Activities of Andrey SLABAKOV related to 2022/0277(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT 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 (63)
Amendment 136 #
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 be in compliance with the right to receive and impart information pursuant to Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). It is thus necessary to harmonise certain aspects of national rules related to media services. In the final report of the Conference on the Future of Europe, citizens called on the EU to further promote media independence and pluralism, in particular by introducing legislation addressing threats to media independence through EU-wide minimum standards46. _________________ 46 Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, in particular proposal 27 (1) and 37 (4).
Amendment 188 #
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 that citizens and businesses have access to quality information and impartial media coverage, as part of their mission. However, public service media can be particularly exposed to the risk of interference, given their institutional proximity to the State and the public funding they receive. This risk may be exacerbated by uneven safeguards related to independent governance and balanced coverage by public service media across the Union. This situation may lead to biased or partial media coverage, distort competition in the internal media market and negatively affect access to independent and impartial media services. It is thus necessary, building on the international standards developed by the Council of Europe in this regard, to put in place legal safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media across the Union. It is also necessary to guarantee that, without prejudice to the application of the Union’s State aid rules, public service media providers benefit from sufficient and stable funding to fulfil their mission that enables predictability in their planning. Preferably, such funding should be decided and appropriated on a multi-year basis, in line with the public service mission of public service media providers, to avoid potential for undue influence from yearly budget negotiations. The requirements laid down in this Regulation do not affect the competence of Member States toapplication of the State aid rules as applied on a case-by-case basis or the competence of Member States to define a broad and dynamic remit, organise and 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 192 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18 a (new)
Recital 18 a (new)
(18a) Audiovisual and audio media services of general interest that play an important role in the opinion-forming of the public have become more difficult to discover and find in the digital age as commercial objectives determine which media services are offered prominently to recipients. In view of the abundance of information and the increasing use of digital means to access the media, it is key that Member States have the ability to take effective measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual and audio media services of general interest under defined general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of speech, access to reliable information, social cohesion and cultural diversity. To effectively realise these general interest objectives, a Member State may introduce prominence measures that are tailored to its specific national context and media market. When imposing obligations, a Member State should be free to regulate device manufacturers and providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services in their jurisdiction irrespective of their place of establishment. A Member State should identify the services that are considered as general interest in its jurisdiction in a transparent and objective manner. In order to be effective, audiovisual and audio media services of general interest should be prominently placed at the first selection level on these devices or user interfaces and should be accessible through a single action by the user, including clicking or scrolling. General interest audiovisual and audio media services should be made prominent in their entirety. Disaggregated content of general interest services should be prioritised on user interfaces where only individual content items are selectable.
Amendment 202 #
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 editors, the freedom of the editors to take individual decisions in the course of their professional activity. The objective to shield editors from undue interference in their decisions taken on specific pieces of content as part of their everyday work contributes to ensuring a level playing field in the internal market for media services and the quality of such services. That objective is also in conformity with the fundamental right to receive and impart information under Article 11 of the Charter. In view of these considerations, media service providers should also ensure transparency of actual or potential conflicts of interest to their service recipients.
Amendment 212 #
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. Given the importance and the extensive nature of the new tasks conferred by this Regulation to the independent national regulatory authorities, directly or indirectly, it is of utmost importance to ensure that the financial, human and technical resources of such authorities or bodies are adequately and sufficiently increased. In this sense, Member States could make use of national resources coming from the auctioning of the spectrum, the digital dividend or the introduction of a levy on regulated entities. Moreover, within the framework of the applicable public function, and budgetary regulations, the national regulatory authorities or bodies should have full authority over the recruitment and management of the staff, who should be hired under clear and transparent rules. The capacity over the management of the staff should include autonomy to decide the required profile, qualification, expertise, and other human resources features, including salary and retribution, with independence from other public bodies. They should also have full autonomy and decision-making control in terms of management of internal structure, organization, and procedures for the effective performance of their duties and the effective exercise of their powers. Without prejudice to national budgetary rules and procedures, national regulatory authorities or bodies should have allocated a separated annual budget.
Amendment 225 #
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, on a case-by-case basis, external experts to attend its meetings, 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 236 #
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 advise and assist the Commission on regulatory, technical or practical aspects pertinent to the application of Union law, promote cooperation and the effective exchange of information, experience and best practices and draw up opinions in agreement with the Commission or upon its request in the cases envisaged by this Regulation. In order to effectively and independently 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 secretariatn independent secretariat dedicated to the Board. The secretariat of the European Board for Media should provide administrative and organisational support to the Board, and help the Board in carrying out its tasks.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) To ensure theAware of these challenges, the European Regulators’ Group for Audiovisual Media Services adopted in 2020 a Memorandum of Understanding, a voluntary framework for cooperation to strengthen cross-border enforcement of media rules on audiovisual media services and video-sharing platforms. Building on this voluntary framework, in order to ensure the comprehensive and effective enforcement of Union media law, to prevent the possible circumvention of the applicable media rules by rogue media service providers and to avoid the raising of additional barriers in the internal market for media services, it is essential to provide for a clear, legally binding framework for national regulatory authorities or bodies to cooperate effectively and efficiently.
Amendment 250 #
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. Such guidelines should respect the Member States’ competence in cultural matters with a view to promoting media pluralism, be principle-based and be without effect to existing national prominence measures. Given the possible impact of the national measures taken under Article 7a on the functioning of the internal media market, guidelines by the Commission would be important to achieve legal certainty in this field. It would also be useful to provide guidance on national measures taken under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU with a view to ensuring the public availability of accessible, accurate and up-to-date information related to media ownership. In the process of preparing its guidelines, the Commission should be assisted by the Board. The Board should in particular share with the Commission its regulatory, technical and practical expertise regarding the areas and topics covered by the respective guidelines.
Amendment 264 #
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 originating from outside the Union (either established outside of the UnionEU, established outside of the EU but under jurisidiction of an EU Member State through the Directive 2010/13/EU satellite criteria or established in the EU), irrespective of the means of distribution or access, that target or reach audiences in the Union where, inter alia in view of the control that may be exercised by third countries State authorities 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 , including the safeguarding of national security and defence, public health, or where their programs include incitement to violence or hatred or public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. In this regard, the cooperation 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 withe Union under Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unmedia legislation.
Amendment 269 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)
Recital 30 a (new)
(30a) In the case of audiovisual media services providers under jurisdiction of EU Member States pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 2010/13/EU, in order to ensure that audiovisual 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, pursuant to an opinion of the Board, should also be available to guarantee the ‘effet utile’ of the relevant national measures, in compliance with Union law. Following the request of the authority or body from another Member State, the competent national authority or body could be invited by the opinion of the Board to undertake certain measures, where the threats mentioned above are proven and are prejudicing or presenting a serious and grave risk of prejudice for several Member States or the Union. 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 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) Very large online platforms act for many users as a gateway for access to media services. Media service providers who exercise editorial responsibility over their content play an important role in the distribution of information and in the exercise of freedom of information online. When exercising such editorial responsibility, they are expected to act diligently and provide information that is trustworthy and respectful of fundamental rights, in line with the regulatory or self- regulatory requirements they are subject to in the Member States. Therefore, also in view of users’ freedom of information, where providers of very large online platforms consider that content provided by such media service providers is incompatible with their terms and conditions, while it is not contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065 [the Digital Services Act], they should duly consider freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065 [the Digital Services Act] and provide, as early as possible, the necessary explanations to media service providers as their business users in the statement of reasons under Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council54. To minimise the impact of any restriction to that content on users’ freedom of information, very large online platforms should endeavour to submit the statement of reasons prior to the restriction taking effect without prejudice to their obligations underin accordance with Article 4(1) ofRegulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065[the Digital Services Act] and grant the affected media service a right to reply to this statement of reasons prior to the suspension or restriction taking effect. In particular, this Regulation should not prevent a provider of a very large online platform to take expeditious measures either against illegal content disseminated through its service, or in order to mitigate systemic risks posed by dissemination of certain content through its service, in compliance with Union law, in particular pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX 2065[the Digital Services Act]. _________________ 54 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57-79).
Amendment 305 #
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, the Board should, at least on a yearly basis, organise a structured dialogue between providers of very large online platforms, representatives of media service providers and representatives of civil society to foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very large online platforms, discuss experience and best practices related to the application of the relevant provisions of this Regulation and to monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including those aimed at countering disinformation. The Commission may, where relevant, examine the reports on the results of such structured dialogues when assessing systemic and emerging issues across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act] and may askwith the Board to's support it to this effect.
