The last substantive amendment to Council Directive 89/552/EEC (4), subsequently codified by Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (5), was made in 2007 with the adoption of Directive 2007/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6). Since then, the audiovisual media services market has evolved significantly and rapidly due to the ongoing convergence of television and internet services. Technical developments have allowed for new types of services and user experiences. Viewing habits, particularly those of younger generations, have changed significantly. While the main TV screen remains an important device for sharing audiovisual experiences, many viewers have moved to other, portable devices to watch audiovisual content. Traditional TV content still accounts for a major share of the average daily viewing time.
However, new types of content, such as video clips or user-generated content, have gained an increasing importance and new players, including providers of video-on-demand services and video-sharing platforms, are now well-established. This convergence of media requires an updated legal framework in order to reflect developments in the market and to achieve a balance between access to online content services, consumer protection and competitiveness.
(2)
On 6 May 2015, the Commission adopted a communication entitled ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ in which it announced a review of Directive 2010/13/EU.
(3)
Directive 2010/13/EU should remain applicable only to those services the principal purpose of which is the provision of programmes in order to inform, entertain or educate. The principal purpose requirement should also be considered to be met if the service has audiovisual content and form which are dissociable from the main activity of the service provider, such as stand-alone parts of online newspapers featuring audiovisual programmes or user-generated videos where those parts can be considered dissociable from their main activity. A service should be considered to be merely an indissociable complement to the main activity as a result of the links between the audiovisual offer and the main activity such as providing news in written form. As such, channels or any other audiovisual services under the editorial responsibility of a provider can constitute audiovisual media services in themselves, even if they are offered on a video-sharing platform which is characterised by the absence of editorial responsibility. In such cases, it will fall to the providers with editorial responsibility to comply with Directive 2010/13/EU.
(4)
Video-sharing platform services provide audiovisual content which is increasingly accessed by the general public, in particular by young people. This is also true with regard to social media services, which have become an important medium to share information and to entertain and educate, including by providing access to programmes and user-generated videos. Those social media services need to be included in the scope of Directive 2010/13/EU because they compete for the same audiences and revenues as audiovisual media services. Furthermore, they also have a considerable impact in that they facilitate the possibility for users to shape and influence the opinions of other users. Therefore, in order to protect minors from harmful content and all citizens from incitement to hatred, violence and terrorism, those services should be covered by Directive 2010/13/EU to the extent that they meet the definition of a video-sharing platform service.
(5)
While the aim of Directive 2010/13/EU is not to regulate social media services as such, a social media service should be covered if the provision of programmes and user-generated videos constitutes an essential functionality of that service. The provision of programmes and user-generated videos could be considered to constitute an essential functionality of the social media service if the audiovisual content is not merely ancillary to, or does not constitute a minor part of, the activities of that social media service. In order to ensure clarity, effectiveness and consistency of implementation, the Commission should, where necessary, issue guidelines, after consulting the Contact Committee, on the practical application of the essential functionality criterion of the definition of a ‘video-sharing platform service’. Those guidelines should be drafted with due regard for the general public interest objectives to be achieved by the measures to be taken by video-sharing platform providers and the right to freedom of expression.
(6)
Where a dissociable section of a service constitutes a video-sharing platform service for the purposes of Directive 2010/13/EU, only that section should be covered by that Directive, and only as regards programmes and user-generated videos. Video clips embedded in the editorial content of electronic versions of newspapers and magazines and animated images such as GIFs should not be covered by Directive 2010/13/EU. The definition of a video-sharing platform service should not cover non-economic activities, such as the provision of audiovisual content on private websites and non-commercial communities of interest.
(7)
In order to ensure the effective implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU, it is crucial that Member States establish and maintain up-to-date records of the media service providers and video-sharing platform providers under their jurisdiction and that they regularly share those records with their competent independent regulatory authorities or bodies and the Commission. Those records should include information about the criteria on which jurisdiction is based.
(8)
Establishing jurisdiction requires an assessment of factual situations against the criteria laid down in Directive 2010/13/EU. The assessment of such factual situations might lead to conflicting results. In applying the cooperation procedures provided for in that Directive, it is important that the Commission can base its findings on reliable facts. The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) should therefore be empowered to provide opinions on jurisdiction upon the Commission's request. Where the Commission, in applying those cooperation procedures, decides to consult ERGA, it should inform the Contact Committee, including about notifications received from Member States under those cooperation procedures and about ERGA's opinion.
(9)
The procedures and conditions for restricting freedom to provide and receive audiovisual media services should be the same for both linear and non-linear services.
(10)
In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court’), it is possible to restrict the freedom to provide services guaranteed under the Treaty for overriding reasons in the general public interest, such as obtaining a high level of consumer protection, provided that such restrictions are justified, proportionate and necessary. Therefore, a Member State should be able to take certain measures to ensure respect for its consumer protection rules which do not fall in the fields coordinated by Directive 2010/13/EU. Measures taken by a Member State to enforce its national consumer protection regime, including in relation to gambling advertising, would need to be justified, proportionate to the objective pursued, and necessary as required under the Court's case-law. In any event, a receiving Member State must not take any measures which would prevent the re-transmission, in its territory, of television broadcasts coming from another Member State.
(11)
A Member State, when notifying the Commission that a media service provider has established itself in the Member State having jurisdiction in order to circumvent the stricter rules in the fields coordinated by Directive 2010/13/EU, which would be applicable to that provider if it were established in the notifying Member State, should adduce credible and duly substantiated evidence to that effect. Such evidence should detail a set of corroborating facts allowing for such circumvention to be reasonably established.
(12)
In its Communication to the European Parliament and to the Council on Better Regulation for Better Results – an EU Agenda, the Commission stressed that, when considering policy solutions, it would consider both regulatory and non-regulatory means, modelled on the Community of practice and the Principles for Better Self- and Co-regulation. A number of codes of conduct set up in the fields coordinated by Directive 2010/13/EU have proved to be well designed, in line with the Principles for Better Self- and Co-regulation. The existence of a legislative backstop was considered an important success factor in promoting compliance with a self- or co-regulatory code. It is equally important that such codes establish specific targets and objectives allowing for the regular, transparent and independent monitoring and evaluation of the objectives aimed at by the codes of conduct. The codes of conduct should also provide for effective enforcement. These principles should be followed by the self- and co-regulatory codes adopted in the fields coordinated by Directive 2010/13/EU.
(13)
Experience has shown that both self- and co-regulatory instruments, implemented in accordance with the different legal traditions of the Member States, can play an important role in delivering a high level of consumer protection. Measures aimed at achieving general public interest objectives in the emerging audiovisual media services sector are more effective if they are taken with the active support of the service providers themselves.
(14)
Self-regulation constitutes a type of voluntary initiative which enables economic operators, social partners, non-governmental organisations and associations to adopt common guidelines amongst themselves and for themselves. They are responsible for developing, monitoring and enforcing compliance with those guidelines. Member States should, in accordance with their different legal traditions, recognise the role which effective self-regulation can play as a complement to the legislative, judicial and administrative mechanisms in place and its useful contribution to the achievement of the objectives of Directive 2010/13/EU. However, while self-regulation might be a complementary method of implementing certain provisions of Directive 2010/13/EU, it should not constitute a substitute for the obligations of the national legislator. Co-regulation provides, in its minimal form, a legal link between self-regulation and the national legislator in accordance with the legal traditions of the Member States. In co-regulation, the regulatory role is shared between stakeholders and the government or the national regulatory authorities or bodies. The role of the relevant public authorities includes recognition of the co-regulatory scheme, auditing of its processes and funding of the scheme. Co-regulation should allow for the possibility of state intervention in the event of its objectives not being met. Without prejudice to the formal obligations of the Member States regarding transposition, Directive 2010/13/EU encourages the use of self- and co-regulation. This should neither oblige Member States to set up self- or co-regulation regimes, or both, nor disrupt or jeopardise current co-regulation initiatives which are already in place in Member States and which are functioning effectively.
(15)
Transparency of media ownership is directly linked to the freedom of expression, a cornerstone of democratic systems. Information concerning the ownership structure of media service providers, where such ownership results in the control of, or the exercise of a significant influence over, the content of the services provided, allows users to make an informed judgement about such content. Member States should be able to determine whether and to what extent information about the ownership structure of a media service provider should be accessible to users, provided that the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms concerned is respected and that such measures are necessary and proportionate.
(16)
Because of the specific nature of audiovisual media services, especially the impact of those services on the way people form opinions, users have a legitimate interest in knowing who is responsible for the content of those services. In order to strengthen freedom of expression, and, by extension, to promote media pluralism and avoid conflicts of interest, it is important for Member States to ensure that users have easy and direct access at any time to information about media service providers. It is for each Member State to decide, in particular with respect to the information which may be provided on ownership structure and beneficial owners.
(17)
In order to ensure coherence and legal certainty for businesses and Member States' authorities, the notion of ‘incitement to violence or hatred’ should, to the appropriate extent, be understood within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA (7).
(18)
Considering the evolution of the means by which content is disseminated via electronic communications networks, it is important to protect the general public from incitement to terrorism. Directive 2010/13/EU should therefore ensure that audiovisual media services do not contain public provocation to commit a terrorist offence. In order to ensure coherence and legal certainty for businesses and Member States' authorities, the notion of ‘public provocation to commit a terrorist offence’ should be understood within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8).
(19)
In order to empower viewers, including parents and minors, to make informed decisions about the content to be watched, it is necessary that media service providers provide sufficient information about content that may impair minors' physical, mental or moral development. That could be done, for example, through a system of content descriptors, an acoustic warning, a visual symbol or any other means, describing the nature of the content.
(20)
The appropriate measures for the protection of minors applicable to television broadcasting services should also apply to on-demand audiovisual media services. That should increase the level of protection. The minimum harmonisation approach allows Member States to develop a higher degree of protection for content which may impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors. The most harmful content, which may impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, but is not necessarily a criminal offence, should be subject to the strictest measures such as encryption and effective parental controls, without prejudice to the adoption of stricter measures by Member States.
(21)
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council (9) recognises that children merit specific protection with regard to the processing of their personal data. The establishment of child protection mechanisms by media service providers inevitably leads to the processing of the personal data of minors. Given that such mechanisms aim at protecting children, personal data of minors processed in the framework of technical child protection measures should not be used for commercial purposes.
(22)
Ensuring the accessibility of audiovisual content is an essential requirement in the context of the commitments taken under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In the context of Directive 2010/13/EU, the term ‘persons with disabilities’ should be interpreted in light of the nature of the services covered by that Directive, which are audiovisual media services. The right of persons with an impairment and of the elderly to participate and be integrated in the social and cultural life of the Union is linked to the provision of accessible audiovisual media services. Therefore, Member States should, without undue delay, ensure that media service providers under their jurisdiction actively seek to make content accessible to persons with disabilities, in particular with a visual or hearing impairment. Accessibility requirements should be met through a progressive and continuous process, while taking into account the practical and unavoidable constraints that could prevent full accessibility, such as programmes or events broadcast in real time. In order to measure the progress that media service providers have made in making their services progressively accessible to people with visual or hearing disabilities, Member States should require media service providers established on their territory to report to them on a regular basis.
(23)
The means to achieve the accessibility of audiovisual media services under Directive 2010/13/EU should include, but need not be limited to, sign language, subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing, spoken subtitles, and audio description. However, that Directive does not cover features or services providing access to audiovisual media services, nor does it cover accessibility features of electronic programme guides (EPGs). Therefore, that Directive is without prejudice to Union law aiming to harmonise the accessibility of services providing access to audiovisual media services, such as websites, online applications and EPGs, or the provision of information on accessibility and in accessible formats.
(24)
In some cases, it might not be possible to provide emergency information in a manner that is accessible to persons with disabilities. However, such exceptional cases should not prevent emergency information from being made public through audiovisual media services.
(25)
Directive 2010/13/EU is without prejudice to the ability of Member States to impose obligations to ensure the appropriate prominence of content of general interest under defined general interest objectives such as media pluralism, freedom of speech and cultural diversity. Such obligations should only be imposed where they are necessary to meet general interest objectives clearly defined by Member States in accordance with Union law. Where Member States decide to impose rules on appropriate prominence, they should only impose proportionate obligations on undertakings in the interests of legitimate public policy considerations.
(26)
In order to protect the editorial responsibility of media service providers and the audiovisual value chain, it is essential to be able to guarantee the integrity of programmes and audiovisual media services supplied by media service providers. Programmes and audiovisual media services should not be transmitted in a shortened form, altered or interrupted, or overlaid for commercial purposes, without the explicit consent of the media service provider. Member States should ensure that overlays solely initiated or authorised by the recipient of the service for private use, such as overlays resulting from services for individual communications, do not require the consent of the media service provider. Control elements of any user interface necessary for the operation of the device or programme navigation, such as volume bars, search functions, navigation menus or lists of channels, should not be covered. Legitimate overlays, such as warning information, general public interest information, subtitles or commercial communications overlays provided by the media service provider, should also not be covered. Without prejudice to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), data compression techniques which reduce the size of a data file and other techniques to adapt a service to the distribution means, such as resolution and coding, without any modification of the content, should not be covered either.
Measures to protect the integrity of programmes and audiovisual media services should be imposed where they are necessary to meet general interest objectives clearly defined by Member States in accordance with Union law. Such measures should impose proportionate obligations on undertakings in the interest of legitimate public policy considerations.
(27)
With the exception of sponsorship and product placement, audiovisual commercial communications for alcoholic beverages in on-demand audiovisual media services should comply with the criteria applicable to television advertising and teleshopping for alcoholic beverages laid down in Directive 2010/13/EU. The more detailed criteria applicable to television advertising and teleshopping for alcoholic beverages are limited to spot advertising, which is by its nature separated from the programme, and therefore excludes other commercial communications which are linked to the programme or are an integral part of the programme, such as sponsorship and product placement. Consequently, those criteria should not apply to sponsorship and product placement in on-demand audiovisual media services.
(28)
Certain widely recognised nutritional guidelines exist at national and international level, such as the World Health Organisation Regional Office for Europe's nutrient profile model, in order to differentiate foods on the basis of their nutritional composition in the context of television advertising of foods to children. Member States should be encouraged to ensure that self- and co-regulation, including through codes of conduct, is used to effectively reduce the exposure of children to audiovisual commercial communications regarding foods and beverages that are high in salt, sugars, fat, saturated fats or trans-fatty acids or that otherwise do not fit those national or international nutritional guidelines.
(29)
Similarly, Member States should be encouraged to ensure that self- and co-regulatory codes of conduct are used to effectively reduce the exposure of children and minors to audiovisual commercial communications for alcoholic beverages. Certain self- or co-regulatory systems exist at Union and national level in order to market alcoholic beverages responsibly, including in audiovisual commercial communications. Those systems should be further encouraged, in particular those aiming at ensuring that responsible drinking messages accompany audiovisual commercial communications for alcoholic beverages.
(30)
It is important that minors are effectively protected from exposure to audiovisual commercial communications relating to the promotion of gambling. In this context, several self- or co-regulatory systems exist at Union and national level for the promotion of responsible gambling, including in audiovisual commercial communications.
(31)
In order to remove barriers to the free circulation of cross-border services within the Union, it is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of self- and co-regulatory measures aiming, in particular, at protecting consumers or public health.
(32)
The market for television broadcasting has evolved and there is, therefore, a need for more flexibility with regard to audiovisual commercial communications, in particular for quantitative rules for linear audiovisual media services and product placement. The emergence of new services, including those without advertising, has led to a greater choice for viewers, who can easily switch to alternative offers.
(33)
The liberalisation of product placement has not brought about the expected take-up of this form of audiovisual commercial communication. In particular, the general prohibition of product placement, albeit with some exceptions, has not created legal certainty for media service providers. Product placement should thus be allowed in all audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services, subject to exceptions.
(34)
Product placement should not be allowed in news and current affairs programmes, consumer affairs programmes, religious programmes and children's programmes. In particular, evidence has shown that product placement and embedded advertisements can affect children's behaviour as children are often not able to recognise the commercial content. There is thus a need to continue to prohibit product placement in children's programmes. Consumer affairs programmes are programmes offering advice to viewers or including reviews on the purchase of products and services. Allowing product placement in such programmes would blur the distinction between advertising and editorial content for viewers who may expect a genuine and honest review of products or services in such programmes.
(35)
Providers of on-demand audiovisual media services should promote the production and distribution of European works by ensuring that their catalogues contain a minimum share of European works and that they are given sufficient prominence. The labelling in metadata of audiovisual content that qualifies as a European work should be encouraged so that such metadata are available to media service providers. Prominence involves promoting European works through facilitating access to such works. Prominence can be ensured through various means such as a dedicated section for European works that is accessible from the service homepage, the possibility to search for European works in the search tool available as part of that service, the use of European works in campaigns of that service or a minimum percentage of European works promoted from that service's catalogue, for example by using banners or similar tools.
(36)
In order to ensure adequate levels of investment in European works, Member States should be able to impose financial obligations on media service providers established on their territory. Those obligations can take the form of direct contributions to the production of and acquisition of rights in European works. The Member States could also impose levies payable to a fund, on the basis of the revenues generated by audiovisual media services that are provided in and targeted towards their territory. This Directive clarifies that, given the direct link between financial obligations and Member States' different cultural policies, a Member State is also allowed to impose such financial obligations on media service providers established in another Member State that target its territory. In that case, financial obligations should only be charged on the revenues generated through the audience in the targeted Member State. Media service providers that are required to contribute to film funding schemes in a targeted Member State should be able to benefit in a non-discriminatory way, even in the absence of an establishment in that Member State, from the aid available under respective film funding schemes to media service providers.
(37)
Broadcasters currently invest more in European audiovisual works than providers of on-demand audiovisual media services. Therefore, if a targeted Member State chooses to impose a financial obligation on a broadcaster that is under the jurisdiction of another Member State, the direct contributions to the production and acquisition of rights in European works, in particular co-productions, made by that broadcaster, should be taken into account, with due consideration for the principle of proportionality. This is without prejudice to the Member States' competence to establish, in accordance with their cultural policy and subject to compatibility with State aid rules, the level of financial contributions payable by media service providers under their jurisdiction.
(38)
A Member State, when assessing, on a case-by-case basis, whether an on-demand audiovisual media service established in another Member State is targeting audiences in its territory, should refer to indicators such as advertisement or other promotions specifically aiming at customers in its territory, the main language of the service or the existence of content or commercial communications aiming specifically at the audience in the Member State of reception.
(39)
Where a Member State imposes financial contributions on media service providers, such contributions should strive for an adequate promotion of European works while avoiding the risk of double imposition for media service providers. In this way, if the Member State where the media service provider is established imposes such a financial contribution, it should take into account any financial contributions imposed by targeted Member States.
(40)
In order to ensure that obligations relating to the promotion of European works do not undermine market development and in order to allow for the entry of new players in the market, providers with no significant presence on the market should not be subject to such requirements. This is particularly the case for providers with a low turnover or low audience. A low audience can be determined, for example, on the basis of a viewing time or sales, depending on the nature of the service, while the determination of low turnover should take into account the different sizes of audiovisual markets in Member States. It might also be inappropriate to impose such requirements in cases where, given the nature or theme of the audiovisual media services, they would be impracticable or unjustified.
(41)
It is important that broadcasters have more flexibility and are able to decide when to place advertising in order to maximise advertisers' demand and viewers' flow. It is also necessary, however, to maintain a sufficient level of consumer protection in that regard because such flexibility could expose viewers to an excessive amount of advertising during prime time. Specific limits should therefore apply within the period from 6.00 to 18.00 and from 18.00 to 24.00.
(42)
Neutral frames separate editorial content from television advertising or teleshopping spots, as well as separate individual spots. They allow the viewer to clearly distinguish when one type of audiovisual content ends and the other begins. It is necessary to clarify that neutral frames are excluded from the quantitative limit set out for television advertising. This is in order to ensure that the time used in neutral frames does not impact on the time used for advertising and that revenues generated from the advertising are not negatively affected.
(43)
Transmission time allotted to announcements made by the broadcaster in connection with its own programmes and ancillary products directly derived from those programmes, or to public service announcements and charity appeals broadcast free of charge, with the exception of the costs incurred for the transmission of such appeals, should not be included in the maximum amounts of transmission time that may be allotted to television advertising and teleshopping. In addition, many broadcasters are part of larger broadcasting groups and make announcements not only in connection with their own programmes and ancillary products directly derived from those programmes, but also in relation to programmes and audiovisual media services from other entities belonging to the same broadcasting group. Transmission time allotted to such announcements should also not be included in the maximum amounts of transmission time that may be allotted to television advertising and teleshopping.
(44)
The video-sharing platform providers covered by Directive 2010/13/EU provide information society services within the meaning of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (11). Those providers are consequently subject to the provisions on the internal market set out in that Directive, if they are established in a Member State. It is appropriate to ensure that the same rules also apply to video-sharing platform providers which are not established in a Member State with a view to safeguarding the effectiveness of the measures to protect minors and the general public set out in Directive 2010/13/EU and ensuring as much as possible a level playing field, in so far as those providers have either a parent undertaking or a subsidiary undertaking which is established in a Member State or where those providers are part of a group and another undertaking of that group is established in a Member State. Therefore, the definitions set out in Directive 2010/13/EU should be principles-based and should ensure that it is not possible for an undertaking to exclude itself from the scope of that Directive by creating a group structure containing multiple layers of undertakings established inside or outside the Union. The Commission should be informed of the providers under each Member State's jurisdiction pursuant to the rules on establishment set out in Directives 2000/31/EC and 2010/13/EU.
(45)
There are new challenges, in particular in connection with video-sharing platforms, on which users, particularly minors, increasingly consume audiovisual content. In this context, harmful content and hate speech provided on video-sharing platform services have increasingly given rise to concern. In order to protect minors and the general public from such content, it is necessary to set out proportionate rules on those matters.
(46)
Commercial communications on video-sharing platform services are already regulated by Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (12), which prohibits unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, including misleading and aggressive practices occurring in information society services.
As regards commercial communications concerning tobacco and related products in video-sharing platforms, the existing prohibitions provided for in Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (13), as well as the prohibitions applicable to commercial communications concerning electronic cigarettes and refill containers pursuant to Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (14), ensure that consumers are sufficiently protected from tobacco and related products. Since users increasingly rely on video-sharing platform services to access audiovisual content, it is necessary to ensure a sufficient level of consumer protection by aligning the rules on audiovisual commercial communications, to the appropriate extent, amongst all providers. It is therefore important that audiovisual commercial communications on video-sharing platforms are clearly identified and respect a set of minimum qualitative requirements.
(47)
A significant share of the content provided on video-sharing platform services is not under the editorial responsibility of the video-sharing platform provider. However, those providers typically determine the organisation of the content, namely programmes, user-generated videos and audiovisual commercial communications, including by automatic means or algorithms. Therefore, those providers should be required to take appropriate measures to protect minors from content that may impair their physical, mental or moral development. They should also be required to take appropriate measures to protect the general public from content that contains incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group or a member of a group on any of the grounds referred to in Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), or the dissemination of which constitutes a criminal offence under Union law.
(48)
In light of the nature of the providers' involvement with the content provided on video-sharing platform services, the appropriate measures to protect minors and the general public should relate to the organisation of the content and not to the content as such. The requirements in this regard as set out in Directive 2010/13/EU should therefore apply without prejudice to Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC, which provide for an exemption from liability for illegal information transmitted, or automatically, intermediately and temporarily stored, or stored by certain providers of information society services. When providing services covered by Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC, those requirements should also apply without prejudice to Article 15 of that Directive, which precludes general obligations to monitor such information and to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity from being imposed on those providers, without however concerning monitoring obligations in specific cases and, in particular, without affecting orders by national authorities in accordance with national law.
(49)
It is appropriate to involve video-sharing platform providers as much as possible when implementing the appropriate measures to be taken pursuant to Directive 2010/13/EU. Co-regulation should therefore be encouraged. It should also remain possible for video-sharing platform providers to take stricter measures on a voluntary basis in accordance with Union law, respecting the freedom of expression and information and media pluralism.
(50)
The right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial are fundamental rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter. The provisions of Directive 2010/13/EU should not, therefore, be construed in a way that would prevent parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.
(51)
When taking the appropriate measures to protect minors from harmful content and to protect the general public from content containing incitement to violence, hatred and terrorism in accordance with Directive 2010/13/EU, the applicable fundamental rights, as laid down in the Charter, should be carefully balanced. That concerns, in particular and as the case may be, the right to respect for private and family life and the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, the prohibition of discrimination and the rights of the child.
(52)
The Contact Committee aims at facilitating an effective implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU and should be regularly consulted on any practical problems arising from its application. The work of the Contact Committee should not be limited to the existing audiovisual policy issues, but should also cover the relevant developments arising in this sector. It is composed of representatives of the relevant national authorities of the Member States. When appointing their representatives, Member States are encouraged to promote gender parity in the composition of the Contact Committee.
(53)
Member States should ensure that their national regulatory authorities or bodies are legally distinct from the government. However, this should not preclude Member States from exercising supervision in accordance with their national constitutional law. National regulatory authorities or bodies should be considered to have achieved the requisite degree of independence if those authorities or bodies, including those that are constituted as public authorities or bodies, are functionally and effectively independent of their respective governments and of any other public or private body. That is considered essential to ensure the impartiality of decisions taken by a national regulatory authority or body. The requirement of independence should be without prejudice to the possibility for Member States to establish regulatory authorities that have oversight over different sectors, such as the audiovisual and telecommunications sectors. National regulatory authorities or bodies should have the enforcement powers and resources necessary for the fulfilment of their tasks, in terms of staffing, expertise and financial means. The activities of national regulatory authorities or bodies established under Directive 2010/13/EU should ensure respect for the objectives of media pluralism, cultural diversity, consumer protection, the proper functioning of the internal market and the promotion of fair competition.
(54)
As one of the purposes of audiovisual media services is to serve the interests of individuals and shape public opinion, it is essential that such services are able to inform individuals and society as completely as possible and with the highest level of variety. That purpose can only be achieved if editorial decisions remain free from any state interference or influence by national regulatory authorities or bodies that goes beyond the mere implementation of law and which does not serve to safeguard a legally protected right which is to be protected regardless of a particular opinion.
(55)
Effective appeal mechanisms should exist at national level. The relevant appeal body should be independent from the parties involved. Such body may be a court. The appeal procedure should be without prejudice to the division of competences within national judicial systems.
(56)
With a view to ensuring the consistent application of the Union audiovisual regulatory framework across all Member States, the Commission established ERGA by Commission Decision of 3 February 2014 (15). ERGA's role is to provide technical expertise to the Commission in its work to ensure a consistent implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU in all Member States and to facilitate cooperation among the national regulatory authorities or bodies, and between the national regulatory authorities or bodies and the Commission.
(57)
ERGA has made a positive contribution to consistent regulatory practice and has provided high-level advice to the Commission on implementation matters. This calls for the formal recognition and reinforcement of its role in Directive 2010/13/EU. ERGA should therefore be established by virtue of that Directive.
(58)
The Commission should be free to consult ERGA on any matter relating to audiovisual media services and video-sharing platforms. ERGA should assist the Commission by providing technical expertise and advice and by facilitating the exchange of best practices, including on self- and co-regulatory codes of conduct. In particular, the Commission should consult ERGA in the application of Directive 2010/13/EU with a view to facilitating its convergent implementation. Upon the Commission's request, ERGA should provide non-binding opinions on jurisdiction, on measures derogating from freedom of reception and on measures addressing the circumvention of jurisdiction. ERGA should also be able to provide technical advice on any regulatory matter related to the audiovisual media services framework, including in the area of hate speech and the protection of minors, as well as on the content of audiovisual commercial communications for foods high in fat, salt or sodium and sugars.
(59)
‘Media literacy’ refers to skills, knowledge and understanding that allow citizens to use media effectively and safely. In order to enable citizens to access information and to use, critically assess and create media content responsibly and safely, citizens need to possess advanced media literacy skills. Media literacy should not be limited to learning about tools and technologies, but should aim to equip citizens with the critical thinking skills required to exercise judgment, analyse complex realities and recognise the difference between opinion and fact. It is therefore necessary that both media service providers and video-sharing platforms providers, in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, promote the development of media literacy in all sections of society, for citizens of all ages, and for all media and that progress in that regard is followed closely.
(60)
Directive 2010/13/EU is without prejudice to the obligation of the Member States to respect and protect human dignity. It respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by the Charter. In particular, Directive 2010/13/EU seeks to ensure full respect for the right to freedom of expression, the freedom to conduct a business, the right to judicial review and to promote the application of the rights of the child enshrined in the Charter.
(61)
Any measure taken by Member States under Directive 2010/13/EU is to respect the freedom of expression and information and media pluralism, as well as cultural and linguistic diversity, in accordance with the Unesco Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
(62)
The right to access political news programmes is crucial to safeguard the fundamental freedom to receive information and to ensure that the interests of viewers in the Union are fully and properly protected. Given the ever-growing importance of audiovisual media services for societies and democracy, broadcasts of political news should, to the greatest extent possible, and without prejudice to copyright rules, be made available cross-border in the Union.
(63)
Directive 2010/13/EU does not concern rules of private international law, in particular rules governing the jurisdiction of the courts and the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations.
(64)
In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents (16), Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures by one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.
(65)
Directive 2010/13/EU should therefore be amended accordingly,
