natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
She notes that in each of the eight countries examined (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and United Kingdom) there are issues which require further investigation, and strongly considers that there are sufficient concerns to warrant a detailed examination of the situation by the European Commission.
She notes that in each of the eight countries examined (France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and United Kingdom) there are issues which require further investigation, and strongly considers that there are sufficient concerns to warrant a detailed examination of the situation by the European Commission.
Furthermore, having examined in particular the work of the Council of Europe in this field and many other reports into the situation in the media in the EU "Television and the concentration of the media", European Audiovisual Observatory, 2001 (new report is expected mid February 2004); Media diversity in Europe, Council of Europe, Advisory panel on media concentrations, pluralism and diversity questions 2002; "The impact of media concentration on professional journalism", OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media; Report of the network of independent experts on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU; the reports of the European Federation of Journalists. she considers that there is an urgent need for further action to ensure the protection of pluralism.
Furthermore, having examined in particular the work of the Council of Europe in this field and many other reports into the situation in the media in the EU "Television and the concentration of the media", European Audiovisual Observatory, 2001 (new report is expected mid February 2004); Media diversity in Europe, Council of Europe, Advisory panel on media concentrations, pluralism and diversity questions 2002; "The impact of media concentration on professional journalism", OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media; Report of the network of independent experts on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU; the reports of the European Federation of Journalists. she considers that there is an urgent need for further action to ensure the protection of pluralism.
Existing instruments at EU level
Existing instruments at EU level
The current EU regulatory framework concerning the media is currently very fragmented, being contained in the television without frontiers directive, in the competition rules and in the telecommunications package.
The current EU regulatory framework concerning the media is currently very fragmented, being contained in the television without frontiers directive, in the competition rules and in the telecommunications package.
In the case of the television without frontiers directive and the merger regulation, the EU rules permit the Member States to adopt stricter rules in order to ensure the protection of pluralism.
In the case of the television without frontiers directive and the merger regulation, the EU rules permit the Member States to adopt stricter rules in order to ensure the protection of pluralism.
a) Audiovisual policy
a) Audiovisual policy
This directive harmonises the provisions regarding advertising, sponsorship, the protection of minors and the right of reply which had been frequently invoked by the Member States in ways that blocked the free movement of broadcast content.
This directive harmonises the provisions regarding advertising, sponsorship, the protection of minors and the right of reply which had been frequently invoked by the Member States in ways that blocked the free movement of broadcast content.
It proposes the creation of a European audiovisual area and an obligation on broadcasters to include a quota of European programmes in their schedules.
It proposes the creation of a European audiovisual area and an obligation on broadcasters to include a quota of European programmes in their schedules.
This directive does not seek to ensure the protection of pluralism, but leaves it to the Member States “to require television broadcasters under their jurisdiction to comply with more detailed or stricter rules in the areas covered by this Directive”.
This directive does not seek to ensure the protection of pluralism, but leaves it to the Member States “to require television broadcasters under their jurisdiction to comply with more detailed or stricter rules in the areas covered by this Directive”.
Article 26 The Preamble of Directive 97/36/EC specifies that the Member States may exercise this right with a view to adopting rules concerning “ the need to safeguard pluralism in the information industry and the media, and the protection of competition with a view to avoiding the abuse of dominant positions and/or the establishment or strengthening of dominant positions by mergers, agreements, acquisitions or similar initiatives; whereas such rules must be compatible with Community law” (44 th recital).
Article 26 The Preamble of Directive 97/36/EC specifies that the Member States may exercise this right with a view to adopting rules concerning “ the need to safeguard pluralism in the information industry and the media, and the protection of competition with a view to avoiding the abuse of dominant positions and/or the establishment or strengthening of dominant positions by mergers, agreements, acquisitions or similar initiatives; whereas such rules must be compatible with Community law” (44 th recital).
It does not, however, regulate individualised on‑demand services, nor does it set minimum standards for the protection of pluralism, for the role of universal service and the means of paying for it (licences/fees/advertising revenue), for the status of public-sector broadcasters and the terms for provision of services, or for relations with other media, notably the press.
It does not, however, regulate individualised on‑demand services, nor does it set minimum standards for the protection of pluralism, for the role of universal service and the means of paying for it (licences/fees/advertising revenue), for the status of public-sector broadcasters and the terms for provision of services, or for relations with other media, notably the press.
b) Competition policy
b) Competition policy
A similar situation exists in relation to Community law in the field of concentrations.
A similar situation exists in relation to Community law in the field of concentrations.
This provision states, “Member States may take appropriate measures to protect legitimate interests other than those taken into consideration by this Regulation and compatible with the general principles and other provisions of Community law”, and it provides that shall in any case be regarded as legitimate interests “public security, plurality of the media and prudential rules”.
This provision states, “Member States may take appropriate measures to protect legitimate interests other than those taken into consideration by this Regulation and compatible with the general principles and other provisions of Community law”, and it provides that shall in any case be regarded as legitimate interests “public security, plurality of the media and prudential rules”.
Member States may therefore prohibit, in the name of media pluralism, any concentration between undertakings, even where this has been authorized in advance by the Commission.
Member States may therefore prohibit, in the name of media pluralism, any concentration between undertakings, even where this has been authorized in advance by the Commission.
c) Telecommunications package
c) Telecommunications package
The package contains common rules for fixed and mobile telephone networks and cable and satellite TV networks, on the basis of the technological neutrality of communications service provision.
The package contains common rules for fixed and mobile telephone networks and cable and satellite TV networks, on the basis of the technological neutrality of communications service provision.
It introduces competition into areas which have traditionally been subject to monopolies or oligopolies.
It introduces competition into areas which have traditionally been subject to monopolies or oligopolies.
It also establishes a number of common rules, concerning: scope and principles; basic definitions; National Regulatory Authorities; the concept of 'dominant market position'; and the procedures for allocating, on the basis of criteria that are objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate, such resources as radio frequencies, numbers and transit rights.
It also establishes a number of common rules, concerning: scope and principles; basic definitions; National Regulatory Authorities; the concept of 'dominant market position'; and the procedures for allocating, on the basis of criteria that are objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate, such resources as radio frequencies, numbers and transit rights.
It is presumed that an enterprise having significant market power enjoys a position of economic strength enabling it to act to a large extent independently of competitors, clients and consumers in general.
It is presumed that an enterprise having significant market power enjoys a position of economic strength enabling it to act to a large extent independently of competitors, clients and consumers in general.
With a view to ensuring the free flow of information, media pluralism and cultural diversity, the providers of interactive digital TV services are encouraged to make their platforms available to the Community public and to use open APIs.
With a view to ensuring the free flow of information, media pluralism and cultural diversity, the providers of interactive digital TV services are encouraged to make their platforms available to the Community public and to use open APIs.
It gives the Member States the possibility to impose obligations on the cable operators to carry the public service broadcaster.
It gives the Member States the possibility to impose obligations on the cable operators to carry the public service broadcaster.
Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive.
Article 31 of the Universal Service Directive.
Possible future measures
Possible future measures
The European Union has used its powers to intervene in areas relating to the media, but in mergers and in the television without frontiers directive it has left it to the Member States to take measures to ensure the protection of pluralism.
The European Union has used its powers to intervene in areas relating to the media, but in mergers and in the television without frontiers directive it has left it to the Member States to take measures to ensure the protection of pluralism.
This creates the impression that the Member States, when they take action in accordance with the exception provided, they will by definition be acting in conformity with the requirements of fundamental rights.
This creates the impression that the Member States, when they take action in accordance with the exception provided, they will by definition be acting in conformity with the requirements of fundamental rights.
Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Instead of leaving the current ambiguous situation, the rapporteur considers that these instruments need to be revised to define the obligations of the Member States to ensure the protection of pluralism.
Instead of leaving the current ambiguous situation, the rapporteur considers that these instruments need to be revised to define the obligations of the Member States to ensure the protection of pluralism.
As mentioned above, once the European legislator has intervened in particular field it should be verified whether it has indeed adopted all the measures which could reasonably prevent the risk of a violation of fundamental in the field in question.
As mentioned above, once the European legislator has intervened in particular field it should be verified whether it has indeed adopted all the measures which could reasonably prevent the risk of a violation of fundamental in the field in question.
The rapporteur therefore urges the Commission to make a thorough review of the existing powers (the internal market (Article 95 EC), competition law (Articles 81-89), cultural policy (Article 151) Cf. the new wording of Article 151(4) EC (post-Amsterdam), which makes the protection of culture a matter for the Community and the Member States. , the right of establishment (Articles 43-48), the freedom to provide services (Articles 49-55), the rights of citizens (Articles 19-22) and the monitoring of public broadcasting (protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam) This is referred to in the resolution of the Council and the Member State government representatives adopted on 25 January 1999 - see OJ C 30, 5.2.1999. ) to assess the measures which could be adopted to ensure the protection of pluralism.
The rapporteur therefore urges the Commission to make a thorough review of the existing powers (the internal market (Article 95 EC), competition law (Articles 81-89), cultural policy (Article 151) Cf. the new wording of Article 151(4) EC (post-Amsterdam), which makes the protection of culture a matter for the Community and the Member States. , the right of establishment (Articles 43-48), the freedom to provide services (Articles 49-55), the rights of citizens (Articles 19-22) and the monitoring of public broadcasting (protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam) This is referred to in the resolution of the Council and the Member State government representatives adopted on 25 January 1999 - see OJ C 30, 5.2.1999. ) to assess the measures which could be adopted to ensure the protection of pluralism.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that for the Member States to be able to intervene better, their legal framework should be strengthened by the adoption at EU level of specific measures that guarantee pluralism.
The rapporteur is of the opinion that for the Member States to be able to intervene better, their legal framework should be strengthened by the adoption at EU level of specific measures that guarantee pluralism.
This is particularly important given the opportunities and the threats that the information society poses, especially regarding new offerings, such as digital services.
This is particularly important given the opportunities and the threats that the information society poses, especially regarding new offerings, such as digital services.
It should also be acknowledged that the private sector is strongly driven by economic factors, but just as, for example, in relation to the protection of the environment, good corporate behaviour should be expected from market operators.
It should also be acknowledged that the private sector is strongly driven by economic factors, but just as, for example, in relation to the protection of the environment, good corporate behaviour should be expected from market operators.
Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance that in the public sector there are high standards and the promotion of pluralism so that this sector can provide an example to the private sector.
Furthermore, it is of the utmost importance that in the public sector there are high standards and the promotion of pluralism so that this sector can provide an example to the private sector.
In the draft resolution, she has made suggestions based on Council of Europe resolutions and recommendations, practices in the Member States, and suggestions received from experts and contributions at the seminar on pluralism in the media.
In the draft resolution, she has made suggestions based on Council of Europe resolutions and recommendations, practices in the Member States, and suggestions received from experts and contributions at the seminar on pluralism in the media.
Of course, the principle relevant instrument is the television without frontiers directive, and it is essential that the protection of pluralism be included in the next revision of this directive.
Of course, the principle relevant instrument is the television without frontiers directive, and it is essential that the protection of pluralism be included in the next revision of this directive.
9. juli 2003
9 July 2003
af Sylviane Ainardi m.fl.
by Sylviane Ainardi and others,
om risikoen for alvorlige krænkelser af grundlæggende rettigheder som ytrings- og informationsfrihed i Italien
on the risk of a serious breach of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and of information in Italy
A. der henviser til, at Unionen er baseret på respekten for de grundlæggende rettigheder, som sikres med den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention (ECHR),
A. whereas the Union is based on respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),
B. der henviser til, at artikel 10 i ECHR giver enhver ret til ytringsfrihed, hvilket indebærer frihed til at give eller modtage meddelelser eller tanker uden indblanding fra offentlige myndigheder,
B. whereas Article 10 of the ECHR safeguards the fundamental right of freedom of expression, which is also to be interpreted as freedom to receive or communicate information or ideas without any interference from public authorities,
C. der henviser til, at adskillige kilder, både offentlige (Europa-Parlamentet, Europarådet, FN) og private (EU's net af uafhængige eksperter om menneskerettigheder, det europæiske journalistforbund, Reporters sans Frontières, Articolo 21 Liberi di samt den internationale presse), har givet udtryk for deres misbilligelse af den kritiske situation, der er opstået i Italien, hvor Berlusconi, i sin egenskab af ministerpræsident og forretningsmand, kontrollerer hele spektret af offentlige og private radio- og tv-kanaler, aviser, forlag og reklamevirksomhed,
C. whereas several sources, both public (European Parliament, Council of Europe, UN) and private (EU Network of Independent Experts on Human Rights, European Federation of Journalists, Reporters sans Frontières, Articolo 21 Liberi di, and the international press), have deprecated the critical situation which has developed in Italy, where Mr Berlusconi, as Prime Minister and businessman, controls the entire spectrum of public and private radio and TV broadcasting, newspapers, publishing houses and advertising,
D. der henviser til, at disse forhold, der har givet sig udslag i en række episoder med krænkelse af bestemmelserne vedrørende ytringsfrihed, er blevet drøftet i Parlamentets relevante udvalg, og at der er tilstrækkelige grunde til at indlede den i artikel 7, stk. 1, i EU-traktaten omhandlede procedure,
D. whereas this ongoing situation, which has been marked by several incidents that breach the rules governing freedom of expression, has been considered by the parliamentary committee concerned, and whereas there are adequate grounds for initiating the procedure referred to in Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty,
19.marts 2004 UDTALELSE FRA UDVALGET OM RETLIGE ANLIGGENDER OG DET INDRE MARKED
19 March 2004 OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AFFAIRS AND THE INTERNAL MARKET
om risikoen for krænkelse af ytrings- og informationsfriheden (artikel 11, stk. 2, i chartret om grundlæggende rettigheder) i EU og navnlig i Italien
on the own-initiative report on the parameters for determining the risks of violation, in the EU and especially in Italy, of freedom of expression and information (Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - ‘the freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected’)
På mødet den 27. januar 2004 valgte Udvalget om Retlige Anliggender og det Indre Marked Klaus-Heiner Lehne til rådgivende ordfører.
