The Member States’ deputy ambassadors to the EU (Coreper I) agreed, on Wednesday 21 June, on a mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament on the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). Only Hungary and Poland were opposed.
Source protection
However, the compromise drawn up by the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union has provoked an outcry from journalists’ rights groups.
At issue: the explicit reference to Member States being responsible for safeguarding national security in the article prohibiting the deployment of spyware and enshrining the protection of journalistic sources. For the associations, this gives EU countries carte blanche to tap journalists’ phones and could therefore be used by governments unwilling to support press freedom (see EUROPE 13205/20).
Although the amendment was mainly backed by France, a number of delegations also supported it (see EUROPE 13183/18). Denying any desire to call into question the protection of journalistic sources, this country defends a question of consistency with the TFEU, which enshrines the sovereignty of Member States in safeguarding national security. Furthermore, for the French government, this provision in itself does not open the door to abuse, insofar as the actions of governments must always respect the Rule of law.
However, in the light of the spyware scandals (see EUROPE 13202/14), these arguments are hard to convince journalists’ associations. They are calling on the European Parliament to be ambitious during the interinstitutional negotiations. The opinion by Ramona Strugariu (Renew Europe, Romanian), rapporteur for the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, intends to introduce additional safeguards to limit the use of such devices against journalists, thus going against the position of the Member States (see EUROPE 13170/27).
Poland and Hungary against
The Swedish text also tackles other aspects of the EMFA. In particular, it emphasises the role of the Member States in regulating public service media, strengthens the independence of the European Board for Media Services and provides a better framework for the procedure for removing content from recognised media on very large platforms (see EUROPE 13174/25).
With only Poland and Hungary voting against and no country abstaining, the text was widely supported, including by Germany. German media policy is essentially the responsibility of the Länder, which were initially concerned that European-level legislation would encroach on their powers.
As for the Polish and Hungarian delegations, they continue to contest the legal basis, namely Article 114 of the TFEU on the Internal Market (see EUROPE 13163/19). In particular, Poland argues that the regulation limits States in the development of their own media policy, which is the result not only of national cultural traditions, but also of its links with other areas of legislation, such as the regulation of the employment market. (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)