26 Amendments of Carles PUIGDEMONT I CASAMAJÓ related to 2022/0277(COD)
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)
Recital 1 a (new)
(1a) Private media companies must ensure that a minimum percentage of their programming guarantee the use regional languages of the Member States where they operate. Member States and regional governments with competences and powers on these matters must establish guidelines for the use of regional languages in media programming and provide support for the development of these languages.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) The definition of audience measurement should cover measurement systems developed as agreed by industry standards within self-regulatory organisations, like the Joint Industry Committees, and measurement systems developed outside such self-regulatory approaches. The latter tend to be deployed by certain online players who self-measure or provide their proprietary audience measurement systems to the market, which do not necessarily abide by the commonly agreed industry standards. Systems developed outside of commonly agreed industry standards should be considered proprietary audience measurement systems. Given the significant impact that such audience measurement systems have on the advertising and media markets, they should be covered by this Regulation. Media service providers which abide by the commonly agreed industry standards shall not be considered as providers of proprietary audience measurement systems.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17a) Audiovisual and audio media services of general interest that play an important role in the opinion-forming of the public have become more difficult to discover and find in the digital age as commercial objectives determine which media services are offered prominently to recipients. In view of the abundance of information and the increasing use of digital means to access the media, it is key that Member States take effective measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual and audio media services of general interest under defined general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of speech, access to reliable information, social cohesion and cultural diversity. To effectively realise these general interest objectives, a Member State should tailor prominence measures to its specific national context and media market. When imposing obligations, a Member State should be free to regulate device manufacturers and providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services in their jurisdiction irrespective of their place of establishment. A Member State should identify the services that are considered as general interest in its jurisdiction in a transparent and objective manner. In order to be effective, audiovisual and audio media services of general interest should be prominently placed at the first selection level on these devices or user interfaces and should be accessible through a single action by the user, including clicking or scrolling. General interest audiovisual and audio media services should be made prominent in their entirety. Disaggregated content of general interest services should be prioritised on user interfaces where only individual content items are selectable.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Public service media established by the Member States and Regional Governments play a particular role in the internal media market, by ensuring that citizens and businesses have access to universal and varied offers including quality information, and balanced and impartial media coverage, as part of their missionremit. They provide a forum for public discussion and a means of promoting broader democratic participation of individuals. That is why, media pluralism can only be guaranteed by a proper political balance in the content of public service media. However, public service media can be particularly exposed to the risk of interference, given their institutional proximity to the State and the public funding they receive. which may expose them to additional vulnerabilities compared to other players in the internal media market to the extent that they threaten their very existence. This risk may be exacerbated by uneven safeguards related to independent governance and balanced coverage by public service media across the Union. This situation may lead to biased or partial media coverage, distort competition in the internal media market and negatively affect access to independent and impartial media services. Furthermore, in the absence of harmonised minimum standards, Member States have taken divergent measures that resulted in the fragmentation of the internal media market. This fragmentation may create legal uncertainty and an unfair level playing- field deterring private media services providers from entering the market. It is thus necessary, building on the international standards developed by the Council of Europe in this regard, tohat Member States put in place legal safeguards for the independent functioning of public service media across the Union. It is also necessary to guarantee that, without prejudice to the application of the Union’s State aid rules, public service media providers benefit from sufficient and stable funding to fulfil their missionremit that enables predictability in their planning. Preferably, such funding should be decided and appropriated and allows them to maintain a competitive position on the internal media market. Such funding should be decided and appropriated on the basis of predictable, transparent, independent, impartial and non-discriminatory procedures, on a multi- year basis, in line with the public service missionremit of public service media providers, to avoid potential for undue influence from yearly budget negotiations. The requirements laid down in this Regulation do not affect the competence of Member States tobudget negotiations. Media companies must publicly disclose the percentage of their revenue that comes from state aid. At the same time, Member States must establish a mechanism to ensure that state aid is distributed fairly among different media outlets. The absence of harmonisation in what concerns the allocation of finances to public service media providers may create an unfair advantage for certain players in the internal media market, including advertisers and thus produce significant distortions to the internal media market. The transparency requirements under this Regulation for the appointment procedures for public service media’s heads of management and members of governing bodies do not require the disclosure of the candidates’ identity. The requirements laid down in this Regulation do not affect the application of the State aid rules as applied on a case-by- case basis or the competence of Member States and Regional Governments to define a broad and dynamic remit, organise and provide for the funding of public service media as enshrined in Protocol 29 on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Ensuring a consistent regulatory practice regardingn effective application of this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU is essential. For this purpose, and to contribute to ensuring a convergent implementation of EU media law, the Commission may issue guidelines on matters covered by both this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU when needed. When deciding to issue guidelines, the Commission should consider in particular regulatory issues affecting a significant number of Member States or those with a cross-border element. This is the case in particular for national measures taken under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of general interest. In view of the abundance of information and the increasing use of digital means to access the media, it is important to ensure prominence for content of general interest, in order to help achieving a level playing field in the internal market and compliance with the fundamental right to receive information under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. Given the possible impact of the national measures taken under Article 7a on the functioning of the internal media market, guidelines by the Commission would be important to achieve legal certainty in this fieldSuch guidelines should respect the Member States’ as well as Regional Governments’ competences in cultural matters with a view to promoting media pluralism, be principle-based and be without effect to existing national prominence measures. It would also be useful to provide guidance on national measures taken under Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU with a view to ensuring the public availability of accessible, accurate and up-to-date information related to media ownership. In the process of preparing its guidelines, the Commission should be assisted by the Board. The Board should in particular share with the Commission its regulatory, technical and practical expertise regarding the areas and topics covered by the respective guidelines.
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) Very large online platforms act for many users as a gateway for access to media services. Media service providers who exercise editorial responsibility over their content play an important role in the distribution of information and in the exercise of freedom of information online. When exercising such editorial responsibility, they are expected to act diligently and provide information that is trustworthy and respectful of fundamental rights, in line with the regulatory or self- regulatory requirements they are subject to in the Member States. Therefore, also in view of users’ freedom of information, where providers of very large online platforms consider that content provided by such media service providers is incompatible with their terms and conditions, while it is not contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act], they should duly consider freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act] and provide, as early as possible, the necessary explanations to media service providers as their business users in the statement of reasons under Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council54. To minimise the impact of any restriction to that content on users’ freedom of information, very large online platforms should endeavour tosubmit the statement of reasons prior to the restriction taking effect without prejudice to their obligations under in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065 [the Digital Services Act] and grant the affected media service a right to reply to this statement of reasons prior to the suspension or restriction taking effect. In particular, this Regulation should not prevent a provider of a very large online platform to take expeditious measures either against illegal content disseminated through its service, or in order to mitigate systemic risks posed by dissemination of certain content through its service, in compliance with Union law, in particular pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065 [the Digital Services Act]. _________________ 54 Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 57-79).
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32 a (new)
Recital 32 a (new)
(32a) Media companies must give equal prominence to corrections related to proven fake news, occupying at least half of the physical space and time devoted to disseminating the fake news in question. Member States must establish legal mechanisms to enable swift correction of fake news and prevent its further dissemination.
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37 a (new)
Recital 37 a (new)
(37a) Recipients of media services increasingly face difficulties in identifying who bears the editorial responsibility for the content or services they consume, in particular when they access media services through connected devices or online platforms. Failure to clearly indicate editorial responsibility for media content or services (e.g., through incorrect attribution of logos, trademarks, or other characteristic traits) deprives recipients of media services of the possibility to understand and assess the information they receive, which is a prerequisite for forming well-informed opinions and consequently to actively participate in democracy. Recipients of media services should therefore be enabled to easily identify the media service provider bearing the editorial responsibility over any given media service on all devices and user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Media play a decisive role in shaping public opinion and helping citizens participate in democratic processes. This is why Member States should provide for rules and procedures in their legal systems to ensure assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism or editorial independenceMoreover, providers of very large online platforms and of very large online search engines play a significant role in the access to information and in the presentation of this information to the consumers. Concentration of ownership of the media system can create an environment favouring the monopolisation of the advertising market, introduce barriers to the entry of new market players and also lead to uniformity of media content. Media ownership concentration must be limited to prevent a single entity from owning a disproportionate share of the market. Media companies must publicly disclose their ownership structure and any changes in ownership. This is why Member States should provide for rules and procedures in their legal systems to ensure assessment of media market concentrations that could have a significant impact on media pluralism or editorial independence, in its entirety, including the providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines, as well as public service media. National governments must establish an independent regulatory body to oversee media ownership and prevent monopolies. Such rules and procedures can have an impact on the freedom to provide media services in the internal market and need to be properly framed and be transparent, objective, proportionate and non- discriminatory. Media market concentrations subject to such rules should be understood as covering those which could result in a single entity controlling or having significant interests in media services which have substantial influence on the formation of public opinion in a given media market, including by means of carrying content provided by media service providers or by controlling access and visibility to such content, within a media sub- sector or across different media sectors in one or more Member States. An important criterion to be taken into account is the reduction of competing views within that market as a result of the concentration. Therefore, taking such measures is essential, in order to guarantee access, competition and quality and avoid conflicts of interests between media ownership concentration and political power, which are detrimental to free competition, a level playing field and pluralism.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) In order to enhance the verifiability, comparability and reliability of audience measurement methodologies, in particular online, transparency obligations should be laid down for providers of audience measurement systems that do not abide by the industry benchmarks agreed within the relevant self-regulatory bodies. Under these obligations, such actors, when requested and to the extent possible, should provide advertisers and media service providers or parties acting on their behalf, with information describing the methodologies employed for the measurement of the audience. Such information could consist in providing elements, such as the size of the sample measured, the definition of the indicators that are measured, the metrics, the measurement methods and the margin of error as well as the measurement period. The obligations imposed under this Regulation are without prejudice toIn addition, media service providers should obtain, free of cost, data about the audiences of their content and services. The obligations imposed under this Regulation are without prejudice to audiences’ right to protection of personal data as provided by Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights read in conjunction with Regulation 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) as well as any obligations that apply to providers of audience measurement services under Regulation 2019/1150 or Regulation (EU) 2022/XX1925 [Digital Markets Act], including those concerning ranking or self- preferencing.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) Codes of conduct, drawn up either by the providers of audience measurement systems or by organisations or associations representing them, cantogether with media service providers, their representative organisations and any other interested parties contribute to the effective application of this Regulation and should, therefore, be encouraged. Self- regulation has already been used to foster high quality standards in the area of audience measurement. Its further development could be seen as an effective tool for the industry with the support of national regulatory authorities or bodies to agree on the practical solutions needed for ensuring compliance of audience measurement systems and their methodologies with the principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non- discrimination, comparability and verifiability. When drawing up such codes of conduct, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders and notably media service providers, account could be taken in particular of the increasing digitalisation of the media sector and the objective of achieving a level playing field among media market players.
Amendment 335 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 14
(14) ‘audience measurement’ means the activity of collecting, interpreting or otherwise processing data about the number and characteristics of users of media content and services for the purposes of decisions regarding advertising allocation or prices or the related planning, production or distribution of content;
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 a (new)
Article 4 a (new)
Article4a Prominence for audiovisual and audio media services of general interest Member States shall take measures to ensure the appropriate prominence of audiovisual and audio media services of general interest. This Regulation, Directives 2010/13/EU and 2000/31/EC and Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 shall not affect the competence of Member States or Regional Governments and shall be without effect to existing prominence measures. References to Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 shall be read as references to Article 5a of this Regulation.
Amendment 418 #
1. PMember States shall ensure in their national legal framework and conduct that public service media providers shall provide independently and in an impartial manner a plurality of information and opinions to their audiences, in accordance with their public service missionremit.
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3
Article 5 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall ensure that public service media providers have adequate and stable financial resources for the fulfilment of their public service mission. Those resourcesremit and to meet the objectives therein. Those resources and the process by which they are allocated shall be such that editorial independence is safeguarded.
Amendment 442 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that the allocation of financial resources to the public service media providers is conducted through predictable, transparent, independent, impartial and non-discriminatory procedures and on the basis of transparent, objective and proportionate criteria laid down in advance by national law. Those procedures shall be such that editorial independence is safeguarded. Media companies must annually disclose their debt and loans with the banking and financial sector. In this way, Member States must establish guidelines for the reporting of media debt and loans to ensure transparency and prevent conflicts of interest.
Amendment 756 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 2
Article 17 – paragraph 2
2. Where a provider of very large online platform decides to restrict or suspend the provision of its online intermediation services in relation to content or services provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, on the grounds that such content or services is incompatible with its terms and conditions, without that content contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of the Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services Act], it shall take all possible measures, to the extent consistent with their obligations under Union law, includingcommunicate to the media service provider concerned the statement of reasons accompanying that decision, as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX2065 [Digital Services Act], to communicate toand provide the media service provider concerned the statement of reasons accompanying that decision, as required by Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, prior to the suspenwith an opportunity to reply to the statement of reasons prior to the suspension or restriction taking effect. If the provider of a very large online platform subsequently decides to suspend or restrict content or services, it shall give detailed reasons in writing why it rejects the media service provider’s objections at the time the decision takinges effect.
Amendment 764 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3
Article 17 – paragraph 3
3. Providers of very large online platforms shall take all the necessary technical and organisational measures to ensure that complaints under Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 and/or Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 [Digital Services Act] by media service providers that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article are processed and decided upon with priority and no later than 24 hours after submission of the complaint. If the very large online platform fails to adhere to this time limit, it shall reinstate the content or service without undue delay.
Amendment 771 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
4. 3. Where a media service provider that submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 considers that a provider of very large online platform frequently restricts or suspends the provision of its services in relation to content or services provided by the media service provider without sufficient grounds, the provider of very large online platform shall engage in a meaningful and effective dialogue with the media service provider, upon its request, in good faith with a view to finding an amicable solution for terminating unjustified restrictions or suspensions and avoiding them in the future. The media service provider may notify the outcome of such exchanges to the Board. If no amicable solution is found, the media service provider may lodge a complaint before a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation 2022/2065 without prejudice and in addition to its right to effective judicial protection.
Amendment 779 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 5 – point a
(a) the number of instances where they imposed any restriction or suspension on the grounds that the content or service provided by a media service provider that submitted a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article is incompatible with their terms and conditions; and
Amendment 800 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 a (new)
Article 19 a (new)
Article19a Right to identify the provider of a media service 1. Recipients of media services shall have a right to easily identify the media service provider on any device or user interface controlling or managing access to and use of media services. 2. Manufacturers of devices and providers of user interfaces controlling or managing access to and use of media services shall ensure that the identity of the media service provider bearing the editorial responsibility for the content or services is clearly visible alongside the content and services offered.
Amendment 866 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Audience measurement systems and methodologies shall comply with principles of transparency, impartiality, inclusiveness, proportionality, non- discrimination, comparability and verifiability.
Amendment 871 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2
Article 23 – paragraph 2
2. Without prejudice to the protection of undertakings’ businesstrade secrets, providers of proprietary audience measurement systems shall provide, without undue delay and free of costs, to media service providers and advertisers, as well as to third parties authorised by media service providers and advertisers, accurate, detailed, comprehensive, intelligible and up-to-date information on the methodology used by their audience measurement systems. They shall provide free of charge to each media service provider the audience measurements relating to its content and services.This provision shall not affect the Union’s data protection and privacy rules.
Amendment 875 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 3
Article 23 – paragraph 3
3. National regulatory authorities or bodies shall encourage the drawing up of codes of conduct by providers of audience measurement systems, together with media service providers, their representative organisations and any other interested parties shall draw up codes of conduct, with the support of national regulatory authorities or bodies, that are intended to contribute to compliance with the principles referred to in paragraph 1, including by promoting independent and transparent audits.
Amendment 878 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4
Article 23 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission, assisted by the Board, may issue guidelines on the practical application of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article, considering national and regional codes of conduct.
Amendment 883 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5
Article 23 – paragraph 5
5. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices related to the deployment of audience measurement systems through a regular dialogue between representatives of the national regulatory authorities or bodies, representatives of providers of audience measurement systems, media service providers and other interested parties.