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)
Recital 37 a (new)
(37a) Recipients of media services increasingly face difficulties in identifying who bears the editorial responsibility for the content or services they consume, in particular when they access media services through connected devices or online platforms. Failure to clearly indicate editorial responsibility for media content or services (e.g., through incorrect attribution of logos, trademarks, or other characteristic traits) deprives recipients of media services of the possibility to understand and assess the information they receive, which is a prerequisite for forming well-informed opinions and consequently to actively participate in democracy. Recipients of media services should therefore be enabled to easily identify the media service provider bearing the editorial responsibility over any given media service on all devices and user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services.
Amendment 328 #
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 providersor restrict the cross-border operation of media services for news and current affairs of media service providers in the internal market, or may be likely to affect fundamental freedoms as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 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 331 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) In order to enhance the verifiability, comparability and reliability of audience measurement methodologies, in particular online, transparency obligations should be laid down for providers of audience measurement systems that do not abide by the industry benchmarks agreed within the relevant self-regulatory bodies. Under these obligations, such actors, when requested and to the extent possible, should provide advertisers and media service providers or parties acting on their behalf, with information describing the methodologies employed for the measurement of the audience. Such information could consist in providing elements, such as the size of the sample measured, the definition of the indicators that are measured, the metrics, the measurement methods and the margin of error as well as the measurement period. The obligations imposed under this Regulation are without prejudice to any obligations that apply to providers of audience measurement services under Regulation 2019/1150 or Regulation (EU) 2022/XX [Digital Markets Act], including those concerning ranking or self- preferencing.
Amendment 457 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media content and users of online platforms and services for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation or prices or the related planning, production or distribution of content;
Amendment 520 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. PMember States shall ensure in their national legal framework and conduct that public service media providers shall provide independently and impartialn an unbiased, objective and credible manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences, in accordance with their public service mission.
Amendment 537 #
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 and to meet the objectives therein. Those resources and the process by which they are allocated shall be such that editorial independence is safeguarded.
Amendment 611 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a
Amendment 637 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Amendment 652 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that the financial, human and technical resources of the national regulatory authorities or bodies havare adequate financial, human and technical resourcly and sufficiently sized and increased to allow the national regulatory authorities or bodies to carry out their new tasks under this Regulationconferred on them by this Regulation. The organisational and functional autonomy of the national regulatory authorities or bodies shall be guaranteed.
Amendment 675 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
The Board shall act in full independence when performing its tasks or exercising its powers. In particular, the Board shall, in the performance of its tasks or the exercise of its powers, neither seek nor take instructions from any government, national or European institution, person or body. This shall not affect the competences of the Commission, pursuant to article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, or the national regulatory authorities or bodies in conformity with this Regulation.
Amendment 695 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. The Commission shall designate a representative to the Board. The representative of the Commission shall participate in all activities and meetings of the Board, without voting rights. The Chair of the Board shall keep the Commission informed about the ongoing and planned activities of the Board. The Board shall consult the Commission in preparation of its work programme and main deliverables.
Amendment 714 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6
Article 10 – paragraph 6
6. The Board, ion agreement with the Commission case-by-case basis, may invite experts and observers to attend its meetings.
Amendment 717 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. The Board, in consultation with the Commission, may designate permanent observers from amongst national regulatory authorities with competence in the media field, coming from non-EU countries which have entered into agreements with the Union to that effect. The observers shall not have voting rights.
Amendment 725 #
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 737 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall have an independent secretariat, which shall be provided by the Commissequipped with the necessary budget to fulfil its functions.
Amendment 755 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
3. The secretariat shall provide administrative and organisational support to the activities of the Board. The secretariat shall also assist the Board in carrying out its tasks.
