Things are speeding up with regard to the revision of the rules on audiovisual services. The European Parliament’s culture committee adopted its position on Tuesday 25 April and the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU is expected to give its opinion on a new draft compromise, seen by EUROPE, on Wednesday 26 April.
The result of the vote in Parliament’s culture and education committee is quite close to what we announced in a previous issue (see EUROPE 11773). MEPs effectively rejected the compromise amendments to satisfy the ALDE and ECR groups. They retained the idea of obliging video on demand services (VOD) to offer up to 30% of their catalogue in European content and if the member state responsible wishes, to get them to financially contribute to the production of this content. At the end of the vote, the two co-rapporteurs from Germany, Petra Kammerevert (S&D) and Sabine Verheyen (EPP) were given a negotiating brief to begin trialogue talks with the Council.
Blockages may focus on the following points:
Advertising: MEPs and the draft compromise from the Maltese Presidency retain the idea of a daily 20% limit on advertising, in compliance with what the Commission proposed. Nonetheless, to avoid viewers being bombarded with a concentration of evening advertising, MEPs are suggesting that member states define a prime time listening window of a maximum of four hours during which the cap will apply. The Maltese Presidency, however, is suggesting that the day be divided into two parts: from 6am-6pm and from 6pm-midnight. During each of these slots, the proportion of advertising will not be able to exceed 20%.
Promotion of European content. MEPs and the Maltese compromise retain the idea of compelling VOD services to offer and promote European content. MEPs are calling for a 30% quota in the service providers’ catalogue, while the Maltese compromise maintains the 20% proportion suggested by the Commission. The Maltese proposal goes further, given that it indicates that member states should be able to request this kind of participation from the service providers established outside of their territory but who target their audiences, as well as from the providers established on their respective territories. Nonetheless, it does include a derogation for providers that have a, “small turnover or limited audience”. It also calls on the Commission to publish guidelines on this issue.
Social media: similarly to the Commission, MEPs also suggest including social media platforms such as Facebook within the scope of the directive, on the condition that they fulfil the definition of a “video sharing platform”. They hope that a number of requirements will apply to these platforms in the area of advertising or getting rid of hate speech, for example. MEPs defined these platforms on the basis of their ability to make public programmes or videos made by users. The draft Maltese compromise proposal also includes a reference to the absence of editorial responsibility in these platforms and plans to include specific provisions that would help define the responsible jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction: MEPs withdrew the Commission proposals that help identify the member state responsible for service providers that make their editorial decisions in a different country from the one in which their company HQ is based. The Maltese proposal goes more into detail and proposes that the state responsible should be the one where the company HQ is based and where the regular editorial decisions are taken. In the event of any major problem, it is proposing that they examine the area where the majority of the labour force is operating. The Maltese proposal also indicates that, “member states should be free to impose stricter or more detailed rules on service providers under their jurisdiction… in the domain is coordinated by the directive and in respect of EU rules”.
The Maltese compromise is, however, not yet adopted. At this stage, it still involves a proposal based on the discussions of the workgroup on 12 April. It will be discussed during the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU on 26 April, in view of obtaining an agreement at the Culture Council on 23 May. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)