Zoltán Kovács, Minister of State for Government Communication, announced on Monday that the Government had replied to the letter written in connection with the media legislation by Neelie Kroes, the European Commission Vice-President, and to the three observations she made on the legislation’s provisions related to EU harmonisation of laws.

The reply, sent by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Public Administration and Justice Tibor Navracsics, states that the Hungarian government is committed to guaranteeing that Hungarian media regulation – and within this, the national regulation of audiovisual media services subject to the AVMS Directive – is in full compliance with the requirements of EU law. To this end Mr. Navracsics asked the Commission for the opportunity to come to an agreement on compliance at specialist level, if necessary.

In addition to detailed responses to the observations made by Ms. Kroes, the Government asked the Commission to make it possible, if it considers it necessary, for their experts to consult with Commission officials regarding the contested provisions in the media legislation. The Government informed Ms. Kroes that after such consultation, if the Commission still considered amendment to the Hungarian regulation with respect to the highlighted concerns to be necessary, then the Government would be prepared to start such a process. Any modifications would be developed along the lines referred to in the content of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter, and the Government would regularly update the Commission on the legislative process.

In connection with principle of the obligation to provide balanced coverage, the Minister of State reiterated that such an obligation has been part of the Hungarian legal system since 1996. The new media legislation has extended the obligation to the news and information services of audiovisual media providers, but not to news and information media which are primarily non-economic in purpose, and so blogs are unaffected. In the event of an infringement of this provision the media provider is obliged to make public the fact that a violation has occurred – no financial or other penalties are applicable.

In his letter the Deputy Prime minister stated that the Government is prepared, if the Commission still finds it necessary, to amend the media legislation in order to make more specific the type of on-demand audiovisual services for which balanced coverage will be a requirement in the regulatory system for media in Hungary. Such an amendment may serve to clarify that the obligation to provide balanced coverage applies to media service providers for whom the economic element in their activities is dominant; whose information activities are carried out on a broad scale, or who provide on-demand services primarily for information purposes; and whose services reach a significant proportion of media consumers, or whose social impact is appreciable.

The Government stated that during the preparatory phase of a possible amendment of the legislation in order to refine its scope, the considerations identified by the Commission (size, market share, targeted audience etc.) could serve as a sound basis for identifying exactly what criteria have to be defined to ensure that the obligation to provide balanced coverage in on-demand media services is exclusively confined to those services directly connected with citizens’ rights to information. Legislative amendment could also be considered which would omit imposition of the obligation for on-demand media services to provide balanced coverage. Although the letter from Ms. Kroes did not make reference to them, the Government stated that it might also be possible to omit or loosen this obligation for certain linear media services (though the Government stated that it still sees it as extremely important to impose the obligation to provide balanced coverage on public media service providers, media providers with significant influence, and community and local media services.

In connection with the country of origin principle, the Minister of State said that EU regulations do not extend to specifics, but Hungarian legislation does. According to the essence of the legislation, the country of origin may take action against a media provider which commits two successive violations, but if this measure proves ineffective, the country receiving such broadcasts may take action against the media provider. If the European Commission calls for further amendment in this area, then the Government is prepared to consider such amendments, in order to create compatibility between EU and Hungarian legislation.

The viewpoint of the Hungarian Government is that the provisions of the AVMS Directive do not necessarily exclude the imposition of fines in a given situation – for example, in the event of exceptionally serious violations – from the measures endorsed by the Member States in accordance with Article 3 of the Directive. However, if the Commission indeed finds that imposing fines on media service providers established in another Member State cannot be justified, the Hungarian Government is willing to consider the option of foregoing the ability to impose fines on such service providers, and instead guarantee the protection of the values recognized in the Directive through other effective means.

With regard to the above, the Government has requested that the Commission provide it with an opportunity in the form of expert consultation to clarify whether imposing fines pursuant to Article 3 of the AVMS Directive on service providers established in other Member States is in every instance regarded as a measure incompatible with, and disproportionate under, EU law. In the Government’s view, the provisions of the AVMS Directive do not necessarily exclude such a measure. At the same time however, it is the Government’s firm intention to pursue a legal solution which fully complies with EU law and completely conforms with the Commission’s legal interpretation in this respect, also.

The Government and specialists consider the European Commission’s observation on notification and registration requirements to be without basis. Registration is a formal procedure, the purpose of which is to enable the easier identification of service providers, and as such cannot be said to constitute a restriction of the freedom of the press in any form. This is a simple, formal provision of data, designed to enable the Authority to accurately recognise and identify the service providers under its supervision. Registration is not a condition for the commencement of media services. In a claim for damages, registration will assist plaintiffs in clearly identifying the other party in a dispute, and thus in asserting their rights.

The notification requirement and registration for printed press and online media products is also regarded as necessary to ensure that for press law liability and content-related claims (violation of personal rights and copyrights), plaintiffs have a clear understanding of exactly whom they can demand redress from in a claim arising from content published in the medium.

It should also be noted that the registration requirement does not extend in any way to media service providers and publishers under non-Hungarian jurisdictions: the distribution of such products are naturally permitted within the territory of the Republic of Hungary, and thus this rule does not constitute a restriction of the free movement of goods and services.

In addition to the above, the Hungarian Government is also prepared to examine the possibility of finding other legal solutions if necessary, which could guarantee that basic information regarding the publication of the online press is readily available to the authorities, the public at large, and business entities.

(kormany.hu)