Prof. Dr. Peggy Valcke Council of Europe Expert KU Leuven, Faculty of Law iminds-icri

Transcription

1 Must-Carry Rules in Eurpe: EU Standards & Natinal Practices Expert Seminar: Must-Carry Rules in Eurpe and Slutins fr Ukraine Kyiv, 12 Octber 2012 Prf. Dr. Peggy Valcke Cuncil f Eurpe Expert KU Leuven, Faculty f Law iminds-icri 1. EU Standards Article 31 Universal Service Directive Case law f the Curt f Justice f the Eurpean Unin 1

2 Art. 31 EU Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) AIMS: harmnisatin & ratinalisatin (1) Member States may impse reasnable must-carry bligatins fr the transmissin f specified radi and televisin bradcast channels and cmplementary services, particularly accessibility services, t enable apprpriate access fr disabled end-users, [e.g. subtitling services; NOT interactive infrmatin services see definitin f bradcasting in AVMSD] n undertakings under their jurisdictin prviding electrnic cmmunicatins netwrks used [NOT: built ] fr the distributin f radi r televisin bradcasts t the public where a significant number f end-users f such netwrks use them as their principal means t receive radi and televisin bradcasts. (amendments Citizens Rights Dir. 2009) Art. 31 EU Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) [ ] Such bligatins shall nly be impsed where they are necessary t meet general interest bjectives as clearly defined by each Member State and shall be prprtinate and transparent. [cf. rule f reasn dctrine CJEU] MS shall review must carry bligatins n a regular basis. (2) Withut prejudice t ability f Member States t determine apprpriate remuneratin, if any, in respect f measures taken in accrdance with this Article while ensuring that, in similar circumstances, there is n discriminatin in the treatment f undertakings prviding electrnic cmmunicatins netwrks. Where remuneratin is prvided fr, Member States shall ensure it is applied in a prprtinate and transparent manner. [Mandatry remuneratin is an ptin, nt an bligatin fr MS (nt determined wh has t pay: bradcaster, State...)] (amendments Citizens Rights Dir. 2009) 2

3 1. UPC v. Belgium, C-250/06 (Interpretatin > Art. 56 TFEU = ex-49 TEC) Backgrund: extensive must carry bligatins fr cable peratrs in bilingual regin Brussels-Capital; channels designated by minister; cmbinatin f mustcarry channels in Flanders and Wallnia (incl. pay TV channel) Judgment: Must-carry bligatins cnsidered by Curt as restrictin t freedm f services, but: 39. The Curt has cnsistently held that such a restrictin n a fundamental freedm guaranteed by the Treaty may be justified nly where it serves verriding reasns relating t the general interest, is suitable fr securing the attainment f the bjective which it pursues and des nt g beynd what is necessary in rder t attain it. ( rule f reasn ) 1 general interest aim? 2 suitable and necessary t attain that aim? 1. UPC v. Belgium, C-250/06 (Interpretatin > Art. 56 TFEU = ex-49 TEC) 1 YES: well-established case-law that cultural plicy may cnstitute an verriding requirement relating t the general interest which justifies a restrictin n the freedm t prvide services Natinal legislatin at issue seeks t preserve the pluralist nature f the range f TV prgrammes available in bilingual regin Brussels-Capital; frms part f cultural plicy t safeguard freedm f expressin f different scial, cultural, religius, philsphical r linguistic cmpnents in that regin. 3

4 1. UPC v. Belgium, C-250/06 (Interpretatin > Art. 56 TFEU = ex-49 TEC) 2 Suitable: YES Necessary, IF: Subject t transparent prcedure based n criteria knwn by bradcasters in advance - mere setting ut (in statement f reasns fr natinal legislatin) f declaratins f principle and general plicy bjectives cannt be cnsidered sufficient(!) Based n bjective criteria suitable fr securing pluralism; shuld nt autmatically be awarded t all TV channels transmitted by private bradcaster, but be strictly limited t thse channels having verall cntent apprpriate fr the purpse f attaining general interest bjective. In additin, the number f channels reserved t private bradcasters having that status must nt manifestly exceed what is necessary in rder t attain that bjective. Criteria must be nn-discriminatry; i.e. nt, either in law r in fact, be subject t a requirement f establishment n the natinal territry Fr the natinal curt t determine [N.B. Belgian Cuncil f State cnsidered these requirements NOT satisfied.] 2. Kabel Deutschland v. NLM, C-336/07 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Backgrund: extensive must carry bligatins fr cable peratrs in Germany (Lwer Saxny), especially in analgue (mre than half f capacity in sme cases), incl. channels already transmitted via terrestrial netwrks ( duplicatin ) Questins: Is it cmpatible with Article 31(1) if a cable netwrk peratr is required t prvide access, n mre than half f its capacity fr analgue bradcasting, t prgrammes already being bradcast via DVB-T? Is it cmpatible with Article 31(1) if, in the event f a shrtage f channels, the cmpetent natinal authrity has t establish an rder f pririty f applicants which results in full utilisatin f the channels available t the cable netwrk peratr? D televisin services in Article 31(1) include prviders f media services r telemedia, fr example teleshpping? 4

5 2. Kabel Deutschland v. NLM, C-336/07 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Judgement: Yes t all three questins Cnsideratins by Curt: - analgue cable cvering +/- 57% f husehlds = significant number f end-users; mst widely used means f transmissin; - TV channels are specified (by requiring that TV channels be specified, the directive des nt seek t lay dwn a quantitative cnditin); - Art. 31(1) des nt establish right fr cable peratrs t chse which channels t bradcast, but limits that right in s far as it exists under applicable natinal law; - general interest bjective: preserve pluralist nature f TV channel service in Lwer Saxny (part f a cultural plicy t guarantee freedm f expressin f different scial, cultural and linguistic cmpnents in that Land) 2. Kabel Deutschland v. NLM, C-336/07 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Judgement: Yes t all three questins - Prprtinate? t prtect a cable peratr frm unreasnable and arbitrary bligatins, it is necessary t cnsider: 1. Whether the bligatins impsed are necessary t achieve the bjectives f pluralism and media diversity: Yes; mechanism established des nt entail an autmatic award f must carry status, but ensures that channels bradcast terrestrially (> licensed by virtue f their cntributin t pluralism and diversity f pinin!*) are als bradcast ver analgue cable; * the decisin n which f the TV channels bradcast via DVB-T [must-carry] status is t be awarded, is based n the criteria f pluralism and diversity f pinin, in accrdance with the prvisins f the NMedienG, and is adpted n the basis f thse criteria by the general meeting f the NLM, which is independent f the public authrities and which cmprises, fr the mst part, representatives f the civil cmmunity 5

6 2. Kabel Deutschland v. NLM, C-336/07 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Judgement: Yes t all three questins - Prprtinate? t prtect a cable peratr frm unreasnable and arbitrary bligatins, it is necessary t cnsider: 2. Whether thse bligatins d nt give rise t unreasnable ecnmic cnsequences Relevant factrs: freedm fr cable peratr t decide whether the channels are t be bradcast n its analgue r digital netwrk (latter nt being subject t similar rules)? Apprpriate remuneratin? Is a matter fr the natinal curt t establish [N.B. Kabel Deutschland withdrew actin f annulment befre administrative curt in Hannver] 3. Cmmissin v. Belgium, C-134/10 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Three cmplaints abut incrrect transpsitin: 1. Lack f general interest bjectives clearly defined in legislatin: Belgian law referred t general-interest bjectives in very vague and general terms and the specific criteria used by the natinal authrities t select the televisin bradcast channels t enjy must-carry status were nt specified in that legislatin itself r in the preparatry dcuments t that legislatin. Accepted by Curt: Mere statement f general plicy bjective [ in rder t guarantee plurality and cultural diversity ], nt accmpanied by any additinal factr capable f enabling peratrs t determine in advance the nature and effect f the precise cnditins and bligatins t be fulfilled if they apply fr the award f mustcarry status, nt in accrdance with Art. 31. Belgian law did nt clearly define the actual criteria relied upn by the natinal authrities t select the TV bradcasters benefiting frm the mustcarry bligatin; prvisin is, therefre, nt sufficiently precise t ensure that the bradcasters selected are thse whse cntent, in its entirety, is capable f meeting the general interest cultural bjective pursued. 6

7 3. Cmmissin v. Belgium, C-134/10 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Three cmplaints abut incrrect transpsitin: 2. Principle f transparency under Art. 31 nt bserved by Belgian law granting must carry t any nn-public TV bradcaster falling under the pwers f the French and Flemish Cmmunities, which the King designates in an Order adpted by the Cuncil f Ministers : lack f criteria relied n fr awarding must-carry status: law des nt specify any bjective criteria knwn in advance relied upn by the Belgian authrities; failure t specify which TV bradcasters benefit frm that status: shuld nt autmatically be awarded t all TV channels transmitted by a private bradcaster, but must be strictly limited t thse channels having an verall cntent which is capable f attaining the general interest bjective pursued; Pssibly discriminatry (ambiguity as t the requirement t be established n Belgian territry): falling under the pwers f the FR/FL Cmmunities des nt render it impssible that the award f must-carry status requires, in law and in fact, thse bradcasters t be established in Belgium. 3. Cmmissin v. Belgium, C-134/10 (Interpretatin > Art. 31 USD) Three cmplaints abut incrrect transpsitin: 3. Disregard f the scpe f Art. 31: Belgian law did nt cnfine the mustcarry bligatin t peratrs f electrnic cmmunicatins netwrks which have a significant number f end-user subscribers. It merely cntained ptin fr the Belgian authrities t relieve netwrk peratrs f their must-carry bligatins if the number f end-users wh use that netwrk as their principal means f receiving bradcast televisin prgrammes is nt sufficient. This still permitted thse authrities, in the event f refusing that dispensatin, t impse thse bligatins n peratrs withut significant number f end-user subscribers. Furthermre, the peratr cncerned had t prve that the cnditins fr btaining the dispensatin had been met. 7

8 2. Natinal Practices Regulatry aims? Which platfrms are subject t must-carry bligatins? Which channels/types f cntent benefit frm must-carry? Alternative/cmplementary rules? Rle f regulatr? Snapsht f situatin in MS REGULATORY AIMS Mst cmmn: Access fr all t PSB channels (and/r thse with PSB bligatins) Is ften nly regulatry aim (e.g. DK, GR, HU, LV, NL, NO, RO, SE) Other: Media pluralism; ensure diverse ffer f cntent (e.g. BE, LU, PL, LT, MT) Smetimes specified/fcused n: news, infrmatin, educatin, art, entertainment cultural and scietal debates natinal language and culture Eurpean cntent Cntent suited fr yuth and children Market diversity and prmting presence f smaller bradcasting rganisatins, such as lcal channels (e.g. FR, DE, PT) Prmtin f new services (e.g. AT, IE) Industrial plicy (supprt fr dmestic / lcal cntent) 16 8

9 Snapsht f situatin in MS WHICH PLATFORMS Primarily: cable TV netwrks Other traditinal platfrms: Terrestrial (DTT) (e.g. AT, BE(fr), DE, GR, IE, MT, ES, SK + als analgue terrestrial: LU, BU, DK, NO) Satellite (e.g. FR, LU, DE, RO, PT) New Media Platfrms: Mbile 3G: e.g. BE(fr), ES Mbile DVB-H: e.g. AT, BE(fr), DK, DE, LT, ES IPTV / TV ver DSL: e.g. BE(fr), DK, FR, LT, PL, RO, SE, ES => Trend twards technlgy neutrality! 17 Snapsht f situatin in MS WHICH PLATFORMS (ctd.) Significant number f end users principal means? Mst MS have n clear definitin DE: are excluded frm must-carry bligatins: Platfrms n pen netwrks (UMTS, Internet) Wired platfrms with less than hmes cnnected Wireless platfrms with less than users BE(nl): Gvernment appints netwrks every 3 years (upn advice f Flemish Media Regulatr) => threshld: 25% f users (husehlds) within territrial reach f the netwrk Wh is platfrm prvider? Netwrk peratrs AND/OR distributrs (aggregatrs) Varies frm MS t MS 18 9

10 Snapsht f situatin MS WHICH CHANNELS Primarily: PSB channels / channels with public service bligatins (natinal and/r lcal PSB) Other: wide variety lcal/reginal channels (ther than PSB; e.g. HU: lcal nn-prfit prgramme prviders ) scial bradcasters e.g. PL: prpagates learning and educatinal activities, prmtes charitable deeds, respects the Christian system f values, being guided by the universal principles f ethics, and strives t preserve natinal identity in the prgramme service (and des nt transmit advertising r teleshpping) minrity channels (e.g. DE, RO) Parliamentary channel (e.g. FR) cmmercial channels (e.g. AT, BE, CZ, DE, IE, LU, smetimes even pay- TV r teleshpping channels, e.g. LU, DE) freign (PSB) channels (e.g. BE, 19 DK, DE, LU, NL, PL, RO) Snapsht f situatin MS WHICH CHANNELS Primarily: specified in legislatin; in prviders authrisatins Other: (1) Gvt./regulatr designate(s) additinal must-carry channels E.g. BE(nl): Gvt., n advice f regulatr, can grant must-carry status t channels (incl. private/cmmercial) that: Offer news prgrammes prduced by wn editrial staff (mainly cnsisting f prfessinal jurnalists); Prvide varied, diverse and pluralistic chice f prgrammes; including infrmative and cultural prgrammes, and f which a certain % is in Dutch; Offer subtitling services fr deaf peple and peple with hearing impairments fr a certain % f the prgrammes (2) Regulatr grants exemptins (e.g. SK) 20 10

11 Snapsht f situatin MS REMUNERATION Varies widely: Smetimes netwrks pay bradcasters Smetimes bradcasters pay netwrks Smetimes there are n payments at all Smetimes remuneratin is specified in the law (althugh methd f cmpensatin is determined by cmmercial agreement) Very ften, data is lacking! EU state aid rules! 21 Snapsht f situatin MS MUST OFFER Explicitly: CZ, FR, NO, BE-FR (sme), UK (nt implemented) Implicitly (cverage bligatins fr e.g. PSB): mst MS 22 11

12 Sme recmmendatins Aim: frmulate as specific as pssible (nt just media pluralism, but: preservatin f prgramming in minrity language in bilingual regins, guaranteeing citizens access t lcal and natinal news, infrmatin, educatin, cultural and scietal debates, etc. in their wn language...) Beneficiaries: Channels, nt bradcasters Reasnable number (exact number > ttal capacity f netwrk, number f subscribers, plicy gal...) Only channels serving the public interest: Publicly funded channels But can be brader: als private channels with a public service remit (e.g. reginal TV) r ffering general interest cntent that wuld therwise nt be distributed under nrmal market cnditins (e.g. schl TV, cmmunity media...) 23 Sme recmmendatins Platfrms: Technlgy neutrality AND prprtinality Multiple platfrms (cf. German case: MC n cable still justified if channels are accessible via DVB-T) (!) Multi-layered apprach: cuple must-carry with must-ffer all bradcasters with MC status shuld have an accmpanying must-ffer bligatin t prvide their prgrammes t all platfrm prviders under nndiscriminatry terms and cnditins and with must-distribute in case f nn-vertically integrated netwrk prviders there may be need t define bligatin t distribute certain cntent (distributr) separately frm bligatin t reserve sufficient capacity (netwrk peratr) extend t assciated facilities: must-carry status shuld imply access t assciated facilities, such as CAS, API, EPG, but als DRMs, multiplex, 24 search engines (cf. Cullen Reprt 2006) 12

13 Further Reading EPRA (Deirdre Kevin), Backgrund Paper n Must-Carry rules: Valuable Tl r Sacred Cw?, 27th EPRA meeting, Riga, May , IRIS Plus, Must-Carry: Renaissance r Refrmatin?, , IRIS Special, T Have r Nt t Have: Must-carry Rules, 2005, Cullen Internatinal, Study n the Regulatin f Bradcasting Issues under the New Regulatry Framewrk, December 2006, pp and pp (+ annex 1: Tables 4, 14-17) Thank yu fr yur attentin! Questins? peggy.valcke@law.kuleuven.be 13