Activities of Clare DALY related to 2022/0277(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Media Freedom Act (debate)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the 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
Amendments (83)
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) 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 andand can, when they live up to the ideal of independent, fearless and impartial journalism, fulfil the function of ‘public watchdog’. It must be acknowledged that much journalism fails to live up to this normative ideal, and that it is extremely difficult for truly independent, fearless and impartial journalism to thrive in a media and political ecosystem dominated by corporate power. Media services are increasingly available online and subject to ever more intense marketisation. They are also increasingly available across borders whileand they are not subject to the same rules and the same level of protection in different Member States.
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Given their potentially 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 While the scope of this Regulation is limited to the regulation of the internal market features of media services, it should be noted that the protection of media freedom and pluralism is a prerequisite for functional democracy, and wholesale marketisation and corporate capture of media services, as currently exists, is deeply invidious to democratic functioning. The environment for media services 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 toaspired to by the Union and to its Member States.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) 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 ofthe same profit-driven business models that dominate across non-online media. Online platforms, in common with traditional media, tend to amplify polarising content because of this profit motive, however online platforms are structured to facilitate instantaneous feedback loops in order to drive constant engagement, which facilitates more rapid and deeper polarisation than traditional media. The business model of these platforms is to monetise engagement to sell online advertising, which has diverted financial resources from the traditional media sector, affecting its financial sustainability, and consequently the diversity of content on offer. As media services are knowledge- and capital- . While content diversity and the resources available to investigative journalism had been in decline for many years across traditional media before the growth of online platforms, and ‘churnalism’ had come to dominatensive, they require scale to remain competitive and to 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, the decrease in funding from advertising available to traditional media accelerated the decline of quality journalism. Notwithstanding the veneration of media as a crucial pillar of democracy, Member State governments have not in any substantial way stepped in to make funding available on a no-strings- attached basis to traditional media to support quality investigative or other journalism.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) However, tThe internal market for media services is insufficiweakly integrated. While acknowledging that news and current affairs contently, integrated. A number of national r particular, tend to be heavily localised, and relevant only to local or domestrictions hamper free movement within the internal market. In particular, audiences, and acknowledging that access to local and domestic news and current affairs content is crucial for the health of Member State democracies, it is the case that different national rules and approaches related to media pluralism and editorial independence, insufficientlimited 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 acrosin circumstances twhe 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 certainre profit motives and shareholder demands induce pressure for media players to expand theird countrie operations.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(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 riskthe likelihood of furthering the divergence in national approaches and restrictions to the free movement of capital in the internal market.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) 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. Such level of protection must 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 necessarydesirable to harmonise certain aspects of national rules related to media services. In the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizenparticipants 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. _________________ 46 Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, in particular proposal 27 (1) and 37 (4).
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) 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, including non-standard forms,such as freelancing. 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.
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) 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, such providers play a key role in the content organisation of content, including by automated means or algorithms, but claim they do not exercise editorial responsibility over the content to which they provide access. However, in the increasingly convergent media environment, somemany 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 entityin circumstances where such an entity exercises editorial control, whether via algorithm or otherwise, it could be qualified both as a video-sharing platform provider or a very large online platform provider and as a media service provider.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure that society reaps the benefits of the internal media marketa well-functioning media ecosystem, it is essential not only to guarantee the fundamental freedoms under the Treaty, but also. It is also necessary to provide 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, however there is a clear normative obligation on them to do so. Quality media services, where they exist, provide citizens with a wide range of reliable information, perspectives, arguments, and views, all of which are a necessary if not sufficient condition in the face of deep social and economic inequalities for a healthy democratic public sphere in which disinformation, including foreign information manipulation and interference is less likely to seem attractive or plausible to media recipients.
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Member States have taken different approaches to the protection of editorial independence, which is increasingly challengedhas been challenged for many years across the Union. In particular, there is growing interference withlongstanding pressure on editorial decisions of media service providers in severall Member States. Such interferencpressure can be direct or indirect, implicit or explicit, from the State or other actors, including business interests, 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 maregularly 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 advantacompromise editorial freedom in the pursuit of economic, political, or other advantage. There have also been recent and high-profile examples of extreme attacks on media freedom in Europe, such as the prosecution and continuing imprisonment of Julian Assange. 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 necessarydesirable 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.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Journalists and editors, are the main actors in the producccording to normative standards, have an obligation andto provision of trustworthyduce factual media content, in particular byin their 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 ofs for 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 tois an essential element of the protection of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16 a (new)
Recital 16 a (new)
(16a) Recital 16a (new) (16a) Surveillance methods deployed against journalists are varied, such as interception of electronic communications and metadata, device or software hacking including denial of service attacks, wiretapping, bugging, videotaping, geolocation tracking via Radiofrequency identification (RFID), Global Positioning System (GPS) or cell-site data, data mining and social media monitoring. These techniques may gravely impact journalists’ rights to privacy, data protectionand freedom of expression. The protections afforded by this Regulation therefore encompass current forms of digital surveillance but also future technologies that may appear along with technological innovation and they are without prejudice to the application of existing and future Union’s law that restricts or prohibits the development, trade in, and use of specific surveillance technologies deemed too invasive. Considering the preliminary remarks of the European Data Protection Supervisor on modern spyware, spyware which grant full unlimited access to personal data, including sensitive data, on a device could affect the very essence of the right to privacy, and thus should under no circumstance be considered necessary and proportionate under Union law.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(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 marketIn spite of existing standards codified by the Council of Europe and of established case law by the European Court of Human Rights, practical examples from several Member States have revealed very different approaches to this matter and a lack of protection for journalistic sources in some situations. As a result, journalists, whicho work increasingly on cross-border projects and provide their servicesinformation 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, in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and in compliance with other Union Law. In order to offer an adequate protection to journalistic sources, measures disposing the disclosure of journalistic sources should be, ex ante, ordered exclusively by a court of law or a judge. Such measures should only be ordered at the request of an individual or body with a direct legitimate interest, and who has exhausted all reasonable alternatives to protect that interest, only if there is an overriding requirement in the public interest provided for in national law, the information sought is essential for investigations of serious crimes, there are no other alternatives for obtaining the information sought and the interference with journalists’ rights is proportionate and prescribed by law. The interest in disclosure of journalistic sources should always be balanced against the harm to freedom of expression and information. Any such measures should be subject to appeal in a higher court.
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Public service media established by the Member States play a particular role in the internal media market, by ensuring thatand can, when operating independently, in the public interest, and with input from and the participation of the broadest possible base of society, help in providing citizens and businesses havewith 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 interferundue political influence, 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 marketEven in the absence of undue political influence, public service media in neoliberalised societies can be guilty of retreat from the interests, concerns, and aspirations of the public, a retreat that is reflected in their ongoing marginalisation or exclusion as partners in the project of public service media as well as an excessive attentiveness to political and economic power centres, and a preoccuption with legitimation from above. This situation leads to biased or partial media coverage, and negatively affects access to independent and impartial media services. It is thus necessarydesirable, 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 in a transparent, impartial and independent way, and 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.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(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 forhelpful to 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 that should include proportionate requirements to disclose ownership information. In this context, the measures taken by Member States under Article 30(9) of Directive (EU) 2015/84949should 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. _________________ 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).
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(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 editoowners come to media ownership with their own ideologies and preoccupations, and very often with particular political goals they wish to pursue via media ownership. It has long been recognised that media owners will populate their editorial staff with individuals who broadly toe the line in regard to media owners’ own ideologies and perspectives, meaning overt editorital interference by media owners is unnecessary. Nonetheless, media service providers should adopt proportionate measures to guarantee, in line with the broad editorial line imposed by owners, 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, including in particular business interests and political affiliations, to their service recipients.
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(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 bodies and coordinating their actions. The European Regulators Group for 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. Considering that press publications are traditionally not subject to mandatory regulatory oversight, the regulation of press publications is outside the scope of this Regulation.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(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 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.
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(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 adIn order to effectively fulfil its tasks, the Board should be able to rely on the expertise and human resources of a secretariat. The secretariat should provisde and assist the Commission on regulatory, technical or practical aspects pertinent to the application of Union law, promote cooperationdministrative and organisational support to the Board, 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 tasklp the Board in carrying out its tasks. The secretariate should be appointed through open competition, and be furnished with adequate budgetary and human resources to fulfil its functions.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
Recital 25
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(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 assdvisted 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.
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(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 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.
Amendment 248 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
Recital 35
(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.
Amendment 257 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Building on the useful role played by ERGA in monitoring compliance by the signatories of EU Code of Practice on Disinformation, tThe 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 improtecting society from harmful content, including those aimed at countering disving the public’s access to reliable information. 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 itfor advice from the Board to this effect.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
Recital 38
(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.
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
(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.
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in democratic processescan contribute to a democratic public sphere, when well- functioning and living up to normative standards, including as regards topic selection. 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 competingin access to a variety of views within that market as a result of the concentration.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
Recital 43
(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 on its own initiative, or, if the Board agrees, 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.
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 44
Recital 44
(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.
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
Recital 48
(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 fundamental rights and 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 Council56does 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).
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 50
Recital 50
(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 indicatorscriteria, 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.
Amendment 311 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. 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 and are in line with Council of Europe standards.
Amendment 328 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)
(9a) ‘editorial independence’, has the meaning described in the Recommendation;
Amendment 330 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 b (new)
(9b) ‘editor in chief’ means a person who supervises editorial decisions and, based on national rules, is liable for the content;
Amendment 332 #
(13) ‘media market concentration’ means a concentration that may have an impact on media pluralism and as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one media service provider;
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 16
(16) ‘spyware’ means any product with digital elements specially designed to exploit vulnerabilities in other products with digital elementsurveillance technologies’ means any electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device that enables the covert surveillance of natural or legal persacquisition of informations 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 devicesany information and communication technology, without the natural or legal person concerned being made aware in a specific manner and having given their express specific , free and informedconsent in that regard;
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – introductory part
(17) ‘serious crime’ means any of the following criminal offences listed in Article 2(2) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA58: _________________ 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).
Amendment 352 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point a
(a) terrorism, as defined in Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Amendment 354 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point h
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 17 – point h
Amendment 381 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) 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, and unless such actions have been subjected to ex ante review by a judicial authority, are proportionate and necessary to the aim to be achieved;
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(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.
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)
(ca) actions taken under subsection 2(b) shall be subject to case-by-case ex post judicial review.
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Public service media providers shall provide in an impartial manner a wide plurality of information and opinions to their audiences and shall strive for the broadest possible representational diversity, in accordance with their public service mission.
Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
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-discriminatory procedure, open to all, and on the basis of transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance by national law. Member States should ensure diversity of representation on public service governing boards, to include demographic diversity.
Amendment 441 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. 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 thatas to facilitate and nurture editorial independence is safeguarded.
Amendment 506 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) ensure disclosure of any actual or potential conflict of interest, including in particular business interests and political affiliations, by any party having a stake in media service providers that may affect the provision of news and current affairs content.
Amendment 525 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 1
1. 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. Member States shall guarantee the organisational and functional autonomy of their national regulatory authorities or bodies.
Amendment 560 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Amendment 574 #
6. The Board, in agreement with the Commission, may invite experts and observers to attend its meetings.
Amendment 584 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 8
Article 10 – paragraph 8
8. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights, in agreement with the Commission.
Amendment 588 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall have a secretariat, which shall be provided by the Commissionose members shall be appointed through open competition and which shall be provided with sufficient budgetary resources to conduct its work effectively.
Amendment 602 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) 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;
Amendment 604 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) advise the Commission, where requested by it, on its own initiative 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 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;
Amendment 615 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d
(d) when requested by the Commissionon its own initiative, 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;
Amendment 622 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part
(e) in agreement with the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:
Amendment 624 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i
Amendment 628 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – introductory part
(f) on its own initiative, or, if the Board agrees, upon request of the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:
Amendment 648 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point h – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point h – introductory part
(h) assistprovide advice to the Commission in regard to drawing up guidelines with respect to:
Amendment 651 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point k
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point k
Amendment 653 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point l
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point l
(l) 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 Regulatpublic, the European Parliament, and the Commission;
Amendment 675 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 701 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. 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.
Amendment 706 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
1. 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.
Amendment 707 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 15 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. 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 providinge expertise on regulatory, technical or practical aspects, as regards in particular:
Amendment 716 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – title
Article 16 – title
Amendment 718 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Amendment 730 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2
Article 16 – paragraph 2
2. The Board, in agreement with the Commission, may issue opinions oin 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 Boardregard to the dissemination of or access to media services provided by media service providers established outside the Union that target audiences in the Union.
Amendment 737 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17
Article 17
Amendment 788 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1
Article 18 – paragraph 1
1. 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 interferencethis Regulation.
Amendment 791 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 816 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Article 20 – paragraph 4
4. The Board, on its own initiative or, if the Board agrees, 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.
Amendment 820 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Amendment 838 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point c
Amendment 841 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 3
Article 21 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, assdvisted 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.
Amendment 849 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1
Article 22 – paragraph 1
1. In the absence of an assessment or a consultation pursuant to Article 21, the Board, on its own initiative or, if the Board agrees, 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.
Amendment 880 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue guidelines on the practical application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article.
Amendment 891 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. 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 and political advertising.
Amendment 926 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1
Article 25 – paragraph 1
1. The CommissionBoard 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.
Amendment 927 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
2. The CommissionBoard shall define key performance indicatorscriteria to be used for the monitoring referred in paragraph 1, in consultation with the Board.
Amendment 930 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 25 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) 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;