On Friday 15 December, after more than 5 hours of interinstitutional negotiations (‘trilogue’), negotiators from the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached a provisional political agreement on the ‘Media Freedom Act’ (see EUROPE 13313/15).
“This is a great success for media freedom in Europe. For the first time, we are legislating to protect the press and journalists. It’s very important and I think the result is significant. Media freedom is the cornerstone of democracy”, said the rapporteur, Sabine Verheyen (EPP, German).
Article 4. The European co-legislators reached a stable agreement on most of the points at the last trilogue on 29 and 30 November (see EUROPE 13304/6), with the exception of Article 4 on the rights of media service providers. Several Member States were lobbying for a ban on surveillance of journalists, with the exception of national security situations, an exception that was a red line for Parliament.
In fact, the provisional agreement removes the reference to the national security exception, preferring instead a reference to the EU Treaties and the obligations of the Member States. However, things are more subtle than that. According to a source consulted by EUROPE, the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU has “demanded the addition of a recital referring to Article 4.2 of the Treaty on European Union”, which “clearly sets out” the concept of national security.
“In reality, the reference does not appear clearly in the text, but has been fully integrated by means of a recital”, the same source confirmed to EUROPE. On this point, the source went on to explain, “France continued to block the issue - for at least 3 hours - because it did not want to hear about the abolition of the concept of national security”.
“This Article has been slightly reworded. It was very important for Parliament and I am pleased that we have reached an agreement (...) I call on the Member States to support the text”, commented the Spanish Minister for Culture, Ernest Urtasun.
Article 4 also provides for a number of exceptions, in some twenty serious cases such as terrorism and child pornography. However, Member States or subcontractors wishing to initiate a surveillance procedure must obtain prior authorisation from a judicial authority.
“Any exception to the rule must be duly justified, and very strict conditions must be met”, confirmed Mrs Verheyen.
The Member States’ ambassadors to the EU (Coreper) will examine the text as of Wednesday 20 December, and work at technical level will continue in January. According to a source close to the matter, the MEPs - who are expecting a vote in Parliament’s Committee on Culture in February and a plenary vote in March - should pay “particular attention” to the way in which the final points of the text are drafted, starting with the recital referring to Article 4.2 of the TEU.
The work on the recitals raised a number of voices within the EPP and S&D Groups, who felt that the work had been “botched” for lack of time. “On the working method, there were long meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, because they absolutely wanted there to be an agreement and for everything to be dealt with in broad terms. There were fears that the future Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU would not open a trilogue on the dossier”, said a source.
24 hours. The negotiated text also validates the 24-hour deadline by which online platforms must inform qualified media service providers before withdrawing their online content. This notification should be accompanied by an explanation of the reasons for the decision.
It will also be up to online platforms to validate whether or not a media service provider is qualified. “In Western countries, there was no problem in saying that the State can tell who is a registered media; lists exist. In some countries further East, people have more confidence in American platforms than in their own government, and they prefer Google or someone else to decide on the issue”, slipped in one source.
Negotiators from the Council of the EU and Parliament had already agreed on the majority of the points in the text during the trilogue at the end of November.
Among other things, they defined the structure of the future ‘Media Council’ and the obligations of media service providers offering news and current affairs content. They also reached agreement on articles relating to the rights of recipients of media services, the powers of State advertising, national measures affecting the operation of media service providers and opinions on mergers in the media market. (Original version in French by Thomas Mangin)