Directive 89/552 / EEC (television directive)
 Directive 89/552 / EEC |
|
|---|---|
| Title: | Council Directive 89/552 / EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the pursuit of television broadcasting |
| Designation: (not official) |
Television policy |
| Scope: | EEA |
| Legal matter: | Broadcasting law |
| Basis: | EEC Treaty , in particular Article 57 (2) and Article 66 |
| Come into effect: | October 16, 1989 |
|
To be implemented in national law by: |
3rd October 1991 |
| Implemented by: |
Germany Film Funding Act , Rundfunkstaatsvertrag 1991 , rules of conduct of the German Advertising Council on commercial communication for alcoholic beverages |
| Replaced by: | Directive 2010/13 / EU |
| Expiry: | May 4, 2010 |
| Reference: | OJ L 298 of 10/17/1989, pp. 23-30 |
| Full text |
Consolidated version (not official) basic version |
| Regulation has expired. | |
| Please note the information on the current version of legal acts of the European Union ! | |
The Directive 89/552 / EEC on the coordination of certain legal and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities is now repealed Directive of the Council of the European Communities . It was decided on October 3, 1989, later amended several times and finally replaced in 2010 by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2010/13 / EU) . Its aim was to remove obstacles to the production and distribution of television programs by creating a harmonized legal framework, to ensure fair conditions of competition and also to ensure the free flow of information and exchange of views in the community.
The Directive on Audiovisual Media Services ( Directive 2007/65 / EC ), also known as the AVM Directive, of December 11, 2007, which came into force on December 19, 2007, fundamentally revised Directive 89/552 / EEC and its scope significantly expanded. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive had to be transposed into national law by the Member States by December 19, 2009.
History of origin
The Green Paper Television without Frontiers of 1984 was the prerequisite for the television directive, which was enacted on October 3, 1989 and amended in 1997, which represents “an artfully crafted compromise between the most influential states in the [EU]”. It is subject to the central principle of the federal community , the principle of subsidiarity , which was first expressly formulated in the Maastricht Treaty . It states that the EU can only act in areas that do not fall within its exclusive competence if the objectives and measures cannot be sufficiently achieved at the level of the Member States and if the implementation can be better carried out at Community level.
One of the central objectives of the directive was the "free movement of [television] programs within the Community" . It also said:
- "The contract provides for the free movement of all services usually provided for a fee, regardless of their cultural or other content ...".
The guideline only had a partially harmonizing effect, i.e. the members were free to enact stricter regulations in the country for television broadcasters. In principle, however, the unrestricted reception of television programs from all other EU member states in one's own territory had to be guaranteed, even if these provided for different and in some cases more liberal regulations.
Content of the television directive
The most important provisions of the television directive were the broadcasting state principle and free reception, the quota system, advertising, the protection of minors and the right of reply.
Broadcasting state principle and free reception
These two provisions were an important requirement. Each member state was obliged to guarantee the free reception of directive-compliant television broadcasts. He was not authorized to prohibit a broadcaster or a specific program from retransmitting it in the country. Such a suspension was inadmissible even if the respective member state issued stricter regulations for national providers and these were not complied with by the foreign broadcaster. Furthermore, the member states had to ensure that all domestic providers complied with the provisions of the TV Directive. As a general rule, within the European Union only one country is responsible for the legal supervision of a program broadcaster based in the EU. Which Member State that was depends largely on the country in which the broadcaster concerned had its administrative headquarters and its broadcasting staff. Since the obligation to monitor was limited to its own country, the receiving state was no longer allowed to hinder the retransmission of a foreign program on the basis of the broadcasting state principle. It also applied here that stricter regulations can be formulated for national television broadcasters.
Quota regulation
This regulation contained both economic and cultural aspects. The EU states were obliged to reserve “the majority of the airtime for European works [from the areas of information, education, culture and entertainment] and an additional at least 10 percent of the airtime or program funds for independent producers of such works”. European works are understood to mean not only the productions of EU member states, but also productions from states that have committed themselves to the Council of Europe Agreement. The provision on the quota regulation was initiated by France , where a national quota policy has been practiced for years. It was not legally binding, but merely represented a political declaration of intent. Each country should try to achieve this quota step by step, but the proportion of European productions must not be below the proportion established in 1988, in Greece and Portugal in 1990. From October 3, 1991, the member states had to submit a report to the Commission every two years.
advertising
In the provisions on television advertising, the EU Commission weighed market interests against consumer interests. Although advertising is a service and its liberalization would encourage the free movement of goods and services, there were restrictions on television advertising to protect consumers. The guideline specifies quantifying limits for advertising. For example, the advertising could amount to "[max] 15 percent of the daily broadcast time and a maximum of 20 percent per hour" . For teleshopping, this limit could be increased to 20 percent per broadcast day, with teleshopping only being allowed to be broadcast for a maximum of one hour per day. Advertising for cigarettes, tobacco products, and prescription drugs was prohibited. Alcohol advertising is only permitted under certain conditions and direct appeals to minors (see also Pester Power ) are prohibited. In principle, the advertising had to be recognizable and broadcast in blocks. Commercial breaks were restricted but not prohibited. It was left to the Member States to adopt stricter regulations for national television broadcasters.
Protection of minors
"Films [and programs] showing pornography and violence are [...] strictly prohibited [as they] can seriously impair the physical, mental and moral development of minors." This prohibition did not apply to programs that were broadcast by choosing the time or the broadcast due to technical measures (encryption of the programs) usually cannot be seen by minors. Member States were required to take “reasonable measures” to ensure these provisions, and they were also allowed to set stricter domestic rules.
Reply
Every natural or legal person, regardless of their nationality, had the right of reply if their interests - especially honor and reputation - were affected by allegations of false facts. This right applied to all television broadcasters who were subject to the jurisdiction of a Member State. The right of reply was not yet included in the 1986 draft directive.
Criticism of the television directive
The directive was criticized from many sides, both fundamentally, for example the regulatory competence of the EU or the need for regulation in general and the 'thrust' of the directive, as well as with regard to individual provisions, especially the quota regulation and its implementation. Critics of the television directive did not see any clear competence of the EU to act in the field of broadcasting . The EEC Treaty only authorized the regulation of economic facts. Opponents of the directive, for example the German federal states, see broadcasting as an "originally cultural event" that falls within the competence of the member states. For the EU, however, broadcasting is an economic asset with cultural aspects. She justifies this with the fact that "every free activity, regardless of its content or importance [...] represents a service" . The Community does not have comprehensive competence in the field of broadcasting, but only in certain areas. The European Court of Justice emphasizes in its established case law that the distribution of television programs is a service. Nevertheless, the Community is not entitled to claim a comprehensive right to regulate broadcasting, as the aforementioned principle of subsidiarity and the culture clause (Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty) clearly prevent this. The culture clause states that there will be no European cultural policy of its own and that the EU may only provide support in this area. As a result, a solution must be found that is fair to both sides and that neither overemphasizes the economic nor the cultural aspect. The focus of criticism was also the 'service character', which is ascribed to the media. Accordingly, the directive almost exclusively refers to television as a 'market good' and - in line with the objectives of the common internal market - means less a new regulation than a deregulation . "Harmonization through liberalization" primarily serves the interests of commercial providers, while the public broadcasters benefit little because of their structure and objectives. Due to the basic service mandate that is imposed on them, they can take part in the competition badly or not at all. In addition, Article 87 (ex-Art. 92) of the EC Treaty states that “state aid or aid granted through state means [...] which, by favoring certain companies or branches of production, distorts or threatens to distort competition with the common Incompatible with the market [...] " .
literature
- Lutz Erbring (Ed.): Communication area Europe. Ölschläger, Munich 1995.
- Barbara Gruber: Media Policy of the EC. UVK, Constance 1995.
- Victor Henle (Ed.): Television in Europe. Structures, programs and backgrounds. KoPäd-Verlag, Munich 1998.
- Heribert Höfling (Ed.): European media law. in particular the EC television directive and the Council of Europe television convention in comparison with the individual regulations; Text output and explanations. Beck, Munich 1991.
- Hans J. Kleinsteuber (Ed.): EG media policy. Television in Europe between culture and commerce. Berlin 1990.
- Stephan Leitgeb: The revision of the television guidelines - overview of the essential planned changes with special consideration of the liberalization of the ban on product placement. In: Journal for Copyright and Media Law. (ZUM) 2006, p. 837 ff.
swell
- Directive 89/552 / EEC Directive on the coordination of certain legal and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the exercise of television activities , in short: television directive
- Directive 97/36 / EC Amendment to Directive 89/552 / EEC in 1997
- Directive 2007/65 / EC Amendment of Directive 89/552 / EEC in 2007, including renaming it to a directive on the coordination of certain legal and administrative provisions of the Member States on the provision of audiovisual media services (directive on audiovisual media services) with a corresponding expansion of the regulatory framework. Implementation into national law by December 19, 2009.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Directive 2007/65 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Directive 89/552 / EEC of the Council on the coordination of certain legal and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the exercise of television activities. (PDF; 139 kB) Retrieved January 3, 2008 .
- ↑ New European directive on audiovisual media services in force. Retrieved January 3, 2008 .