Inter-institutional negotiations on the directive on audio-visual media services are moving forward at a sluggish pace. According to Parliament and the Council, this pace is too slow and they are therefore looking at the possibility of organising more technical meetings (to settle the question of accessibility, particularly by the time of the third trialogue that could take place on 16 October).
It should be pointed out that the draft text presented in May 2016 seeks to create a more level playing field for traditional and over the top video services. It also seeks to provide greater flexibility within the rules framing advertising and supporting creativity in Europe by way of obligations on the promotion of European content (see EUROPE 11558). The European Parliament adopted its position on 18 May and the Council a few days later (23 May).
Divisions over accessibility
At this stage, two inter-institutional meetings (trialogues) have taken place but they have not really helped to push forward the discussions and negotiators are stalling on the question of accessibility, which is dear to the heart of the European Parliament (article 7). The legislative proposal suggests scrapping provisions on accessibility in the basic directive (which makes it incumbent on member states to encourage service providers under their jurisdiction to guarantee their services are “accessible to people with visual or auditory impairment”. The Council’s general approach reintroduces this provision as it stands, whereas Parliament strengthens it by expanding it to all kinds of impairment. There is also another difference: Parliament would like media service providers to draw up, “accessibility action plans for continued and progressive improvement in accessibility to services for persons with disabilities”.
Other questions pending
The two trialogues also helped to broach the question of definitions (article 2), exceptions to the country of origin principle (article 3), procedures in the event circumvention (article 4) and regulation authorities (article 30). The co-legislators are shifting towards a compromise on definitions. On article 3, the Commission and Council suggest including “the physical, mental and moral development of minors” by way of derogations, while Parliament would like this limited to incitement to violence or hatred. On article 4, the Council is proposing, as opposed to the Council, that it is no longer necessary for the country of destination to prove that a broadcaster “intends” to circumvent its rules.
Another stumbling block involves the role played by the new European Regulators Group for Audio-visual Media Services (ERGA). Although Parliament and Council agree on setting up this kind of group, the Council considers that its role should be limited to providing technical expertise, while Parliament has mentioned a role where “advice and assistance” are provided. The Council would also like the new group to be able to establish procedural rules itself, while Parliament would like it to be the Commission that draws them up.
Negotiators are expected to meet up for another trilogue in the middle of October, which is likely to be on the 16th of the month. In the meantime, several technical meetings will be organised in an effort to speed up the procedure. According to one source close to the dossier, a minimum of two trialogues will still be needed before a compromise is possible. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)