Amendment 776 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) advise the Commission, on the Board’s own initiative or where requested by ithe Commission, 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 794 #
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 808 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – introductory part
(f) upon request of the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:
Amendment 875 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)
(ba) the request was not duly justified and proportionate
Amendment 881 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 6
Article 13 – paragraph 6
6. The requested authority shall do its utmost to address and reply to the request without undue delay. The requested authority shall provide intermediary results within the period of 14 calendar days from the receipt of the request, with subsequent regular updates on the progress of execuFurther details on the procedure of the structured cooperation, including the rights and obligations of the request. In case of requests for accelerated cooperation or mutual assistance, the requested authority shall address and reply to the request within 14 calendar daysparties as well as the deadlines to be respected, shall be defined in the Board’s rules of procedure.
Amendment 885 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 7
Article 13 – paragraph 7
7. Where the requesting authority does not consider the measures taken by the requested authority to be sufficient to address and reply to its request, it shall inform the requested authority without undue delay, explaining the reasons for its position. If the requested authority does not agree with that position, or if the requested authority’s reaction is missing, either authority may refer the matter to the Board. Within 14 calendar daysa time period to be defined in the Boards' rules of procedure from the receipt of that referral, the Board shall issue, in agreementconsultation with the Commission where deemed relevant, an opinion on the matter, including recommended actions. The requested authority shall do its outmost to take into account the opinion of the Board.
Amendment 895 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The requested national authority or body shall, without undue delay and within 30 calendar daysa maximum time period to be defined in the Boards’ rules of procedure, inform the requesting national authority or body about the actions taken or planned pursuant to paragraph 1, or justify the reasons for which action was not taken.
Amendment 910 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Article 14 – paragraph 5
5. The requested national authority or body shall, without undue delay and within 30 calendar days at the latesta maximum time period to be defined in the Board’s rules of procedure from the receipt of the opinion referred to in paragraph 4, inform the Board, the Commission and the requesting authority or body of the actions taken or planned in relation to the opinion.
Amendment 935 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – title
Article 16 – title
Coordination of measures concerning media service providers establishedoriginating from outside the Union
Amendment 939 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
1. The Board shall coordinate measures byfacilitate the cooperation between national regulatory authorities or bodies related to the dissemination of or access to media services provided by media service providers establishedoriginating from outside the Union that target, irrespective of the means of distribution or access, target or reach audiences in the Union where, inter alia in view of the nature of the control that may be exercised by third countries over them, such media services prejudice or present a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security and defence. , including the safeguarding of national security and defence, or public health, or where their programs include incitement to violence or hatred or public provocation to commit a terrorist offence.
Amendment 944 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Amendment 949 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. 1 c. The coordination of measures and the opinions of the Board shall be without prejudice to the competence and responsibility of the Member States to assess the risks and threats to their public security and national defence, which may be posed by media services originating from outside the EU.
Amendment 958 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Member States shall ensure that, when relevant, national regulatory authorities or bodies, when deciding to take action against a media service provider originating from outside of the Union, have the legal basis to take into account: (i) a decision taken against that provider by a national regulatory authority or body from another Member State, and/or (ii) an opinion of the Board relating to that provider and taken on the grounds of this article
Amendment 988 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) it is subject to regulatory requirements for the exercise of editorial responsibility in one or more Member States, or adheres to a co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanism governing editorial standards, widely recognised and accepted in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States. Member States shall ensure that media service providers self-declarations can be easily verified. Member States shall also provide an effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanism.
Amendment 991 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Amendment 997 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. A media service provider whose declaration to a provider of very large online platform or search engine pursuant to paragraph 1 has been rejected or invalidated pursuant to paragraph 1b, shall have the possibility to appeal against this decision. An external complaint mechanism shall be guaranteed in each Member State and handled by one or several independent authorities or bodies.
Amendment 999 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. In order to prevent the misuse of the declaration system, a very large online platform or search engines may invalidate the declaration of a media service provider.Such invalidation shall be executed if the media service provider has repeatedly violated the platform’s terms and conditions or if its content has been frequently suspended or restricted on the basis of a breach of the terms and conditions following the procedure referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. The provider of a very large online platform or search engine shall inform the supervising or regulatory entity about the invalidation of the declaration.
