Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-02-16-Speech-3-547-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110216.17.3-547-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, a couple of the honourable Members asked an intriguing question: is it a coincidence that today’s debate should coincide with the Hungarian Government’s decision? Well, sometimes, Mr President, you need a small angel at your shoulder.
On the question of the application of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are applying the directive – the AVMS Directive – and the Treaty, and that implies of course applying Article 11 of the Charter. So there is no doubt about that.
Mr Moraes said there was no judicial review of decisions by the media authority. A decision by the Media Council, passed in its capacity as an authority of the first instance, cannot be appealed via an administrative procedure. However, as provided for in Article 163, an official decision of the Media Council may be challenged in court in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lodging of the appeal does not have suspensory effect but the code may be invoked to suspend the execution of the decision.
Ms Weber said that the protection of sources under the Hungarian media law is insufficient. If we take press freedom as a basic European principle, that should be the starting point and the ultimate end in all our thinking on this subject. I have always defended press freedom at European level and I will continue – and I promise you the Commission will continue – to promote it untiringly. The right of journalists to protect their sources is one of the main principles guaranteeing the effective exercise of press freedom. Journalists should never be required to reveal their sources unless it is necessary for them to do so for the purposes of a criminal investigation, and that principle is valid whatever the political climate. In fact, it needs to be defended with more passion whenever the press and the media generally are in a weaker position, as is the case nowadays.
The Directive on privacy and electronic communications currently in force requires the Member States to ensure the confidentiality of communications. However, the directive does not apply to activities which fall outside the scope of the EU treaties. That is to say that EU law does not apply to matters relating to public security, defence, state security or the enforcement of criminal law and, moreover, under the principle of subsidiarity, Member States have the possibility of taking measures that could restrict an individual’s right to privacy, in accordance with their own rules and with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Any such restriction must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society, and a Commissioner is not in a position to judge or condemn such national doings, nor do I wish to do so.
On the matter of the absence of reference to Article 30 – and a number of Members have asked about that – I know that many of you have complained that the Commission has not taken Article 30 fully into account when assessing the media law. I should like to say loudly and clearly: that is simply not true. Although in its original proposal for the AVMS Directive the Commission had included an obligation on the Member States to guarantee the independence of the national regulatory authorities – and I know full well that your memory on such matters is excellent – that provision was not supported by the Council and, despite strong support from the European Parliament, it was changed into the current Article 30 of the AVMS Directive. The final wording of the AVMS Directive does not directly establish an obligation to create independent bodies. It is not what we would have wished but it is what was written down in the text and we have to accept it, albeit with regret.
The Hungarian authorities have agreed to delete the provision in question and add the following declaratory text to Article 10 of the Media Constitution, and I quote: ‘It is the task for the entirety of the media system to provide authentic, rapid and accurate information on such affairs and events’. So that will be the text after the changes.
I have to apologise that you did not receive the text, but I myself did not receive it or, at least, I had only the text that we were negotiating and I could not distribute that to you. However, as soon as it is possible, I will supply you with the text. Of course – while I hope you believe what I am saying and I would appreciate that – I imagine that, at the end of the day, you want to see it in writing and have the opportunity to read it.
One of the issues that will make sense for you when you are making up your minds is that of the balanced reporting requirements: as I said in my opening remarks, these will no longer apply to the written press or to on-demand audiovisual media services.
On the question, which Mr Løkkegaard asked, of whether I am ready to propose legislation on media pluralism, I said in my opening remarks that I am ready to take action in the matter of media pluralism within the existing EU competences. There is no one-size-fits-all approach: that is clear to me, and the Hungarian case has made it even clearer. I will set up the working group to which I referred, and I thank you for your willingness to join it, in order to discuss the challenges we are facing, to make sure we have a comprehensive overview of the situation in Europe and, of course, to act accordingly – including on the question of media independence. That should be one of the main priorities.
With regard to the position of the OSCE on the Hungarian media legislation, in relation to our own analysis, there is a difference of legal bases, but the OSCE was quite clear and quite right in its conclusions. The main issues raised by the OSCE concern the new Media Authority, in particular the long duration of the term of office of its members and the regulation of the public service broadcaster. I have explained the Commission’s point of view here, and I think that the terms of office of members of other broadcasting councils, for example in other Member States, range in some cases from five to nine years. One example but it is not the only one, is the
(public broadcasting boards).
For my own part, I prefer, when you invite me to come, to make clear what is at stake, to be able to come armed with facts and figures. Is what has happened today a coincidence? The answer I will give to that comes, in a way, straight from my heart.
The crucial thing – and this is my final remark – is the message from the Deputy Prime Minister that I received this morning when I touched down, and I am certain that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will repeat the message that the Hungarian Government wrote down for me, and for the Commission, stating what the position is.
During the seven weeks in which we closely cooperated, I had already been impressed by the input of my own staff who had been working like hell. But I can assure you that both sides worked like hell and that they did their jobs not just in the proper way but in a constructive way, in order to find a solution, because this is a very important matter, and we have to find a solution.
We are talking about an entire procedure: it started at the end of December and we are now half way through February – so it has taken a bit more than seven weeks. Well, in the light of the six years I have been in office in the European institutions, that is quite speedy. My experience so far has been that things are rarely so speedy that I feel we can solve a problem within seven weeks.
Having said that, the background to today’s outcome is fascinating. We have a combination of factors. Firstly, we are not talking about this issue for the first time. You have invited me to discuss it before. You have been quite clear, so there has been no doubt about what is at stake – no doubt about what every party in this House thinks on this question.
Secondly, we are talking about a very important issue. I do not need to explain to you that the issue of freedom of expression and freedom of the press is what is at stake for the Commission; and that it would be ridiculous if we did not make that a top priority with regard to defending democracy. Was it a coincidence that the previous item on the agenda this afternoon was the situation in Egypt? You have been talking about creating democracy, so there is a clear thread here, and you can be absolutely certain that the Commission is aware of that and is, indeed, doing its utmost to defend democracy and to repair it where it may have been attacked.
The third issue is, of course, the Hungarian Presidency. Let us not be naive. Of course our friends in this Member State within the family of Europe are aware that, for those in the chair
. So from their side too there has been an approach of doing their utmost to solve the problem. The final point I would make in this explanation, in so far as I can offer one, is that the European Parliament has been crystal clear: you have been fighting and you have been keeping the outside world informed via the press – via a free press, I would add. So do not underestimate your own role.
Having said that, for me the whole combination of factors is, at the end of the day, the explanation of why we have this result at this point of time. Fundamental rights are the issue that has been at stake: there is no doubt about that. Anyone who thinks that I am interested only in peace and quiet does not know me in the least, because I am fighting for democracy. I do have a fair bit of experience and I have had a longer life in politics than most of you.
Let me touch, also, on a couple of the specific issues about which I was asked. What about the independence of the media regulator? Our preliminary analysis of the Hungarian law concludes that the procedures for nominating and electing the president and members of the media council are no different from those that are commonly accepted in Europe. We have to acknowledge – whether it furthers our case or not – that the governing party holds a two-thirds majority, and that, in a democracy, is a simple fact."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Rundfunkräte"1
"noblesse oblige"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples