
In the judgment in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and others v. Austria, the European Court of Human Rights stressed the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society, "in particular, where, through the press, it serves to impart information and ideas of general interest, which the public is moreover entitled to receive ....
Such an undertaking cannot be successfully accomplished unless it is grounded in the principle of pluralism, of which the State is the ultimate guarantor." (§ 38) ECHR Judgment of 24/11/1993 on the Austrian radio monopoly, EuGRZ 1994, 549 - Lentia Informationsverein
Such an undertaking cannot be successfully accomplished unless it is grounded in the principle of pluralism, of which the State is the ultimate guarantor." (§ 38) ECHR Judgment of 24/11/1993 on the Austrian radio monopoly, EuGRZ 1994, 549 - Lentia Informationsverein ECHR Judgment of 24/11/1993 on the Austrian radio monopoly, EuGRZ 1994, 549 - Lentia Informationsverein
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has given similar rulings.
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has given similar rulings.
In two judgments of 25 July 1991 concerning the Dutch Mediawet the Court of Justice acknowledged that the maintenance of the pluralism “ is connected with freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community legal order ” ECJ, 25 July 1991, Commission v. Netherlands , 353/89, ECR, p. 4089 (pt.
In two judgments of 25 July 1991 concerning the Dutch Mediawet the Court of Justice acknowledged that the maintenance of the pluralism “ is connected with freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Community legal order ” ECJ, 25 July 1991, Commission v. Netherlands , 353/89, ECR, p.
Protection of the right in the EU
Protection of the right in the EU
On the formal level, the Charter is, above all, a politico-institutional document whose role is to increase the visibility of the fundamental rights referred to in Article 6 of the TEU.
On the formal level, the Charter is, above all, a politico-institutional document whose role is to increase the visibility of the fundamental rights referred to in Article 6 of the TEU.
The rights set out in the Charter are not binding on jurisdictions in the Community, but they nonetheless form an obvious point of reference for the institutions, among them the European Parliament, that proclaimed the Charter in Nice in December 2000.
The rights set out in the Charter are not binding on jurisdictions in the Community, but they nonetheless form an obvious point of reference for the institutions, among them the European Parliament, that proclaimed the Charter in Nice in December 2000.
In the Commission Communication Commission Communication of February 2001. issued immediately after the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the institutions of the EU undertook a commitment to respect the rights and principles in the Charter and said that all the legislation of the EU will be brought in line with these rights.
In the Commission Communication Commission Communication of February 2001. issued immediately after the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the institutions of the EU undertook a commitment to respect the rights and principles in the Charter and said that all the legislation of the EU will be brought in line with these rights.
It should be noted that once the Community/Union has intervened in a particular field, then it is clear that it has competence.
It should be noted that once the Community/Union has intervened in a particular field, then it is clear that it has competence.
The question is then whether, in exercising these powers, the Community/Union fully respects the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The question is then whether, in exercising these powers, the Community/Union fully respects the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
It is not sufficient that the rights and principles of the Charter are not violated.
It is not sufficient that the rights and principles of the Charter are not violated.
It should also be ensured that, in a field in which the Community/Union has intervened, it does not tolerate such violations by the Member States which act as a decentralized European administration.
It should also be ensured that, in a field in which the Community/Union has intervened, it does not tolerate such violations by the Member States which act as a decentralized European administration.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, a State whose internal legal order does not prohibit violations of the rights and freedoms protected by that instrument when they are committed by federated entities or private parties, in fact is violating the European Convention on Human Rights, because such violations have at least their indirect source in the failure of the legislator, a State organ, to take appropriate measures See, e.g., Eur.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, a State whose internal legal order does not prohibit violations of the rights and freedoms protected by that instrument when they are committed by federated entities or private parties, in fact is violating the European Convention on Human Rights, because such violations have at least their indirect source in the failure of the legislator, a State organ, to take appropriate measures See, e.g., Eur.
Ct HR, Young, James et Webster v. United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A n° 44, § 89 ; Eur.
Ct HR, Young, James et Webster v. United Kingdom judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A n° 44, § 89 ; Eur.
HR, X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A n°91, § 23 ; Eur.
HR, X and Y v. the Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A n°91, § 23 ; Eur.
HR, Lopez Ostra v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A n° 303-C, § 51 ; Eur.
HR, Lopez Ostra v. Spain judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A n° 303-C, § 51 ; Eur.
HR, A v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 September 1998. .
HR, A v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 September 1998. .
Although the Union is not itself a signatory to the ECHR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as an instrument for the protection of human rights, should give rise to similar obligations for the EU.
Although the Union is not itself a signatory to the ECHR, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as an instrument for the protection of human rights, should give rise to similar obligations for the EU.
Consequently, once the European legislator has intervened in a particular field it should be verified whether it has adopted all the measures which could reasonably prevent the risk of a violation of fundamental right in the field in question, taking account of course of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Consequently, once the European legislator has intervened in a particular field it should be verified whether it has adopted all the measures which could reasonably prevent the risk of a violation of fundamental right in the field in question, taking account of course of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Notwithstanding any measures which are adopted by the EU to prevent the risk of a violation of a fundamental right, in the event that the behaviour of a Member State seems to be acting contrary to the principles in the Charter of Fundamental rights Article 7 of the EU Treaty provides a mechanism for determining the existence of a clear risk of a breach or a serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights.
Notwithstanding any measures which are adopted by the EU to prevent the risk of a violation of a fundamental right, in the event that the behaviour of a Member State seems to be acting contrary to the principles in the Charter of Fundamental rights Article 7 of the EU Treaty provides a mechanism for determining the existence of a clear risk of a breach or a serious and persistent breach of fundamental rights.
As regards the existence of a clear risk of a breach of fundamental rights, this mechanism can be initiated by the European Parliament on, for example, the basis of information received in a petition, after of course having followed its internal procedures.
As regards the existence of a clear risk of a breach of fundamental rights, this mechanism can be initiated by the European Parliament on, for example, the basis of information received in a petition, after of course having followed its internal procedures.
Role in a proper functioning democracy
Role in a proper functioning democracy
Freedom of expression and information is also vital for the exercise of other fundamental rights, including freedom of opinion and freedom of association, that are crucial to the proper functioning of a democracy In this connection, see the case-law of the Italian and German Constitutional Courts (BVerfGE 57,295,319 e BVerfGE 83, 238,295; 87,181, 197). .
Freedom of expression and information is also vital for the exercise of other fundamental rights, including freedom of opinion and freedom of association, that are crucial to the proper functioning of a democracy In this connection, see the case-law of the Italian and German Constitutional Courts (BVerfGE 57,295,319 e BVerfGE 83, 238,295; 87,181, 197). .
There are three interlocking sets of rights: the right of voters to make an informed choice, the right of candidates to put their policies across and the right of the media to report and express their views on matters of public interest.
There are three interlocking sets of rights: the right of voters to make an informed choice, the right of candidates to put their policies across and the right of the media to report and express their views on matters of public interest.
"Media and elections: case studies", the European Institute for the Media.
"Media and elections: case studies", the European Institute for the Media.
It follows that the fuller and more diverse are the available sources of information, the more the expression of the will of the people will be solidly grounded, above all at the moment of voting - be it at local, regional, national, or European level Under the 'functional' approach, it is for the State to take appropriate measures to ensure that the choice of media available offers as much diversity and balance as is possible (German Federal Constitutional Court, N° 73, 118, 159 et seq.; BVerfGE N° 97, 228 258,266 et seq.; N° 95, 163, 172 et seq.). .
It follows that the fuller and more diverse are the available sources of information, the more the expression of the will of the people will be solidly grounded, above all at the moment of voting - be it at local, regional, national, or European level Under the 'functional' approach, it is for the State to take appropriate measures to ensure that the choice of media available offers as much diversity and balance as is possible (German Federal Constitutional Court, N° 73, 118, 159 et seq.; BVerfGE N° 97, 228 258,266 et seq.; N° 95, 163, 172 et seq.). .
On this basis, it is clear that the protection of pluralism is a vital criterion for the EU, in the context of reinforcing the idea of European citizenship and the democracy principle set out in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty, all the more so due to the right of EU citizens to stand and vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European Parliament elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals Enshrined in the Treaty and detailed arrangements are laid down in Council Directive 96/30/EC of 13 May 1996 amending Directive 94/80/EC laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, Directive 93/109/EC - Voting rights of EU citizens living in a Member State of which they are not nationals in European Parliament elections. .
On this basis, it is clear that the protection of pluralism is a vital criterion for the EU, in the context of reinforcing the idea of European citizenship and the democracy principle set out in Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty, all the more so due to the right of EU citizens to stand and vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal and European Parliament elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals Enshrined in the Treaty and detailed arrangements are laid down in Council Directive 96/30/EC of 13 May 1996 amending Directive 94/80/EC laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals, Directive 93/109/EC - Voting rights of EU citizens living in a Member State of which they are not nationals in European Parliament elections. .
Protection of pluralism in the Member States and the accession countries
Protection of pluralism in the Member States and the accession countries
In order to assist with the preparation of this report the EP commissioned the European Institute for the Media (EIM) to prepare a comparative study entitled: "“ the information of the citizen in the EU: obligations for the media and the Institutions concerning the citizen’s right to be fully and objectively informed ”, covering all the Member States and the accession countries.
In order to assist with the preparation of this report the EP commissioned the European Institute for the Media (EIM) to prepare a comparative study entitled: "“ the information of the citizen in the EU: obligations for the media and the Institutions concerning the citizen’s right to be fully and objectively informed ”, covering all the Member States and the accession countries.
A preliminary expertise was presented by the EIM on 5th March 2004 covering France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
A preliminary expertise was presented by the EIM on 5th March 2004 covering France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and United Kingdom.
This study sets out the legislative and regulatory framework in each country examined, including not only the rules on the ownership of the media, but also the existence of codes of conduct of journalists.
This study sets out the legislative and regulatory framework in each country examined, including not only the rules on the ownership of the media, but also the existence of codes of conduct of journalists.
The report then describes the "main players in the media landscape" in which the institute analyses the number of channels/titles and the ownership of the titles.
The report then describes the "main players in the media landscape" in which the institute analyses the number of channels/titles and the ownership of the titles.
Finally, the report sets out conclusions and issues of concern.
Finally, the report sets out conclusions and issues of concern.
This report aims to examine the issues in an objective manner and to provide data which can be used as parameters to measure the level of pluralism in the Member States.
This report aims to examine the issues in an objective manner and to provide data which can be used as parameters to measure the level of pluralism in the Member States.
This preliminary study analyses the situation in a selection of Member States including larger Member States, smaller Member States and examples from Scandinavia, Southern Europe and an accession country to give an overview of different systems reflecting different traditions of media use in an objective manner.
This preliminary study analyses the situation in a selection of Member States including larger Member States, smaller Member States and examples from Scandinavia, Southern Europe and an accession country to give an overview of different systems reflecting different traditions of media use in an objective manner.
The complete study due in June will contain final comparative conclusions based on the situation on all 25 current and new EU Member States and complete recommendations.
The complete study due in June will contain final comparative conclusions based on the situation on all 25 current and new EU Member States and complete recommendations.
The rapporteur considers that there is a need for an annual report on pluralism examining, for example, the level of concentration on the supply side, (horizontal, vertical and cross-ownership), editorial independence, diversity of content (internal and external) and demand, i.e. public preferences and suggests that the report of the European Institute for the Media provides a good basis.
The rapporteur considers that there is a need for an annual report on pluralism examining, for example, the level of concentration on the supply side, (horizontal, vertical and cross-ownership), editorial independence, diversity of content (internal and external) and demand, i.e. public preferences and suggests that the report of the European Institute for the Media provides a good basis.