Amendment 1005 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Where a provider of very large online platform decides to restrict or suspend the provision of its online intermediation services in relation to content or services provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, on the grounds that such content or services is incompatible with its terms and conditions, without that content contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of the Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX 2065 [Digital Services Act], it shall take all possible measures, to the extent consistent with their obligations under Union law, includingcommunicate to the media service provider concerned the statement of reasons accompanying that decision, as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065 [Digital Services Act], to communicate toand provide the media service provider concerned the statement of reasons accompanying that decision, as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, prior to the suspenwith an opportunity to reply to the statement of reasons prior to the suspension or restriction taking effect. If the provider of a very large online platform subsequently decides to suspend or restrict content or services, it shall give detailed reasons in writing why it rejects the media service provider’s objections at the time the decision takinges effect.
Amendment 1019 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of very large online platforms shall take all the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that complaints under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and/or Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 [Digital Services Act] by media service providers that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article are processed and decided upon with priority and no later than 24 hours after submission of the complaint. If the very large online platform fails to adhere to this time limit, it shall reinstate the content or service without undue delay.
Amendment 1028 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. Where a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 considers that a provider of very large online platform frequently restricts or suspends the provision of its services in relation to content or services provided by the media service provider without sufficient grounds, the provider of very large online platform shall engage in a meaningful and effective dialogue with the media service provider, upon its request, in good faith with a view to finding an amicable solution for terminating unjustified restrictions or suspensions and avoiding them in the future. The media service provider may notify the outcome of such exchanges to the Board. If no amicable solution is found, the media service provider may lodge a complaint before a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation 2022/2065 without prejudice and in addition to its right to effective judicial protection.
Amendment 1046 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the number of instances where they imposed any restriction or suspension on the grounds that the content or services provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article is incompatible with their terms and conditions; and
Amendment 1062 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 6
Article 17 – paragraph 6
6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and effective implementation of this Article, the Commission mayshall adopt an implementing act that issues guidelines to establish the form and details of the declaration set out in paragraph 1, as well as the modalities for implementing the requirements in paragraph 1a and 1b.
Amendment 1099 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article19a Right to identify the provider of a media service 1. Recipients of media services shall have a right to easily identify the media service provider on any device or user interface controlling or managing access to and use of media services. 2. Manufacturers of devices and providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services shall ensure that the identity of the media service provider bearing the editorial responsibility for the content or services is clearly visible alongside the content and services offered.
Amendment 1105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
Article 20 – paragraph 1
1. Any legislative, regulatory or administrative measure taken by a Member State that is liable to affect the operation of media service providers in the internal market shall be duly justified and proportionate. Such measures shall be reasoned, transparent, objective and non- discriminatorycross-border operations of media services for news and current affairs of media service providers in the internal market or that is likely to affect fundamental freedoms as defined in teh Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union shall be duly justified and proportionate. Such measures shall be reasoned, transparent, objective and non- discriminatory. This Article shall not apply in cases where the measure is otherwise governed by State aid rules and the national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.
Amendment 1115 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Amendment 1120 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Article 20 – paragraph 3
Amendment 1122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Article 20 – paragraph 4
Amendment 1134 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Article 20 – paragraph 5
Amendment 1156 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) set out rules for the national regulatory authority or body designated under point (c) to consult other national regulatory authorities or bodies of the Member State that may contribute to the assessment of a media concentration, where such consultation is deemed necessary under national law;
Amendment 1229 #
1. Audience measurement systems and methodologies shall comply with principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non- discrimination, comparability and verifiability.
Amendment 1246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. National regulatory authorities or bodies shall encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct byMember States shall ensure that providers of audience measurement systems, together with media service providers, their representative organisations and any other interested parties will draw up codes of conduct, with the support of national regulatory authorities or bodies, that are intended to contribute to compliance with the principles referred to in paragraph 1, including by promoimplementing independent and transparent audits, and by inroducing sanctions in cases of non-compliance.
Amendment 1252 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 23 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. In cases where a Member State does not have a Joint Industry Committee (JIC), entrusted with the organisation, realisation, monitoring or publication of media audience measurements, it shall ensure that a JIC is formed, according to national legislation.
Amendment 1280 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Public authorities, including national, federal or regional governments, regulatory authorities or bodies, as well as state-owned enterprises or other state- controlled entities at the national or regional level, or local governments of territorial entities of more than 1 million inhabitants, shall make publicly available accurate, comprehensive, intelligible, detailed and yearly information about their advertising expenditure allocated to media service providers, which shall include at least the following details: