What changed

22.1.2024

PA_Legam

PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT RESULTING FROM INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

Subject: 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

The EMFA aims to recognize the crucial importance of the media in the European Union, considering that their plurality and independence are necessary for the proper functioning of democracy. In recent years, the European Union has seen a decline in the independence and pluralism of the audiovisual and press media in a certain number of its Member States. The objective of this proposal is therefore to guarantee the independence and pluralism of the media and to ensure their proper functioning in the internal market, particularly in the light of the digital transition and emergence of new actors.

(COM(2022)0457 – C90309/2022 – 2022/0277(COD))

It is important to keep in mind the fact that online platforms, social networks and search engines have a massive impact on the way the information is processed and shared. Studies have shown that the vast majority of consumers now receive their information from the internet, and more particularly from social networks. This development has a profound effect on the way media consumption and the media market is structured and the way citizens receive and perceive information. It is a matter of fact that some of these actors are important sources of disinformation and fake news, remaining partly unregulated. Moreover, these new actors must be considered as direct competitors to the traditional media (written press and audio-visual media). It is therefore of utmost importance to establish rules which allow finding a certain equality of conduct. It is essential to better include those players in the scope of the Regulation, in the sense that clearer obligations regarding the management and moderation of content provided by media services on very large online platforms and search engines are necessary. Clarifying the obligations regarding audience measurement, which must be based on common standards, must also encompass online platforms, so that actors such as VLOPs, very large search engines, video-sharing platforms or social networks also adhere to the highest standards of audience measurement.

The interinstitutional negotiations on the aforementioned proposal for a regulation have led to a compromise. In accordance with Rule 74(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the provisional agreement, reproduced below, is submitted as a whole to the Committee on Culture and Education for decision by way of a single vote.

The EMFA is currently not in line with the institutional, legal and economic framework of the media, which differs widely across the EU. Considering that, the Rapporteur proposes several modifications to better fit with EU law and especially the current ecosystem in place in many EU countries. It is important to remind that the press and audiovisual sectors are distinct, do not operate in the same way, operate in different markets and are regulated by different systems. It is necessary to separate them in order to take account of their specificities and to adapt the requirements of the text in the light of the press regulation in the Member States, which already guarantees a high level of protection of media pluralism.

2022/0277 (COD)

More specifically, on the press, the EMFA gives the editor exclusive control over all editorial decisions, thus depriving the publisher of any capacity to direct his publication, even though he is legally and financially responsible for the content on it. There is a risk that journalists will themselves become primarily criminally liable for their writings, which could only restrict their capacity for initiative and encourage self-censorship. Editorial freedom is primarily the responsibility of the publisher and editorial authority and responsibility cannot be dissociated. In addition, freedom, independence and pluralism of the media should be reinforced by creating the obligation for newsrooms to adopt an ethical charter. This charter would be negotiated between the publisher and the journalists and established with reference to the main ethical principles specific to the journalistic profession.

Proposal for a

Finally, the EMFA proposes changes to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, replacing the ERGA with a new structure (the "Board"). Incidentally, these provisions risk undermining the cultural exception protections, offering a better choice to consumers, laid down in the AVMSD. Therefore, the Rapporteur proposes to clarify the scope to ensure the consistency with relevant legislation. The provisions of the EMFA should offer maximum guarantees for the independence and decision-making of the Board and mainly focus on the audiovisual sector and digital services. Also, it is crucial that the EMFA emphasises stronger and more binding provisions for Member States to ensure an effective and adequate level of resources for the National Regulatory Autorities to carry out all their new tasks.

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

AMENDMENTS

establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU

The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Culture and Education, as the committee responsible, to take into account the following amendments:

(Text with EEA relevance)

Amendment 1

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Proposal for a regulation

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,

Recital 3

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Text proposed by the Commission

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Amendment

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,

(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 of online advertising, which has diverted financial resources from the media sector, affecting its financial sustainability, and consequently the diversity of content on offer. As media services are knowledge- and capital-intensive, 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.

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,

(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 can be used in a way that strongly influences the shaping of public opinion and discourse. The way they design their services is generally optimised to benefit their often advertising-driven business models that can cause societal concerns and can amplify polarising content and disinformation. These platforms are also essential providers of online advertising, which has diverted financial resources from the media sector, affecting its financial sustainability, and consequently the diversity of content on offer. As media services are knowledge- and capital-intensive, 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.

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Amendment 2

Whereas:

Proposal for a regulation

(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’ and constituting an indispensable factor in the process of the formation of public opinion. Media services are increasingly available online and across borders while they are not subject to the same rules and the same level of protection in different Member States. While some matters related to the audiovisual media sector have been harmonised at the Union level through Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, the scope and matters covered by that Directive are limited. Moreover, the radio or press sectors are not covered by that Directive, despite their increasing cross-border relevance in the internal market.

Recital 4

(2) Given their unique role, the protection of media freedom and pluralism as main pillars of democracy and rule of law constitute an essential feature of a well-functioning internal market for media services (or ‘internal media market’). This market, including audiovisual media services as well as radio and press, 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 so that it can 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 to the Union and to its Member States.

Text proposed by the Commission

(3) In the digital media space, citizens and businesses access and consume media content and services, immediately available on their personal devices, increasingly in a cross-border setting. This is the case both for audiovisual media as well as for the press and radio which are easily accessible (for example via online news portals or podcasts) through the Internet. The availability of content in a number of languages and the easy access through smart devices, such as smartphones or tablets increases the cross-border relevance of media services, already established in a judgment of the Court of Justice. This relevance is underpinned by the growing use and acceptance of automatic translation or subtitling tools which reduces the linguistic barriers within the internal market, and the convergence of the different types of media, combining audiovisual and non-audiovisual content in the same offer.

Amendment

(4) However, the internal market for media services is insufficiently integrated, and suffers from a number of market failures that are increased by the digitalisation. First, 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 of online advertising, which has diverted financial resources from the media sector, affecting its financial sustainability, and consequently the diversity of content on offer. As media services are knowledge- and capital-intensive, they require scale to remain competitive, to meet their audiences’ needs 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. Second,integrated. aA number of national restrictions hamper the free movement within the internal market. In particular, different national rules and approaches related to media pluralism and editorial independence, insufficient 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 across the Union. Third, the goodThe functioningintegrity of the internal market for media services is challenged by providersmay (includingalso thosebe controlledchallenged by certain third countries)providers that systematically engage in disinformation, including information manipulation and interference, and useabuse the internal market freedomsfreedoms, forincluding abusiveby purposes,state-controlled thusmedia thwartingservice theproviders properfinanced functioningby ofcertain marketthird dynamics.countries.

(4a) The fragmentation of rules and approaches which characterises the media market in the Union negatively affects to varying degrees the conditions for the exercise of economic activities in the internal market by media service providers in different sub-sectors, including the audiovisual, radio, and press sub-sectors, and undermines their capability to efficiently operate cross-border or establish operations in other Member States. National measures and procedures could be conducive to media pluralism in a Member State, but the divergence and lack of coordination between Member States’ national measures and procedures may lead to legal uncertainty and additional costs for media companies willing to enter new markets, and prevent them from benefiting from the scale of the internal market for media services. Moreover, discriminatory or protectionist national measures affecting the operation of media companies disincentivise cross-border investment in the media sector and in some cases may force media companies that are already operating in a given market to exit it. These obstacles affect companies active both in the broadcasting (including audiovisual and radio) and press sub-sectors. Although the fragmentation of editorial independence safeguards concerns all media sub-sectors, it affects the press sector especially as national regulatory or self-regulatory approaches differ more in relation to the press. The internal market for media services may also be affected by insufficient tools for regulatory cooperation between national regulatory authorities, which is key for ensuring that media market players (often active in different media subsectors) systematically engaging in disinformation, including foreign information manipulation and interference, do not benefit from the scale of the internal market for media services. Furthermore, while biased allocation of economic resources, in particular in the form of state advertising, is used to covertly subsidise media outlets in all the media sub-sectors, it tends to have a particularly negative impact on the press, which has been weakened by decreasing levels of advertising revenues. Finally, the challenges stemming from the digital transformation reduce the ability of companies in all media sub-sectors, and in particular the smaller ones in the radio and press sector, to compete on a level playing field with online platforms, which play a key role in online distribution of content.

(4) However, the internal market for media services is insufficiently integrated. A number of unjustified national restrictions hamper free movement within the internal market. Different national rules and approaches related for example to media pluralism and editorial independence, insufficient 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 across the 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 certain third countries.

(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 risk of furthering the divergence in national approaches and restrictions to free movement in the internal market. Therefore, it is necessary to harmonise certain aspects of national rules related to media pluralism or editorial independence, thereby guaranteeing high standards in this area.

Amendment 3

(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 ▌ enjoy pluralistic media content produced in accordance with editorial freedom in the internal market. This is key for fostering public discourse and civic participation, as a broad range of reliable sources of information and quality journalism empowers citizens to make informed choices, including about the state of their democracies. It is also essential for cultural and linguistic diversity in the Union given the role of media services as carriers of cultural expression. Member States should respect the right to a plurality of media content and contribute to an enabling media environment by making sure that relevant framework conditions are in place. Such approach reflects the right to receive and impart information and the requirement to respect media freedom and media pluralism pursuant to Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in conjunction with Article 22 of the Charter which requires the Union to respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Furthermore, in fostering the cross-border flow of media services, a minimum level of protection of service recipients should be ensured in the internal market. 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 standards. It is thus necessary to harmonise certain aspects of national rules related to media services, taking also in consideration Article 167 of the TFEU, which reaffirms the importance of respecting the national and regional diversity of the Member States. However, Member States should have the possibility to adopt more detailed or stricter rules in specific fields, provided that those rules, ensure a higher level of protection of media pluralism or editorial independence, in line with this Regulation and comply with Union law and that Member States do not restrict the free movement of media services from other Member States which comply with the rules laid down in these fields. Member States should also retain the possibility to maintain or adopt measures to preserve media pluralism or editorial independence at national level regarding aspects not covered by this Regulation insofar as such measures comply with Union law, including Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council. It is also appropriate to recall that this Regulation respects the Member States’ responsibilities as referred to in Article 4(2) TEU, in particular their powers to safeguard essential state functions.

Proposal for a regulation

(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. The definition of a media service should cover in particular television or radio broadcasts, on-demand audiovisual media services, audio podcasts or press publications. 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. Corporate communication and distribution of informational or promotional materials for public or private entities should be excluded from the scope of this definition. Furthermore, since the operation of media service providers in the internal market may take different forms, the definition of media service provider should cover a wide spectrum of professional media actors falling within the scope of this definition, including freelancers.

Recital 6

(7a) Public service media providers should be understood as those concurrently entrusted with a public service remit and receiving public funding for the fulfilment thereof. This should not cover private media undertakings that have agreed to carry out certain specific tasks of general interest in return for payment, as a limited part of their activities.

Text proposed by the Commission

(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, including by automated means or algorithms, but do not exercise editorial responsibility over the content to which they provide access. However, in the increasingly convergent media environment, some 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, when such entities exercise editorial control over a section or sections of their services, they could be qualified both as a video-sharing platform provider or a very large online platform provider and as a media service provider.

Amendment

(9) The definition of audience measurement should cover measurement systems developed as agreed by industry standards within self-regulatory organisations, like the Joint Industry Committees, and measurement systems developed outside such self-regulatory approaches. The latter tend to be deployed by certain online players, including online platforms, who self-measure or provide their proprietary audience measurement systems to the market, without abiding by the commonly agreed industry standards or best practices. Given the significant impact that such audience measurement systems have on the advertising and media markets, they should be covered by this Regulation. In particular, the capacity to provide access to media content and the ability to target their users with advertising allow online platforms to compete with the media service providers whose content they distribute. Thus, the definition of ‘audience measurement’ set out in this Regulation should be understood as also including measurement systems enabling to collect, interpret, or otherwise process information about the use of media content and content created by users on online platforms that are primarily used to access such content. This would ensure that also providers of audience measurement that are intermediaries involved in content distribution are transparent about their audience measurement activities, fostering the ability of media service providers and advertisers to make informed choices.

(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 .

(10) State advertising should be understood broadly as covering promotional or self-promotional activities, public announcements or information campaigns undertaken by, for or on behalf of a wide range of public authorities or entities, including national or subnational governments, regulatory authorities or bodies as well as entities controlled by national or subnational governments. Such control can result from rights, contracts or any other means which confer the possibility of exercising decisive influence on an entity. In particular, ownership of capital or the right to use all or part of the assets or rights or contracts which confer decisive influence on the composition, voting or decisions of the organs of an entity are relevant factors, as laid down in Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the definition of state advertising should not include official announcements that are justified by an overriding reason of public interest, such as emergency messages by public authorities which are necessary, for example, in cases of natural or sanitary disasters, accidents or other sudden incidents that can cause harm to individuals. Where the emergency situation has ended, announcements pertaining to that emergency and placed, promoted, published or disseminated in return for payment or for any other consideration should be considered state advertising for the purposes of this Regulation.

(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 their own language, and related to their own cultural preferences, 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 standards 46 .

(11) In order to ensure that society reaps the benefits of the internal media market, it is essential not only to guarantee the fundamental freedoms under the Treaty, but also the legal certainty which is needed for the enjoyment of benefits of an integrated and developed market. Recipients of media services should be able to access quality media services in a well-functioning internal market, which have been produced by journalists ▌in an independent manner and in line with ethical and journalistic standards and hence provide trustworthy information This is particularly relevant for news and current affairs content, which comprises a wide category of content of political, societal or cultural interest, (at local, national or international level). News and current affairs content has the potential to play a major role in shaping public opinion and has a direct impact on democratic participation and societal well-being. In this context, news and current affairs content should be understood as covering any type of news and current affairs content, regardless of the form it takes. News and current affairs content can reach audiences in diverse formats, such as documentaries, magazines or talk-shows, and can be disseminated in diverse ways, including by means of uploading it on online platforms. Quality media services are also an antidote against disinformation, including foreign information manipulation and interference. Access to such services should also be ensured by preventing attempts to silence journalists, ranging from threats and harassments to censorship and cancelling of dissenting opinions, which may limit the free flow of information into the public sphere by reducing the quality and plurality of information. The right to a plurality of content does not entail any correspondent obligation on any given media service provider to adhere to standards not set out explicitly by law.

__________________

(12) This Regulation does not affect the freedom of expression and information guaranteed to individuals under the Charter. The European Court of Human Rights has observed that in such a sensitive sector as audiovisual media, in addition to its negative duty of non- interference, the public powers have a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism.

__________________

(13) The free flow of trustworthy information is essential in a well-functioning internal market for media services. Therefore, the provision of media services should not be subject to any restrictions contrary to this Regulation or other rules of Union law, such as Directive 2010/13/EU ▌providing for measures necessary to protect users from illegal and harmful content. Restrictions could also derive from measures applied by national public authorities in compliance with Union law.

46 Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, in particular proposal 27 (1) and 37 (4).

(14) The protection of editorial independence is a precondition for exercising the activity of media service providers and their professional integrity in a safe media environment. Editorial independence is especially important for media service providers providing news and current affairs content given its societal role as a public good. Media service providers should be able to exercise their economic activities freely in the internal market and compete on equal footing in an increasingly online environment where information flows across borders.

46 Conference on the Future of Europe – Report on the Final Outcome, May 2022, in particular proposal 27 (1) and 37 (4).

(15) Member States have taken different approaches to the protection of editorial freedom and independence, which is increasingly challenged across the Union. In particular, there is growing interference with editorial decisions of media service providers in several Member States. Such interference can be direct or indirect, from the State or other actors, including 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 may 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 advantage. Given the societal role of the media, such undue interference may negatively affect the public opinion forming process. 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 necessary 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 4

(16) Journalists and editors are the main actors in the production and provision of trustworthy media content, in particular by reporting on news or current affairs. Sources are tantamount to “raw material” for journalists: they are the basis for the production of media content, in particular news and current affairs content. It is ▌ therefore crucial to protect journalists’ capability to collect, fact-check and analyse information, in particular information imparted or communicated confidentially, both offline and online, which relates to or is capable of identifying journalistic sources. Media service providers and their editorial staff, in particular journalists (including those operating in non-standard forms of employment, such as freelancers) should be able to rely on a robust protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications, including against undue interference and deployment of surveillance technologies. Without such protection, the free flow of sources to the media service providers may be deterred and thus the free exercise of the economic activity by media service providers may be hindered, also to the detriment of information to the public, including on matters of public interest. As a result, journalists’ freedom to exercise their economic activity and fulfil their vital ‘public watchdog’ role may be jeopardised by such obstacles, thus affecting negatively access to quality media services. In order to avoid circumvention of the protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications and guarantee adequate respect for private and family life, home and communication in accordance with the Charter, safeguards should also apply to persons who because of their regular private or professional relationship with media service providers or members of their editorial staff are likely to have information that could identify journalistic sources or confidential communications. This should include persons living in a close relationship in a joint household and on a stable and continuous basis, as well as individuals who are or have been professionally involved in the preparation, production or dissemination of programmes or press publications, who are only targeted due to their close links with media service providers, journalists or other members of the editorial staff. The protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications should also benefit staff of media service providers, such as the technical staff including cybersecurity experts, who could be targeted given their important support role to journalists in their daily work which requires solutions to ensure the confidentiality of journalists’ work and the resulting likelihood that they have access to information concerning journalistic sources or confidential communications. The protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications is consistent with and contributes to the protection of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter. It is also crucial for safeguarding the ‘public watchdog’ role of media service providers, and particularly of investigative journalists, in democratic societies, and for upholding rule of law. In light thereof, ensuring an adequate level of protection for journalistic sources and confidential communications requires that measures for the obtaining of such information are authorised by an authority that can independently and impartially assess whether this is justified by an overriding reason of public interest, such as a court, a judge, a prosecutor acting in a judicial capacity, or another such authority with competence to authorise these measures in accordance with national law. It also requires that surveillance measures are subject to regular review by such authority to ascertain if the conditions justifying the use of the measure continue to be fulfilled. This requirement is also met where the regular review is intended to verify if the conditions justifying an extension of the authorisation for the use of the measure are fulfilled. In this regard, it should also be recalled that, in line with the established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, a right to an effective judicial protection presupposes, in principle, being informed in due time, without jeopardising the effectiveness of ongoing investigations, of the surveillance measures taken without the knowledge of the person concerned in order to effectively exercise this right. In order to further strengthen such right, it is important that media service providers, journalists as well as persons in a regular or professional relationship to them, are able to rely on an adequate assistance in the exercise of this right, which may be of legal, financial or other nature such as providing information on available judicial remedies. Such assistance could be effectively provided, for example, by an independent authority or body, or, where no such authority or body exists, a self-regulatory body or mechanism. The purpose of this Regulation is not to harmonise the concepts of “detain”, “inspect”, “search and seizure” and “surveillance” as referred to in Article 4.

Proposal for a regulation

(17) The protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications 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, including communications that are held under a commitment of confidentiality, 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 market and uneven standards of protection for journalistic sources and confidential communications across the Union. To that end, this Regulation introduces common minimum standards of protection for journalistic sources and confidential communications with regard to coercive measures used by Member States to obtain such information. For the purpose of ensuring the effective protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications, Member States should not make use of such measures, including deployment of intrusive surveillance software, in relation to media service providers, their editorial staff or any persons who, because of their regular or professional relationship with a media service provider or its editorial staff, might have information related to or capable of identifying journalistic sources or confidential communications. Moreover, media professionals, in particular journalists and other media professionals involved in editorial activities, work increasingly on cross-border projects and provide their services to cross-border audiences, and by extension providers of media services. As a result, media service providers are likely to face barriers, legal uncertainty and uneven conditions of competition. Therefore, the protection of journalistic sources and confidential communications needs harmonisation and further strengthening at Union level. This should be without prejudice to further or absolute protection at national level.

Recital 8

(17a) Intrusive surveillance software, including in particular what is commonly referred to as ‘spyware’, represents a particularly invasive form of surveillance over media professionals and their sources. It can be deployed to secretly record calls or otherwise use the microphone of an end-user device, film or photograph natural persons, machines or their surroundings, copy messages, access encrypted content data, track browsing activity, track geolocation or collect other sensor data or track activities across multiple end-user devices. It has dissuasive effects on the free exercise of the economic activities in the media sector. It jeopardises, in particular, the trusted relationship of journalists with their sources, which is the core of the journalistic profession. Given the digital and intrusive nature of spyware and the use of devices across borders, it has a particularly detrimental impact on the exercise of the economic activities of media service providers in the internal market. It is therefore necessary to ensure that media service providers, including journalists, operating in the internal media market rely on a robust harmonised protection in relation to the deployment of spyware in the Union, including when Member States’ authorities resort to private parties for its deployment. In particular, the deployment of spyware should only take place if it is justified by an overriding reason of public interest, it is provided for in national law or Union law, it is in compliance with Article 52(1) of the Charter as interpreted by the Court of Justice and other Union law, it has been authorised ex ante, or, in exceptional and urgent cases, subsequently confirmed by a judicial authority or an independent and impartial decision-making authority, it occurs in investigations of offences referred to in Article 2(2) of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years or other serious offences punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least five years, as determined by the law of that Member State, and if no other less restrictive measure would be adequate and sufficient to obtain the information sought. Under the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made to an individual’s rights and freedoms only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union. Thus, as regards specifically the deployment of intrusive surveillance software, it is necessary to ascertain that the offence in question attains the threshold of seriousness as laid down in Article 4(2)(c), that the investigation and prosecution of that offence merit, in view of an individual assessment of all the relevant circumstances in a given case, the particularly intrusive interference with the fundamental rights and economic freedoms consisting in the deployment of intrusive surveillance software, that there is sufficient evidence of the commission of that offence, and that the deployment of intrusive surveillance software is relevant for the purpose of establishing the facts related to the investigation and prosecution of that offence.

Text proposed by the Commission

(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 a diverse content offer, including quality information and impartial and balanced media coverage, as part of their remit as defined at national level in line with Protocol No 29 on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). They play an important role in upholding the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, enabling people to seek and receive diverse information, and promoting the values of democracy, cultural diversity and social cohesion. They provide a forum for public discussion and a means of promoting the broader democratic participation of citizens. Independence of public service media is key during electoral periods to ensure citizens have access to impartial and quality information. 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 is exacerbated by uneven safeguards related to balanced coverage by and independent governance of public service media in the Union. Both the communication from the Commission of 13 July 2022, entitled “2022 Rule of Law Report”, and the 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor by the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom, confirm the fragmentation of such safeguards and point to risks stemming from inadequate funding. As shown by the European Audiovisual Observatory in their 2022 report ‘Governance and independence of public service media’ (the ‘EAO report’), guarantees for the independent functioning of public service media vary across the Union, with differences in their scope and the level of detail in national approaches. In particular, legal frameworks to ensure balanced coverage by public service media vary across the Union. Moreover, rules vary across the Union as regards the appointment and dismissal of the management of public service media. For instance, most national legal orders set out several grounds for dismissal while others do not provide for any specific rules. Where rules exist, in some cases they are insufficient or are not effective in practice. There are also cases of legislative reforms in Member States increasing the governmental control of public service media, including as regards the appointment of heads or members of the management board of public service media. Approaches to ensuring funding adequacy and predictability for public service media also diverge across the Member States. Where safeguards do not exist or are insufficient, there are risks of political interference in the editorial line or governance of public service media. Non-existent or insufficient safeguards for independence may also lead to lack of stability in funding, thus exposing public service media to the risk of (further) political control. This may lead to cases of partial reporting or biased media coverage by public service media, instances of interference by the government in appointments or dismissal of their management, arbitrary adjustments of or unstable funding of such media. All this negatively affects the access to independent and impartial media services, thereby affecting the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter, and may lead to distortion of competition in the internal market for media services, including those established in other Member States.

Amendment

(18a) In the national media environments characterised by a co-existence of public and private media service providers, public service media contribute to the promotion of media pluralism and foster competition in the media sector, by producing a wide range of content that caters to various interests, perspectives, and demographics, and offering alternative viewpoints and programming options, making available a rich and unique offer. Public service media providers compete with private media companies and online platforms, including those established in other Member States, for audiences and, where applicable, for advertising resources. This concerns commercial broadcasters, in both the audiovisual and radio sub-sectors, and publishers, and is particularly true in the current digital media environment, in which all media expand into the online sphere and increasingly provide their services across borders. Where this dual and competitive media market, which is distinctive for large parts of the Union, is functioning well, it ensures a diverse and qualitative supply of media services in all subsectors. However, where public funding does not serve to fulfil the remit benefiting all viewers but to serve partisan views, due to political interference in governance and the editorial line, it may affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Court of First Instance has confirmed that “public service broadcasting can have its State funding declared to be compliant with the provisions of the Treaty on State aid only inasmuch as the qualitative requirements set out in the public service remit are complied with”.

(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, including by automated means or algorithms, but do not exercise editorial responsibility over the content to which they provide access. However, in the increasingly convergent media environment, some 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 entity could be qualified both as a video-sharing platform provider or a very large online platform provider and as a media service provider.

(18b) While risks of what is commonly referred to as ‘media capture’ are relevant for the entire market for media services, public service media are particularly exposed to such risks, given their proximity to the state. Diverging or insufficient safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers may prevent or disincentivise media service providers from other Member States to operate in or enter a given media market. While independent media companies invest their resources in high-quality reporting complying with journalistic standards, certain “captured” public service media providers not adhering to such standards may provide imbalanced reporting, while being subsidised by the State. The competitive advantage that independent media may obtain through independent reporting, could be lessened as captured public service media may unduly retain their market position. Politicised media markets can affect advertising markets as a whole, as businesses have to factor in politics in addition to devising effective advertising campaigns. If public service media, which are usually considered as trusted sources of information, provide biased coverage on the political or economic situation or concerning specific economic actors as a result of being captured, this may also reduce the ability of companies to inform themselves properly about the economic situation in a given market and thus taking informed business decisions. Such capture may therefore adversely impact the functioning of the internal market. Finally, as a result of biased reporting by certain “captured” public service media in some Member States, citizens may turn to alternative sources of information, in particular those available on online platforms, which may further weaken the level playing field in the internal market.

(8) In the digitalised media market, providers of video-sharing platforms or very large online platforms and hosting services in general may fall under the definition of media service provider. In general, such providers play a key role in the content organisation, including by automated means or algorithms, but do not exercise editorial responsibility over the content to which they provide access. However, in the increasingly convergent media environment, some providers of video-sharing platforms or online platforms have started to produce their own content and to exercise editorial control over a section or sections of their services. Therefore, such an entity could be qualified both as a video-sharing platform provider or a very large online platform provider and as a media service provider.

(18c) It is thus necessary that Member States, building on the international standards developed by the Council of Europe in this regard, put in place effective legal safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media, across the Union, free from governmental, political, economic or private interests, without prejudice to national constitutional laws consistent with the Charter. This should include principles suited to Member States’ organisation of their public service media, such as those that exist in national administrative or corporate law frameworks, as applicable also to private listed companies, for the appointment and dismissal of the persons or bodies which have a role in determining editorial policies or constitute the highest decision-making authority in this respect within the public service media provider, which should be set out at national level. 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 transparent and objective funding procedures, which guarantee adequate and stable financial resources for the fulfilment of their public service remit, enable predictability in their planning and allow them to develop within their public service remit. Preferably, such funding should be decided and appropriated on a multi-year basis, in line with the public service remit 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 the Protocol No 29.

Amendment 5

(19) It is crucial for the recipients of media services to know with certainty who owns and is behind the ▌ media so that they can identify and understand potential conflicts of interest which is a prerequisite for forming well-informed opinions and consequently to actively participate in a democracy. Such transparency is also an effective tool to disincentivise and thus to limit risks of interference with editorial independence. Furthermore, it contributes to an open and fair market environment and enhances media accountability vis-à-vis the recipients of media services, ultimately contributing to the quality of media services in the internal market. It is thus necessary to introduce common information requirements for ▌ media service providers across the Union that should include proportionate and targeted requirements to disclose relevant information on their ownership and advertising revenues received from public authorities or entities. Such information is necessary for the recipients of media services to understand and be able to enquire about potential conflicts of interest, including where media owners are politically exposed, as a pre-condition for their ability to assess the reliability of information they receive. This can only be achieved if the recipients of media services have user friendly and up-to-date media ownership information at their disposal in a user friendly manner, in particular at the time they are viewing, listening or reading media content, so that they can put the content in the right context and form the right impression of it. Thus, the disclosure of targeted media ownership information would produce benefits clearly outweighing any possible impact of the disclosure obligation on fundamental rights, including the right to private and family life and the right to protection of personal data. In this context, the measures taken by Member States under Article 30(9) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 should not be affected. The required information should be disclosed by the relevant providers in an electronic format, for instance on their websites, or other medium that is easily and directly accessible. To further contribute to a high level of media ownership transparency, Member States should also entrust national regulatory authorities or bodies, or other competent authorities and bodies, with developing media ownership databases. Such databases should work as a one-stop-shop allowing recipients of media services to easily check the relevant information related to a given media service provider. In view of national administrative specificities as well as in view of reducing administrative burden, Member States should have flexibility in deciding which authority or body will be in charge of developing such media ownership databases. This could be, for instance, a national regulatory authority or body, or another administrative body, which could in turn rely on the assistance of another body with relevant expertise for the fulfilment of this task.

Proposal for a regulation

(20) Media integrity also requires a proactive approach to promote editorial independence by media companies providing news and current affairs content, in particular through internal safeguards. Media service providers should adopt proportionate measures to guarantee ▌ the freedom of the editors to take editorial decisions within the established long-term editorial line of the media service provider. The objective to shield editorial decisions, notably those taken by editors-in-chief and editors, on specific pieces of content from undue interference contributes to ensuring a level playing field in the internal market for media services and the quality of such services. Those measures should aim to ensure the respect for the independence standards throughout the entire editorial process within the media, including in view of safeguarding the integrity of journalistic content. 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 vis-à-vis their service recipients.

Recital 9

(21) Media service providers should adopt internal safeguards with a view to guaranteeing the independence of ▌ editorial decisions tailored in line with their size, structure and needs. The Recommendation that accompanies this Regulation provides a catalogue of voluntary internal safeguards that can be adopted within media companies in this regard. This Regulation should not be construed to the effect of depriving the owners of private media service providers of their prerogative to set strategic or general goals and to foster the growth and financial viability of their undertakings. In this respect, this Regulation should recognise that the goal of fostering editorial independence needs to be reconciled with the legitimate rights and interests of private media owners, such as the right to determine the editorial line of the media service provider and shape the composition of their editorial teams.

Text proposed by the Commission

(22) Independent national regulatory authorities or bodies are key for the proper application of media law across the Union. While national regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU often do not have competences related to the press sector, they are best placed to ensure the correct application of the requirements related to regulatory cooperation and a well-functioning market for media services in general, as envisaged in ▌ this Regulation. National regulatory authorities or bodies should have the resources necessary for the fulfilment of their tasks in terms of staffing, expertise, and financial means, including to enable their participation in the activities of the Board. They should be provided with technical resources, for instance relevant digital tools. Where appropriate, Member States should, to the necessary extent, increase the resources allocated to national regulatory authorities or bodies, taking into account the additional tasks conferred upon them under this Regulation. National regulatory authorities or bodies should also have appropriate powers, in particular to request information and data from any natural or legal person to which this Regulation applies, or which, for purposes related to their trade, business or profession, may reasonably be in possession of the information and data needed, in respect of the rights and interest of such persons.

Amendment

(22a) 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 Board for Media Services (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’). In the performance of its tasks and the exercise of its powers, the Board should be fully independent, including from any political or economic influence, and neither seek nor take instructions from any government, institution (either national, supranational, or international), and public or private person or body. 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 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.

(9) The definition of audience measurement should cover measurement systems developed as agreed by industry standards within self-regulatory organisations, like the Joint Industry Committees, and measurement systems developed outside such self-regulatory approaches. The latter tend to be deployed by certain online players who self-measure or provide their proprietary audience measurement systems to the market, which do not necessarily abide by the commonly agreed industry standards. Given the significant impact that such audience measurement systems have on the advertising and media markets, they should be covered by this Regulation.

(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. For the purposes of their activities within the Board, national regulatory authorities or bodies should be able to consult and coordinate with relevant competent authorities or bodies and, where relevant, with self-regulatory bodies in their Member States. 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, on a case-by-case basis, external experts to attend its meetings. It should also have the possibility to designate, in agreement with the Commission, permanent observers to attend its meetings, including in particular regulatory authorities or bodies from candidate countries, potential candidate 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. The Board’s rules of procedure should specify in particular the role, tasks and appointment procedures of the Chair and the Vice-Chair, and the prevention and management of conflict of interests of the Members of the Board. To support the Chair and the Vice-Chair, the Board should have the possibility to set up a Steering Group. The composition of the Steering Group should take into account the principle of geographical balance. The specific arrangements for the Steering Group should be specified by the Board in its rules of procedure. The ERGA Chair and Vice-Chair, advised by the members of the ERGA Board, should facilitate an orderly, transparent and effective transition from ERGA to the Board, until the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Board, as referred to in Article 10 of this Regulation, are elected.

(9) The definition of audience measurement should cover measurement systems developed as agreed by industry standards within self-regulatory organisations, like the Joint Industry Committees, and measurement systems developed outside such self-regulatory approaches. The latter tend to be deployed by certain online players who self-measure or provide their proprietary audience measurement systems to the market, which do not necessarily abide by the commonly agreed industry standards. Given the significant impact that such audience measurement systems have on the advertising and media markets, they should be covered by this Regulation. This will ensure that all providers, including providers of proprietary audience measurement systems, are transparent about their audience measurement methodologies.

(23a) Where the Board deals with matters beyond the audiovisual media sector, it should rely on an effective consultation mechanism involving stakeholders from the relevant media sectors active both at national and Union level which could include press councils, journalistic associations, trade union and business associations and give such stakeholders the possibility to highlight to the Board the developments and issues relevant to their sectors. This consultation mechanism should enable the Board to gather targeted input from the relevant stakeholders and obtain relevant information supporting the work of the Board. The practical arrangements of such a consultation mechanism, to be established by the Board in its rules of procedure, should take into account the need for transparency, diversity and fair geographical representation. The Board may also consult academia in order to gather additional relevant information.

Amendment 6

(24) Without prejudice to the powers granted to the Commission by the Treaties, it is essential that the Commission and the Board cooperate closely, enabling the Board to advise and support the Commission on matters related to media services within its competence. The Board should actively support the Commission in its tasks of ensuring the consistent application of this Regulation and implementation of 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 the cases envisaged by this Regulation, taking, into account, where relevant, the situation regarding media freedom and pluralism in the concerned media markets. Such opinions would not be legally binding but useful as guidance for the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned and could be taken into account by the Commission in its tasks of ensuring the consistent application of this Regulation and implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU. By making best efforts to implement the opinion of the Board, or by properly explaining any deviation therefrom, national regulatory authorities or bodies should be considered to have done their utmost to take the opinion of the Board into account. In order to effectively and independently fulfil its tasks, the Board should be assisted by a secretariat provided by the Commission and devoted to the activities of the Board. The secretariat should be adequately resourced for the performance of its tasks. Without prejudice to the Commission’s institutional and budgetary autonomy, it is important that the Commission takes into account the needs communicated by the Board, in particular in relation to the qualifications, expertise and profile of the secretariat’s staff for the effective performance of its tasks. The secretariat should also be able to rely on the expertise and ▌ resources of national regulatory authorities or bodies. This would be key to assist the Board when it is preparing its deliverables. Therefore, the secretariat should include an appropriate number of staff seconded by those national regulatory authorities or bodies to benefit from their competences and experience. In its mission of contributing to the independent execution of the tasks of the Board, the secretariat should follow only the instructions of the Board when supporting the Board in the fulfilment of its tasks under this Regulation. The secretariat should provide substantive, administrative and organisational support to the Board, and assist the Board when it is carrying out its tasks, notably by conducting relevant research or information-gathering activities.

Proposal for a regulation

(25) Regulatory cooperation between independent media regulatory authorities or bodies is essential to make the internal market for media services function properly. However, Directive 2010/13/EU does not provide for a structured cooperation framework for national regulatory authorities or bodies. Since the revision of the EU framework for audiovisual media services by Directive 2018/1808/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, which extended its scope to video-sharing platforms, there has been an ever-increasing need for close cooperation among national regulatory authorities or bodies, in particular to resolve cross-border cases. Such a need is also justified in view of the new challenges in the EU media environment that this Regulation seeks to address, including by entrusting national regulatory authorities or bodies with new tasks.

Recital 10

(26) Aware of these challenges, and in order to respond to the need for closer cooperation in the field of audiovisual media services, ERGA members agreed in 2020 on a Memorandum of Understanding, which sets out non-binding mechanisms for cross-border cooperation to strengthen the application of Union rules relevant for audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services. Building on this voluntary framework and in order to ensure the effective enforcement of Union media law acquis, to avoid the raising of additional barriers in the internal market for media services and to prevent the possible circumvention of the applicable rules by rogue media service providers, it is essential to provide for a clear, legally binding framework for national regulatory authorities or bodies to cooperate effectively and efficiently with one another within the established legal framework. Such a framework is crucial for upholding the country of origin principle, which is a cornerstone of Directive 2010/13/EU as well as for ensuring that regulatory authorities or bodies are able to exercise oversight over relevant media service providers. The objective should be to ensure the consistent and effective application of this Regulation and the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU, for instance by ensuring a smooth exchange of information between national regulatory authorities or bodies or allowing to quickly address queries related to jurisdiction issues. Where national regulatory authorities or bodies exchange information, all relevant Union and national law on exchange of information, including relevant data protection law, should be respected. Such cooperation, and in particular the accelerated cooperation, is of key relevance to support actions to protect the internal market from such rogue media service providers, while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression. In particular, such accelerated cooperation is needed to prevent that media services suspended in certain Member States under Articles 3(3) and 3(5) of Directive 2010/13/EU continue to be provided via satellite or other means in those Member States, and thus to contribute to the ‘effet utile’ of the relevant national measures, in compliance with Union law. The opinions of the Board will be important for the effective functioning of the cooperation mechanism.

Text proposed by the Commission

(27) Due to the pan-European nature of video-sharing platforms, national regulatory authorities or bodies need to have a dedicated tool to protect users of video-sharing platform services from certain illegal and harmful content, including commercial communications. In particular, without prejudice to the country of origin principle, a mechanism is needed to allow any relevant national regulatory authority or body to request its counterpart to take necessary and proportionate actions to ensure enforcement of obligations by video-sharing platform providers under Articles 28b(1) to 28b(3) of Directive 2010/13/EU. This is key for ensuring that audiences, and in particular minors, are effectively protected across the Union when accessing the content on video-sharing platforms and that they can rely on the appropriate level of transparency when it comes to commercial communications online. Mediation and possible opinions by the Board will be conducive to ensure mutually acceptable and satisfactory results for the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned. In case the use of such mechanism does not lead to an amicable solution, the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State can only be restricted if the conditions set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council are met and following the procedure set out therein.

Amendment

(28) Ensuring a consistent regulatory practice and effective implementation of 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 cross-border matters covered by both this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU, when needed. When deciding to issue guidelines, and in light of the relevant discussions with the contact committee established by Directive 2010/13/EU for matters related to that Directive, the Commission should consider in particular regulatory issues affecting a significant number of Member States or those with a cross-border element. 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 ▌ . Given the possible impact of the national measures taken under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU 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 and Article 6(1) of this Regulation. 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.

(10) State advertising should be understood broadly as covering promotional or self-promotional activities undertaken by, for or on behalf of a wide range of public authorities or entities, including governments, regulatory authorities or bodies as well as state-owned enterprises or other state-controlled entities in different sectors, at national or regional level, or local governments of territorial entities of more than 1 million inhabitants. However, the definition of state advertising should not include emergency messages by public authorities which are necessary, for example, in cases of natural or sanitary disasters, accidents or other sudden incidents that can cause harm to individuals.

▌

(10) State advertising should be understood broadly as covering promotional or self-promotional activities undertaken by, for or on behalf of a wide range of public authorities or entities, including governments, regulatory authorities or bodies as well as state-owned enterprises or other state-controlled entities in different sectors, at national or regional level, or local governments of territorial entities in which the State is involved in the everyday business and has influence or control over advertising strategies. However, the definition of state advertising should not include emergency messages by public authorities which are necessary, for example, in cases of natural or sanitary disasters, accidents or other unforeseen, major incidents that can cause harm to individuals or significant portions of the population.

(30) National 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 and safeguarding and promoting media pluralism. This is key in particular when it comes to protecting the internal market from activities of media services from outside the Union, irrespective of the means by which they are distributed or accessed, that target or reach 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. Risks of prejudice to public security may relate to public provocations to commit a terrorist offence as set out in Article 5 of Directive (EU) 2017/541 and systematic, international campaigns of foreign information manipulation and interference with a view to destabilising the Union as a whole or particular Member States. In this regard, the coordination between national regulatory authorities or bodies to face together possible public security 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.

Amendment 7

(30a) It is necessary to coordinate the national measures that may be adopted to counter public security threats by media services originating from or established outside of the Union and targeting audiences in the Union, including the possibility for the Board, in consultation with the Commission, to issue opinions on such measures, as appropriate, in particular where a situation affects several Member States. In this regard, risks to public security need to be assessed with a view to all relevant factual and legal elements, at national and European level, including any existing assessments of how the concerned media service is disseminated or received on the territory of the Union. The objective should be to allow for a more coordinated approach for the concerned national regulatory authorities or bodies in relation to restrictions on the distribution of such media services, without prejudice to the competences of Member States or their national regulatory authorities or bodies in line with Union law. In this regard, the concerned national regulatory authorities or bodies should be able to take into account the opinions of the Board when considering taking measures against a media service provider. This is without prejudice to the competence of the Union under Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Proposal for a regulation

(30b) In order to further support national regulatory authorities or bodies in their role of protecting the internal media market from rogue media service providers, the Board should draw up a list of criteria concerning the media service providers established or originating from outside of the Union. Such a list would help the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned in situations when a relevant media service provider seeks jurisdiction in a Member State, or when a media service provider already under the jurisdiction of a Member State, appears to pose serious and grave risks to public security. Elements to be covered in such a list could concern, inter alia, ownership, management, financing structures, editorial independence from third countries or adherence to a co- regulatory or self-regulatory mechanisms governing editorial standards in one or more Member States.

Recital 11

(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 a key 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 requirements or co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanisms 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, ▌they should duly consider freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and provide, as early as possible, the necessary explanations to media service providers in the statement of reasons within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. To minimise the impact of any restriction to that content on users’ freedom of information, very large online platforms should submit the statement of reasons prior to the suspension or restriction of visibility taking effect. In addition, they should provide the media service provider with an opportunity to reply to the statement of reasons, within 24 hours, prior to the restriction of visibility or suspension taking effect. A shorter timeframe could apply in the event of a crisis as referred to in Article 36(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, in particular to take into account of an urgent need for moderation of the relevant content in such exceptional circumstances. The use of labelling or age-gating by providers of very large online platforms in accordance with their terms of service and in line with Union law should not be understood as a restriction of visibility for the purposes of this Regulation. Following the reply of the media service provider, or in the absence of such a reply within the given period of time, the provider of a very large online platform should inform the media service provider concerned if it intends to proceed with such a restriction or suspension. This Regulation should not affect the obligations of very large online platforms to take measures either against illegal content disseminated through their services, or in order to assess and mitigate systemic risks posed by their services, for example through disinformation, or in order to protect minors. In this context, nothing in this Regulation should be construed as deviating from the obligations of providers of very large online platforms pursuant to Articles 28, 34 and 35 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and Article 28b of Directive 2010/13/EU.

Text proposed by the Commission

(32) It is furthermore justified, in view of an expected positive impact on freedom to provide services and freedom of expression, that where media service providers comply with certain regulatory or self-regulatory standards, their complaints against decisions of providers of very large online platforms are treated with priority and without undue delay.

Amendment

(33) To this end, providers of very large online platforms providing access to media content should provide a functionality on their online interface to enable media service providers to declare that they meet certain requirements, while at the same time retaining the possibility not to accept such self-declaration where they consider that these conditions are not met. When a media service provider declares itself compliant with regulatory requirements or co- or self-regulatory mechanisms, it should be able to provide contact details of the relevant national regulatory authority or body or of the representatives of the co- or self-regulatory mechanism, including those provided by widely-recognised professional associations representing a given sub-sector and operating at national or European level. In case of reasonable doubts, this would enable the very large online platform to confirm with these authorities or bodies that the media service provider is subject to such requirements or mechanisms. Where relevant, providers of very large online platforms should rely on information regarding adherence to these requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative, developed under the aegis of the European Committee for Standardisation, or other relevant codes of conduct. Recognised civil society organisations, fact-checking organisations and other relevant professional organisations recognising the integrity of media sources on the basis of standards agreed with the media industry should also have the possibility to flag to the very large online platforms any potential lack of compliance by media service providers with the relevant requirements for the self-declaration. Guidelines issued by the Commission would be key to facilitate an effective implementation of such functionality. The guidelines should contribute, to minimising risks of potential abuse of the functionality, in particular by providers engaging systematically in disinformation, information manipulation and interference, including those controlled by certain third countries, taking account of the criteria to be developed by the Board in accordance with Article 16(2b). For this purpose, they could cover arrangements related to the involvement of recognised civil society organisations, including fact checking organisations, in the review of the declarations and where relevant national regulatory authorities.

(11) In order to ensure that society reaps the benefits of the internal media market, it is essential not only to guarantee the fundamental freedoms under the Treaty, but also 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 disinformation, including foreign information manipulation and interference.

(34) This Regulation recognises the importance of self-regulatory mechanisms in the context of the provision of media services on very large online platforms. They represent a type of voluntary initiatives, for instance in a form of codes of conduct, which enable media service providers or their representatives to adopt common guidelines, including on ethical standards, correction of errors or complaint handling, amongst themselves and for themselves. Robust, inclusive and widely accepted media self-regulation represents an effective guarantee of quality and professionalism of media services and is key for safeguarding editorial integrity.

(11) In order to ensure that society reaps the benefits of the internal media market, it is essential not only to guarantee the fundamental freedoms under the Treaty, but also 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, in their own language, and related to their own cultural preferences ,which have been produced by journalists and editorial managers 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 disinformation, including foreign information manipulation and interference.

(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 or suspensions on their content are repeatedly imposed by providers of very large online platforms without sufficient grounds, in order to find an amicable solution for terminating any unjustified restrictions or suspensions 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. The Board should inform the Commission of its opinions on the outcome of the dialogue, which may consequently be taken into account by the Commission in the context of the enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065.

Amendment 8

(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, including as regards the moderation processes by very large online platforms, 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 as part of its enforcement of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and may ask the Board to support it to this effect.

Proposal for a regulation

(37) Recipients of ▌media services providing programmes should be able to effectively choose the ▌content they want to watch or listen to according to their preferences. Their freedom in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, such as agreements for content prioritisation between media service providers and manufacturers of devices or providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services providing programmes, such as connected televisions or car audio systems. Prioritisation can be implemented, for example, on the home screen of a device, through hardware settings or software shortcuts, applications and search areas, which have implications on the recipients’ ▌behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to choose certain ▌media offers over others. User choice may also be limited by closed circuits of pre-installed applications. Users should have the possibility to change at any time, in a simple, easily accessible and user-friendly manner, the configuration, including default settings of a device, comprising remote controls, or of a user interface controlling or managing access to, and use of, media services providing programmes. This should be understood as covering all the customisation features of devices or user interfaces which orientate or guide users in their choices of media services or content they wish to access, and allow them to find or discover such services or content, taking into account the goal of fair access to media services in all their diversity, from the perspective of both users and media service providers. This right should not extend to individual items, such as programmes, within an on-demand service catalogue and is without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest implementing Article 7a and 7b of Directive 2010/13/EC, taken in the pursuit of legitimate public policy considerations. Manufacturers, developers and importers should be able to demonstrate the effective user-friendliness of the functionality required when placing their relevant products on the market. Member States should ensure, through appropriate measures, that devices and interfaces placed on their market, by relevant market players, comply with the relevant requirements set out in this Regulation. This could be achieved through monitoring of the application and the effectiveness of the actions taken by such market players.

Recital 12

(37a) Visual identities of media service providers consist of brands, logos, trademarks or other characteristic traits and enable recipients of media services providing programmes to determine easily who bears the editorial responsibility for the service. Visual identities are also a key competitive asset for media service providers, enabling them to differentiate their media offer on the market. Therefore, it is important that visual identities of media service providers providing programmes are preserved when users access their media services through different devices and user interfaces. To this end, manufacturers, developers and importers of devices and user interfaces should make sure that such visual identities as provided by such media service providers are not removed or modified

Text proposed by the Commission

(37b) In order to ensure a level playing field in the provision of diverse media services providing programmes in the face of technological developments in the internal market and to ensure fair access to media services in all their diversity, it is necessary to find common harmonised standards for devices and user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services providing programmes or digital signals conveying the content from source to destination. In this context, it is important to avoid diverging technical standards creating barriers and additional costs for the industry and consumers while encouraging solutions to implement existing obligations concerning media services.

Amendment

(38) Different legislative, regulatory or administrative measures could be justified and conducive to media pluralism. However, some measures may hinder or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services in the media sector, to the detriment of media pluralism or editorial independence of media service providers operating in the internal market. Such measures can take various forms including, 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, such as revoking, or making more difficult the renewal of media service providers’ licenses, as well as decisions related to authorisation or prior notification for media service providers. In order to mitigate their potential negative impact on media pluralism or editorial independence of media service providers operating in the internal market and enhance legal certainty in the internal market for media services, it is important that such measures comply with the principles of objective justification, transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality. Administrative measures that are liable to affect media pluralism or editorial independence should be adopted within predictable timeframes. Such timeframes should have a sufficient length to ensure an adequate assessment by media service providers of the measures and their foreseeable consequences. Moreover, media service providers which are individually and directly concerned by regulatory or administrative measures should have the right to appeal against such measures before an independent appellate body. If the appellate body is not a court, it should have the adequate resources necessary to its effective functioning.

(12) This Regulation does not affect the freedom of expression guaranteed to individuals under the Charter. The European Court of Human Rights has observed that in such a sensitive sector as audiovisual media, in addition to its negative duty of non-interference, the public powers have a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism47 .

(39) Without prejudice to the application of the Union’s competition and State aid rules as well as national measures taken in compliance with such rules, it is ▌ key that the Board, where national regulatory or administrative measures are likely to significantly affect the operation of media service providers in the internal market, is empowered to issue an opinion. The opinions of the Board should focus on national measures that have the potential to disrupt the activities of media service providers in the internal market, for instance by preventing or obstructing their operation in such a way that the provision of their media services in a given market is seriously undermined. This could be the case when a national administrative measure is addressed specifically to a media service provider providing its services towards more than one Member State, or when it concerns a media service provider that, because of, inter alia, its market shares, audience reach or level of circulation, has a significant influence on the formation of public opinion in that Member State, and it prevents such media service providers from effectively operating in a given market or entering a new one. The Board can issue such opinions on its own initiative or on the Commission’s request. The Board should also be empowered to issue an opinion on such measures upon request of individually and directly affected media service providers. To that end, the concerned media service provider should submit a duly justified and reasoned request to the Board. In its request, the concerned media service provider should in particular indicate whether it already exhausted all the available national remedies by challenging the contested measures before national courts or other competent national authorities or bodies, and the type of decision(s) resulted from this. Most notably, the request should also indicate the reasons for which the concerned media service provider considers the contested measure(s) to significantly affect its operation in the internal market, as well as the reasons for which it considers that such measure(s) directly and individually affect its legal situation.

(12) This Regulation does not affect the freedom of expression and information guaranteed to individuals under the Charter. The European Court of Human Rights has observed that in such a sensitive sector as audiovisual media, in addition to its negative duty of non-interference, the public powers have a positive obligation to put in place an appropriate legislative and administrative framework to guarantee effective pluralism47 .

(39a) Media market concentrations are assessed differently across the Union from the media pluralism standpoint. The rules and procedures vary across the Union. Some Member States rely on competition assessments only, whereas others have dedicated frameworks for specific media pluralism assessment of concentrations. In the latter case, there are considerable differences. In some cases, all media transactions are scrutinised, irrespective of whether they reach certain thresholds, while in other cases an assessment is conducted only when specific thresholds are exceeded or certain qualitative criteria are met. For instance, for the purposes of such assessment some Member States apply revenue multipliers in order to ensure that competitive threats do not pass undetected and are brought under scrutiny even when the outlets involved have low revenues. Where they exist, there are also differences in the procedures applicable to the scrutiny of market transactions for media pluralism purposes. This scrutiny is often carried out independently by the media regulator (through a self-standing assessment) or with the involvement of the media regulator by the competent authority (through an opinion, that could be a stand-alone contribution or written views or comments in the context of an ongoing assessment). Certain national rules enable Ministries or governmental bodies to intervene in the media market scrutiny on non-economic grounds, ranging from protection of media pluralism to the safeguarding of public security or other general interests. The divergence and lack of coordination between Member States’ rules and procedures applicable to media market concentrations can result in legal uncertainty as well as regulatory, administrative or economic burdens for media companies willing to operate across borders, thus distorting competition in the internal market for media services. In some cases, national measures in this area can effectively prevent a media company established in the Union from entering another national market, without being genuinely aimed at promoting media pluralism. Ultimately, instead of achieving greater media plurality, this may reinforce the oligopolistic dynamics in the media market. In order to lower obstacles hindering the media service providers’ ability to operate in the internal market, it is important that this Regulation sets out a common framework for assessing media market concentrations across the Union.

__________________

(40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and providing citizens with information which is relevant for an active participation in democratic processes. This is why Member States, independently from competition law assessments, should provide for rules and procedures in national law to allow for assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence. In this context, media pluralism should be understood as the possibility to have access to a variety of media services and media content which reflect diverse opinions, voices and analyses. National 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 the market concerned and thus having substantial influence on the formation of public opinion in a given media market ▌ in one or more Member States. An important criterion to be taken into account is the reduction of competing views within that market as a result of the concentration.

__________________

(41) National regulatory authorities or bodies, who have specific expertise in the area of media pluralism, should be involved in the assessment of the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence where they are not the designated authorities or bodies themselves. The involvement of those national regulatory authorities or bodies should be substantive, for instance by ensuring that their views are taken into account in the competition assessment. In order to foster legal certainty and ensure that the rules and procedures are genuinely geared at protecting media pluralism and editorial independence, it is essential that objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying and assessing the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence are set out in advance.

47 Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no 38433/09, § 134, ECHR 2012.

(42) When a media market concentration constitutes a concentration falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 ▌, the application of this Regulation or of any rules and procedures adopted by Member States on the basis of this Regulation should not affect and should be distinct from the application of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Any measures taken by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies based on their assessment media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence should therefore be aimed at protecting legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 21(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and should be in line with the general principles and other provisions of Union law. This Regulation should be without prejudice to more detailed national rules applicable to media market concentrations taking place, in particular, at regional or local level.

47 Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no 38433/09, § 134, ECHR 2012.

(43) The Board should be empowered to provide opinions on draft assessments by the designated or draft opinions by the involved national regulatory authorities or bodies, where the media market concentrations are likely to affect the functioning of the internal media market. This would be the case, for example, where such concentrations involve acquisitions by or of an undertaking established in another Member State or operating across borders, or result in media service providers having a significant influence on formation of public opinion in a given media market with potential effects on audiences in the internal market. Where a media market concentration has not been or could not be assessed for its impact on media pluralism and editorial independence by the relevant ▌ authorities or bodies at the national level, or where the national regulatory authorities or bodies have not consulted the Board regarding a ▌media market concentration, that 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 upon request of the Commission. In this context, the Commission should retain the possibility to issue its own opinions ▌.

Amendment 9

(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, the expected impact on media pluralism should be considered, including notably the effect on the formation of public opinion, taking into account ▌ the online environment. In this respect, and particularly where relevant in order to assess the possible impact on the formation of public opinion in significant parts of a given media market, the geographical reach of the entities involved in the media market concentration should also be taken into account. 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 ▌ editorial decisions of the acquired or merged entity. The existing or envisaged internal safeguards aimed at preserving ethical and professional standards as well as the independence of the ▌ 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. Where applicable, the assessment should also take into account the commitments that any of the involved parties may offer in order to ensure that the relevant media market concentration guarantees media pluralism and editorial independence. Where relevant, the findings of the Commission’s annual rule of law reports related to media pluralism and media freedom should also be taken into account by the national authorities or bodies and the Board in their assessment.

Proposal for a regulation

(45) Audience measurement has a direct impact on the allocation and the prices of advertising, which represents a key revenue source for the media sector. It is a crucial tool to evaluate the performance of media content and understand the preferences of audiences in order to plan the future production of content. Accordingly, media market players, in particular media service providers and advertisers, should be able to rely on objective and comparable audience data stemming from transparent, unbiased and verifiable audience measurement solutions. In principle, audience measurement should be carried out in accordance with widely-accepted industry self-regulatory mechanisms. However, certain new players that have emerged in the media ecosystem, such as online platforms, do not abide by the industry standards or best practices agreed through relevant industry self-regulatory mechanisms and provide their proprietary measurement services without making available information on their methodologies. This could result in audience measurement solutions that are not comparable, information asymmetries among media market players, and ▌ potential market distortions, to the detriment of equality of opportunities for media service providers in the market. Therefore, it is important that audience measurement systems and methodologies made available on the market ensure an appropriate level of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination, comparability, and verifiability.

Recital 12 a (new)

(46) Relevant market players have traditionally agreed upon a set of measurement methodologies in order to carry out audience measurement in a transparent and reliable manner and develop impartial and trusted benchmarks to be used when assessing the performance of media and advertising content. These measurement methodologies are either reflected in relevant industry standards and best practices or are organised and consolidated by self-regulatory bodies, such as the Joint Industry Committees, which are established in several Member States and bring together all the key stakeholders operating in the media and advertising industry. In order to enhance the verifiability, reliability, and comparability of audience measurement methodologies, in particular online, transparency obligations should be laid down for providers of proprietary audience measurement systems that do not follow the relevant industry standards and best practices or 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, the measurement period, the coverage of measurement, and the margin of error. To ensure an adequate level of effectiveness of this transparency obligation and foster the trustfulness of the proprietary audience measurement systems, the methodologies and their application should yearly be subject to independent audits. Furthermore, in order to help achieving a level playing field and fostering the clarity and contestability of the relevant information that is provided to the market, it is also key that that the audience measurement results are made available. For this reason, media service providers should be able to request providers of proprietary audience measurement systems to provide information on the audience measurement results concerning their own media content and services. In particular, providers of proprietary audience measurement systems should ensure that this information is provided in an industry-standard form, includes the relevant non-aggregated data, and is of high-quality and detail allowing the requesting media service providers to carry out an effective and meaningful assessment of the reach and performance of their media content and services. The need to increase the transparency and contestability of proprietary audience measurement systems should be reconciled with the freedom of providers of audience measurement systems to develop their own measurement systems, as part of their freedom to conduct business. In particular, the transparency obligations by which the providers of audience measurement systems should abide pursuant to this Regulation should be without prejudice to the protection of providers of audience measurement’s trade secrets as defined in Directive (EU) 2016/943. The obligations imposed under this Regulation should also be without prejudice to any obligations that apply to providers of audience measurement services under Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 or Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council, including those concerning ranking, self-preferencing, or providing access to performance measuring tools and the relevant data.

Text proposed by the Commission

(47) Codes of conduct, drawn up either by the providers of audience measurement systems or by organisations or associations representing them, together with media service providers, their representative organisations, providers of online platforms and other relevant stakeholders, could contribute to the effective application of this Regulation and should, therefore, be encouraged. Self-regulatory mechanisms widely recognised in the media industry have already been used to foster high quality standards in the area of audience measurement, ensuring the impartiality of the measurements and the comparability of the results. Their further development could be seen as an effective tool for the industry to agree on the practical solutions needed for ensuring compliance of audience measurement systems and their methodologies with the principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination, comparability, and verifiability. When drawing up such codes of conduct, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and notably media service providers and providers of online platforms, account could be taken in particular of the increasing digitalisation of the media sector and the need to make increasingly comparable the different audience measurement solutions available on the market. In fact, comparability of audience measurement results is key for achieving a level playing field among media market players as it enables media service providers and advertisers to better gauge the success of their offer, which users increasingly consume across different devices and platforms. For this reason, the relevant industry players should be encouraged to make use of codes of conduct and other self-regulatory mechanisms to foster the development of audience measurement solutions which are comparable across different media and platforms. In addition, such codes of conduct should also foster the development of solutions ensuring the proper measurement of audiences of small media service providers.

Amendment

(48) Public funds for the purposes of state advertising and supply or service contracts are an important source of revenue for many media service providers and providers of online platforms, contributing to their economic sustainability. Access to such funds must be granted in a non-discriminatory way to any media service provider or provider of online platform 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, public funds for the purposes of state advertising and supply or service contracts may make media service providers and providers of online platforms vulnerable to undue state influence or partial interests to the detriment of the freedom to provide services and fundamental rights. Opaque and biased allocation of such funds is therefore a powerful tool to exert influence on the editorial freedom of media service providers, ‘capture’ media service providers or covertly subsidise such providers to gain unfair political or commercial advantage or favourable coverage. Public funds for the purposes of state advertising and supply or service contracts are in some regards regulated through a fragmented framework of media-specific measures and Union public procurement rules, which do not offer sufficient protection against preferential or biased distribution. In particular, Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council does 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 public funds for the purposes of state advertising and supply or service contracts, where they exist, diverge significantly from one Member State to another. This may create information asymmetry for media market players and have a negative impact on cross-border economic activity in the internal media market. Most importantly, it may distort competition, discourage investment and be detrimental to a level playing field in the internal media market.

(12a) Media services of general interest play a unique role in the internal market by providing access to a plurality of views and reliable sources of information, freedom of speech, social cohesion and cultural diversity to consumers. However, some Member States have adopted various national rules related to the prominence of media services of general interest, while others have no rules at all. Divergent approaches at national level, have created fragmentation in the internal market, causing legal uncertainty, market fragmentation, an unfair level-playing field and increasing compliance costs for media companies. In addition, the internal media market has become increasingly digital as media services are provided and accessed through the internet, which is by nature cross-border. In the last decade, European media companies have faced fierce competition from global online platforms. While such platforms have become gateways to media content, their business models tend to surface, promote and amplify content that provides the best economic outcome, and is thus often to the detriment of media content of general interest providing reliable information to consumers.

(49) In order to ensure undistorted competition between media service providers and online platforms and to avoid the risk of covert subsidies and of undue political influence on the media, it is necessary to establish common requirements of transparency, objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination in the allocation of public funds or other state resources to media service providers and providers of online platforms for the purpose of state advertising or purchasing goods or services from them other than state advertising, for example, audiovisual productions, market data and consulting or training services. When possible, with due regard to national and local specificities of the respective media markets as well as national governance models and division of competences between national, regional and local level in the Member States, taking into account in particular the amount of state resources allocated and the number of potential providers of relevant advertising services or relevant goods or services other than advertising, such allocation should aim to ensure media plurality in particular by benefitting a variety of different media service providers and providers of online platforms. Such allocation should not result in unjustified and disproportionate advantage for certain providers. In order to ensure a high level of transparency, it is important that the criteria and procedures used to allocate public funds to media service providers and providers of online platforms for the purposes of state advertising and supply or service contracts are made publicly available in advance by electronic and user-friendly means. The common requirements regarding state advertising and supply or service contracts should cover the allocation taking place both directly or indirectly, for instance through specialised intermediaries such as advertising agencies and advertising exchange providers. It is also necessary to establish common requirements to publish information on the recipients of state advertising expenditure and the amounts spent. It is important that Member States make the necessary information related to state advertising publicly accessible in an electronic format that is easy to view, access and download, in compliance with Union and national rules on commercial confidentiality. It is also necessary for national regulatory authorities or bodies or other competent independent authorities or bodies in the Member States to monitor and report on the allocation of public funds for the purposes of state advertising to media service providers and providers of online platforms. Where requested by national regulatory authorities or bodies, public authorities and entities should provide them with additional information necessary to assess the completeness of information published and the application of criteria and procedures used for such funds. This Regulation should not affect the application of the Union public procurement and State aid rules.

Amendment 10

(50) Risks to the functioning ▌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 ▌ , including as regards the degree of concentration of the media market at national and regional level, and risks of foreign information manipulation and interference. It should be conducted independently, by a specialised academic entity in collaboration with researchers from the Member States, on the basis of a robust list of key performance indicators and methodological safeguards, 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 ▌assess the prospective economic viability 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 and the position of media service providers therein, 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 a general 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, and an analysis of their potential to reduce risks for the functioning of the internal market for media services. 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. Furthermore, where relevant, the monitoring exercise should take into account the findings of the Council of Europe Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and of the Media Freedom Rapid Response, given their effectiveness in identifying risks or threats to journalists and media service providers which can also affect the internal media market.

Proposal for a regulation

▌

Recital 12 b (new)

(51a) It should be recalled that the Commission has the duty to monitor the application of this Regulation in line with its responsibility according to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union. In this regard, the Commission has stated in its communication of 19 January 2017 entitled “EU law: Better results through better application”, that it is important that it focuses and prioritises its enforcement efforts on the most important breaches of Union law, affecting the interests of Union’s citizens and businesses.

Text proposed by the Commission

(52) Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, because they cannot or might not have incentives to achieve the necessary harmonisation and cooperation acting alone, but can rather, by reasons of the increasingly digital and cross-border production, distribution and consumption of media content as well as the unique role of media services, be better achieved at the Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

Amendment

(53) This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter, in particular Articles 7, 8, 11, 16, 47, 50 and 52 thereof. Accordingly, this Regulation should be interpreted and applied with due respect to those rights and principles. In particular, nothing in this Regulation should be interpreted as interfering with freedom of information, editorial freedom or freedom of the press as enshrined in national constitutional laws consistent with the Charter, or incentivising Member States to introduce requirements for editorial content of press publications.

(12b) In order to be effective, audiovisual and audio media services of general interest should be prominently placed at the first selection level on 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. Items of content of general interest services could be prioritised on user interfaces where only individual content items are selectable.

(54) The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council and delivered an opinion on 11 November 2022.

Amendment 11

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter I General Provisions

Recital 14

Article 1 Subject matter and scope

Text proposed by the Commission

1. This Regulation lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, including the establishment of the European Board for Media Services, while safeguarding the independence and pluralism of media services.

Amendment

2. This Regulation shall not affect rules laid down by:

(14) The protection of editorial independence is a precondition for exercising the activity of media service providers and their professional integrity. Editorial independence is especially important for media service providers providing news and current affairs content given its societal role as a public good. Media service providers should be able to exercise their economic activities freely in the internal market and compete on equal footing in an increasingly online environment where information flows across borders.

(a) Directive 2000/31/EC;

(14) The protection of editorial independence is a precondition for exercising the activity of media service providers and their professional integrity. Editorial independence is especially important for media service providers providing news and current affairs content given its societal role as a public good. Without affecting the rules of Directive 2010/13/EU and their implementation by the Member States, media service providers should be able to exercise their economic activities freely in the internal market and compete on equal footing in an increasingly online environment where information flows across borders.

(b) Directive 2019/790/EU;

Amendment 12

(c) Regulation 2019/1150;

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 16

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(16) Journalists and editors are the main actors in the production and provision of trustworthy media content, in particular by 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 of 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 to the protection of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.

(16) Journalists and editorial managers are the main actors in the production and provision of trustworthy media content, in particular by 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 of 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 to the protection of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter.

Amendment 13

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 18

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 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.

(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 universal and varied offers including quality information, balanced and impartial media coverage, as part of their remit. 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, that Member States 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 remit that enables predictability in their planning. Such funding should be decided and appropriated on a multi-year basis, in line with the public service remit 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 application 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 14

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(20) It is important to ensure that national and regulatory systems in Europe should operate in a manner that ensures effective editorial independence and integrity. Media integrity can be supported by promoting editorial independence by news media companies, in particular through internal safeguards. Media service providers should adopt proportionate measures to guarantee that editorial staff can operate freely. These measures can help to improve competitive condition. 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 improve the quality of 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. This is without prejudice to national provisions that govern liability rules applicable to the editorial content of media services. Editorial independence safeguards should not prevent or otherwise restrict managerial decisions where the principal purpose of such decisions is to shield the media service provider or the editors from liability risks.

Amendment 15

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 20 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(20a) The freedom, independence and pluralism of the media should be reinforced by encouraging media service providers to develop and adopt codes of conducts and ensure compliance with ethical principles, These codes are to be developed in cooperation with organizations or associations of journalists, shareholders, directors and editorial managers of publications and newsrooms and established with reference to the main ethical principles specific to the journalistic profession; in addition to the general principles of independence, freedom and reliability of information.

Amendment 16

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 21

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(21) To mitigate regulatory burdens, micro enterprises within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council50 should be exempted from the requirements related to information and internal safeguards with a view to guaranteeing the independence of individual editorial decisions. Moreover, media service providers should be free to tailor the internal safeguards to their needs, in particular if they are small and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of that Article. The Recommendation that accompanies this Regulation51 provides a catalogue of voluntary internal safeguards that can be adopted within media companies in this regard. The present Regulation should not be construed to the effect of depriving the owners of private media service providers of their prerogative to set strategic or general goals and to foster the growth and financial viability of their undertakings. In this respect, this Regulation recognises that the goal of fostering editorial independence needs to be reconciled with the legitimate rights and interests of private media owners.

deleted

__________________

50 Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19-76).

51 OJ C , , p. .

Amendment 17

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(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. Therefore, given the importance and the extensive nature of the tasks conferred by this Regulation to these authorities, directly or indirectly it is of utmost importance to ensure that the financial, human and technical resources of the national regulatory authorities or bodies are adequately and sufficiently allocated in order to comply with the obligations laid down in this regulation. 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. National Regulatory Authorities or bodies 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. Member states should ensure that National Regulatory Authorities or bodies are granted full autonomy in the spending of the allocated budget for the purpose of carrying out their duties. Any control on the budget of the National Regulatory Authorities should be exercised in a transparent manner. Annual accounts of regulatory Authorities should have an ex post control by an independent auditor, and should be made public. Considering that press publications are traditionally not subject to regulatory oversight, for the purpose of Chapter III, Section 2 of this Regulation, “media service” shall be understood as any media service with the exception of media services providing press publications, unless otherwise specified.

Amendment 18

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 22 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(22a) 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. However, a separate agenda should be kept by the Board as for the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU which is a Directive involving specificities due to the implementation process by the Member States.

Amendment 19

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 23

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(23) The Board should bring together high-level 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 on a case-by-case basis, external experts to attend its meetings. The Board should have the possibility to designate experts and observers to attend its meetings, including in particular regulatory authorities or bodies from candidate countries, potential candidate countries, EEA countries, or to invite 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 20

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 24

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 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 tasks.

(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 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 on its own initiative or upon the Commission’s 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 body of the Union, an independent Bureau dedicated to the Board. The Bureau of the European Board for Media Services should provide administrative and organisational support to the Board, and help the Board in carrying out its tasks.

Amendment 21

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 25

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(25) Regulatory cooperation between independent media regulatory authorities or bodies is essential to make the internal market for media services function properly. However, Directive 2010/13/EU does not provide for a structured cooperation framework for national regulatory authorities or bodies. Since the revision of the EU framework for audiovisual media services by Directive 2018/1808/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council52 , which extended its scope to video-sharing platforms, there has been an ever-increasing need for close cooperation among national regulatory authorities or bodies, in particular to resolve cross-border cases. Such a need is also justified in view of the new challenges in the EU media environment that this Regulation seeks to address, including by entrusting national regulatory authorities or bodies with new tasks.

(25) Regulatory cooperation between independent media regulatory authorities or bodies is essential to make the internal market for media services function properly. However, Directive 2010/13/EU does not provide for a structured cooperation framework for national regulatory authorities or bodies. Since the revision of the EU framework for audiovisual media services by Directive 2018/1808/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council52 , which extended its scope to video-sharing platforms, there has been an ever-increasing need for close cooperation among national regulatory authorities or bodies, in particular to resolve cross-border cases. Such a need is also justified in view of the new challenges in the EU media environment that this Regulation seeks to address, including by entrusting national regulatory authorities or bodies with new tasks. Therefore, the Board, in consultation with the Commission, may also establish cooperation arrangements with competent Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, with competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations.

__________________

__________________

52 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69-92).

52 Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 69-92).

Amendment 22

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 26

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(26) To ensure the 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.

(26) 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 23

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 27

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(27) Due to the pan-European nature of video-sharing platforms, national regulatory authorities or bodies need to have a dedicated tool to protect viewers of video-sharing platform services from certain illegal and harmful content, including commercial communications. In particular, a mechanism is needed to allow any relevant national regulatory authority or body to request its peers to take necessary and proportionate actions to ensure enforcement of obligations under this Article by video-sharing platform providers. In case the use of such mechanism does not lead to an amicable solution, the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State can only be restricted if the conditions set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53 are met and following the procedure set out therein.

(27) Due to the pan-European nature of video-sharing platforms, national regulatory authorities or bodies need to have a dedicated tool to protect viewers of video-sharing platform services from certain illegal and harmful content, including commercial communications. In particular, and without prejudice to the country-of-origin principle, a mechanism is needed to allow any relevant national regulatory authority or body to request its peers to take necessary and proportionate actions to ensure enforcement of obligations under this Article by video-sharing platform providers. In case the use of such mechanism does not lead to an amicable solution, the freedom to provide information society services from another Member State can only be restricted if the conditions set out in Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53 are met and following the procedure set out therein.

__________________

__________________

53 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce') (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1-16).

53 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce') (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1-16).

Amendment 24

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 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.

(28) Ensuring a consistent regulatory practice regarding this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU and an effective application of these two instruments 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 and proper application and enforcement of Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services. 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 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. 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. 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 25

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 28 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(28a) Transparency of media ownership is a fundament to monitor and understand the functioning of the European media market. Media ownership databases can serve as a one-stop shop for citizens and other stakeholders to provide them with information mapping the ownership structures in the market.

Amendment 26

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 29

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(29) In order to ensure a level playing field in the provision of diverse audiovisual media services in the face of technological developments in the internal market, it is necessary to find common technical prescriptions for devices controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services or carrying digital signals conveying the audiovisual content from source to destination. In this context, it is important to avoid diverging technical standards creating barriers and additional costs for the industry and consumers while encouraging solutions to implement existing obligations concerning audiovisual media services.

(29) In order to ensure a level playing field in the provision of diverse audiovisual media services in the face of technological developments in the internal market, it is necessary to find common technical prescriptions for devices, including remote controls, controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services or carrying digital signals conveying the audiovisual content from source to destination. In this context, it is important to avoid diverging technical standards creating barriers and additional costs for the industry and consumers while encouraging solutions to implement existing obligations concerning audiovisual media services.

Amendment 27

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(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 or originating from outside of the Union, irrespective of the means and distribution or access that target or reaches 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, 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 with Union media legislation. In order to ensure that media services suspended in certain Member States under 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 the opinion of the Board, should also be available to guarantee the ‘effet utile’ of the relevant national measures, in compliance with Union law. Following a request of the authority or body from another Member State, the competent national authority or body could be invited by the Board to undertake certain measures where the threats stemming from such media services are prejudicing or presenting a serious and grave risk of prejudice for several Member States. 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 28

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30a) The implication of the Board should be limited to what is stricly necessary and therefore should be triggered following a request of a minimum number of Board members to be defined in the Board’s Rules of procedure. Once adopted, the opinions of the Board should be taken into utmost account by the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned.

Amendment 29

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 30 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(30b) In order to foster the coherence of decisions and facilitate the eventual cooperation between national regulatory authorities or bodies, the Board should develop a set of basic criteria on the service provider and the service provided. Those criteria should be used by national regulatory authorities or bodies, when a media service provider from outside of the Union seeks jurisdiction in one of the Member States, or when it is already under the jurisdiction of a Member State. The criteria should inter alia cover content, ownership, economic and financial connections, editorial independence or lack thereof from the third country state and should allow relevant authorities or bodies to identify, and if needed prevent, the entry into the EU market, of media service providers which present a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security and defence, public health, or where their programs contain incitement to violence or hatred or public provocation to commit a terrorist offence.

Amendment 30

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 31

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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/XXX [the Digital Services Act], they should duly consider freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [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 under Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act]. 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 [the Digital Services Act].

(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, providers of very large online platforms also have to take due account of users' freedom of information, freedom and media pluralism in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the plurality of the media. 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, they should duly consider freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 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 submit the detailed statement of reasons prior to the restriction taking effect without prejudice to their obligations under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. 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) 2022/2065.

__________________

__________________

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).

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 31

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 32

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(32) It is furthermore justified, in view of an expected positive impact on freedom to provide services and freedom of expression, that where media service providers adhere to certain regulatory or self-regulatory standards, their complaints against decisions of providers of very large online platforms are treated with priority and without undue delay.

(32) It is furthermore justified, in view of an expected positive impact on freedom to provide services and freedom of expression, that where media service providers adhere to certain regulatory or self-regulatory standards, their complaints against decisions of providers of very large online platforms are treated with priority and within a 24-hour period.

Amendment 32

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33) To this end, providers of very large online platforms should provide a functionality on their online interface to enable media service providers to declare that they meet certain requirements, while at the same time retaining the possibility not to accept such self-declaration where they consider that these conditions are not met. Providers of very large online platforms may rely on information regarding adherence to these requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative or other relevant codes of conduct. Guidelines by the Commission may be useful to facilitate an effective implementation of such functionality, including on modalities of involvement of relevant civil society organisations in the review of the declarations, on consultation of the regulator of the country of establishment, where relevant, and address any potential abuse of the functionality.

(33) To this end, providers of very large online platforms should provide a functionality on their online interface to enable media service providers to declare that they meet certain requirements, (including the supervision by an audiovisual media regulatory authority or body, or a press council), and which supervision they are subject to, while at the same time to have such a self-declaration verified where they consider that these conditions are not met. When a media service provider declares itself subject to regulatory requirements or adhering to co- or self-regulatory mechanisms, it should be able to provide contact details of the relevant national regulatory authority or body or of the representatives of the co- or self-regulatory mechanism. In case of reasonable doubts, which could be based on information coming from relevant civil society organisations, this would enable the very large online platform to confirm with these authorities or bodies that the media service provider is subject to such requirements or mechanisms. Where relevant, providers of very large online platforms should rely on information regarding adherence to these requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of the Journalism Trust Initiative, the recognition of the status of press publication used by media service providers in certain Member States or other relevant codes of conduct. In order for the self-declaration system to work effectively and be as fair and transparent as possible, media service provide should have the possibility to appeal against the refusal by very large online platforms to accept their declaration. The Commission should develop guidelines setting out the concrete modalities and basic requirements for these external complaint mechanisms. Guidelines by the Commission are key to facilitate an effective implementation of such functionality, ensuring consultations with the national regulatory authorities or bodies or co- or self-regulatory bodies, including on modalities of involvement of relevant civil organisations in the review of the declarations, on consultation of the regulator of the country of establishment, where relevant, and address any potential abuse of the functionality.

Amendment 33

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 33 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(33a) To avoid an eventual abuse of the declaration system by media service providers which do not effectively comply with the requirements stipulated in Article 17(1) of this Regulation, in case of repeated violation of the law or breach of terms and conditions, the provider of a very large online platform should invalidate a declaration of a media service provider and should inform the supervising or regulatory entity about the invalidation of such declaration. If a media service provider is operating in more than one Member State and is violating the law or breaching terms and conditions in one Member State, the provider of a very large online platform may inform the Board, which will have to notify the regulatory authorities and bodies in the other states where the media service provider operates about the situation created by the respective media service provider.

Amendment 34

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 35

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(35) Providers of very large online platforms should engage with media service providers that respect standards of credibility and transparency and that consider that their content is frequently objected to 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. In accordance with Regulation 2022/2065, and without prejudice to the right of effective judicial redress, media service providers should have access to the certified out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism in case a provider of very large online platform decides to suspend or otherwise restrict content.

Amendment 35

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 ask the Board to support it to this effect.

(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, as well as to assess possible negative effects of these initiatives or of content moderation policies by very large online platforms on the freedom and pluralism of the media. Providers of very large online platforms may be invited to participate in the meetings organised by the Board and to engage in the dialogue in good faith. The Commission should examine the reports on the results of such structured dialogues when assessing systemic risks and emerging issues across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and may ask the Board to support it to this effect.

Amendment 36

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36a) In order to ensure that the Board involvement and contribution in the relationship between the providers of very large online platforms with media service providers in the online environment is as effective and useful as possible, it is of utmost importance that the Board, upon request, is entitled to receive all the necessary information from the providers of very large online platforms, including the exchange of information between the providers of very large online platforms and the medias services providers.

Amendment 37

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 36 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(36b) In collaboration with national regulatory agencies or bodies, the Board should issue an annual report on media freedom in each Member State. The report must include a transparency index and other criteria deemed necessary to assess the state of media freedom, such as the independence of media outlets, the level of media pluralism, journalists' access to information, journalists' safety, the level of media ownership concentration, the effectiveness of media self-regulation, public trust in the media, the existence of public funding for media, and the level of media literacy among the general public. The report should also include suggestions for each Member State based on the study cases chosen in consultation with national regulatory authorities or bodies to improve cooperation among national regulatory authorities or bodies and promote media freedom and plurality in the Union. The Commission should consider the report and suggestions when reviewing systematic and emergent concerns across the Union under Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, and may request Board cooperation in this regard.

Amendment 38

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37) Recipients of audiovisual media services should be able to effectively choose the audiovisual content they want to watch according to their preferences. Their freedom in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, namely agreements for content prioritisation between manufacturers of devices or providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services, such as connected televisions, and media service providers. Prioritisation can be implemented, for example, on the home screen of a device, through hardware or software shortcuts, applications and search areas, which have implications on the recipients’ viewing behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to choose certain audiovisual media offers over others. Service recipients should have the possibility to change, in a simple and user-friendly manner, the default settings of a device or user interface controlling and managing access to, and use of, audiovisual media services, without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest implementing Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EC, taken in the pursuit of legitimate public policy considerations.

(37) Recipients of audiovisual media services should be able to effectively choose the audiovisual content they want to watch according to their preferences. Their freedom in this area may however be constrained by commercial practices in the media sector, namely agreements for content prioritisation between manufacturers of devices or providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services, such as connected televisions, and media service providers. Prioritisation can be implemented, for example, on the home screen of a user interface through hardware shortcuts such as dedicated buttons on remote controls or software shortcuts, applications and search areas, , which have implications on the recipients’ viewing behaviour, who may be unduly incentivised to choose certain audiovisual media offers over others. Service recipients should have the possibility to change, in a simple and user-friendly manner, the default settings of a device or user interface controlling and managing access to, and use of, audiovisual media services, without prejudice to measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest implementing Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EC, taken in the pursuit of legitimate public policy considerations. User interface elements or hardware elements that are unrelated to controlling or accessing audiovisual media services as such should not be subject to the requirement for changing settings. For instance, user interface elements primarily serving the operation of the device such as menu guides or buttons dedicated to regulating volume or brightness should not be subject to this obligation.

Amendment 39

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 choices and 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 40

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 37 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(37b) Audiovisual media services are subject to various obligations to meet important public policy goals such as supporting cultural diversity and a pluralistic media environment. It is therefore important that devices be designed in a way that ensures fair access to audiovisual media services, from the perspective of both viewers and media service providers. Logical channel numbers on numeric pads should allow viewers to directly access the audiovisual media service and help ensuring a fair and direct access to audiovisual media services.

Amendment 41

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 38

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(38) Different legislative, regulatory or administrative measures can negatively affect either media pluralism or the editorial independence of media service providers in the internal market, or are 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 and enhance legal certainty, it is important that such measures comply with the principles of objective justification, adequacy, transparency, non-discrimination and proportionality. Concerning national measures implementing Directive 2010/13/EU or otherwise governed by State aid rules, while some may affect media pluralism or the editorial independence of media services, or may affect fundamental rights as defined in the European Union's Fundamental Charter, others may aim to protect a section of the population (national measures aiming at protecting minors or minorities, for example) or cultural diversity.

Amendment 42

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 39

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(39) It is also key that the Board is empowered to issue an opinion, where national measures are likely to affect either media pluralism or the editorial independence of media service providers in the internal market or are likely to affect fundamental freedoms as defined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. This is, for example, the case when a national administrative measure is addressed to a media service provider for its services provided outside the national borders, or when the concerned media service provider has a significant influence on the formation of public opinion in that Member State, or if it is preventing a media service provider established in one Member State to provide services or start operations in another Member State.

Amendment 43

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 40

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in democratic processes. 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 competing views within that market as a result of the concentration.

(40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in democratic processes. This is why Member States should provide for rules and procedures in their legal systems to ensure assessment of market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and 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. 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 or very large online platforms carrying content provided by media service providers which control access and visibility to the content of media service providers 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 competing views within that market as a result of the concentration. Such rules should also take into account the media market in its entirety, including the online environment and very large online platforms as well as sectoral specificities, including the economic sustainability of the sector as a whole.

Amendment 44

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 41

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(41) National regulatory authorities or bodies, who have specific expertise in the area of media pluralism, should be involved in the assessment of the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence where they are not the designated authorities or bodies themselves. In order to foster legal certainty and ensure that the rules and procedures are genuinely geared at protecting media pluralism and editorial independence, it is essential that objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying and assessing the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence are set out in advance.

(41) National regulatory authorities or bodies, who have specific expertise in the area of media pluralism, should be involved in the assessment of the impact of market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence where they are not the designated authorities or bodies themselves. In order to foster legal certainty and ensure that the rules and procedures are genuinely geared at protecting media pluralism and editorial independence, it is essential that objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying and assessing the impact of market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence are set out in advance.

Amendment 45

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 42

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(42) When a media market concentration constitutes a concentration falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200455 , the application of this Regulation or of any rules and procedures adopted by Member States on the basis of this Regulation should not affect the application of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Any measures taken by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies based on their assessment of the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence should therefore be aimed at protecting legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 21(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and should be in line with the general principles and other provisions of Union law.

(42) When a market concentration constitutes a concentration falling within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/200455 , the application of this Regulation or of any rules and procedures adopted by Member States on the basis of this Regulation should not affect the application of Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Any measures taken by the designated or involved national regulatory authorities or bodies based on their assessment of the impact of market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence should therefore be aimed at protecting legitimate interests within the meaning of Article 21(4), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, and should be in line with the general principles and other provisions of Union law.

__________________

__________________

55 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1-22).

55 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1-22).

Amendment 46

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 43

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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, 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.

(43) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in democratic processes. 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 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 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 market concentration, but that 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, In any event, the Commission retains the possibility to issue its own opinions following the opinions drawn up by the Board.

Amendment 47

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 44

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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.

(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, focusing on activities directly related to the provision of media services, such as the provision of information, taking into account of the online environment and the important role of public service media providers. Concurrently, it should be considered whether other media outlets, providing different and alternative content, would still coexist in the given market(s) after the 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 editorial decisions of the acquired or merged entity. The existing or envisaged internal safeguards aimed at preserving independence of the 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. Consideration should also be given to competition with online platforms and publicly funded public service broadcasters, as well as whether the concentration would stimulate investments for a vital media market.

Amendment 48

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 45

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45) Audience measurement has a direct impact on the allocation and the prices of advertising, which represents a key revenue source for the media sector. It is a crucial tool to evaluate the performance of media content and understand the preferences of audiences in order to plan the future production of content. Accordingly, media market players, in particular media service providers and advertisers, should be able to rely on objective audience data stemming from transparent, unbiased and verifiable audience measurement solutions. However, certain new players that have emerged in the media ecosystem provide their own measurement services without making available information on their methodologies. This could result in information asymmetries among media market players and in potential market distortions, to the detriment of equality of opportunities for media service providers in the market.

(45) Audience measurement has a direct impact on the allocation and the prices of advertising, which represents a key revenue source for the media sector. Accordingly, media market players, in particular media service providers, right holders and advertisers, should be able to rely on objective audience data stemming from transparent, unbiased and verifiable audience or consumption and performance measurement solutions. However, certain new players, such as online platforms that have emerged in the media ecosystem provide their own measurement services without making available information on their methodologies. This could result in incomparable measurement systems and information asymmetries among media market players and in potential market distortions, to the detriment of equality of opportunities for media service providers in the market. To secure impartiality in measurement, the methodology used in audience measurement should be audited by independent bodies.

Amendment 49

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 45 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(45a) Online platforms’ capacity to offer content without exercising editorial responsibility over it and market the ability to target users with advertising allows them to act as direct competitors to media service providers whose content they intermediate and distribute. Given the transfer of economic value in favour of online platforms, the audience measurement definition should take into account content consumed by users of media services and users of online platforms. This will ensure that all intermediaries involved in content distribution are transparent about their audience measurement methodologies so as to enable advertisers to make informed choices that drive competition.

Amendment 50

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 46

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(46) In order to enhance the verifiability 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.

(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. The methodology and its application shall be audited at least once a year by an independent body. The information must be as granular as the information provided by the rest of the media market, including non-aggregated data. 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 and the coverage of measurement. 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) 2022/1925, including those concerning ranking or self-preferencing.

Amendment 51

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 47

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(47) Codes of conduct, drawn up either by the providers of audience measurement systems or by organisations or associations representing them, can contribute to the effective application of this Regulation and should, therefore, be encouraged. Self-regulation has already been used to foster high quality standards in the area of audience measurement. Its further development could be seen as an effective tool for the industry to agree on the practical solutions needed for ensuring compliance of audience measurement systems and their methodologies with the principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination and verifiability. When drawing up such codes of conduct, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and notably media service providers, account could be taken in particular of the increasing digitalisation of the media sector and the objective of achieving a level playing field among media market players.

(47) Codes of conduct, drawn up either by the providers of audience measurement systems or by organisations or associations representing them, together with media service providers, their representative organisations, online platform providers, civil society and any other interested parties contribute to the effective application of this Regulation and should, therefore, be encouraged. Self-regulation has already been used to foster high quality standards in the area of audience measurement. Its further development could be seen as an effective tool for the industry to agree on the practical solutions needed for ensuring compliance of audience measurement systems and their methodologies with the principles of transparency, comparability, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination and verifiability. When drawing up such codes of conduct, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and notably media service providers, account could be taken in particular of the increasing digitalisation of the media sector and the objective of achieving a level playing field among media market players.

Amendment 52

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 48

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 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 Council56 does 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.

(48) State advertising is an important source of revenue for many media service providers and providers of online platforms, contributing to their economic sustainability. Access to it must be granted in a non-discriminatory way to any media service provider in order to ensure equal opportunities in the internal market. Moreover, State advertising may make media service providers and providers of online platforms vulnerable to undue state influence to the detriment of 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 and providers of online platforms. 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 Council56 does 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).

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 53

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 49

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(49) In order to ensure undistorted competition between media service providers and to avoid the risk of covert subsidies and of undue political influence on the media, it is necessary to establish common requirements of transparency, objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination in the allocation of state advertising and of state resources to media service providers for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from them other than state advertising, including the requirement to publish information on the beneficiaries of state advertising expenditure and the amounts spent. It is important that Member States make the necessary information related to state advertising publicly accessible in an electronic format that is easy to view, access and download, in compliance with Union and national rules on commercial confidentiality. This Regulation shall not affect the application of the State aid rules, which are applied on a case-by-case basis.

(49) In order to ensure undistorted competition between media service providers and providers of online platforms, and to avoid the risk of covert subsidies and of undue political influence on the media, it is necessary to establish common requirements of transparency, objectivity, proportionality and non-discrimination in the allocation of state advertising and of state resources to media service providers for the purpose of purchasing goods or services from them other than state advertising, including the requirement to publish information on the beneficiaries of state advertising expenditure and the amounts spent. It is important that Member States make the necessary information related to state advertising publicly accessible in an electronic format that is easy to view, access and download, in compliance with Union and national rules on commercial confidentiality. Media service providers receiving public funds or any other economic advantage for the purposes of advertising from third-countries shall annually submit a report to the national regulatory authority or body. The relevant authority shall make these reports publicly available. This Regulation shall not affect the application of the State aid rules, which are applied on a case-by-case basis.

Amendment 54

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. This Regulation lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, including the establishment of the European Board for Media Services, while preserving the quality of media services.

1. This Regulation lays down common rules for the proper functioning of the internal market for media services, including the establishment of the European Board for Media Services, while ensuring the quality of media services as well as cultural and linguistic diversity and a high level of consumer protection.

Amendment 55

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(aa) Directive 2001/29/EC;

Amendment 56

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ab) Directive 2019/789/EU;

Amendment 57

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act];

(d) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

Amendment 58

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(e) Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Markets Act];

(e) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925;

(f) Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Regulation on the transparency and targeting of political advertising];

Amendment 59

(g) Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

Proposal for a regulation

3. This Regulation shall not affect the possibility for Member States to adopt more detailed or stricter rules in the fields covered by Chapter II, Section 5 of Chapter III and Article 24, provided that those rules ensure a higher level of protection for media pluralism or editorial independence in accordance with this Regulation and comply with Union law.

Article 1 – paragraph 3

Article 2 Definitions

Text proposed by the Commission

For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:

Amendment

(1) ‘media service’ means a service as defined by Articles 56 and 57 of the Treaty, where the principal purpose of the service or a dissociable section thereof consists in providing programmes or press publications to the general public, by any means, in order to inform, entertain or educate, under the editorial responsibility of a media service provider;

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.

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 and Article 24, provided that those rules comply with Union law.

Amendment 60

Proposal for a regulation

Article 1 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3a. This Regulation is without prejudice to Union competition rules, including antitrust, merger and State aid rules.

Amendment 61

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2) ‘media service provider’ means a natural or legal person whose professional activity is to provide a media service and who has editorial responsibility for the choice of the content of the media service and determines the manner in which it is organised;

(3) ‘public service media provider’ means a media service provider which is entrusted with a public service remit under national law and receives national public funding for the fulfilment of such a remit;

(2) ‘media service provider’ means a natural or legal person whose professional activity is to provide a media service and who has editorial responsibility for the choice of the content or decides the overall editorial line and exercises editorial control over a section or sections of the media service and determines the manner in which it is organised;

(4) ‘programme’ means a set of moving images or sounds constituting an individual item, irrespective of its length, within a schedule or a catalogue established by a media service provider;

Amendment 62

(5) ‘press publication’ means a publication as defined in Article 2(4) of Directive 2019/790/EU;

Proposal for a regulation

(6) ‘audiovisual media service’ means a service as defined in Article 1(1), point (a), of Directive 2010/13/EU;

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3

▌

Text proposed by the Commission

(8) ‘editorial decision’ means a decision taken on a regular basis for the purpose of exercising editorial responsibility and linked to the day-to-day operation of a media service provider;

Amendment

(3) ‘public service media provider’ means a media service provider which is entrusted with a public service mission under national law or receives national public funding for the fulfilment of such a mission;

(3) ‘public service media provider’ means a media service provider which is entrusted with a public service remit under national law or receives national public funding for the fulfilment of such a remit;

Amendment 63

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a) ‘publishing director’, means the legal representative of the media service provider who assumes legal and other responsibility for the provision of a media service;

Amendment 64

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7) ‘editor’ means a natural person or a number of natural persons possibly grouped in a body, regardless of its legal form, status and composition, that takes or supervises editorial decisions within a media service provider;

(7) ‘Editorial manager’ means a natural person or a number of natural persons possibly grouped in a body, regardless of its legal form, status and composition, that has editorial responsibility and takes or supervises editorial decisions within a media service provider. Any person who has editorial responsibility over the content produced by the media service provider, regardless of their job title or role, shall be subject to the same obligations and responsibilities as an 'editorial manager' under this regulation;

Amendment 65

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9) ‘editorial responsibility’ means the exercise of effective control both over the selection of the programmes or press publications and over their organisation, for the purposes of the provision of a media service, regardless of the existence of liability under national law for the service provided;

(9a) ‘online platform’ means online platform as defined in Article 3, point (i), of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

(9) ‘editorial responsibility’ means the exercise of effective control, both over the selection of the programmes or press publications contents and over their organisation, for the purposes of the provision of a media service;

(10) ‘provider of very large online platform’ means a provider of an online platform that has been designated as a very large online platform pursuant to Article 33(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

Amendment 66

(11) ‘video-sharing platform service’ means a service as defined in Article 1(1), point (aa), of Directive 2010/13/EU;

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 9 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(9a) ‘online platform’ means a service as defined in Article 3, point (i) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

Amendment 67

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(10) ‘provider of very large online platform’ means a provider of an online platform that has been designated as a very large online platform pursuant to Article 25(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act];

(10) ‘provider of very large online platform’ means a provider of an online platform that has been designated as a very large online platform pursuant to Article 25(4) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065;

Amendment 68

Proposal for a regulation

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(12) ‘national regulatory authority or body’ means the authority or body designated by Member States pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU;

(12) ‘national regulatory authority or body’ means any authority or body designated by Member States pursuant to Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU;

(12a) 'user interface' means a service which controls or manages access to and the use of media services providing programmes and which enables users to select among media services or content;

Amendment 69

(13) ‘media market concentration’ means a concentration as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one media service provider or one provider of an online platform providing access to media content;

Proposal for a regulation

(14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media services or users of content on online platforms for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation or pricing, purchases and sales or planning, ▌or distribution of content;

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13

(14a) 'proprietary audience measurement’ means audience measurement which does not follow industry standards and best practices agreed through self-regulatory mechanisms;

Text proposed by the Commission

(14a) ‘public authority or entity’ means a national or subnational government, a regulatory authority or body, or an entity controlled, directly or indirectly, by a national or subnational government;

Amendment

(15) ‘State advertising’ means the placement, promotion, publication or dissemination, in any media service or online platform of a promotional or self-promotional message or a public announcement or an information campaign, normally in return for payment or for any other consideration, by, for or on behalf of a public authority or entity;

(13) ‘media market concentration’ means a concentration as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one media service provider;

(16) ‘intrusive surveillance software’ means any product with digital elements specially designed to exploit vulnerabilities in other products with digital elements that enables the covert surveillance of natural or legal persons by monitoring, extracting, collecting or analysing data from such products or from the natural or legal persons using such products including in an indiscriminate manner ▌ ;

(13) ‘market concentration that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence’ means a concentration as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 involving at least one media service provider;

▌

Amendment 70

(17a) ‘media literacy’ means skills, knowledge and understanding that allow citizens to use media effectively and safely which are not limited to learning about tools and technologies but aim to equip citizens with the critical thinking skills required to exercise judgment, analyse complex realities and recognise the difference between opinion and fact.

Proposal for a regulation

Chapter II Rights and duties of media service providers and recipients of media services

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14

Article 3 Right of recipients of media services

Text proposed by the Commission

Member States shall respect the right of recipients of media services to have access to a plurality of editorially independent media content and ensure that framework conditions are in place in line with this Regulation to safeguard that right, to the benefit of free and democratic discourse.

Amendment

Article 4 Rights of media service providers

(14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media services for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation or prices or the related planning, production or distribution of content;

1. Media service providers shall have the right to exercise their economic activities in the internal market without restrictions other than those allowed pursuant to Union law.

(14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing comparable data about the number and characteristics of users of media services programs or online platforms, to determine the audience size, reach and frequency for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation or prices or regarding planning, buying, selling, production dissemination or distribution of content;

2. Member States shall respect the effective editorial freedom and independence of media service providers in the exercise of their professional activity. Member States, including their national regulatory authorities and bodies, shall not interfere in or try to influence the editorial policies and editorial decisions of media service providers.

Amendment 71

2a. Member States shall ensure that journalistic sources and confidential communications are effectively protected. Member States shall not carry out any of the following actions:

Proposal for a regulation

(a) oblige media service providers, their editorial staff, or any persons who, because of their regular or professional relationship with a media service provider or its editorial staff, might have information related to or capable of identifying journalistic sources or confidential communications, to disclose such information;

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 15

(b) detain, sanction, intercept ▌ or inspect media service providers, their editorial staff or any persons who, because of their regular or professional relationship with a media service provider or its editorial staff, might have information related to or capable of identifying journalistic sources or confidential communications, subject any of them or their corporate or private premises to surveillance, search and seizure, for the purpose of obtaining such information;

Text proposed by the Commission

(c) deploy intrusive surveillance software, on any material or digital device, machine or tool used by media service providers ▌ , their editorial staff or any persons who, because of their regular or professional relationship with a media service provider or its editorial staff, might have information related to or capable of identifying journalistic sources or confidential communications.

Amendment

2b. By way of derogation from paragraph 2a, points (a) and (b), Member States may take a measure referred to therein, provided that it:

(15) ‘State advertising’ means the placement, publication or dissemination, in any media service, of a promotional or self-promotional message, normally in return for payment or for any other consideration, by, for or on behalf of any national or regional public authority, such as 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 any local government of a territorial entity of more than 1 million inhabitants;

(a) is provided for by national law or Union law;

(15) ‘State advertising’ means the placement, promotion, publication or dissemination, in any media service or online platform, of a promotional or self-promotional message, normally in return for payment or for any other consideration, by, for or on behalf of any public authority at Union, national or regional level, such as the European Commission, 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 any local government of a territorial entity in which the State is involved in the everyday business and has influence or control over advertising strategies;

(b) is in compliance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and other Union law;

Amendment 72

(c) is justified on a case-by-case basis by an overriding reason of public interest and is proportionate; and

Proposal for a regulation

(d) is subject to prior authorisation by a judicial authority or an independent and impartial decision-making authority or, in duly justified exceptional and urgent cases, is subsequently authorised by such authority without undue delay.

Chapter II – title

By way of derogation from paragraph 2a, point (c), Member States may deploy intrusive surveillance software, provided that the deployment complies with the conditions referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph and it is carried out for the purposes of investigations of one of the persons referred to in paragraph 2a, point (c), for offences referred to in Article 2(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order of a maximum period of at least three years or for other serious crimes punishable in the Member State concerned by a custodial sentence or a detention order of a maximum period of at least five years, as determined by the law of that Member State.

Text proposed by the Commission

Member States shall not take a measure as referred to in paragraph 2a, point (c), where a measure as referred to in paragraph 2a, point (a) or (b), would be adequate and sufficient to obtain the information sought.

Amendment

2c. Member States shall ensure that the surveillance measures referred to in paragraph 2a, point (b), and the deployment of intrusive surveillance software referred to in paragraph 2a, point (c), are regularly reviewed by a judicial authority or an independent and impartial decision-making authority in order to determine if the conditions justifying their use continue to be fulfilled.

Rights and duties of media service providers and recipients

2d. The safeguards provided by Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council, including the right of the data subject to information and access to personal data undergoing processing, shall apply to any processing of personal data occurring in the context of the deployment of the surveillance measures referred to in paragraph 2a, point (b), or the deployment of intrusive surveillance software referred to in paragraph 2a, point (c).

Rights and duties of media service providers and recipients [prominence of media services of general interest]

3. Member States shall ensure that media service providers or their editorial staff, or any persons who, because of their regular or professional relationship with a media service provider or its editorial staff, might have information related to or capable of identifying journalistic sources or confidential communications have a right to an effective judicial protection, in line with Article 47 of the Charter, in cases regarding breaches of paragraphs 2a to 2d.

Amendment 73

Member States shall entrust an independent authority or body with relevant expertise to provide assistance to those persons with regard to the exercise of that right. Where no such authority or body exists, those persons may seek assistance from a self-regulatory body or mechanism.

Proposal for a regulation

3a. The Member States’ responsibilities as laid down in the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are respected.

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Article 5 Safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media providers

Text proposed by the Commission

1. Member States shall ensure that public service media providers are editorially and functionally independent, and provide in an impartial manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences, in accordance with their public service remit as defined at national level in line with Protocol No 29 on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the TEU and the TFEU.

Amendment

2. MemberRecipients Statesof shallmedia ensureservices thatin the proceduresUnion forshall have the appointmentright andto thereceive dismissala plurality of thenews headand ofcurrent managementaffairs orcontent, theproduced memberswith ofrespect thefor managementeditorial boardfreedom of public service media providersservice aimproviders, to guarantee the independencebenefit of the public service media providers.discourse.

The appointment of the head of management or the members of the management board of public ▌ service media providers shall be based on transparent, open, effective and non-discriminatory procedures and transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance at national level. The duration of their term of office shall be sufficient for the effective independence of public service media providers.

Recipients of media services in the Union shall have the right to receive and have access to a plurality of news and current affairs content, in their own language, and related to their own cultural references produced with respect for editorial freedom of media service providers, to the benefit of the public discourse;

Decisions on dismissal of the head of management or the members of the management board of public service media providers before the end of their term of office shall be duly justified, may be taken only exceptionally where they no longer fulfil the conditions required for the performance of their duties according to criteria laid down in advance at national level, shall be subject to prior notification to the person concerned and include the possibility for judicial review.

Amendment 74

3. Member States shall ensure that funding procedures for public service media providers are based on transparent and objective criteria laid down in advance. Those procedures shall guarantee that public service media providers have adequate, sustainable and predictable financial resources corresponding to the fulfilment of and capacity to develop within their public service remit. Those resources shall be such that editorial independence of public service media providers is safeguarded.

Proposal for a regulation

4. Member States shall designate one or more independent authorities or bodies or put in place mechanisms free from political influence by the government to monitor the application of paragraphs 1 to 3. The results of the monitoring exercise shall be made available to the public.

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Article 6 Duties of media service providers ▌

Text proposed by the Commission

1. Media service providers ▌ shall make easily and directly accessible to the recipients of their services up-to-date information on:

Amendment

(a) their legal name(s) and contact details;

Member States shall take measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual and audio media services of general interest, in order to guarantee the right of consumers to access a broad range of information sources.

(b) the name(s) of their direct or indirect owner(s) with shareholdings enabling them to exercise influence on the operation and strategic decision making, including direct or indirect ownership by the state or a public authority or entity;

Amendment 75

(c) the name(s) of their beneficial owners as defined in Article 3, point 6, of Directive (EU) 2015/849 ▌;

Proposal for a regulation

(cd) total annual amount of state advertising allocated to them and the total annual amount of advertising revenues received from public authorities or entities of third countries.

Article 4 – paragraph 1

1a. Member States shall entrust national regulatory authorities or bodies or other competent authorities or bodies to develop national media ownership databases containing the information set out in paragraph 1.

Text proposed by the Commission

2. Without prejudice to national constitutional laws consistent with the Charter, media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall take measures that they deem appropriate with a view to guaranteeing the independence of editorial decisions. In particular, such measures shall aim to:

Amendment

(a) guarantee that editorial decisions can be taken freely within the established editorial line of the media service provider; and

1. Media service providers shall have the right to exercise their economic activities in the internal market without restrictions other than those allowed under Union law.

(b) ensure disclosure of any actual or potential conflict of interest ▌ that may affect the provision of news and current affairs content.

1. Media service providers shall have the right to exercise their economic activities in the internal market without restrictions other than those in conformity with Union law.

▌

Amendment 76

Chapter III Framework for regulatory cooperation and a well-functioning internal market for media services

Proposal for a regulation

Section 1 Independent media authorities

Article 4 – paragraph 3

Article 7 National regulatory authorities or bodies

Text proposed by the Commission

1. The national regulatory authorities or bodies as defined in Article 2(12) shall ensure, where applicable through consultation or coordination with other relevant authorities or bodies, or, where relevant self-regulatory bodies in their Member States, the application of Chapter III ▌ .

Amendment

2. The national regulatory authorities or bodies shall be subject to the requirements set out in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU in relation to the exercise of the tasks assigned to them by this Regulation.

3. Without prejudice and in addition to the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed to each natural and legal person, Member States shall designate an independent authority or body to handle complaints lodged by media service providers or, if applicable, their family members, their employees or their family members, regarding breaches of paragraph 2, points (b) and (c). Media service providers shall have the right to request that authority or body to issue, within three months of the request, an opinion regarding compliance with paragraph 2, points (b) and (c).

3. Without prejudice and in addition to the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed to each natural and legal person, Member States shall designate an independent authority or body to handle complaints lodged by media service providers or, if applicable, their family members, their employees or their family members, regarding breaches of paragraph 2, points (b) and (c). Media service providers shall have the right to request that authority or body to issue, within three months of the request, an opinion regarding compliance with paragraph 2, points (b) and (c). Each independent authority or body handling complaints under this Article shall act with complete independence and remain free from external influence, whether direct or indirect, and shall neither seek nor take instructions in performing its tasks and exercising its powers in accordance with this Regulation.

Amendment 77

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3a. Nothing in this Regulation shall be construed as prohibiting, restricting or undermining the provision or the use of encrypted services.

Amendment 78

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Public service media providers shall provide in an impartial manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences, in accordance with their public service mission.

1. Member States shall ensure that public service media providers shall provide in an impartial manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences, in an impartial and independent manner, in accordance with their public service remit.

Amendment 79

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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 and on the basis of transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance by national law.

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 and on the basis of transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria, ensuring media pluralism, laid down by national law.

Amendment 80

Proposal for a regulation

Article 5 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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 that editorial independence is safeguarded.

3. Member States shall ensure that public service media providers have adequate and stable financial resources for the fulfilment of their public service remit 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 81

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall make easily and directly accessible to the recipients of their services the following information:

1. Media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall make easily and directly accessible to the recipients of their services including, to the extent possible, to persons with disabilities, detailed, comprehensive and regularly updated information, in particular the following:

Amendment 82

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) their legal name and contact details;

(a) their legal name and contact details, registered office, legal form and the names of its legal representatives;

Amendment 83

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ca) whether their direct or beneficial ownership is held by the government, a state institution, a state-owned enterprise or other public body;

Amendment 84

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(cb) the business interests or other corporate links or professional activities of their owners in other media service providers;

Amendment 85

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Without prejudice to national constitutional laws consistent with the Charter, media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall take measures that they deem appropriate with a view to guaranteeing the independence of individual editorial decisions. In particular, such measures shall aim to:

2. Without prejudice to national constitutional laws consistent with the Charter, media service providers providing news and current affairs content shall take measures that they deem appropriate with a view to protecting the independence of editorial decisions. In particular, such measures may aim to:

Amendment 86

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) guarantee that editors are free to take individual editorial decisions in the exercise of their professional activity; and

(a) protect the freedom of editorial managers and, where applicable, publishing directors to take editorial decisions in the exercise of their professional activity, including the exercise of the responsibility entrusted to the publishing director; and

Amendment 87

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) ensure disclosure of any actual or potential conflict of interest by any party having a stake in media service providers that may affect the provision of news and current affairs content.

(b) disclose any conflict of interest by any party having a stake in media service providers that may affect the provision of news and current affairs content.

Amendment 88

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) develop codes of conduct, in cooperation with organisations or associations of journalists, shareholders, publishing directors and editorial managers of publications and newsrooms. These codes of conduct shall be in line with widely recognised and accepted standards of professional and ethical journalism, such as ISO-type standards. The Board shall encourage all the actors referred to endorse the commitments stated in the codes of conduct, and to comply with them.

Amendment 89

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The obligations under this Article shall not apply to media service providers that are micro enterprises within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2013/34/EU.

deleted

Amendment 90

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

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 unless otherwise specified.

Amendment 91

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Member States shall ensure that the national regulatory authorities or bodies have adequate financial, human and technical resources to carry out their tasks under this Regulation.

4. Where needed for carrying out their tasks under this Regulation,3. Member States shall ensure that the national regulatory authorities or bodies are empowered tohave requestadequate thefinancial, naturalhuman orand legaltechnical personsresources to which Chapter IIIcarry appliesout totheir provide,tasks withinconferred aunder reasonablethis timeRegulation. period,The informationorganisational and data that arefunctional proportionateautonomy andof necessarythe fornational carryingregulatory outauthorities theor tasksbodies undershall Chapterbe III.guaranteed.

Member States shall ensure that requests can also be addressed to any other natural or legal person that, for purposes related to its trade, business or profession, might reasonably be in possession of information and data that is proportionate and necessary for carrying out the tasks under Chapter III.▌

Amendment 92

Section 2 European Board for Media Services

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 European Board for Media Services

Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

1. The European Board for Media Services (‘the Board’) is hereby established.

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where needed for carrying out their tasks under this Regulation, the national regulatory authorities or bodies shall have appropriate powers of investigation, with regard to the conduct of natural or legal persons to which Chapter III applies.

Where needed for carrying out their tasks under this Regulation, and while respecting all the rights and interests, the national regulatory authorities or bodies shall have appropriate powers of investigation, with regard to the conduct of natural or legal persons to which this Regulation applies.

Amendment 93

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Those powers shall include in particular the power to request such persons to provide, within a reasonable time period, information that is proportionate and necessary for carrying out the tasks under Chapter III; the request can also be addressed to any other person that, for purposes related to their trade, business or profession, may reasonably be in possession of the information needed.

Those powers shall include in particular the power to request such persons to provide, within a reasonable time period, information and data that is proportionate and necessary for carrying out the tasks under Chapter III; the request can also be addressed to any other person that, for purposes related to their trade, business or profession, may reasonably be expected to be in possession of the information needed.

Amendment 94

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4a. Where needed for carrying out their tasks under this Regulation, the national regulatory authorities or bodies shall have appropriate powers to consult with other relevant national competent supervisory authorities, including digital service coordinators established by Regulation 2022/2065 and data protection authorities, in the context of their investigations and compliance assessments. Those powers shall include in particular the power to cooperate with different competent supervisory authorities, each acting within their respective areas of competence.

Amendment 95

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 4 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4b. Member States shall entrust their relevant national regulatory authorities or bodies with developing, maintaining and regularly updating an online media ownership database containing disaggregated data about different types of media service providers. These databases shall be made public.

Amendment 96

Proposal for a regulation

Article 8 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Board shall replace and succeed the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) established by Directive 2010/13/EU.

Article 9 Independence of the Board

2. The Board shall replace and succeed the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) established by Directive 2010/13/EU. However, a separate agenda shall be kept by the Board as for the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU which is a Directive involving specificities due to the implementation process by the Member States.

Amendment 97

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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, institution, person or body. This shall not affect the competences of the Commission or the national regulatory authorities or bodies in conformity with this Regulation.

Article 10 Structure of the Board

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 or the national regulatory authorities or bodies in conformity with this Regulation.

1. The Board shall be composed of representatives of national regulatory authorities or bodies as defined in Article 2(12).

Amendment 98

2. Each member of the Board shall have one vote.

Proposal for a regulation

2a. The Board shall take decisions by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights.

Article 10 – paragraph 1

3. Where a Member State has more than one national regulatory authority or body, those regulatory authorities or bodies shall coordinate with each other as necessary and appoint a joint representative which shall exercise the right to vote.

Text proposed by the Commission

4. The Board shall be represented by its Chair. The Board shall elect a Chair and Vice-Chair from amongst its members. The term of office of the Chair shall be one year, renewable once. The Board may set up a Steering Group.

Amendment

5. The Commission shall designate a representative to the Board. The representative of the Commission shall participate in the deliberations of the Board, without voting rights. The Chair of the Board shall keep the Commission informed about the ▌ activities of the Board. ▌

1. The Board shall be composed of representatives of national regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU.

6. The Board may invite experts and, in agreement with the Commission, permanent observers to attend its meetings.

1. The Board shall be composed of high-level representatives of national regulatory authorities or bodies referred to in Article 30 of Directive 2010/13/EU.

▌

Amendment 99

8. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure, in consultation with the Commission. Those rules of procedure shall include the practical arrangements for the prevention and management of conflict of interests of the Members of the Board.

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 Secretariat of the Board

Article 10 – paragraph 4

1. The Board shall be assisted by a secretariat, which shall be provided by the Commission, taking into account the needs indicated by the Board. The secretariat shall be adequately resourced for the performance of its tasks.

Text proposed by the Commission

2. The main task of the secretariat shall be to contribute to the independent execution of the tasks of the Board laid down in this Regulation and in Directive 2010/13/EU. The secretariat shall act on the sole instructions of the Board regarding its tasks under this Regulation.

Amendment

3. The secretariat shall provide administrative and organisational support to the activities of the Board. The secretariat shall also assist the Board substantively in carrying out its tasks.

4. The Board shall be represented by its Chair. The Board shall elect a Chair from amongst its members by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights. The term of office of the Chair shall be two years.

Article 11a Consultation mechanism

4. The Board shall be represented by its Chair or its Vice-Chairs. The Board shall elect a Chair and up to four Vice-Chairs from amongst its members by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights. The term of office of the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be two years.

1. Where the Board considers matters beyond the audiovisual media sector, it shall consult representatives from the relevant media sectors operating at national or Union level.

Amendment 100

2. The Board shall, in its rules of procedures, set out the arrangements to conduct the consultation referred to in paragraph 1. Such consultation shall ensure the possibility to involve several representatives, as appropriate.

Proposal for a regulation

3. Where possible, the Board shall make publicly available the results of the consultation.

Article 10 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Article 12 Tasks of the Board

Text proposed by the Commission

1. Without prejudice to the powers granted to the Commission by the Treaties, the Board shall advise and support the Commission on matters related to media services within its competence as well as promote the effective and consistent application of Chapter III of this Regulation and the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU throughout the Union. The Board shall therefore:

Amendment

(a) provide technical expertise to the Commission in its task to ensure the consistent application of Chapter III 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;

4a. To ensure continuity, the Board may elect a Steering Group from amongst its members, consisting of a Chair, a Vice-Chair and 3 other members, including the outgoing Chair. The Board’s Rules of procedure shall specify the roles, the tasks and the procedures for the appointment of the members of the Steering Group.

(b) promote cooperation and the effective exchange of information, experience and best practices between the national regulatory authorities or bodies on the application of the Union and national rules applicable to media services, including this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU, in particular as regards Articles 3, 4 and 7 of that Directive;

Amendment 101

▌

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

5. The Board shall keep the Commission informed about the ongoing and planned activities of the Board. The Board shall consult the Commission in particular in preparation of its work programme and main deliverables.

Amendment 102

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The Board, in agreement with the Commission, may invite experts and observers to attend its meetings.

6. The Board may invite experts and observers to attend its meetings.

Amendment 103

Proposal for a regulation

Article 10 – paragraph 8

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

8. The Board shall adopt its rules of procedure by a two-thirds majority of its members with voting rights.

Amendment 104

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Secretariat of the Board

Bureau of the Board

Amendment 105

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. The Board shall have a secretariat, which shall be provided by the Commission.

1. The Board shall be supported by a Bureau, independent from the Commission.

Amendment 106

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The main task of the secretariat shall be to contribute to the execution of the tasks of the Board laid down in this Regulation and in Directive 2010/13/EU.

2. The main task of the Bureau shall be to provide administrative and organisational support to the Board in order to contribute to the execution of the tasks of the Board laid down in this Regulation and in Directive 2010/13/EU.

Amendment 107

Proposal for a regulation

Article 11 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

3. The Bureau shall act on the instructions of the Board and shall have sufficient human and financial resources allocated to it.

Amendment 108

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Without prejudice to the powers granted to the Commission by the Treaties, the Board shall promote the effective and consistent application of this Regulation and of national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU throughout the Union. The Board shall:

Without prejudice to the powers granted to the Commission by the Treaties, the Board shall promote the effective and consistent application of this Regulation and of national measures implementing Directive 2010/13/EU throughout the Union. The Board shall:

Amendment 109

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) advise the Commission, where requested by it, 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;

(c) advise the Commission, on its own initiative or where requested by it, 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;

Amendment 110

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) when requested by the Commission, 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;

(e) in consultation with the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:

(d) on its own initiative, or when requested by the Commission, 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;

(i) requests for cooperation ▌ between national regulatory authorities or bodies, in accordance with Article 13(7) of this Regulation;

Amendment 111

(ii) requests for enforcement measures in case of disagreement between the requesting authority or body and the requested authority or body, including recommended actions, pursuant to Article 14(4) of this Regulation;

Proposal for a regulation

(iii) national measures concerning media services from outside of the Union, in accordance with Article 16(2) of this Regulation;

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e – introductory part

(f) on its own initiative or upon request of the Commission, or upon a duly justified and reasoned request of a media service provider that is individually and directly affected, draw up opinions with respect to regulatory or administrative measures which are likely to significantly affect the operation of media service providers in the internal market for media services, in accordance with Article 20(4) of this Regulation; ▌

Text proposed by the Commission

(g) draw up opinions on draft assessments or draft opinions of national regulatory authorities or bodies in accordance with Article 21(5) of this Regulation;

Amendment

(ga) on its own initiative or upon request of the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to media market concentrations which are likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, in accordance with Article 22(1) of this Regulation;

(e) in agreement with the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:

(h) assist the Commission in(e) drawingdraw up guidelinesopinions with respect to:

(i) the application of this Regulation and the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU, in accordance with Article 15(2) of this Regulation;

Amendment 112

(ii) elements referred to in Article 21(2), point (a) to (c), in accordance with Article 21(3) of this Regulation;

Proposal for a regulation

(iii) the application of Articles 23(1), (2) and (3) pursuant to Article 23(4) of this Regulation;

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point e – point i

(i) upon request of at least one of the concerned authorities or bodies, mediate in the case of disagreements between national regulatory authorities or bodies, in accordance with Article 14(3) of this Regulation;

Text proposed by the Commission

(j) foster cooperation on harmonised standards related to ▌ design of devices or user interfaces or digital signals carried by such devices, in accordance with Article 19(4a) of this Regulation;

Amendment

(k) coordinate relevant measures by the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned related to the dissemination of or access to content of media services from outside of the Union that target or reach audiences in the Union, where such media services prejudice or present a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security, in accordance with Article 16(1) of this Regulation and, in consultation with the Commission, develop a set of criteria in accordance with Article 16(2b) of this Regulation;

(i) requests for cooperation and mutual assistance between national regulatory authorities or bodies, in accordance with Article 13(7) of this Regulation;

(i) requests for cooperation between national regulatory authorities or bodies, in accordance with Article 13(7) of this Regulation;

Amendment 113

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(f) upon request of the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:

(f) on its own initiative, or upon request of the Commission, draw up opinions with respect to:

Amendment 114

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – point i

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(i) national measures which are likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, in accordance with Article 20(4) of this Regulation;

(i) national measures which are liable to affect either media pluralism or editorial independence of media service providers in the internal market or that is likely to affect fundamental freedoms as defined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, in accordance with Article 20(4) of this Regulation;

Amendment 115

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point f – point ii

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ii) media market concentrations which are likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, in accordance with Article 22(1) of this Regulation;

(ii) market concentrations with a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence likely to affect the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with Article 22(1) of this Regulation;

Amendment 116

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point g

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(g) draw up opinions on draft national opinions or decisions assessing the impact on media pluralism and editorial independence of a notifiable media market concentration where such a concentration may affect the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with Article 21(5) of this Regulation;

(g) draw up opinions on draft national opinions or decisions assessing the impact on media pluralism and editorial independence of a notifiable market concentration where such a concentration may affect the functioning of the internal market, in accordance with Article 21(5) of this Regulation;

When taking decisions pursuant to paragraph g, the board shall base its opinions and decisions on the risk assessment referred to in Art. 21 (2) (a), which carefully identifies, analyses and assesses any systemic risk to media freedom and pluralism in the particular Member State. The Board shall also take into consideration the Commission’s Rule of Law report as well as independent assessments of the media freedom and pluralism in Member States, such as World Press Freedom Index;

Amendment 117

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point h – point ii

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ii) factors to be taken into account when applying the criteria for assessing the impact of media market concentrations, in accordance with Article 21(3) of this Regulation;

(ii) factors to be taken into account when applying the criteria for assessing the impact of market concentrations with a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence, in accordance with Article 21(3) of this Regulation;

Amendment 118

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point l

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(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 Regulation;

(m) foster the exchange of best practices related to the deployment of audience measurement systems, in accordance with Article 23(5) of this Regulation;

(l) organise a structured dialogue between providers of very large online platforms, representatives of media service providers and of civil society, in accordance with Article 18 of this Regulation;

(mc) exchange experiences and best practices on media literacy, including to foster the development and use of effective measures and tools to strengthen media literacy;

Amendment 119

(md) draw up a detailed annual report on its activities and tasks, which shall be made publicly available; the Chair shall present the report to the European Parliament when invited to do so.

Proposal for a regulation

2. Where the Commission requests advice or opinions from the Board, it may indicate a time limit, unless otherwise provided for in Union law, taking into account the urgency of the matter.

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point m

3. The Board shall forward its deliverables to the contact committee established by Article 29 of Directive 2010/13/EU.

Text proposed by the Commission

Section 3 Regulatory cooperation and convergence

Amendment

Article 13 Structured cooperation

(m) foster the exchange of best practices related to the deployment of audience measurement systems, in accordance with Article 23(5) of this Regulation.

1. A national regulatory authority or body ▌ (‘requesting authority’) may request cooperation, including the exchange of information or mutual assistance, at any time from one or more national regulatory authorities or bodies (‘requested authorities’) for the ▌ consistent and effective application of Chapter III of this Regulation or the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU.

(m) foster the exchange of best practices and encourage compliance with existing codes of conduct related to the deployment of audience measurement systems, in accordance with Article 23(5) of this Regulation.

▌

Amendment 120

3. Requests for cooperation ▌ shall contain all the necessary information related to the request, including the purpose of and reasons for it.

Proposal for a regulation

4. The requested authority may refuse to address the request only in the following cases:

Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point m a (new)

(a) it is not competent for the subject matter of the request or to provide the type of cooperation requested;

Text proposed by the Commission

(b) execution of the request would infringe this Regulation, Directive 2010/13/EU or other Union legislation or national law compliant with Union law to which the requested authority is subject;

Amendment

(c) the scope or the subject matter of the request is not duly justified or is disproportionate.

(ma) In so far as necessary in order to achieve the objectives set out in this Regulation and carry out its tasks, and without prejudice to the competences of the Member States and the institutions of the Union, the Board, in consultation with the Commission, may cooperate with competent Union bodies, offices, agencies and advisory groups, with competent authorities of third countries and with international organisations. To that end, the Board may establish working arrangements.

The requested authority shall, without undue delay, provide reasons for any refusal to address a request. In cases under point (a) of the first subparagraph, it shall, where possible, indicate the competent authority.

Amendment 121

▌

Proposal for a regulation

6. The requested authority shall do its utmost to address and reply to the request without undue delay and provide ▌ regular updates on the progress of the execution of the request. ▌

Article 13 – paragraph 1

7. Where the requesting authority considers that the requested authority has not sufficiently addressed or replied to its request, it shall inform the requested authority without undue delay, explaining the reasons for its position. If the requesting authority and the requested authority do not come to an agreement concerning the request, either authority may refer the matter to the Board. In accordance with timelines to be established by the Board in its rules of procedure, the Board shall issue, in consultation with the Commission, an opinion on the matter, including recommended actions. The authorities concerned shall do their utmost to take into account the opinion of the Board.

Text proposed by the Commission

7a. Where a national regulatory authority or body considers that there is a serious and grave risk of limitation of the freedom to provide or receive media services in the internal market or a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security, it may request other national regulatory authorities or bodies to provide accelerated cooperation, while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression, including for the purposes of ensuring effective application of national measures under Article 3 of the Directive 2010/13/EU. The requested authority shall reply to and do its utmost to address requests for accelerated cooperation within 14 calendar days. Paragraphs 3,4 and 7 of this Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to requests for accelerated cooperation.

Amendment

7b. Further details on the procedure of the structured cooperation under this Article shall be set out in the Board’s rules of procedure.

1. A national regulatory authority or body may request (‘requesting authority’) cooperation or mutual assistance at any time from one or more national regulatory authorities or bodies (‘requested authorities’) for the purposes of exchange of information or taking measures relevant for the consistent and effective application of this Regulation or the national measures implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.

Article 14 Requests for enforcement of obligations of video-sharing platform providers

1. A national regulatory authority or body may request (‘requesting authority’) cooperation (exchange of information and/or mutual assistance) at any time from one or more national regulatory authorities or bodies (‘requested authorities’) for the purposes of exchange of information or taking measures relevant for the consistent and effective application of this Regulation or the national measures implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.

1. Without prejudice to Article 3 of Directive 2000/31/EC, a national regulatory authority or body (‘requesting authority’) may submit a duly justified request to another national regulatory authority or body (‘requested authority’), which is competent for the subject matter of the request, to take necessary and proportionate actions for the effective enforcement of the obligations imposed on video-sharing platform providers under Article 28b(1) to 28b(3) of Directive 2010/13/EU.

Amendment 122

2. The requested authority shall inform the requesting authority, without undue delay, of the actions it has taken or plans to take, or about the reasons for which actions were not taken, pursuant to a request under paragraph 1. The Board shall establish the timelines for that purpose in its rules of procedure.

Proposal for a regulation

3. In the event of a disagreement between the requesting ▌ authority ▌ and the requested authority regarding actions taken or planned or a lack of actions pursuant to paragraph 1, either authority ▌ may refer the matter to the Board for mediation in view of finding an amicable solution.

Article 13 – paragraph 3

4. If no amicable solution has been found following mediation by the Board, the requesting ▌ authority ▌ or the requested ▌ authority ▌ may request the Board to issue an opinion on the matter. In its opinion the Board shall assess whether the ▌ request referred to in paragraph 1 has been sufficiently addressed. If the Board considers that the requested authority has not sufficiently addressed such a request, the Board shall recommend actions to address the request. The Board shall issue its opinion, in consultation with the Commission, without undue delay.

Text proposed by the Commission

5. Following receipt of the opinion referred to in paragraph 4, the requested authority shall, without undue delay and within timelines to be established by the Board in its rules of procedure, inform the Board, the Commission and the requesting authority ▌ of the actions taken or planned in relation to the opinion.

Amendment

Article 15 Guidance on media regulation matters

3. Requests for cooperation or mutual assistance, including accelerated cooperation or mutual assistance, shall contain all the necessary information, including the purpose of and reasons for it.

1. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices among the national regulatory authorities or bodies, consulting stakeholders ▌ where appropriate ▌ , on regulatory, technical or practical aspects pertinent to the consistent and effective application of Chapter III of this Regulation and implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU.

3. Requests for cooperation including accelerated cooperation or mutual assistance, shall contain all the necessary information, including the purpose of and reasons for it.

2. Where the Commission issues guidelines related to the application of this Regulation or the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU, the Board shall assist it by providing expertise on regulatory, technical or practical aspects, as regards in particular:

Amendment 123

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) the request was not duly justified and proportionate.

Amendment 124

Proposal for a regulation

Article 13 – paragraph 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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 days from the receipt of that referral, the Board shall issue, in agreement with the Commission, an opinion on the matter, including recommended actions. The requested authority shall do its outmost to take into account the opinion of the Board.

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 days from the receipt of that referral, the Board shall issue 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 125

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The requested national authority or body shall, without undue delay and within 30 calendar days, inform the requesting national authority or body about the actions taken or planned pursuant to paragraph 1.

2. The requested national authority or body shall, without undue delay and within 30 calendar days, inform the requesting national authority or body about the actions taken or planned pursuant to paragraph 1 or justify the reasons for which no action has been taken.

Amendment 126

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. In the event of a disagreement between the requesting national authority or body and the requested authority or body regarding actions taken pursuant to paragraph 1, either authority or body may refer the matter to the Board for mediation in view of finding an amicable solution.

3. In the event of a disagreement between the requesting national authority or body and the requested authority or body regarding actions taken, actions planned, or a refusal to take action, pursuant to paragraph 1, either authority or body may refer the matter to the Board for mediation in view of finding an amicable solution.

Amendment 127

Proposal for a regulation

Article 14 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

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 without undue delay.

Amendment 128

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

1. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices among the national regulatory authorities or bodies, consulting stakeholders, where appropriate and relevant, 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 129

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU;

(b) making information accessible on(a) the ownershipappropriate structureprominence of media service providers,audiovisual asmedia providedservices under Article 5(2)7a and 13(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU2010/13/EU, and Articleits 6(1)proper ofapplication thisand Regulation.enforcement;

Where the Commission issues guidelines related to the implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU, it shall consult the contact committee established pursuant to Article 29 of that Directive.

Amendment 130

3. Where the Commission issues an opinion on a matter related to the application of this Regulation and implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU, the Board shall assist the Commission ▌ .

Proposal for a regulation

▌

Article 15 – paragraph 2 – point b

Article 16 Coordination of measures concerning media services from outside the Union

Text proposed by the Commission

1. Without prejudice to Article 3 of Directive 2010/13/EU, the Board shall, upon request of the national regulatory authorities or bodies from at least two Member States, coordinate relevant measures by the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned, related to the dissemination of or access to media services originating from outside the Union or provided by media service providers established outside the Union that, irrespective of their means of distribution or access, target or reach audiences in the Union where, inter alia in view 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 ▌ .

Amendment

2. The Board, in consultation with the Commission, may issue opinions on appropriate national measures under paragraph 1. Without prejudice to their powers under national law the competent national authorities concerned, including the national regulatory authorities or bodies, shall do their utmost to take into account the opinions of the Board.

(b) making information accessible on the ownership structure of media service providers, as provided under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU.

2a. Members States shall ensure that the national regulatory authorities or bodies concerned are not precluded from taking into account an opinion issued by the Board according to paragraph 2 when considering to take measures against a media service provider under paragraph 1.

(b) making information accessible on the ownership structure of media service providers, including their subsidiaries, sister companies and parent companies, as provided under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU.

2b. The Board, in consultation with the Commission, shall develop a set of criteria for the use of national regulatory authorities or bodies when they exercise their regulatory powers over media service providers referred to in paragraph 1. National regulatory authorities or bodies shall do their utmost to take into account the criteria developed by the Board.

Amendment 131

Section 4 Provision of and access to media services in a digital environment

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 Content of media service providers on very large online platforms

Article 15 – paragraph 3

1. Providers of very large online platforms shall provide a functionality allowing recipients of their services to:

Text proposed by the Commission

(a) declare that they are media service providers within the meaning of Article 2(2) and comply with Article 6(1);

Amendment

(b) declare that they are editorially independent from Member States, political parties, third countries ▌ and entities controlled or financed by third countries;

3. The Commission may issue an opinion on any matter related to the application of this Regulation and of the national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU. The Board shall assist the Commission in this regard, where requested.

(c) declare that they are subject to regulatory requirements for the exercise of editorial responsibility in one or more Member States and oversight by a competent national regulatory authority or body, or that they adhere to a co- or self- regulatory mechanism governing editorial standards, that is widely recognised by and accepted in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States;

3. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue an opinion on any matter related to the application of this Regulation and of the national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.

(ca) declare that they do not provide content generated by artificial intelligence systems without subjecting it to human review or editorial control;

Amendment 132

(cb) provide their legal name and contact details, including an email address, through which the provider of the very large online platform can communicate quickly and directly with them; and

Proposal for a regulation

(cd) provide the contact details of the relevant national regulatory authorities or bodies or representatives of the co- or self-regulatory mechanisms referred to in point (c).

Article 15 – paragraph 4

In case of reasonable doubts concerning the media service provider’s compliance with point (c), the provider of a very large online platform shall seek confirmation on the matter from the relevant national regulatory authority or body or the relevant co- or self-regulatory mechanism.

Text proposed by the Commission

1a. Providers of very large online platforms shall ensure that the information declared under paragraph 1, with the exception of the information set out in paragraph 1, point (cb), is made publicly available in an easily accessible manner on their online interface.

Amendment

1b. Providers of very large online platforms shall acknowledge receipt of declarations submitted under paragraph 1 and provide their contact details, including an email address, through which the media service provider can communicate directly and quickly with them. Providers of very large online platforms shall, without undue delay, indicate whether or not they accept the declaration.

4. The Board shall foster cooperation between media service providers, standardisation bodies or any other relevant stakeholders in order to facilitate the development of technical standards related to digital signals or design of devices or user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services.

2. Where a provider of a very large online platform intends to take a decision suspending the provision of its online intermediation services in relation to content provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article or restricting the visibility of the content provided by such media service provider, on the grounds that such content is incompatible with its terms and conditions, prior to the suspension or restriction of visibility taking effect it shall:

4. The Board shall facilitate cooperation between media service providers, standardisation bodies or any other relevant stakeholders in order to promote the development of EU-wide harmonised technical standards related to digital signals or design of devices or user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services.

(a) communicate to the media service provider concerned the statement of reasons for its envisaged decision within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065; and

Amendment 133

(b) give the media service provider the opportunity to reply to that statement within 24 hours or, in case of a crisis as referred to in Article 36(2) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, within a shorter timeframe which allows the media service provider sufficient time to reply in a meaningful manner.

Proposal for a regulation

If following, or in the absence of, such a reply, the provider of a very large online platform takes a decision to suspend or restrict visibility of the content concerned, it shall inform the media service provider concerned without undue delay.

Article 15 – paragraph 4 a (new)

This paragraph shall not apply where providers of very large online platforms suspend the provision of their services in relation to the content of a media service provider or restrict the visibility of such content in compliance with their obligations pursuant to Articles 28, 34 and 35 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and Article 28b of Directive 2010/13/EU or their obligations relating to illegal content pursuant to Union law.

Text proposed by the Commission

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 or Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 by media service providers are processed and decided upon with priority and without undue delay. The media service provider may be represented by a body in the complaint procedure.

Amendment

4. Where a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 considers that a provider of the very large online platform repeatedly restricts or suspends the provision of its services in relation to content provided by the media service provider without sufficient grounds, the provider of the 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, within a reasonable timeframe, for terminating unjustified restrictions or suspensions and avoiding them in the future. The media service provider may notify the outcome and the details of such exchanges to the Board and the Commission. The media service provider may request an opinion by the Board on the outcome of the dialogue, including where relevant recommended actions for the provider of the very large online platform. The Board shall inform the Commission of its opinion.

4a. The Board shall issue an annual report on the state of media freedom, including media ownership transparency, in each Member State and hold regular exchanges of best practices in these areas. The Board shall make use of the national media ownership transparency databases as referred to in Art. 7 (4) (b), the Commission’s latest rule of law report, and consult with relevant stakeholders, including media organizations and civil society groups, to develop the relevant criteria for the report.

4a. In case a provider of a very large online platforms rejects or invalidates a declaration by a media service provider submitted pursuant to paragraph 1 or in case no amicable solution was found following the dialogue pursuant to paragraph 4, the media service provider concerned may use the mediation mechanism under Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 or resort to the out-of-court dispute settlement under Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. The media service provider concerned may notify the outcome of such redress mechanisms to the Board.

Amendment 134

5. Providers of very large online platforms shall make publicly available on an annual basis detailed information on:

Proposal for a regulation

(a) the number of instances where they imposed any restriction or suspension on the grounds that the content provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 ▌is incompatible with their terms and conditions; ▌

Article 15 – paragraph 4 b (new)

(b) the grounds for imposing such restrictions or suspensions, including the specific clauses in their terms and conditions with which the media service providers’ content was deemed incompatible;

Text proposed by the Commission

(bb) the number of dialogues with media service providers pursuant to paragraph 4;

Amendment

(bc) the number of instances in which they rejected declarations submitted by a media service provider under paragraph 1 and the grounds for rejection;

4b. National regulatory agencies or bodies shall provide the Board with relevant data and information necessary to compile the annual report on media freedom as referred to in paragraph 4a. This information should be delivered promptly and in a format compatible with the Board's reporting requirements.

(bd) the number of instances in which they invalidated a declaration submitted by a media service provider under paragraph 1 and the grounds for invalidation.

Amendment 135

6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and effective implementation of this Article, the Commission shall issue guidelines to facilitate the effective implementation of the functionality referred to in paragraph 1.

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 Structured dialogue

Article 16 – title

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 in order to:

Text proposed by the Commission

(a) discuss experience and best practices in the application of Article 17, including as regards the functioning of very large online platforms and their moderation processes for content provided by media service providers;

Amendment

(b) foster access to diverse offers of independent media on very large online platforms;

Coordination of measures concerning media service providers established outside the Union

(c) monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference.

Coordination of measures concerning media service providers established or originating from outside the Union

2. The Board shall report on the results of the dialogue to the Commission and, where possible, make the results of the dialogue publicly available.

Amendment 136

Article 19 Right of customisation of ▌ media offer

Proposal for a regulation

1. Users shall have a right to easily change the configuration, including default settings, of any device or user interface controlling or managing access to and use of ▌ media services providing programmes in order to customise the ▌ media offer according to their interests or preferences in compliance with Union law. This provision shall not affect national measures implementing Article 7a and 7b of Directive 2010/13/EU.

Article 16 – paragraph 1

2. When placing the devices and user interfaces referred to in paragraph 1 on the market, manufacturers, developers and importers shall ensure that such devices and user interfaces include a functionality enabling users to freely and easily change at any time the configuration, including default settings controlling or managing access to and use of the ▌ media services offered.

Text proposed by the Commission

2a. Manufacturers, developers and importers of devices and user interfaces referred to in paragraph 1 shall ensure that the visual identity of media service providers, to whose services their devices and user interfaces give access, is consistently and clearly visible to the users.

Amendment

3a. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that manufacturers, developers and importers comply with paragraph 2 and 2a.

1. The Board shall coordinate measures by national regulatory authorities or bodies related to the dissemination of or access to media services provided by 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, such media services prejudice or present a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security and defence.

4a. The Board shall foster cooperation between media service providers, standardisation bodies or any other relevant stakeholders in order to promote the development of harmonised standards related to design of devices or user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services providing programmes or related to digital signals carried by such devices.

1. Without prejudice to Article 3 of Directive 2010/13/EU, the Board shall facilitate the cooperation between national regulatory authorities or bodies related to the dissemination of or access to media services provided by media service providers established or originating from outside the Union that, 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, public health, or where their programs include incitement to violence or hatred or public provocation to commit a terrorist offence.

Section 5 Requirements for well-functioning media market measures and procedures

Amendment 137

Article 20 National measures affecting ▌ media service providers

Proposal for a regulation

1. ▌Legislative, regulatory or administrative measures taken by a Member State that are liable to affect media pluralism or editorial independence of media service providers operating in the internal market shall be duly justified and proportionate. Such measures shall be reasoned, transparent, objective and non-discriminatory.

Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)

2. Any national procedure used for the purposes of the ▌ adoption of an administrative measure as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to ▌ timeframes, set out in advance, and carried out without undue delay.

Text proposed by the Commission

3. ▌Any media service provider subject to a regulatory or administrative measure referred to in paragraph 1 that concerns it individually and directly shall have the right to appeal against that measure to an appellate body. That body, which may be a court, shall be independent of the parties involved and of any external intervention or political pressure liable to jeopardise its independent assessment of matters coming before it. It shall have the appropriate expertise to enable it to carry out its functions effectively and in a timely manner.

Amendment

4.1a. IfWithout prejudice to the possibility of a regulatorydirect orrequest administrativefrom measurethe referrednational toregulatory inauthority paragraphor 1body isof likelya tocountry significantlyof affectdestination to the operationcompetent ofnational mediaregulatory serviceauthority providersor inbody thepursuant internalto market,art.13(2) theof Boardthis shall,Regulation, onwhere itsan ownaudiovisual initiativemedia service provider established or uponoriginating requestfrom ofoutside the CommissionUnion orfalls uponunder athe dulyterritorial justifiedjurisdiction andof reasonedan requestEU ofMember aState mediaaccording serviceto providerArticle that2 isof individuallyDirective 2010/13 and directlywithout affectedprejudice byto suchthe measure,procedures drawforeseen upin anArticle opinion3 onDirective the2010/13, measure.a Withoutnational prejudiceregulatory toauthority itsor powersbody underof thea Treaties,country theof Commissiondestination may issuerequest itsthe ownBoard to issue an opinion oninviting the matter. ▌Theauthorities Boardor andbodies ▌of the Commissioncompetent shallMember makeState theirto opinionstake publiclyappropriate available.measures concerning this media service provider.

5. For the purposes of drawing up an opinion under paragraph 4, the Board, and where applicable, ▌ the Commission, may request relevant information from a national authority or body that adopts a regulatory or administrative measure referred to in paragraph 1 that concerns, individually and directly, a media service provider. The national authority or body concerned shall provide that information without undue delay and by electronic means.

The involvement of the Board shall be triggered following a request of a minimum number of Board members to be defined in the Board’s Rules of procedure, together with the relevant processes. When preparing its opinion, the Board shall confirm that the following conditions are met:

Article 21 Assessment of media market concentrations

(i) there is substantiated evidence that the audiovisual media service is prejudicing or presenting a serious and grave risk of prejudice to public security, including the safeguarding of national security and defence, public health or the content of the audiovisual media service provider manifestly, seriously and gravely infringes article 6(1) of AVMSD;

1. Member States shall provide in national law, substantive and procedural rules which allow for an assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence. These rules shall:

(ii) the audiovisual media service is prejudicing or presenting a serious and grave risk of prejudice for several Member States or the Union.

(a) be transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory;

Amendment 138

(b) require the parties involved in the media market concentration to notify such concentration in advance to the relevant national authorities or bodies or provide such authorities or bodies with appropriate powers to obtain information from those parties necessary to assess the concentration;

Proposal for a regulation

(c) designate the national regulatory authorities or bodies as responsible for the assessment ▌ or ensure their substantive involvement in such assessment;

Article 16 – paragraph 1 b (new)

(d) set out in advance objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying such media market concentrations ▌ and for assessing the impact ▌ on media pluralism and editorial independence;

Text proposed by the Commission

(da) specify in advance the timeframes for completing the assessment.

Amendment

The assessment referred to in this paragraph shall be distinct from Union and national competition law assessments, including those provided for under merger control rules. It shall be without prejudice to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, where applicable.

1b. 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 that may be posed by media services originating outside from the EU.

2. In the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the following elements shall be taken into account:

Amendment 139

(a) the expected impact of the media market concentration on media pluralism, including its effects on the formation of public opinion and on the diversity of media services and media offer on the market, taking into account the online environment and the parties’ interests, links or activities in other media or non-media businesses;

Proposal for a regulation

(b) the safeguards for editorial independence, including the measures taken by media service providers ▌ with a view to guaranteeing the independence of ▌ editorial decisions;

Article 16 – paragraph 2

(c) whether, in the absence of the media market concentration, the entities concerned would remain economically sustainable, and whether there are any possible alternatives to ensure their economic sustainability;

Text proposed by the Commission

(ca) where relevant, the findings of the Commission’s annual rule of law report concerning media pluralism and media freedom;

Amendment

(cb) where applicable, the commitments that any of the party involved in the media market concentration may offer to safeguard media pluralism and editorial independence.

2. The Board, in agreement with the Commission, may issue opinions on 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 Board.

3. The Commission, assisted by the Board, shall issue guidelines on the elements referred to in paragraph 2, point (a) to (c).

2. Without prejudice to their powers under national law, the competent national authorities, including the national regulatory authorities or bodies, shall do their utmost to take into account the opinions of the Board issued according to paragraph 1 and 1a. The competent authority or body shall provide reasons for any decision not to undertake the recommended actions.

4. Where a media market concentration is likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, the national regulatory authority or body shall consult the Board in advance on its draft assessment or draft opinion.

Amendment 140

5. Within the timelines to be established by the Board in its rules of procedure, the Board shall draw up an opinion on the draft assessment or draft opinion of the consulting national regulatory authority or body, taking account of the elements referred to in paragraph 2 and transmit that opinion to such authority or body and the Commission.

Proposal for a regulation

6. The national regulatory authority or body referred to in paragraph 4 shall take utmost account of the opinion referred to in paragraph 5. Where that authority does not follow the opinion, fully or partially, it shall provide the Board and the Commission with a reasoned justification explaining its position within the timelines to be established by the Board.

Article 16 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Article 22 Opinions on media market concentrations

Text proposed by the Commission

1. In the absence of an assessment or a consultation pursuant to Article 21, the Board, on its own initiative or 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 such concentrations ▌to the attention of the Commission.

Amendment

2. ▌Without prejudice to its powers under the Treaties, the Commission may issue its own opinion on the matter.

2a. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities or bodies, when deciding to take action against a media service provider originating from outside of the Union, shall duly take into account:

3. ▌The Board and ▌ the Commission shall make their opinions publicly available.

(i) a decision taken against that provider by a national regulatory authority or body from another Member State, and/or

Section 6 Transparent and fair allocation of economic resources

(ii) an opinion of the Board relating to that provider and taken on the basis of paragraph 1.

Article 23 Audience measurement

Amendment 141

1. Providers of audience measurement systems shall ensure that their systems and the methodology used by their systems comply with the principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination, comparability and verifiability.

Proposal for a regulation

2. Without prejudice to the protection of undertakings’ trade secrets, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Directive (EU) 2016/943, providers of proprietary audience measurement systems shall provide, without undue delay and free of charge, to media service providers, to advertisers and to third parties authorised by media service providers and advertisers ▌ accurate, detailed, comprehensive, intelligible and up-to-date information on the methodology used by their audience measurement systems. Providers of proprietary audience measurement systems shall ensure that the methodology used by their systems and the way in which it is applied is independently audited once a year. Providers of proprietary audience measurement systems shall provide, upon request, to each media service provider information on audience measurement results, including non aggregated data, which relate to its media content and media services. The obligations laid down in this paragraph shall not affect the Union’s data protection and privacy rules.

Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point c

3. National regulatory authorities or bodies shall encourage providers of audience measurement systems to draw up, together with media service providers, providers of online platforms, their representative organisations and any other interested parties, codes of conduct or shall encourage providers of audience measurement systems to comply with codes of conduct jointly agreed and widely accepted by media service providers, their representative organisations and any other interested parties.

Text proposed by the Commission

Codes of conduct as referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be intended to promote the regular, independent and transparent monitoring of effective achievement of their objectives and compliance with the principles referred to in paragraph 1, including through independent and transparent audits.

Amendment

4. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue guidelines on the practical application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, taking into account, where appropriate, the codes of conduct referred to in paragraph 3.

(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.

5. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices related to the deployment of audience measurement systems through a regular dialogue between representatives of the national regulatory authorities or bodies, representatives of providers of audience measurement systems, representatives of media service providers, representatives of providers of online platforms, and other interested parties.

(c) it is subject to the supervision of an independent national regulatory authority or body or to the supervision of a self- or co-regulatory mechanism widely recognised and accepted in the relevant media sector in one or more Member States for the exercise of editorial responsibility and editorial standards.

Article 24 Allocation of public funds for state advertising and supply or service contracts

Amendment 142

1. Public funds or any other consideration or advantage made available, directly or indirectly, by public authorities or entities to media service providers and providers of online platforms for the purposes of state advertising and supply or service contracts with them shall be awarded according to transparent, objective, proportionate and non-discriminatory criteria made publicly available in advance by electronic and user-friendly means and through open, proportionate and non-discriminatory procedures.

Proposal for a regulation

Member States shall seek to ensure that the overall yearly public expenditure allocated for the purposes of state advertising is distributed to a wide plurality of media service providers represented on the market, taking into account the national and local specificities of the respective media markets.

Article 17 – paragraph 1 a (new)

This Article shall not affect the awarding of public contracts and concession contracts under Union public procurement rules or the application of Union state aid rules.

Text proposed by the Commission

2. Public authorities or entities ▌ shall make publicly available by electronic and user-friendly means yearly information about their state advertising expenditure ▌ , which shall include at least the following details:

Amendment

(a) the legal names of media service providers or providers of online platforms from which ▌ services were purchased;

1a. Providers of very large online platforms shall provide for a functionality allowing for declarations submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 to be public and easily accessible.

(aa) if applicable the legal names of the business groups of which any such media service providers or providers of online platforms are part;

Amendment 143

(b) the total annual amount spent as well as the amounts spent per media service provider or provider of online platform.

Proposal for a regulation

Member States may exempt subnational governments of territorial entities of less than 100.000 inhabitants, and entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by such subnational governments, from the obligations under point (aa) of this paragraph.

Article 17 – paragraph 1 b (new)

3. National regulatory authorities or bodies or other competent independent authorities or bodies in the Member States shall monitor and report annually on the allocation of state advertising to media service providers and to providers of online platforms based on the details set out in paragraph 2. Annual reports shall be made publicly available in an easily accessible manner. In order to assess the completeness of the information on state advertising made available pursuant to paragraph 2, national regulatory authorities or bodies or other competent independent authorities or bodies in the Member States may request from those public authorities or entities that fall under paragraph 2 further information, including more detailed information on the application of the criteria and procedures referred to in paragraph 1. In case the monitoring, assessment and reporting are carried out by other competent independent authorities or bodies, they shall keep the national regulatory authorities or bodies duly informed.

