Preview document (🔗 origineel)

---

COMMON POSITION PAPER 

MAIN PRINCIPLES FOR A REVISION OF THE BROADCASTING COMMUNICATION 

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Introduction

In January 2008 the European Commission published a consultation paper
on a possible revision of the Broadcasting Communication of 2001.
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden consider that there is only limited need
for a change of the current Communication. In this paper we set out the
principles for a possible revision of the Broadcasting Communication
(hereafter: BC). 

General 

In respect of the Amsterdam Protocol the BC must acknowledge the
principle of subsidiarity with regard to defining, organizing and
financing public service media in the member states.

Although similar in essence, the details of the remit, the organization
and the financing of public service media cannot be harmonized across
Europe, but should continue to reflect national needs,  national culture
and national constitutional law. Therefore, the BC may include only a
number of basic and flexible principles and can not create detailed
rules on the basis of State aid measures taken within individual member
states over the past years. 

The requirements of the 2005 Framework for services of general economic
interest are not well suited to the public service broadcasting area. 

Definition of the public service remit

The BC may underline that the public service remit is to respond to the
democratic, social and cultural needs of society. The benchmark for
public services lies in criteria such as diversity, independence,
quality, accessibility and reach. The BC cannot limit the public service
remit to services which are not available on the market, neither by
criteria with regard to content nor by rules concerning the entrustment
procedure.  

In line with the principle of technological and platform neutrality, the
BC should acknowledge that in the digital media landscape the public
service remit can include all electronic content. A flexible definition
should allow member states to entrust public service broadcasters with a
remit that could include a diversity of programmes on digital radio and
television and which could include the possibility to make full use of
new forms of distribution, such as the internet and mobile
telecommunication networks. Thus, it should be made clear that the means
of distribution are not relevant for classifying a public service
activity. 

The BC may acknowledge that the public service remit is fulfilled by the
totality of programmes and services which public broadcasters offer and
can not be broken up into independent parts. This also means that 
‘old’ and ‘new’ media services are inextricably linked. 

Entrustment and supervision

In line with the present communication the BC should require the member
states to ensure that there is a clear and adequate definition and
entrustment of the public service remit. The role of the Commission is
to control for manifest errors. It should be made clear that the form of
the legal act and the choice of procedure for entrustment is for the
individual member states to decide. 

The BC may require member states to have procedures demonstrating how
public service media meet the democratic, social and cultural needs of
their respective societies. However, any inclusion or suggestion on the
use of criteria concerning the public service character of activities
goes beyond the Community’s competence. 

The BC may invite the member states to consult on the public service
remit, but should not limit member states options for ex ante evaluation
by requiring them to perform a broad, independent, market impact
assessment before approving any (new) activities of public service
media. 

Funding and transparency 

The BC should clarify the possibility of forming a reserve for public
service media as a financial buffer that can absorb fluctuations in
income and costs. More far-reaching conditions with respect to a
reserve, for example the way the surpluses are used or the maximum
period for which a reserve can be maintained, should be left to the
national level. It is also for the member states to decide on mechanisms
to ensure efficient use of the funding.

The BC should not exclude the possibility for public service
broadcasters to offer pay services as part of the public remit. This can
be necessary to ensure appropriate and secure funding of public service
media in the digital media landscape, especially in smaller language
markets within the EU.  

The member states acknowledge the importance of rules concerning the
separation of the accounts between public service activities and
commercial activities, but the BC should not require a structural
separation (in separate commercial subsidiaries).

	

Conclusion

Above we have set out the main principles for a revised BC: clear
definition, entrustment and monitoring of the public service remit in
the digital age and transparent funding. Together these principles are
sufficient to ensure that public service media meet the democratic,
social and cultural needs of society. As these principles are already in
place in the communication of 2001 there is to our opinion only need for
small changes in order to adapt it to the technical developments of the
digital age.