The European Commission responded on Monday 23 January to questions from the European Parliament’s Culture Committee (CULT) on its proposal for a Media Freedom Act (see EUROPE 13023/1). While there seems to be a consensus on the general objectives of the text, as it stands, it is proving unconvincing.
The independence of the new European Board for Media Services was one of the issues discussed. Made up of representatives of the national media authorities of the 27 Member States, it would replace the current European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA). However, MEPs, like the Member States (see EUROPE 13073/25), the Economic and Social Committee (https://aeur.eu/f/517 ) and the ERGA itself (https://aeur.eu/f/518 ) before them, are concerned about the relationship it would have with the Commission.
“The Commission’s influence is so extensive that this Board cannot invite experts without the Commission agreeing”, criticised Sabine Verheyen (EPP, German), Chair of the CULT Committee. “It also says that the Board should adopt its rules of procedures with the 2/3 majority of its members and in agreement with the Commission”. Finally, MEPs deplored the fact that its secretariat is situated within the Commission.
To mitigate any potential influence, Niklas Nienass (Greens/EFA, German) suggested including journalists and academics on the Board while giving the EU Council and European Parliament the possibility of suggesting members.
The Commission, for its part, argued that it would only have an “observer role” and that it would not have “any voting rights” on the opinions given. Furthermore, it continued, the EMFA provides that in the event of disagreement between the Board and the Commission, the latter can issue its own opinion.
These explanations did not convince Petra Kammerevert (S&D, German), who said she was “astonished” by their definition of independence. “If the national [media oversight authority] were in a ministry, would you be happy?”, she responded.
Beyond its potential lack of independence, MEPs noted that the Board’s opinions would not be binding. The Commission acknowledges this, but counters that these opinions “will carry political weight and they may be taken into account by the Commission in the reports on the rule of law”.
Finally, the members of the CULT Committee underlined the unclear contours of certain provisions. In particular, they deplore the lack of concrete solutions to clearly identified problems, especially with regard to media concentration (see EUROPE 13099/15). (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)