The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market appointed Klaus-Heiner Lehne draftsman at its meeting of 27 January 2004.
På møder den 8. marts og 17. marts 2004 behandlede udvalget udkastet til udtalelse.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 8 March 2004 and 17 March 2004.
På sidstnævnte møde vedtog det nedenstående forslag (for: 16; imod: 15; hverken/eller: 0).
At the last meeting it adopted the following suggestions by 16 votes to 15.
Til stede under afstemningen var: Giuseppe Gargani (formand), Willi Rothley og Ioannis Koukiadis (næstformænd), Paolo Bartolozzi, Maria Berger, Bert Doorn, Raina A. Mercedes Echerer (for Uma Aaltonen), Giovanni Claudio Fava (for Carlos Candal, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Francesco Fiori (for Klaus-Heiner Lehne, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Marie-Françoise Garaud, Malcolm Harbour, Piia-Noora Kauppi (for Janelly Fourtou), Kurt Lechner, Giorgio Lisi (for Marianne L.P. Thyssen, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Sir Neil MacCormick, Toine Manders, Lucio Manisco (for Michel J.M. Dary, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Arlene McCarthy, Manuel Medina Ortega, Pasqualina Napoletano (for Bill Miller, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (for José María Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado), Barbara O'Toole (for Evelyne Gebhardt), Elena Ornella Paciotti (for Fiorella Ghilardotti), Anne-Marie Schaffner, Francesco Enrico Speroni (for Alexandre Varaut), Bruno Trentin (for François Zimeray, jf. forretningsordenens artikel 153, stk. 2), Ian Twinn (for Lord Inglewood), Diana Wallis, Rainer Wieland, Joachim Wuermeling og Stefano Zappalà.
The following were present for the vote: Giuseppe Gargani (chairman), Willi Rothley (vice-chairman), Ioannis Koukiadis (vice-chairman), Paolo Bartolozzi, Maria Berger, Bert Doorn, Raina A. Mercedes Echerer (for Uma Aaltonen), Giovanni Claudio Fava (for Carlos Candal pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Francesco Fiori (for Klaus-Heiner Lehne pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Marie-Françoise Garaud, Malcolm Harbour, Piia-Noora Kauppi (for Janelly Fourtou), Kurt Lechner, Giorgio Lisi (for Marianne L.P. Thyssen pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Sir Neil MacCormick, Toine Manders, Lucio Manisco (for Michel J.M. Dary pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Arlene McCarthy, Manuel Medina Ortega, Pasqualina Napoletano (for Bill Miller pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (for José María Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado), Barbara O'Toole (for Evelyne Gebhardt), Elena Ornella Paciotti (for Fiorella Ghilardotti), Anne-Marie Schaffner, Francesco Enrico Speroni (for Alexandre Varaut), Bruno Trentin (for François Zimeray pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Ian Twinn (for Lord Inglewood), Diana Wallis, Rainer Wieland, Joachim Wuermeling and Stefano Zappalà.
Pluralisme og ytringsfrihed i et system med demokrati og et frit marked, som det er tilfældet i EU's medlemsstater, betyder, at alle borgere og alle kulturelle, sociale og territoriale grupperinger er garanteret muligheden for at benytte eller få adgang til kommunikationsmidlerne på lige vilkår.
Pluralism and freedom of expression under a democratic free-market system of the kind existing in all EU Member States mean that the legal possibility of using or having access to communications media must be guaranteed for all citizens and all forms of cultural, social and regional expression.
Denne adgang foregår imidlertid inden for de grænser, der er udstukket af forekomsten af de steder og midler, der er nødvendige for at kunne udøve den, og under hensyntagen til andre garanterede forfatningsmæssige rettigheder.
However, access is subject to the limits on the availability of the space and resources needed to enjoy it, taking into account other constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Frihed i denne forbindelse indebærer fravær af forebyggende kontrol og censur.
Freedom must also entail absence of preventive controls and censorship.
Det frie marked unddrager sig - også inden for informationssektoren - politisk kontrol.
The free market, in the information sector as elsewhere, eludes political control.
Og i et demokratisk system kan man ikke diktere pluralisme uden at begrænse presse- og ytringsfriheden.
Moreover, in a democratic system, pluralism cannot be imposed by decree without restricting freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
Beskyttelsen af ytrings- og informationsfriheden i Europa bør i øvrigt tage højde for den dybtgående og hastige teknologiske udvikling, der pågår.
The protection of freedom of expression and information in Europe should also be seen in the context of the wide-ranging and rapid technological changes taking place.