Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-535"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.33.2-535"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, freedom of expression and media pluralism constitute one of the essential foundations of our democratic societies, enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, Article 2 of the Treaty on the EU settles the common values shared by the Member States and includes pluralism as one additional element to be considered when assessing the implementation of those values.
All this being said, you are aware that the Commission has organised a study to develop a set of objective indicators to assess media pluralism, related not only to the audiovisual media but also to the written press. We have published that study on our website.
The question has arisen about what should be the next step with respect to a study, and in that connection, I wanted to let you know that I was waiting to have a proper discussion with you about that matter. The views expressed across the House today will therefore be key input into those reflections, and I will make sure that the College of Commissioners is fully informed and ready to discuss these.
As regards fundamental rights, the Commission has no general powers – as you are aware – to intervene in cases of violations of fundamental rights. However, it would be able to examine respect for freedom of expression and media pluralism in specific cases where a link with EU law could be established. At this stage, and without prejudice to further legal analysis, no such systemic link can be established from the situations in a number of Member States with which I understand certain honourable Members are concerned.
In addition, the question has arisen as to whether Article 7 of the TEU should be applied to the various Member States in question. As explained in our communication of 15 October 2003 to Parliament and to the Council, Article 7 aims to cover situations which either constitute a serious and persistent breach of values laid down in Article 2 of the TEU or create a clear risk of a serious breach of the latter. In the Commission’s opinion, the situation regarding the media in the various Member States does not fulfil the conditions necessary to trigger the Article 7 procedure.
Member States have constitutional traditions which protect fundamental rights. Europe, therefore, cannot replace Member States when it comes to enforcing fundamental rights. However, the Commission will never shy away from dealing with national decisions which infringe EU laws and the common values of the EU and will fully exercise its competences and its role of guardian of the treaties.
Respect for media pluralism, protection of journalists’ sources, freedom to criticise private and government powers, independent media and independent regulatory bodies are all essential for the full exercise of freedom of expression, and the Commission is fully committed to the defence of fundamental rights.
Allow me to recall what is already in place, in particular, the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. This refers to the importance of promoting media pluralism in the application of its provisions in six recitals. Moreover, three important elements in the directive strengthen media pluralism.
Number one: the promotion of independent TV productions; number two: the right of journalists and news organisations to access short extracts across the EU for the purpose of short reporting; and number three: reference to the need to have independent media authorities at national level, a reference that could only be adopted thanks to the strong support of the European Parliament.
The transposition period has recently lapsed, and the Commission is now examining the implementing measures that Member States have already notified. It is only after this examination that the Commission will be able to assess the compatibility of those laws with EU law and fundamental rights and to say if any criticism of national legislation is well-founded or not.
The Commission has already launched infringement proceedings against 12 Member States that have failed to meet the transposition deadline. More will be revealed in the first application report, due to appear by 19 December 2011. In the meantime, however, if other infringements are detected, the Commission will not hesitate to take the necessary steps, including citing the Court of Justice of the EU.
No gardener pulls up his best young plants just to inspect the roots. The Commission does not intend to propose the revision of a recently amended directive, the real impact of which has yet to be assessed.
Furthermore, spectrum policy is a clear example where the EU can act within its field of competence to enhance competition for the resources on which broadcasters depend, and thereby to strengthen media pluralism. The Commission, as you are aware, is about to adopt a major radio spectrum policy programme to enhance the fair distribution of spectrum across Europe and allow the development of new forms of media to the benefit of media pluralism.
More generally, going beyond the specific case of audiovisual media, there are several questions that need to be tackled before any new substantial action is taken in this field. For example, is new EU legislation the real answer to the questions raised by certain national proposals? From the point of view of EU competence, is it possible to identify the internal market problem to be tackled? Is there broad support in Parliament for the substantive approach to be taken, going beyond the specificities of individual national cases?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples