On Tuesday 3 October, the European Parliament adopted its negotiating mandate for the Media Freedom Act (EMFA) with 448 votes in favour, 102 against and 75 abstentions. Despite amendments tabled by the Greens/EFA, The Left, ID and the ECR, the text was finally adopted in its original version (see EUROPE 13245/11).
“The text we have adopted is legally sound and has a bite […] we ensured that we have kept the right balance between the competences of the member states and the EU”, said rapporteur Sabine Verheyen (EPP, German).
Protection of journalistic sources
The Left, the Greens/EFA and the ECR have proposed introducing a complete ban on the deployment of spyware against journalists, in particular. While welcoming the Parliament’s position, the European Federation of Journalists also regretted the absence of a complete ban. The report adopted limits this possibility but does not rule it out completely (see EUROPE 13225/23).
This is a “full ban [...] when it comes to investigations related to the professional life of journalists”, said Ramona Strugariu (Renew Europe, Romanian), in defence of the text. In cases where it concerns their personal lives, she added, the text introduces “plenty of safeguards”, in particular the fact that the investigation must concern serious crimes, as defined in European laws.
Privilege for the media
Another point that has sparked debate is the introduction of a “privilege” for the media, a mechanism designed to protect recognised journalistic content from the arbitrary moderation decisions of the major digital platforms. The Left has proposed abolishing it, without success, despite the support of a majority of Greens/EFA.
For their part, the Greens/EFA and Renew Europe were not convinced by the 24-hour deadline given to the media to argue with the platforms before their content was removed.
Indeed, the whole of Article 17 relating to this “privilege” is controversial (see EUROPE 13258/16). In the wake of the European Parliament vote, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), as well as human rights groups such as Liberties EU, expressed their dissatisfaction. Despite the conditions laid down in the Parliament’s text for access to this privilege, they continue to feel that the mechanism complicates the fight against disinformation.
Media concentration
Finally, the Greens/EFA wanted to allow the European Commission to investigate mergers that could harm media plurality and, if necessary, “impose on them any behavioural or structural remedies which are proportionate to the breach and necessary to bring it to an end”, including a ban on remaining in the merger.
Ms Verheyen, who is strongly opposed to this provision, defended the need to bring forward a text that is “legally sound” and respects competences so it doesn’t risk being struck down by the EU Court of Justice. She also pointed out that the Commission has instruments at its disposal to protect the media market, which it is not fully using, particularly within the framework of legislation on competition, the single market and audiovisual media.
Towards negotiations
The groups tried to introduce other amendments, such as the deletion of the European Board for Media Services, suggested by ECR. They were all rejected. In the final vote, a majority of the ECR and ID groups voted against or abstained, as did some members of the The Left and Greens/EFA groups.
The Council of the EU now aims to conclude negotiations before the end of 2023. Cautious, Ms Verheyen is aiming for the end of the current term, at the latest, announcing that certain points such as “protection of journalists, freedom of media, independence of media authorities and independence of public service broadcasters” would be difficult to negotiate.
To see the European Parliament’s position, go to https://aeur.eu/f/8ux (Original version in French by Hélène Seynaeve)