Brussels, 21/04/2016 (Agence Europe) - Discussions have officially begun in the European Parliament on the draft regulation on the cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market (link: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-627-EN-E1-1.PDF ). On Wednesday 20 April, Parliament's legal affairs (JURI) committee then its internal market (IMCO) committee held public hearings on this issue. Just as it had divided the Council, the notion of “temporary presence” was a source of disagreement among MEPs (see EUROPE 11502).
The draft regulation, presented on 9 December 2015, would allow European citizens to travel with the digital content which they purchased or to which they subscribed in their country of origin. The text does not, however, set any time limit for these travels in member states other than the member states of residence. Similarly, it provides no legal definition of member state of residence.
Time limit on portability? At the public hearing in the legal affairs committee, Cécile Despringre of the Society of Audiovisual Authjors (SAA) expressed her unhappiness: “It is crucial to set a fixed period for the stay abroad so as to make a distinction between the concept of 'cross-border portability' and 'cross-border accessibility'. Without this, the regulation will be open to individual interpretation and to abuse”, she argued. The European Consumers Association (BEUC) and provider Sky did not share this view. “I am not in favour of a time limit because the reasons for travelling abroad differ from one consumer to the next”, said Agustin Reyna of BEUC. Among MEPs, too, points of view varied: the rapporteur for the JURI committee, which is the lead committee on this issue, was against time limits. “Imposing a limit would lead to a great deal of piracy”, said French MEP Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE), supported in this opinion by Sabine Verheyen (EPP, Germany) and Eva Paunova (EPP, Bulgaria). The rapporteur for the IMCO committee (which has to submit an opinion), Marco Zullo (EFDD, Italy), was not, however, against such a limit. Earlier in the week, Commission Vice-President Andrus Ansip criticised attempts by a number of member states to set a limited period. “Some member states are calling for a precise number of days. But what is to be done about posted workers? And would it mean that the number of days' holidays would have to be standardised across the EU?” he wondered on 15 April when talking to journalists.
Place of residence, checks and transition period. The other issues raised are linked to the notion of usual place of residence, the need for increased monitoring and the transition period provided for in the regulation. “Until such time as the criterion of usual place of residence is properly defined and checked, there is no need to set a time limit on portability. However, the criteria for verifying the usual residence must, of course, be robust”, stated Cavada at the public hearing. “The concept of usual residence has to be made clearer. This would allow the Commission to make further proposals by delegated act”, added Verheyen.
Richard Rosenberg of Sky and MEP Julia Reda (Greens, Germany) both suggested that usual residence should be determined by the bank details used to subscribe to a service. “There would have to be regular, perhaps even more stringent, monitoring to check if the subscriber ever uses his/her account from the country of residence”, argued Rosenberg. Cécile Despringre of SAA said that responsibility for checking must lie with service providers and this issue should not be settled by means of comitology. Rosenberg and Catherine Stihler (S&D, UK) both called for a transition period of at least 18 months, not the 6 months proposed in the regulation. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)