Text proposed by the Commission

▌

Amendment

Chapter IV – Final Provisions

1b. For the purpose of point (c), providers of very large online shall provide a functionality allowing recipients of their services to indicate the name and the contact details of the relevant national regulatory authorities or bodies or representatives of the co- or self-regulatory mechanisms. This information shall be made publicly available.

Article 25 Monitoring exercise

Amendment 144

1. The Commission shall ensure an independent and continuous monitoring of the internal market for media services, including risks to and progress in its functioning ▌ . The findings of the monitoring exercise shall be subject to consultation with the Board. They shall be presented and discussed with the contact committee established by Article 29 of Directive 2010/13/EU.

Proposal for a regulation

2. The Commission shall define key performance indicators, methodological safeguards to protect the objectivity, and selection criteria of the researchers for the monitoring referred in paragraph 1, in consultation with the Board.

Article 17 – paragraph 1 c (new)

3. The monitoring exercise shall include:

Text proposed by the Commission

(a) a detailed analysis of ▌ media markets of all Member States, including as regards the level of media concentration and risks of foreign information manipulation and interference;

Amendment

(b) an overview and forward-looking assessment of the functioning of the internal market for media services as a whole, including as regards the impact of online platforms;

1c. Self-declarations referred to in paragraph 1 should be easily verifiable and shall only be deemed valid if the relevant supervising or monitoring entities referred to in Paragraph 1(c) can confirm the adherence to the regulations and/or codes of practice by the declarant.

(ba) an overview of risks to media pluralism and editorial independence of media service providers to the extent that they could impact the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 145

(c) an overview of measures taken by media service providers with a view to guaranteeing the independence of ▌ editorial decisions;

Proposal for a regulation

(ca) a detailed overview of frameworks and practices for the allocation of public funds for state advertising.

Article 17 – paragraph 1 d (new)

4. The monitoring shall be carried out annually. The results of the monitoring, including the methodology and data, shall be made publicly available and presented annually to the European Parliament.

Text proposed by the Commission

Article 26 Evaluation and reporting

Amendment

1. By 3 years from the date of application set out in Article 28(2), first subparagraph, and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate this Regulation and report to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.

1d. If a media service provider has repeatedly violated national or European law or if its content has been frequently suspended or restricted on the basis of a breach of the terms and conditions pursuant to paragraph 2, the providers of very large online platforms may invalidate the declaration of the media service provider. The provider of a very large online platform shall inform the supervising or regulatory entity and the Board if it invalidates the declaration referred to in paragraph 1.

1a. In the first evaluation referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall examine in particular the effectiveness of the functioning of the secretariat of the Board established under Article 11, including as regards the adequacy of resources in relation to the performance of its tasks.

Amendment 146

2. For the purposes of paragraph 1 and upon its request, Member States and the Board shall send relevant information to the Commission.

Proposal for a regulation

3. In carrying out the evaluations referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission shall take into account:

Article 17 – paragraph 1 e (new)

(a) the positions and findings of the European Parliament, the Council and other relevant bodies or sources;

Text proposed by the Commission

(b) outcomes of the relevant discussions carried out in relevant fora;

Amendment

(c) relevant documents issued by the Board;

1e. Providers of very large online platforms shall ensure that their content moderation processes guarantee the freedom of expression and of information, including media freedom and pluralism of news and information of the media service providers within the meaning of Article 2(2), including through adequate and sufficient human and financial resources and specific linguistic and cultural diversity training.

(d) findings of the monitoring exercise referred to in Article 25.

Amendment 147

3a. Where appropriate, the report referred in paragraph 1 may be accompanied by a proposal for an amendment of this Regulation.

Proposal for a regulation

Article 27 Amendments to Directive 2010/13/EU

Article 17 – paragraph 2

1. Article 30b of Directive 2010/13/EU is deleted.

Text proposed by the Commission

2. References to Article 30b of Directive 2010/13/EU shall be read as references to Article 12 of this Regulation.

Amendment

3. References in Union law to the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) shall be read as references to the European Board for Media Services (the Board).

2. Where a provider of very large online platform decides to suspend the provision of its online intermediation services in relation to content provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, on the grounds that such content 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 [Digital Services Act], it shall take all possible measures, to the extent consistent with their obligations under Union law, including Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act], to communicate to 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 suspension taking effect.

Article 28 Entry into force and application

2. Where a provider of a very large online platform decides to suspend or otherwise restrict the provision of its online intermediation services in relation to any content provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, on the grounds that such content is incompatible with its terms and conditions, without that content contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of the Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, it shall immediately take all possible measures, to the extent consistent with their obligations under Union law, including Regulation 2022/2065, to communicate to the media service provider concerned the detailed statement of reasons accompanying that decision, as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065, if possible prior to the suspension or restriction taking effect, and without undue delay.

1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Amendment 148

2. This Regulation shall apply from 15 months after the entry into force ▌ .

Proposal for a regulation

However, Article 3 shall apply from 6 months after the entry into force;

Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Articles 4(1), 4(2), 6(2), 7 to 12 and 27 shall apply from 9 months after the entry into force;

Text proposed by the Commission

Articles 13 to 16 shall apply from 12 months after the entry into force;

Amendment

Article 19 shall apply from 36 months after the entry into force ▌ .

2a. When providers of a very large online platform subsequently decide to suspend or otherwise restrict content of a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall provide in writing a detailed statement of reasons.

3. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Amendment 149

Done at Brussels,

Proposal for a regulation

For the European Parliament For the Council

Article 17 – paragraph 3

The President The President

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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 by media service providers that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article are processed and decided upon with priority and without undue delay.

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 or Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and Article 86 of Regulation (EU)2022/2065 by media service providers that have a valid declaration pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 1c of this Article are processed and decided upon with priority and within 24 hours. Where the provider of a very large online platform fails to address the complaint within 24 hours on grounds of force majeure or for objectively justifiable reasons, it shall, without undue delay, inform the media service provider.

Amendment 150

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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 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.

4. Where a media service provider that has a valid declaration pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 1c considers that a provider of very large online platform frequently restricts or suspends the provision of its services in relation to content 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 within a reasonable timeframe for terminating unjustified restrictions or suspensions with immediate effect, and avoiding them in the future. The media service provider shall notify the outcome of such exchanges to the Board. The Board may request additional documentation when it finds that the information provided by very large online platforms in the context of meaningful and effective dialogues is not sufficient or adequate. If no amicable solution can be 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 to its right to effective judicial protection.

Amendment 151

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Providers of very large online platforms shall make publicly available on an annual basis information on:

5. Providers of very large online platforms shall make publicly available on at least an annual basis, detailed information on:

Amendment 152

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the number of instances where they imposed any restriction or suspension on the grounds that the content 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

(a) the number of instances where they imposed any restriction or suspension on the grounds that the content 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;

Amendment 153

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the grounds for imposing such restrictions.

(b) the grounds for imposing such restrictions, and

Amendment 154

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) the instances and grounds for refusing to accept the declarations made by any media service providers in accordance with paragraph 1a of this Article.

Amendment 155

Proposal for a regulation

Article 17 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and effective implementation of this Article, the Commission may issue guidelines to establish the form and details of the declaration set out in paragraph 1.

6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and effective implementation of this Article, the Commission shall issue guidelines to establish the form and details of the declaration set out in paragraph 1.

Amendment 156

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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 interference.

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 stemming from the design or functioning of their service and its related systems, and to monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting society from harmful content, including disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference as well as possible negative effects of these initiatives or of content moderation policies on the freedom and pluralism of the media. Providers of very large online platforms shall engage in the dialogue in good faith and may be invited to participate in Board meetings.

Amendment 157

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. The Board shall report on the results of the dialogue to the Commission.

2. The Board shall report on the results of the dialogue to the Commission. The Commission shall take this report into account for its assessment of the compliance of the very large online platforms with their obligations relating to systemic risks mitigation pursuant to Article 35 of the Digital Services Act.

Amendment 158

Proposal for a regulation

Article 18 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2a. Providers of very large online platforms shall provide the Board with all the necessary information, when requested, for the purpose of the involvement of the Board pursuant to this Regulation.

Amendment 159

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Users shall have a right to easily change the default settings of any device or user interface controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services in order to customise the audiovisual media offer according to their interests or preferences in compliance with the law. This provision shall not affect national measures implementing Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU.

1. Users shall have a right to easily change the default settings of any device, user interface and remote control controlling or managing access to and use of audiovisual media services in order to customise the audiovisual media offer according to their interests or preferences and in compliance with the law. This provision shall not affect national measures implementing Article 7a, of Directive 2010/13/EU. Device, hardware or user interface elements that are not directly linked to controlling or accessing audiovisual media services as such shall not be subject to this provision.

Amendment 160

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. When placing the devices and user interfaces referred to in paragraph 1 on the market, manufacturers and developers shall ensure that they include a functionality enabling users to freely and easily change the default settings controlling or managing access to and use of the audiovisual media services offered.

2. When placing the devices user interfaces and remote controls referred to in paragraph 1 on the market, manufacturers and developers shall ensure that they include a software-based functionality enabling users to freely, free of costs and easily change the settings in the meaning of paragraph 1 of this Article.

Amendment 161

Proposal for a regulation

Article 19 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Article 19a

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 162

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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-discriminatory.

1. Any legislative, regulatory or administrative measure taken by a Member State that is liable to affect either media pluralism or the editorial independence of media service providers in the internal market or that is likely to affect fundamental freedoms as defined in the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union shall be duly justified and proportionate. Such measures shall be reasoned, adequate, transparent, objective and non-discriminatory.

Amendment 163

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Any national procedure used for the purposes of the preparation or the adoption of a regulatory or administrative measure as referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to clear timeframes set out in advance.

deleted

Amendment 164

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The Board, 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.

4. The Board, upon request of the Commission or on its own initiative, shall draw up an opinion where a national legislative, regulatory or administrative measure referred to in paragraph 1 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. The Board, upon request by a media service provider individually and directly affected by such measure, shall draw up an opinion on the measure.

Amendment 165

Proposal for a regulation

Article 20 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Where a national authority or body adopts a measure that affects individually and directly a media service provider and is likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, it shall communicate, at the request of the Board, and where applicable, of the Commission, without undue delay and by electronic means, any relevant information, including the summary of the facts, its measure, the grounds on which the national authority or body has based its measure, and, where applicable, the views of other authorities concerned.

5. Where a national authority or body adopts a measure referred to in paragraph 1 that affects individually and directly the operations of a media service provider and is likely to affect the functioning of the internal market for media services, it shall communicate, at the request of the Board, and where applicable, of the Commission, without undue delay and by electronic means, any relevant information, including the summary of the facts, its measure, the grounds on which the national authority or body has based its measure, and, where applicable, the views of other authorities concerned.

Amendment 166

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Assessment of media market concentrations

Assessment of market concentrations

Amendment 167

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Member States shall provide, in their national legal systems, substantive and procedural rules which ensure an assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence. These rules shall:

Member States shall provide, in their national legal systems, substantive and procedural rules which ensure an assessment of market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence. These rules shall:

Amendment 168

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) require the parties to a media market concentration that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence to notify that concentration in advance to the relevant national authorities or bodies;

(b) require the parties to a market concentration that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence to notify that concentration in advance to the relevant national authorities or bodies;

Amendment 169

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) designate the national regulatory authority or body as responsible for the assessment of the impact of a notifiable concentration on media pluralism and editorial independence or ensure the involvement of the national regulatory authority or body in such assessment;

(c) ensure the involvement of the national regulatory authority or body in such assessment;

Amendment 170

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(d) set out in advance objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence and for assessing the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence.

(d) set out in advance objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria for notifying market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence and for assessing the impact of media market concentrations on media pluralism and editorial independence.

Amendment 171

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(da) take into account the media market in its entirety, including the online environment and very large online platforms.

Amendment 172

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the impact of the concentration on media pluralism, including its effects on the formation of public opinion and on the diversity of media players on the market, taking into account the online environment and the parties’ interests, links or activities in other media or non-media businesses;

(a) the impact of the concentration on media pluralism, including its effects on the formation of public opinion and on the diversity of players and services on the market, taking into account the online environment, in particular very large online platforms, public service media, the advertisement market and the parties’ interests, links or activities in other media or non-media businesses. To assess the impact of the concentration on media pluralism, a risk assessment shall be conducted to identify, analyse and assess any systemic risks to media freedom and pluralism in the particular Member State. Such assessment shall be specific and proportionate.

Amendment 173

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the safeguards for editorial independence, including the impact of the concentration on the functioning of the editorial teams and the existence of measures by media service providers taken with a view to guaranteeing the independence of individual editorial decisions;

(b) the safeguards for editorial independence, including the impact of the concentration on the functioning of the editorial teams and the existence of measures referred to in Article 6;

Amendment 174

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. The Commission, assisted 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.

3. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue guidelines on the factors to be taken into account when applying the criteria for assessing the impact of market concentrations with a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence.

Amendment 175

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The national regulatory authority or body shall consult the Board in advance on any opinion or decision it aims to adopt assessing the impact on media pluralism and editorial independence of a notifiable media market concentration where such concentrations may affect the functioning of the internal market.

4. The national regulatory authority or body may consult the Board in advance on any opinion or decision it aims to adopt assessing the impact on media pluralism and editorial independence of a notifiable market concentration where such concentrations may affect the functioning of the internal market.

Amendment 176

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. Within 14 calendar days from the receipt of the consultation referred to in paragraph 4, the Board shall draw up an opinion on the draft national opinion or decision referred to it, taking account of the elements referred to in paragraph 2 and transmit that opinion to the consulting authority and the Commission.

5. In case the Board is consulted according to paragraph 4, it shall draw up an opinion on the draft national opinion or decision referred to it, taking account of the elements referred to in paragraph 2 and transmit that opinion to the consulting authority and the Commission within 14 calendar days from the receipt of the consultation.

Amendment 177

Proposal for a regulation

Article 21 – paragraph 6

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

6. The national regulatory authority or body referred to in paragraph 4 shall take utmost account of the opinion referred to in paragraph 5. Where that authority does not follow the opinion, fully or partially, it shall provide the Board and the Commission with a reasoned justification explaining its position within 30 calendar days from the receipt of that opinion. Without prejudice to its powers under the Treaties, the Commission may issue its own opinion on the matter.

6. The national regulatory authority or body referred to in paragraph 4 may take account of the opinion referred to in paragraph 5. Without prejudice to its powers under the Treaties, the Commission may issue its own opinion on the matter.

Amendment 178

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – title

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Opinions on media market concentrations

Opinions on market concentrations

Amendment 179

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. In the absence of an assessment or a consultation pursuant to Article 21, the Board, 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.

1. The Board, on its own initiative or upon request of the Commission, shall draw up an opinion on the impact of a market concentration with a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence where a 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) and the risk assessment concerning systemic risks to media freedom and media pluralism in the particular Member State as referred to in Art. 21 (2) (a). The Board may bring market concentrations with a significant impact on media pluralism and editorial independence which are likely to affect the functioning of the internal market to the attention of the Commission.

Amendment 180

Proposal for a regulation

Article 22 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Opinions by the Board and, where applicable, by the Commission shall be made publicly available.

3. Opinions by the Board and by the Commission shall be made publicly available.

Amendment 181

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Audience measurement systems and methodologies shall comply with principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination and verifiability.

1. Audience measurement systems and methodologies shall comply with principles of transparency, comparability, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non-discrimination and verifiability. To secure impartiality in measurement, audience measurement systems shall be carried out by independent third parties or self-regulatory bodies.

Amendment 182

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2. Without prejudice to the protection of undertakings’ business secrets, providers of proprietary audience measurement systems shall provide, without undue delay and free of costs, to media service providers and advertisers, as well as to third parties authorised by media service providers and advertisers, accurate, detailed, comprehensive, intelligible and up-to-date information on the methodology used by their audience measurement systems. This provision shall not affect the Union’s data protection and privacy rules.

2. Without prejudice to the protection of undertakings’ trade secrets, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/943, providers of proprietary audience measurement systems shall provide, without undue delay and free of costs, to media service providers, advertisers, and right holders as well as to third parties authorised by media service providers, advertisers and right holders, accurate, detailed, comprehensive, intelligible and up-to-date information on the data collected and on the methodology used by their audience measurement systems. The methodology and its application shall be audited at least once a year by an independent body. The information must be as granular as the information provided by the rest of the media market, including non-aggregated data. This provision shall not affect the Union’s data protection and privacy rules. Right holders and media service providers shall have access free of costs to consumption and performance data collected regarding their programs and services.

Amendment 183

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. National regulatory authorities or bodies shall encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct by providers of audience measurement systems, together with media service providers, their representative organisations and any other interested parties, that are intended to contribute to compliance with the principles referred to in paragraph 1, including by promoting independent and transparent audits.

3. Media service providers, together with providers of audience measurement systems, online platform providers, their representative organisations, civil society and any other interested parties, shall 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 promoting independent and transparent audits. In the drawing up of codes of conduct, special consideration should be given to small media to ensure proper measurements of their audiences.

Amendment 184

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue guidelines on the practical application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article.

4. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue guidelines on the practical application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, whilst taking into the existing EU-wide and national codes of conduct.

Amendment 185

Proposal for a regulation

Article 23 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

5. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices related to the deployment of audience measurement systems through a regular dialogue between representatives of the national regulatory authorities or bodies, representatives of providers of audience measurement systems and other interested parties.

5. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices related to the deployment of audience measurement systems through a regular dialogue between representatives of the national regulatory authorities or bodies, representatives of providers of audience measurement systems, media service providers, providers of online platforms and other interested parties.

Amendment 186

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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.

1. Public funds or any other consideration or advantage granted by public authorities to media service providers and providers of online platforms 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.

Amendment 187

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

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:

2. Public authorities, including at Union, national, federal or regional level, regulatory authorities or bodies, as well as state-owned enterprises where the State is involved in the everyday business and has influence or control over advertising strategies or other state-controlled entities at the national or regional level, or local governments shall make publicly available through electronic and user-friendly means, accurate, comprehensive, intelligible, detailed and yearly information about their advertising expenditure allocated to media service providers and providers of online platforms, which shall include at least the following details:

Amendment 188

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a) the legal names of media service providers from which advertising services were purchased;

(a) the legal names of media service providers or providers of online platforms that received state advertising;

Amendment 189

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b) the total annual amount spent as well as the amounts spent per media service provider.

(b) the total annual amount spent;

Amendment 190

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(ba) the amounts spent per media service provider;

Amendment 191

Proposal for a regulation

Article 24 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4a. Any media service provider or online platform which receives public funds or any other economic advantage for the purposes of advertising from third-countries shall annually submit a report to the national regulatory authority or body which shall include at least the following details:

(a) the names of the entities granting public funds;

(b) the total annual amount of the public funds granted

The information reported according to this paragraph shall be made publicly available by the national regulatory authority or body.

Amendment 192

Proposal for a regulation

Article 25 – paragraph 3 – point c

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(c) an overview of measures taken by media service providers with a view to guaranteeing the independence of individual editorial decisions.

(c) an overview of measures taken by media service providers with a view to guaranteeing the independence of editorial decisions.

Amendment 193

Proposal for a regulation

Article 26 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. Within one year after the entry into application of this Regulation pursuant to Article 28(2), the Commission shall assess the implementation of Article 7. To this end, Members States shall send all relevant information to the Commission upon its request.

Amendment 194

Proposal for a regulation

Article 28 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

However, Articles 7 to 12 and 27 shall apply from [3 months after the entry into force] and Article 19(2) shall apply from [48 months after the entry into force].

However, Articles 7 to 12 and 27 shall apply from [3 months after the entry into force] and Article 19 shall apply from [48] months after the entry into force].

ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT

The following list is drawn up on a purely voluntary basis under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur. The rapporteur has received input from the following entities in the preparation of the opinion:

Entity

Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale

France Télévisions

Association of Commercial Television (ACT)

Coopérative de la presse Magazine

Groupe Bouygues/TF1

Radio France

Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (Arcom)

Eurocinéma

Messageries Lyonnaises de la Presse

Fédération Nationale de la Presse d’information Spécialisée (FNPS)

European Magazine Media Association & European Newspapers Publishers Association (EMMA/ENPA)

News Media Europe

Google/YouTube

The Walt Disney Company

European Broadcasting Union

Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Éditeurs de Musique (SACEM)

Vivendi/Canal +

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Title

Establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive 2010/13/EU

References

COM(2022)0457 – C9-0309/2022 – 2022/0277(COD)

Committee responsible

Date announced in plenary

CULT

17.10.2022

Opinion by

Date announced in plenary

IMCO

17.10.2022

Associated committees - date announced in plenary

16.3.2023

Rapporteur for the opinion

Date appointed

Geoffroy Didier

23.11.2022

Discussed in committee

28.3.2023

22.5.2023

Date adopted

29.6.2023

Result of final vote

+:

–:

0:

34

4

3

Members present for the final vote

Alex Agius Saliba, Andrus Ansip, Pablo Arias Echeverría, Alessandra Basso, Biljana Borzan, Vlad-Marius Botoş, Anna Cavazzini, Dita Charanzová, Deirdre Clune, David Cormand, Alexandra Geese, Maria Grapini, Svenja Hahn, Krzysztof Hetman, Virginie Joron, Eugen Jurzyca, Arba Kokalari, Kateřina Konečná, Andrey Kovatchev, Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques, Antonius Manders, Beata Mazurek, Leszek Miller, Anne-Sophie Pelletier, René Repasi, Christel Schaldemose, Andreas Schwab, Tomislav Sokol, Ivan Štefanec, Kim Van Sparrentak, Marion Walsmann

Substitutes present for the final vote

Marco Campomenosi, Maria da Graça Carvalho, Geoffroy Didier, Francisco Guerreiro, Tsvetelina Penkova, Catharina Rinzema, Kosma Złotowski

Substitutes under Rule 209(7) present for the final vote

Asger Christensen, Nicolás González Casares, Grzegorz Tobiszowski

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION

Key to symbols: