|Steering Committee (CDMSI)|
|Bureau of the Committee (CDMSI-BU)|
|Former Steering Committee (CDMC)|
|Former Bureau of the Committee (CDMC-BU)|
|Rights of Internet Users|
|Legal and Human Rights Capacity Building|
|FORMER GROUPS OF SPECIALISTS|
|Public Service Media Governance|
|Protection Neighbouring Rights of Broadcasting Organisations|
|Public service Media|
hate speech - Living together on-line"
Reykjavik - Iceland
28-29 May 2009
|European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG)|
|Committee of Ministers texts|
|Parliamentary Assembly texts|
Web site: www.coe.int/media
Strasbourg, 17 June 2011
STEERING COMMITTEE ON THE MEDIA
Abridged meeting report
The Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC) held its 14th meeting, chaired by Andris Mellakauls (Latvia), from 14 to 17 June 2011.
Gender distribution: 67 attendants, 25 women (37%), 42 men (63%).
During the meeting, the CDMC
For Committee of Ministers’ decision
- finalised the following standard setting texts and agreed to submit them to the Committee of Ministers for possible adoption:
- Draft Recommendation on a new notion of media, including an appendix setting out criteria for identifying media and guidance for a graduated and differentiated response;
- Draft Declaration on Internet governance principles;
- Draft Recommendation on the protection and promotion of Internet’s universality, integrity and openness;
- Draft Declaration on the protection of freedom of expression and information and freedom of assembly and association with regard to Internet domain names and name strings;
- agreed on a draft Declaration on the protection of freedom of expression and access to information and freedom of assembly and association with regards to privately operated Internet platforms and online service providers; final approval was delayed in order to permit consultation of relevant services and authorities in member states; delegations should transmit any further comments or drafting proposals to the Secretariat by 8 July 2011; once agreed by further e-mail consultation, the draft should be submitted to the Committee of Ministers for possible adoption;
- agreed on a Draft Recommendation on public service media governance, including an appendix setting out guiding principles for public service media governance; subject to further editing (by 24 June 2011) and approval by e-mail consultation (three weeks thereafter), the draft will be submitted to the Committee of Ministers for possible adoption;
- agreed that the Ad hoc Advisory Group on Public Service Media (MC-S-PG) has fulfilled its mandate and could therefore discontinue its work;
- agreed on work to be carried out by the Ad hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet (MC-S-CI) and the Committee of Experts on New Media (MC-NM) until the end of their respective mandates;
- expressed strong and unanimous support for work on a convention on the protection of neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations, which is both important and urgent and should therefore be given high priority, subject to two pre-conditions to be met; it noted that a negotiation mandate for the European Commission is still pending;
Respect of Article 10
- expressed deep concern as regard the lack of progress since its last meeting in the implementation of the Committee of Ministers Declaration of 13 January 2010 on measures to promote the respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; it welcomed that this has been identified as a priority for 2012 and 2013 and should also be clearly reflected in the new steering committee’s terms of reference; member states, civil society and media professional organisations attach great importance to this work, as is has been stated by 40 major organisations in a letter sent to the Secretary General on 10 June 2011;
- decided that three CDMC members – Elfa Yr Gylfadottir (Iceland), Bissera Zankova (Bulgaria), Emir Povlakic (Bosnia and Herzogovina) – should contribute to the preparation of a draft manual on strategies to combat gender stereotypes in the media, jointly with experts designated by the Steering Committee on equality between men and women, and agreed that a further media/gender equality expert, Margaret Gallagher (Ireland), should also be invited to take part in that work on behalf of the CDMC;
- agreed to review certain adopted texts from a gender equality perspective with a view to complementing them if need be;
- having regard to the hearing held at its previous meeting, decided to prepare a draft Declaration on this subject; if all Delegations agree, if would be desirable to complete this work is dealt with by e-mail exchange before the next meeting;
Follow-up to the Reykjavik Ministerial Conference Resolution on developments in anti-terrorism legislation in Council of Europe member states and their impact on freedom of expression and information
- reiterated its decision to pursue work, in cooperation with relevant Council of Europe bodies, in particular CODEXTER, with the aim of providing guidance to member states, possibly in the form of a Committee of Ministers recommendation, for the review of their anti-terrorism legislation and practice and their impact on freedom of expression and information; there should be no obstacle to this following the discontinuation of work by the MC-S-PG and the resulting freeing of resources;
- invited the Secretary General to write to all member states recalling their commitment, asking them for information about action taken upon it and of the outcome and, if they have not yet done so, urging them to conduct the review;1
Next Council of Europe Conference of specialised Ministers
- agreed to ask Frédéric Riehl (Switzerland) and Maja Rakowic (Serbia) to form an informal working group that would start reflecting on possible themes for the conference that the CDMC proposes to be held in 2013 in Serbia;
Reform / mandate of the proposed new steering committee
- took note of information on the Council of Europe reform process and agreed to propose to the Committee of Ministers that media have a significant place in the terms of reference of the proposed new steering committee starting with its name ; agreed to transmit to the secretariat by 22 June further comments on elements to be included in the new steering committee’s terms of reference;
Parliamentary Assembly Recommendations
- agreed on comments on Recommendations 1950(2011) on the protection of journalists’ sources and 1962(2011) on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue;
- gave consideration to a number of other issues such as a questionnaire regarding the work of the Council of Europe to reinforce “the effectiveness of the Council of Europe treaty law” that was sent to member States, the revision of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, WikiLeaks, Egypt and the possible consequences of shut down of internet connections,
Draft Recommendation on a new notion of media, including the draft appendix setting out criteria for identifying media and guidance for a graduated and differentiated response
The purpose of media
1. Since their emergence as a means of mass communication, media have been the most important tool for freedom of expression in the public sphere, enabling people to exercise their right to seek and receive information. Media animate and provide a space for public debate. Media offer comment and opinion as part of political dialogue, contribute to setting the political agenda and the shaping of public opinion, and they often seek to promote certain values. Media facilitate the scrutiny of public and political affairs and private or business-related matters thereby increasing transparency and accountability. Moreover, media provide education, entertainment, cultural and artistic expression. Media also play an important part in the economy, create jobs and generate income.
Media and democracy
2. Freedom of expression, in particular the right to seek, impart and receive information, and its corollary freedom of the media, are indispensable for genuine democracy and democratic processes. In a democratic society, people must be able to contribute to and participate in the decision-making processes which concern them. This applies to local, national or international governance models as well as to other specific communities. In this context, democratic governance should be understood in broad terms to include processes concerning private or business-related matters with public policy relevance or collective interest. All content provided by the media has potential impact on society regardless of the value attributed to it. The power of the media can be misused, especially in a context of strong media concentration, to the detriment of pluralism and democracy.
Media standards and regulation
3. All Council of Europe member states have undertaken to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This right is not absolute; it carries with it duties and responsibilities and can be subject to limitations in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
4. Historically, media regulation has been justified by and graduated having regard to its potential high impact on society and on individual rights; regulation has also been a means of managing scarce resources in the public interest. Given their importance for democracy, media have been the subject of extensive Council of Europe standard-setting activity. The purpose has been to ensure the highest protection of media freedom and to provide guidance on duties and responsibilities. As a form of interference, any regulation should itself comply with the requirements set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the standards that stem from the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Developments in the media ecosystem
5. Developments in information and communication technologies and their application to mass communication have led to significant changes in the media ecosystem, understood in broad terms to encompass all actors and factors whose interaction allows the media to function and to fulfil their role in society. It has allowed for new ways of disseminating content on a large scale and often at considerably lower cost and with fewer technical and professional requirements. New features include unprecedented levels of interaction and engagement by users, offering new opportunities for democratic citizenship. New applications also facilitate users’ participation in the creation process and in the dissemination of information and content, blurring the boundaries between public and private communication. The media's intrinsic editorial practices have diversified, adopting new modalities, procedures and outcomes.
6. With these changes in the media ecosystem, the functioning and existence of traditional media actors, as well as their economic models and professional standards, are being complemented or replaced by other actors. New actors have assumed functions in the production and distribution process of media services which, until recently, had been performed only (or mostly) by traditional media organisations; this includes content aggregators, application designers and users who are also producers of content. A number of “intermediaries” or “auxiliaries”, often stemming from the information and communication (ICT) sector, including those serving at the outset as mere hosts or conduits (e.g. infrastructure, network or platform operators), are essential for digital media’s outreach and people’s access to them. Services provided by these new actors have become essential pathfinders to information, at times turning the intermediaries or auxiliaries into gatekeepers or into players who assume an active role in mass communication editorial processes. Such services have complemented or, on occasion, partly replaced traditional media actors in respect of those functions. The roles of each actor can easily change or evolve fluidly and seamlessly. Further, some have developed services or applications which have put them in a dominant position on a national or even at a global level.
A new notion of media which requires a graduated and differentiated approach
7. Despite the changes in its ecosystem, the role of the media in a democratic society, albeit with additional tools (i.e. interaction and engagement), has not changed. Media-related policy must therefore take full account of these and future developments, embracing a notion of media which is appropriate for such a fluid and multi-dimensional reality. All actors – whether new or traditional – who operate within the media ecosystem should be offered a policy framework which guarantees an appropriate level of protection and provides a clear indication of their duties and responsibilities in line with Council of Europe standards. The response should be graduated and differentiated according to the part that media services play in content production and dissemination processes. Attention should also be paid to potential forms of interference in the proper functioning of media or its ecosystem, including through indirect action against the media’s economic or operational infrastructure.
The Committee of Ministers recommends that member states:
ADOPT A NEW, BROAD NOTION OF MEDIA which encompasses all actors involved in the production and dissemination, to potentially large numbers of people, of content (e.g. information, analysis, comment, opinion, education, culture, art and entertainment in text, audio, visual, audiovisual or other form) and applications which are designed to facilitate interactive mass communication (e.g. social networks) or other content-based large-scale interactive experiences (e.g. online games), while retaining (in all these cases) editorial control or oversight;
REVIEW REGULATORY NEEDS IN RESPECT OF ALL ACTORS delivering services or products in the media ecosystem so as to guarantee people's right to seek, receive and impart information in accordance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to extend to those actors relevant safeguards against interference that might otherwise have an adverse effect on Article 10 rights including as regards situations which risk leading to undue self-restraint or self-censorship;
APPLY THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN THE APPENDIX HERETO WHEN CONSIDERING A GRADUATED AND DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSE for actors falling within the new notion of media based on relevant Council of Europe media-related standards, having regard to their specific functions in the media process and their potential impact and significance in ensuring or enhancing good governance in a democratic society;
ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE WITH ALL ACTORS IN THE MEDIA ECOSYSTEM in order for them to be properly apprised of the applicable legal framework, invite traditional and new media to exchange good practice and, if appropriate, consult among themselves in order to develop self-regulatory tools, including codes of conduct, which take account of, or incorporate in a suitable form generally accepted media and journalistic standards;
ADOPT STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE, DEVELOP OR ENSURE SUITABLE LEVELS OF PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY so as to guarantee a satisfactory level of pluralism, diversity of content and consumer choice and ensure close scrutiny or monitoring of developments;
REMAIN ATTENTIVE TO ADDRESSING SITUATIONS OF STRONG CONCENTRATION IN THE MEDIA ECOSYSTEM which might result in the misuse of an actor’s ability to shape or influence public opinion or people’s choices with potentially adverse consequences in respect of governance and, more particularly, political pluralism and democratic processes, especially as new types of services, applications or platforms gain relevance in these respects;
UNDERTAKE ACTION, INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY, to promote these approaches in appropriate international fora.
APPENDIX – CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING MEDIA AND GUIDANCE FOR A GRADUATED AND DIFFERENCIATED RESPONSE
1. Democracy and freedom of expression require member states to refrain from undue interference with the media. Member states should also take proactive measures to promote media freedom, independence, pluralism and diversity and to protect the activities that ensure the adequate functioning of the media ecosystem, understood in broad terms to encompass all actors and factors whose interaction allow the media to function and to fulfil their role in society.
2. The policy framework in place should be clear and the consequences of its application should be foreseeable. It should be articulated towards protecting and promoting freedom of expression, diversity and pluralism, and should identify the duties and responsibilities of all actors in the media ecosystem, subject to the strict limits stipulated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted in the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
3. Policy-making and, more particularly, regulatory processes should ensure that due attention is paid to the principle that, as a form of interference, any regulation should itself comply with the requirements set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the standards that stem from the relevant h law of the European Court of Human Rights. Regulatory responses should therefore respond to a pressing social need and, having regard to their tangible impact, they should be proportional to the aim pursued.
4. The Council of Europe has developed over the years a significant body of standards with regard to the media in order to assist media policy makers in their necessary endeavour to offer media the protection they need for their proper functioning and in their related policy-making and regulatory activities. In order to assist member states in the implementation of the Recommendation on a New Notion of Media, guidance is proposed in the present Appendix, on the one hand, to facilitate discerning whether particular activities, services or actors might be categorised as media (Part I) and, on the other hand, to inspire a graduated and differentiated policy approach in respect of the various activities, services or actors that are part of the media-ecosystem (Part II).
5. The result of examining activities, services or actors against the criteria (and indicators) should assist in gauging the necessity and the extent of policy-making or regulatory needs and also the degree of application of relevant legal frameworks (both as concerns freedoms and responsibilities). For example, policy responses for media focussing on news services may differ from those offering a platform for political debate or entertainment, in turn different from the mere association of revenue-generating activities to the dissemination of content through means of mass communication.
6. To this end, based on existing Council of Europe standards, Part II provides guidance to policy makers on how to apply media standards to new media activities, services or actors. It also offers the opportunity to address, or reinforce, the gender equality perspective in response to the call made by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in their Madrid, 12 May 2009, Declaration “Making gender equality a reality” and the Group of Eminent Persons’ report “Living together. Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe” presented to the Committee of Ministers in Istanbul on 10 May 2011.
7. A differentiated and graduated approach requires that each actor whose services are identified as media or as an intermediary or auxiliary activity benefit from both the appropriate form (differentiated) and the appropriate level (graduated) of protection and that responsibility is also delimitated in conformity with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant standards developed by the Council of Europe.
8. It should also be recalled that newer or emerging modes of mass dissemination of and access to content, and the associated retention, processing and exploitation of data, may well affect the rights protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Media criteria and indicators
9. Media policy makers are invited to take account of the following criteria when considering if particular activities, services or actors ought to be regarded as media.
10. Six criteria are set out below, each supplemented by a set of indicators, which should allow policy makers to identify media and media activities in the new ecosystem. The extent to which criteria are met will permit to recognise when a new communication service amounts to media or provide an indication of the bearing of intermediary or auxiliary activity on media services. Indicators should allow to establish whether and to what extent a particular criterion is met. Not all indicators need to be met to fulfil a particular criterion. Some indicators, such as those relating to professional standards and media ethics, relate to more than one criterion.
11. Similarly, not all criteria carry equal weight. The absence of certain criteria such as purpose (criterion 2), editorial control (criterion 3) or outreach and dissemination (criterion 5) would tend to disqualify a service from being regarded as media. Certain criteria may not be met, such as intent (criterion 1) or public expectation (criterion 6) or not be immediately apparent, which should not automatically disqualify a service from being considered media, but may carry considerable weight if they are present.
12. When considering criteria, account should be taken of the service provider’s own characteristics and idiosyncrasy, as well as the service provider’s maturing process as media, which may have a bearing on the manner of displaying editorial control (criterion 3) or on self-perceived professionalism (criterion 4). Consequently, all criteria (and indicators) should be applied in a flexible manner, interpreting them in the context of specific situations or realities. In the new communication environments, ongoing attention is called for, as an actor’s role and operation can easily change and evolve fluidly and seamlessly, which might affect of the extent to which one or more criteria are met and thus its potential classification as media.
13. A commonly accepted feature of media is its role in society and its impact on society or bearing on democratic processes. Impact can be seen as part of several of the criteria below. However, given that assessing impact is highly subjective, it should not be considered as a determining factor. All content provided by media has potential impact on society, whatever the size of the segment of population concerned, and regardless of the value attributed to it by society as a whole.
14. The result of this analysis should be taken into account when shaping media-related policy and when graduating its application, always subject to the caveats of strict necessity and minimum intervention. It will also have a bearing on the extent to which Council of Europe media-related standards apply and the modalities of its application. This entails a need for a flexible response, tailored to a concrete case (i.e. differentiated) and graduated for the purpose. The response should also take account of the service provider’s own characteristics and idiosyncrasy, as well as that service provider’s maturing process as media.
15. Intermediaries and auxiliaries in the media ecosystem can be distinguished from media as they may meet certain of the criteria of indicators below but they usually do not meet some of the core criteria like editorial control (criterion 3) or purpose (criterion 2). However, they often play an essential role, which can give them considerable power as regards outreach and control or oversight over content. As a result, intermediaries and auxiliaries can easily assume an active role in mass communication editorial processes. Member states should therefore consider them carefully in media-related policy making and should be particularly attentive to their own positive and negative obligations stemming from Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This may call for a differentiated policy response in their respect (adapted to particular intermediaries or auxiliaries) having regard to the specificities of the situation (e.g. when their action can bear on pluralism or on the ability of media served by the intermediaries or auxiliaries in question to fulfil their purpose or to function normally or to continue delivering their services).
Criterion 1 - Intent to act as media
- self-labelling as media
- working methods which are typical for media
- commitment to professional media standards
- practical arrangements for mass communication
16. The volition of an actor is an important factor in assessing whether the actor itself or some or all of its services and products should be regarded as media. It also allows for a first instance in policy differentiation on the basis of different actors’ own perceptions as regards their activities and services.
17. Intent to act as media can be expressed by subjective means (e.g. by self-declaration as media, self-labelling, brand, declaring a purpose, mission statement or business plan that avow media or journalistic goals) and may be explicit or even formally recorded (as in the case of business registration, purpose stated in a company’s articles of association). These subjective indicators can refer to other criteria, such as purpose (e.g. resolve to provide regularly updated news), editorial control or professional standards.
18. More particularly, intent can be revealed by the adoption of an editorial policy or commitment to professional and ethical standards which are typical for media. An editorial policy or commitment can also be expressed in the terms and conditions of use which provide explanations to users of a service about the types of contents or behaviours that are, or are not, accepted by the operator. .
19. Membership in professional media organisations or professional organisations that promote or enforce codes of ethics or good practice or engage in other forms of self-regulation which are typical for media may also be relevant, together with the choice of staff (e.g. journalists) for certain functions, job descriptions of staff, the training or even the choice of professional insurance (e.g. against defamation) offered to them.
20. Intent can also be inferred from action taken (e.g. setting up a business or platform and hiring staff, etc.) to produce or disseminate to a wide audience typical media content (e.g. information, analysis, comment, opinion, education, culture, art and entertainment in text, audio, visual, audiovisual form).
21. In a new communications environment, this extends to action taken to arrange, aggregate or select (e.g. by means of algorithms) and to disseminate the abovementioned content to potentially large numbers of people through means of mass communication. It also extends to operating applications for collective online shared spaces which are designed to facilitate interactive mass communication (or mass communication in aggregate) or other content-based large-scale interactive experiences. It can, in particular, be evidenced by the means, arrangements or structures put in place for mass communication (e.g. platform or bandwidth enabling mass outreach).
22. While intent is in itself an important criterion, by itself it is not sufficient for considering or treating an actor or any of its services or products as media.
Criterion 2 – Purpose and underlying objectives of media
- produce, aggregate or disseminate media content
- operate applications or platforms designed to facilitate interactive mass communication or mass communication in aggregate (e.g. social networks) and/or to provide content-based large-scale interactive experiences (e.g. online games)
- with underlying media objective(s) (animate and provide a space for public debate and political dialogue, shape and influence public opinion, promote values, facilitate scrutiny and increase transparency and accountability, provide education, entertainment, cultural and artistic expression, create jobs, generate income – or most frequently, a combination of the above)
- periodic renewal and update of content
23. In spite of the changes in the media ecosystem, the purpose and underlying objective(s) of the media remains on the whole unchanged, namely the provision or dissemination of content to a broad public and the provision of a space for different interactive experiences. Media are the most important tool for freedom of expression.
24. Media’s purpose and underlying objectives remain a determining factor, especially as regards its role in and impact on society. They have been features of choice for identifying media and are highly relevant for media-related policy-making and regulatory processes. They will therefore be an important tool when considering a differentiated and graduated response.
25. A desire to influence public opinion, which has traditionally been one of the key indicators for identifying media or media-related activities, manifests itself in devoting content to matters of public debate and interest and in efforts to reach a large public. Evidence of such influence and impact on society can be derived from research on media’s credibility and trustworthiness and on their ability to achieve those underlying objectives which are relevant for democratic processes (see in this context criteria 5 and 6, relating to outreach and dissemination and to public expectation).
26. However, value judgements in respect of content should not be a determining factor to disqualify services, activities or actors as media. Attention should in particular be paid to the risk of excluding certain activities from consideration as media because of their innovative modalities rather than their essential features. Arranging, aggregating, selecting or, on occasion, even promoting content for its broad dissemination are relevant. Depending on the degree to which criteria are met, the notion of producer may need to be distinguished from media (e.g. in respect of content sharing platforms subject to light touch editorial control or ex-post moderation); in this respect, reference to traditional media’s interactive or user generated content (e.g. collaborative, audience participation, call-in, quiz or talk show formats) may be useful. This may bear on the extent and modalities of application of media-related policies to them.
27. New business models have been, and will no doubt continue to be, developed for associating revenue-generating activities to the dissemination of content. This is sometimes at the centre of media activities and can therefore be useful to identify and categorise the underlying media services and activities and to consider the policy and regulatory consequences.
28. The periodic or regular renewal or updating of content should also be given due consideration. This distinct indicator of media has to be applied with precaution given the importance of constant or occasional renewal. Moreover, in a new communications environment where users exercise considerable control over the shaping and the timing of access to content, updating or renewal may well relate more closely to user experience than to timing or to the content itself. This is particularly the case for services involving collective online shared spaces designed to facilitate content-based interactive mass communication in aggregate or other large-scale interactive experiences.
Criterion 3 - Editorial control
- editorial policy
- editorial process
- editorial staff
29. Editorial freedom or independence is an essential requirement for media and a direct corollary of freedom of expression and the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. A number of existing Council of Europe standards provide guidance designed to preserve and promote editorial freedom or independence. The reverse of the medal is media’s own editorial control or oversight over content and responsibility for editorial decisions.
30. Editorial control can be evidenced by the actors’ own policy decisions on the content to make available or to promote, and on the manner in which to present or arrange it. Legacy media sometimes publicise explicitly written editorial policies, but they can also be found in internal instructions or criteria for selecting or processing (e.g. verifying or validating) content. In the new communications environments, editorial policies can be embedded in mission statements or in terms and conditions of use (which may contain very detailed provisions on content), or may be expressed informally as a commitment to certain principles (e.g. netiquette, motto).
31. The absence of an outward assertion of editorial control by the media should not, by itself, be considered as an indication of its absence. Editorial process involves a set of routines and conventions that inform decision making as regards content. In an evolving media environment, there are many examples of the gradual development and consolidation of editorial process as media mature. As has been the case for legacy media, there may be varying degrees or intensity of control over content, which may be perceived only as regards a small part of it.
32. Editorial process can involve users (e.g. peer review and take down requests) with ultimate decisions taken according to an internally defined process and having regard to specified criteria (reactive moderation). New media often resort to ex-post moderation (often referred to as post-moderation) in respect of user generated content, which may at first sight be imperceptible. Editorial processes may also be automated (e.g. in the case of algorithms ex-ante selecting content or comparing content with copyrighted material).
33. In certain cases, editorial control can be more apparent in respect of selected or promoted content or content associated to revenue-generating activities (e.g. advertising) than as regards other content (e.g. user generated material). In turn, part of the content (e.g. advertising) can be under direct control of a third party by virtue of an agency agreement. Legacy media tend to resort to ex-ante editorial control (or pre-moderation) in respect of certain services or activities (e.g. print media or some broadcasts) but not others (e.g. collaborative, audience participation, call-in or talk show formats).
34. Staff entrusted with producing, commissioning, collecting, examining, processing or validating content will serve as a reliable indicator of editorial control or oversight. The existence of editorial boards, designated controllers or supervisors with editorial powers, or arrangements for responding to or dealing with users requests or complaints as regards content, will be particularly helpful in this respect.
35 Again, it should be noted that different levels of editorial control go along with different levels of editorial responsibility. Different level of editorial control or editorial modalities (e.g. ex-ante as compared with ex-post moderation) call for a differentiated response and will almost certainly permit best to graduate the response.
36. A provider of an intermediary or auxiliary service which contributes to the functioning or accessing of a media but does not – or should not – itself exercise editorial control and therefore has limited or no editorial responsibility, should therefore not be considered to be media. However, their action may be relevant in a media context. Nonetheless, action taken by providers of intermediary or auxiliary services as a result of legal obligations (e.g. take down of content in response to a judicial order) should not be considered as editorial control in the sense of the above.
Criterion 4 - Professional standards
- compliance procedures
- complaints procedures
- asserting prerogatives, rights or privileges
37. Media have built trust over time through competence and professionalism of their staff, in particular journalists. Collectively, they have expressed their commitment to preserve their values in a wide range of declarations, charters and codes which they seek to promote throughout the sector and transmit to their peers, in particular to newcomers to the profession. Specific media have reinforced this through their own internal codes of practice, staff regulations or instructions and norms as to procedure and style. Self-regulation also speaks of the importance of media and journalism for our societies, especially for democracy.
38. However it is expressed, adhesion to the profession’s own ethics, deontology and standards is a strong media indicator; standards frequently mentioned in this context are truthfulness, responsibility, freedom of expression and of the media, objectivity, equality, fairness, and journalistic independence. In new media, evidence of this criterion can be less apparent, but may be found in mission statements, in staff regulations or in terms and conditions of use. The selection of staff, the tasks entrusted to them, guidance for their performance, or their professional background or competence could also be relevant.
39. Media (and journalist’s) ethics, deontology and standards are the basis of media accountability systems. There is a wide range of media accountability systems; they include media or press councils, ombudspersons (including in-house users’ advocates), informal peer (media) review, and a range of formal or informal processes that permit to hold media to account for their performance or to conduct ethical audits.
40. Media accountability systems extend to complaint procedures and to the existence of bodies tasked with examining complaints and decide on compliance with professional standards. In this connection, attention should be given to the availability of remedies typical of media (e.g. reply, correction, apology) or other means of providing satisfaction in response to complaints about the content disseminated.
41. As regards in particular new media, codes of conduct or ethical standards for bloggers have already been accepted by at least a part of the online journalism community. Nonetheless, blogger should only be considered media if they fulfil the criteria to a sufficient degree. In the absence of self-regulation, national and international decisions or case law (e.g. of national judges or data protection authorities and international bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights) are also contributing to the shaping of standards (e.g. as regards privacy or the protection of personal data, or the protection of children from harmful content).
42. Seeking to benefit from protection or privileges offered to media can be very revealing. Prerogatives, rights and privileges which can be asserted by media or by journalists, subject to relevant legal provisions, include: the protection of sources; privileged communications and protection against seizure of journalistic material; freedom of movement and access to information; the right to accreditation; protection against misuse of libel and defamation laws (e.g. defences as regards the truthfulness and accuracy of information; good faith; public interest).
Criterion 5 - Outreach and dissemination
- actual dissemination
- mass-communication in aggregate
- resources for outreach
43. In order to achieve the purposes described above, media seek outreach to a large number of people. Media or mass communication has traditionally been defined as mediated public communication addressed to a large audience and open to all. Outreach or actual dissemination (number of copies, viewers or users) is therefore an important indicator in identifying media and in distinguishing it from private communication, including private communication taking place in a public space (which is not, in itself media, but could be incorporated into media or mass communication in aggregate). However, there is no single or common understanding of what is mass or large audience; it can easily range from a territorial, interest or other community (e.g. the target of local, professional or community media) to potentially global audiences (in the case of satellite television or certain Internet services).
44. Technologies making possible non-linear or on-demand delivery of content, conditional access, unbundling of electronically delivered content, personalisation of content or unicasting, bring a different dimension to the term and have brought a new dimension to mass communication. So has the capacity of the Internet to support the full range of public (one-to-many, many-to-many) communication, as well as group (few-to-few) and private communication (one-to-one); the fact that such communication takes place on the internet (a public space) does not necessarily imply that it is media.
45. For an assessment of outreach, attention should be paid to the aggregated audience, i.e. all those sharing the platform or common features of the service and who can be reached by the content produced, arranged, selected, aggregated or distributed by the operator, including when the delivery of or access to content is not simultaneous. It may be useful to consider separately the question of content sought by the user and that directly or indirectly related to the revenue-generating activity of the operator of the service. The number of registered users is therefore relevant.
46. The above is consistent with emerging case law which suggests a thin boundary between private and public communication; as a result, publishing content in social networks has attracted consequences proper to public communication. However, this does not entail categorising the users as media (which would have given them access to media or journalist’s prerogatives or privileges). To meet this criterion, a content provider has to take concrete steps to power or project content to a mass-communication dimension; this outreach could be evidenced by recourse to sufficient bandwidth or developing suitable distribution platforms. Attention should be paid to the possibility of rapid developments in this respect.
47. The new fluid ecosystem allows for media to operate easily within other media or for different operators to overlap, sometimes blurring the boundaries between them. It is therefore important to distinguish their respective roles, so as to discern their respective responsibilities. This process may be facilitated by exploring the degree to which the guest, separately, meets the media criteria. This is also important in order not to overstretch the notion of media to unduly include users who produce or contribute to generating content.
48. Together with other criteria, the dimension of entirely closed collective online shared spaces designed to facilitate interactive communication should permit to determine whether they are media. However, the mere fact of restricted access should not automatically disqualify them (this is comparable to media services only available by subscription).
49. The level of outreach and dissemination is an important criterion which, clearly, has an impact on a differentiated and graduated approach. If outreach and dissemination are low, a service should not be considered media. However, this should be considered having regard to the size of the market or potential audience or user base and also potential impact. The absence of large enough outreach and dissemination does not preclude something from being considered to be media but, in all such cases, those circumstances will have a bearing on differentiation and graduation.
Criterion 6 – Public expectation
- pluralism and diversity
- respect of professional and ethical standards
- accountability and transparency
50. People’s expectations follow largely the preceding criteria (and the related indicators). They expect that media are available and that it will be there for them when they wish to turn their attention to it. Without prejudice to discontinuation or temporary suspension, media services are therefore presumed ongoing and broadly accessible (this does not rule out services for consideration, by subscription or subject to membership arrangements).
51. In general, people recognise media and rely to a large extent on media for information and other content. They expect that content will be produced according to relevant professional standards. In a democratic society, they count on the availability of a range of sources of information and expect their content to be diverse, responding to the interests different segments in society.
52. Depending on the purpose and nature of specific media, public expectation may vary. Expectations in respect of public service media are higher than in respect of certain other media. News media will naturally be expected to be regularly updated and disseminated periodically. People even have expectations as regards content of a commercial nature, which are higher in respect of media or media content designed for minors.
53. In order to be able to fulfil their role and achieve their purpose, media have to earn the trust of the public. Depending on the expressed or perceived purpose, editorial policy, financing model and impact, the trust accorded by the public to media varies. The development of professional and ethical standards to a large extent reflects people’s expectations. However, self-regulation may not always be regarded as sufficient and people look to public authorities to ensure that minima are guaranteed. There are also expectations as to transparency and accountability. Higher levels of expected trustworthiness, standards, transparency and accountability does not necessary bring about higher outreach, dissemination or impact.
54. Public expectation in a given society may, to some extent, be revealed by law makers’ interest on and attention to the subject, and by existing regulation (including co-regulation). In a global society where media know no borders, there is an expectation of some degree of harmonisation also in the understanding of what media is. Comparative solutions may therefore be relevant.
55. The level and nature of public expectation can change rapidly both as regards the media themselves and the part to be played by policy makers depending on whether and the extent to which other criteria and indicators are met.
Standards applied to media in the new ecosystem
56. The objective of this part is to offer guidance to policy makers on how to apply media standards to new media activities, services or actors in a graduated and differentiated manner. Further, it provides a substantive basis for implementing the recommendation that member states engage in dialogue with all actors in the media ecosystem in order for them to be properly apprised of the applicable legal framework. It should also assist media actors in any self-regulatory exercise they may engage in.
57. While the Recommendation on a new notion of media and Part I of this Appendix are expected to stand the test of time because of their broad nature, this part, of a more pragmatic nature, may need to be further developed, adapted or revised periodically in light of changes in the media ecosystem.
58. Media and journalists are subject to general legal provisions (i.e. those that are not specific to the media, whether civil, commercial, corporate, tax or penal law). However, given media’s needs and role is society, certain general provisions may need to be interpreted specifically for the media (e.g. in respect of defamation, surveillance, stop and search, state secrets or corporate confidentiality) or their application be scrutinised to avoid their misuse to covertly impinge on media freedom.
59. Subject to the principle that, as a form of interference, media regulation should comply with the requirements of strict necessity and minimum intervention, specific regulatory frameworks should respond to the need to protect media from interference (recognising prerogatives, rights and privileges beyond general law, or providing a framework for their exercise), to manage scarce resources (to ensure media pluralism and diversity of content – cf. Article 10, paragraph 1 in fine, of the European Convention on Human Rights) or to address media responsibilities (within the strict boundaries set out in Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention and the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights). These considerations inspire the structure of this part of the Appendix.
60. In each case, an indication is given of existing Council of Europe standards, and their application in a new media environment is briefly explained. There is no attempt to set out standards in an exhaustive manner. Those selected should be seen as examples which can provide some inspiration for the application of other relevant Council of Europe standards. Given the nature and scope of this instrument, guidance is presented in very broad terms; more precise guidance will have to be deduced from related Committee of Ministers standard-setting instruments (a tentative list is set out at the end of the section). The application of standards will be subject to and evolve in line with developments as regards media actors, services and activities.
A. Rights, privileges and prerogatives
- media freedom and editorial independence
- freedom from censorship
- protection against misuse of defamation laws and risk of chilling effect
61. There is no genuine democracy without independent media. Media freedom should be understood in broad terms. It comprises freedom of expression and the right to disseminate content. As stipulated in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, this right has to be guaranteed regardless of frontiers. Actors should be able to initiate media activities or to evolve without undue difficulty from private or semi-private communication in a public space into mass communication. In particular, there should be no prior authorisation processes; if required, declaration of media activities should pursue the objective of enhancing their protection against interference, without creating unwarranted obstacles to their operation.
62. There are many examples of interference or attempts to interfere with the independence of media in the new ecosystem. There have been reports of direct pressure by politicians on media to withhold or withdraw content and also calls on intermediaries to exclude media actors from their hosting services. Respect of editorial independence requires absence of censorship or ex-ante control of content. Media should be free from blocking and filtering measures. Public disclosure of all such incidents is welcome.
63. The importance of the role of intermediaries should be underlined. They offer alternative and complementary means or channels for the dissemination of media content, thus broadening outreach and enhancing effectiveness in media’s achievements of its purposes and objectives. In a competitive intermediaries and auxiliaries market, they may significantly reduce the risk of interference by authorities. However, given the degree to which media have to rely on them in the new ecosystem, there is also a risk of censorship operated through intermediaries and auxiliaries. Certain situations may also pose a risk of private censorship (by intermediaries and auxiliaries in respect of media they provide services to or content they carry).
64. There is growing concern about denial of service attacks against media in the digital environment. Smaller media operators, which are a key component of a plural and diverse media landscape, are most vulnerable. As a result, they may also be refused hosting services. Claims have also been made of indirect action against media by obstructing their funding arrangements; tax or competition procedures could be misused in a similar way.
65. In the new ecosystem, all media should be preserved from pressure, including that which is politically motivated or stemming from economic interests. Media should be free from censorship and preserved from self-censorship. Editorial independence requires effective and manifest separation between ownership or control over media and decision-making as regards content. This is an important factor in the maturing process of media. Persons who exercise political authority or influence should refrain from participating in media’s editorial decisions. This is particularly relevant as regards media in the new ecosystem which carry content capable of shaping opinion or informing the electorate’s political decisions. These considerations apply equally to content creators and distributors.
66. Libel and defamation laws can be misused to interfere with, or by way of reprisal against, media. They can have a strong chilling effect. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, expressions (or content) which disturb, shock or offend must be tolerated. Subject to the respect or clearing of pertinent intellectual property rights, media should be able to rely on prior media reports or published material without risk. However, in the new ecosystem, consideration needs to be given to the accumulated or multiplied impact and the possible need to apportion responsibility in case of damage (e.g. resulting from dissemination by a first outlet as compared to the enhanced or multiplied impact when the same content is disseminated by other, including mainstream, media).
67. All media in the new ecosystem should be entitled to use the defences of truthfulness and accuracy of information, good faith or public interest (in particular in the context of scrutiny of the conduct of public or political figures and public officials, and also in respect of matters a priori covered by state secrets or by corporate confidentiality rules). Media should be confident that, when assessing content, fact will be treated differently from opinion (the latter allowing for greater freedom). Media should also be able to rely on freedom of satire and the right to exaggeration.
68. Any action sought against media in respect of content should respect strictly applicable laws, above all international human rights law, in particular the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and comply with procedural safeguards. There should be a presumption in favour of freedom of expression and information and in favour of media freedom. Due account should be taken of the role of users and of the nature of user generated content.
69. Whether in the form of negative obligations (not to interfere) or positive obligations (to facilitate the exercise of freedom of expression and the right to impart and receive information regardless of frontiers, including by ensuring the availability of effective remedies in case of interference by other actors) the duty bearer of these rights, privileges and prerogatives is the state. This should be graduated depending on the circumstances of each case and the realistic possibilities for the state to take necessary preventive or remedial measures. State responsibility should, in no case, be interpreted as allowing for any control, inspection or interference, or indeed any other action, capable of obstructing the legitimate exercise of the tight to freedom of expression and the right to impart and receive information regardless of frontiers.
- right to investigate
- protection of journalists and journalistic sources
70. Media’s right to investigate is essential for democracy; it should therefore be recognised, preserved and promoted in the new media ecosystem. Journalists’ right to investigate may be facilitated by accreditation; where applicable, media professionals in the new ecosystem should be offered accreditation without discrimination and without undue delay or impediment. The rights to freedom of movement (e.g. access to crisis zones) and access to information are highly relevant for all media professionals. Where appropriate, they should be offered protection without discrimination.
71. The above may extend, in certain cases, to providing protection or some form of support (e.g. guidance or training so that they do not put their own lives at risk) to actors that, while meeting certain of the criteria and indicators set out in Part I of this Appendix, may not fully qualify as media (e.g. individual bloggers). A graduated response should take account of the extent to which such actors can be considered part of the media ecosystem and contributors to the functions and role of media in a democratic society.
72. Other essential components of the right to investigate are privacy of communications and the protection against seizure of professional material. Any form of surveillance of media professionals, including the tracking of their movements through electronic means, should be considered with great circumspection and be made the subject of reinforced safeguards.
73. The protection of sources is increasingly the subject of formal legal recognition. There is a need for robust protection of whistleblowers. In the new media ecosystem, the protection of sources should extend to the identity of users who make content of public interest available on collective online shared spaces which are designed to facilitate interactive mass communication (or mass communication in aggregate); this includes content-sharing platforms and social networking services. Arrangements may be needed to authorise the use of pseudonyms (e.g. in social networks) in cases where disclosure of identity might attract retaliation (e.g. as a consequence of political or human rights activism).
- fair access to distribution channels
- intermediaries and auxiliaries
74. Media should have fair access to electronic communication networks (including hosting services) and should be able to rely on the principle of net neutrality. Interoperability and open standards may be useful tools for eliminating technical barriers to the dissemination of media content. Consideration might be given to reinterpreting must carry rules in the new media ecosystem.
75. To the extent that their action or decisions can have an impact on media in the new ecosystem, intermediaries and auxiliaries should be free from pressure or influence intended to bear on media, its independence or its editorial decisions. Policy measures may be required to give effect to this requirement.
76. In case of legitimate action (e.g. resulting from understandable business decisions) by an intermediary, auxiliary or other actor bearing on essential conditions for the media’s operation, arrangements may be desirable to preserve the media’s ongoing functioning (e.g. to preserve pluralism and diversity in the public interest). This may call for additional safeguards (e.g. in the context of judicial procedures) or consideration by relevant authorities of possible means to prevent or mitigate the undesirable outcome. This may also be relevant, mutatis mutandis, as regards action by authorities (e.g. applying tax law) if such action can have a negative impact on media freedoms and pluralism and to the extent necessary in a democratic society.
B. Media pluralism and diversity of content
- management of scarce resources
- transparency of ownership
- public service media
77. As has already been indicated, actors in the new ecosystem should be able to initiate media activities or to evolve into media activities without undue difficulty. In particular, there should be no prior authorisation processes. In the new media ecosystem there is a plethora of actors, means and platforms for distribution and content; nonetheless, licensing may still be justified in exceptional cases by the need to manage scarce resources (e.g. the electromagnetic wavelength spectrum).
78. Limited to such exceptional cases, licensing or authorisation should pursue the public interest, namely to guarantee the existence of a wide range of independent and diverse media. Licensing and authorisation measures should respond to necessity, and persistence of the need for such measures should be reconsidered in light of developments.
79. Pluralism will not be automatically guaranteed by the existence of a large number of means of mass communication accessible to people. Moreover, in a situation of strong media concentration, the ability to shape or influence public opinion or people’s choices may lie with one or only few actors. Misuse of this power can have adverse consequences for political pluralism and for democratic processes. In the new media ecosystem, some actors have already developed services or applications which have put them in a dominant position on a national or even at a global level. Even if there is no evidence of misuse, such a dominant position can pose a potential risk.
80. Monitoring trends and concentration in the media ecosystem will permit the competent authorities to keep abreast of developments and to assess risks. Regulatory measures may be required with a view to guaranteeing full transparency of media ownership. This will help identify suitable preventive or remedial action, if appropriate and having regard to the characteristics of each media market, with a view to preventing media concentration levels that could pose risks to democracy or the role of the media in democratic processes.
81. Public service media is essential in the European dual model, involving the coexistence of public service alongside commercial media. They should adhere to high professional standards and should, ideally, involve the public in its governance structures. Its objective should be to ensure universal delivery, quality, trustworthy and diverse content, and political pluralism in the media. Adequately equipped and funded public service media, enjoying genuine editorial independence and institutional autonomy, should contribute to counterbalancing the risk of misuse of the power of the media in a situation of strong media concentration.
82. Public service media should therefore have a distinct place in the new media ecosystem, and should be equipped to provide high-quality and innovative content and services in the digital environment, and should be able to resort to relevant tools (e.g. to facilitate interaction and engagement).
83. The new ecosystem offers an unprecedented opportunity to incorporate diversity into media governance, in particular as regards gender balanced participation in the production, editorial and distribution processes. The same is true as regards various ethnic and religious groups. This will be a key factor in ensuring balanced representation and coverage by media and in combating stereotypes in respect of all constituent groups of society.
C. Media responsibilities
- editorial responsibility
- respect of dignity and privacy
- respect for the presumption of innocence and fair trial
- respect of the right to property
- remedies for third parties
84. The watchdog function, i.e. scrutiny of public and political affairs and private or business-related matters of public interest, contributes to justify media’s broad freedom; however, it is counterpoised by a requirement of greater diligence in respect of factual information. Scrutiny should involve accurate, in-depth and critical reporting. It should be distinguished from journalistic practices which involve unduly probing into and exposing people’s private and family lives in a way that would be incompatible with their fundamental rights. Media should exercise special care not to contribute to stereotypes about members of particular ethnic or religious groups and to sexist stereotypes. Representatives of all groups should be offered the opportunity to contribute to content, express their views and explain their understanding of facts; media should consider adopting a proactive approach in this respect.
85. Subject to accuracy of information, the right to the respect of one’s honour and reputation finds its limits in the public interest. Professionalism requires verifying information and assessing credibility, but there is no requirement to inform a person of the intention to disseminate information in their respect prior to its dissemination. The exigency of accuracy is less pertinent for opinion, comment and entertainment, which also permit exaggeration. However, media should distinguish them from factual information.
86. The above requirements should be graduated having regard to the editorial policies and processes adopted by the media concerned and their potential outreach and impact, and also public expectation in their respect. Media content creators, editors and distributors should adhere to relevant professional standards, including those designed to combat discrimination and stereotypes and to promote gender equality. They should exercise special care to ensure ethical coverage of minority and women’s issues also by associating minorities and women to creation, editorial and distribution processes.
87. The role of media, whether new or legacy, in informing the public about criminal proceedings is important in a democratic society. In exercising their editorial responsibility, media should be attentive not to perturb the course of justice or undermine the correct functioning of the judiciary, the privacy and safety of all those involved and, in particular, the presumption of innocence of the suspect or accused. Particular attention should be paid to preserving the dignity of vulnerable persons, victims, witnesses and relatives of persons concerned by criminal proceedings. This should not preclude providing information in the public interest.
88. There is a vast amount of personal information and data in the new media ecosystem, including in online shared spaces designed to facilitate interactive mass communication (or mass communication in aggregate). The management aggregation and use of such information and data should respect people’s right to private and family life as protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, having regard also to the provisions of Convention 108 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. The persistence of content in digital environments and its potential for broad dissemination and re-use calls for especial care and, in case of need, quick action with a view to mitigating damage. Media operating in the new ecosystem should also place high on their agenda the respect of human rights related standards in respect of profiling.
89. In the new ecosystem, considerable amounts of content are re-used or re-transmitted. In this connection, media should respect the intellectual property rights of others. Without prejudice to the collective private enjoyment of content, including in online shared spaces, and other forms of authorised use, attention should be paid to the modalities of application and respect of those rights in the context of user generated or posted content.
90. Effective internal media accountability systems underpinned by appropriate professional standards often justify the absence of, or decrease the need for, external accountability. Actors in the new ecosystem should develop adequate complaints mechanisms and strive to offer remedies to third parties who consider that they have suffered prejudice because of media activities or services (e.g. right to reply, correction, apology).
- hate speech
- rights of children
- rights of women
- rights of minorities
91. Media should refrain from conveying hate speech and other content that incites violence or discrimination for whatever reason. Especial attention is needed on the part of actors operating collective online shared spaces which are designed to facilitate interactive mass communication (or mass communication in aggregate). They should be attentive to the use of, and editorial response to, expressions motivated by racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist, sexist (including as regards LGBT people) or other bias. Actors in the new media ecosystem may be required (by law) to report to the competent authorities criminal threats of violence based on racial, ethnic, religious, gender or other grounds that come to their attention.
92. On the other hand, media can provide a balanced (or positive) image of the various groups that make up society and contribute to a culture of tolerance and dialogue. Other than in the cases prescribed by law with due respect to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, no group in society should be discriminated from in the exercise of the right to association which, in the new media ecosystem, includes online association.
93. Particular attention should be paid to preserving the dignity, security and privacy of children. Content concerning them can be a source of present and future prejudice. Consequently, there should be no lasting or permanently accessible record of the content about or created by children which challenges their dignity, security and privacy or otherwise renders them vulnerable now or at a later stage in their lives.
94. Risk of harm may arise from a wide range of content and behaviour. Content intended only for adults should be clearly identifiable to facilitate rendering it inaccessible to children. Protection of children should not impinge on their freedom of expression and right to seek and receive information. Media can contribute to the development of safe spaces (walled gardens), as well as other tools facilitating access to websites and content appropriate for children, to the development and voluntary use of labels and trustmarks, to the development of skills among children, parents and educators to understand better and deal with content and behaviour that carries a risk of harm.
95. Harassment, bullying, intimidation and stalking can be facilitated in the new media ecosystem by collective online shared spaces, tracking applications or even search engines and profiling technology. Women are frequent victims of these forms of abuse, which can lead to physical (including sexual) abuse and violence which are unacceptable expressions of inequality. Attention should also be paid to the possible abusive use of technology in respect of members of minorities.
96. In the abovementioned cases, the response will depend on the circumstances, including the nature and scope of the activity or service and the actors’ own editorial processes. A graduated approach should consider the possibilities of the actors concerned (e.g. those operating collective online shared spaces or offering search engine, tracking or profiling applications and technology) to address or mitigate the risks in question. Relevant stakeholders could be encouraged to explore together the feasibility of removing or deleting content in appropriate cases, to the extent that it is not inconsistent with the fundamental right to freedom of expression, including its traces (logs, records and processing), within a reasonably short period of time. Greater technical capabilities bring with them greater responsibility. Self-regulation could usefully be complemented by capacity building (e.g. enhancing intercultural competencies) and by sharing best or corrective practices developed within sectors of activity in the new media ecosystem.
97. Freedom of expression also applies to commercial and political advertising, tele-shopping and sponsorship. Limitations in this respect are only admissible within the conditions set out in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such limitations may be needed for the protection of consumers, minors, public health or democratic processes.
98. The potential for abusive, intrusive or surreptitious advertising is greater in the new media ecosystem than ever before. It calls for enhanced responsibility on the part of media (e.g. in respect of sexist, racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes in advertising). It may call for self- or co-regulation and, in certain cases, regulation (e.g. medicines, alcoholic beverages, gambling, protection of children, pornography, violence against women, political advertising).
D. Reference instruments
Convention and treaties in the media field
Convention on Information and Legal Co-operation concerning "Information Society Services" (2001)
European Convention on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (2000)
European Convention on Transfrontier Television (1989) with the amending protocol (1998)
European Convention relating to questions on copyright law and neighbouring rights in the framework of transfrontier broadcasting by satellite (1994)
European Agreement concerning Programme Exchanges by means of Television Films (1958)
European Agreement on the Protection of Television Broadcasts (1960)
European Agreement for the Prevention of Broadcasts transmitted from Stations outside National Territories (1965)
Other conventions with provisions relevant for the media
Convention on Cybercrime (2001) and Additional Protocol to the Convention on cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems (2003)
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (1981) and Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows (2001)
Framework convention for the protection of national minorities (1995)
European charter for regional or minority languages (1992)
Committee of Ministers
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)13 on the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data in the context of profiling
Declaration on the management of the Internet protocol address resources in the public interest (29 September 2010)
Declaration on network neutrality (29 September 2010)
Declaration on the Digital Agenda for Europe (29 September 2010)
Declaration on enhanced participation of member states in Internet governance matters – Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (26 May 2010)
Declaration on measures to promote the respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (13 January 2010)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)5 on measures to protect children against harmful content and behaviour and to promote their active participation in the new information and communications environment
Declaration on the role of community media in promoting social cohesion and intercultural dialogue (11 February 2009)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)6 on measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information with regard to Internet filters
Declaration on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector (26 March 2008)
Declaration on protecting the dignity, security and privacy of children on the internet (20 February 2008)
Declaration on the allocation and management of the digital dividend and the public interest (20 February 2008)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)16 on measures to promote the public service value of the Internet
Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)15 on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns
Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)11 on promoting freedom of expression and information in the new information and communications environment (26 September 2007)
Guidelines on protecting freedom of expression and information in times of crisis (26 September 2007)
Declaration on the protection and promotion of investigative journalism (26 September 2007)
Recommendation Rec(2007)3 on the remit of public service media in the information society
Recommendation Rec(2007)2 on media pluralism and diversity of media content
Declaration on protecting the role of the media in democracy in the context of media concentration (31 January 2007)
Recommendation Rec(2006)12 on empowering children in the new information and communications environment
Declaration on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting in the member states (27 September 2006)
Declaration on human rights and the rule of law in the Information Society (13 May 2005)
Recommendation Rec(2006)3 on the UNESCO Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions
Declaration on freedom of expression and information in the media in the context of the fight against terrorism (2 March 2005)
Recommendation Rec(2004)16 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the right of reply in the new media environment
Declaration on freedom of political debate in the media (12 February 2004)
Recommendation No. R (2003) 13 on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings
Declaration on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings (10 July 2003)
Political message to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
Declaration on freedom of communication on the Internet (28 May 2003)
Recommendation No. R (2003) 9 on measures to promote the democratic and social contribution of digital broadcasting
Recommendation No. R (2002) 7 on measures to enhance the protection of the neighbouring rights of broadcasting organisations
Recommendation No. R (2002) 2 on access to official documents
Recommendation No. R (2001) 8 on self-regulation concerning cyber content
Recommendation No. R (2001) 7 on measures to protect copyright and neighbouring rights and combat piracy, especially in the digital environment
Recommendation No. R (2000) 23 on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector
Recommendation No. R (2000) 7 on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information
Declaration on cultural diversity (7 December 2000)
Recommendation No. R (99) 15 on measures concerning media coverage of election campaigns
Declaration on the exploitation of protected radio and television productions held in the archives of broadcasting organisations (9 September 1999)
Declaration on a European policy for new information technologies (7 May 1999)
Recommendation No. R (99) 14 on universal community service concerning new communication and information services
Recommendation No. R (99) 5 for the protection of privacy on the Internet
Recommendation No. R (99) 1 on measures to promote media pluralism
Recommendation No. R (97) 21 on the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance
Recommendation No. R (97) 20 on "hate speech"
Recommendation No. R (97) 19 on the portrayal of violence in the electronic media
Recommendation No. R (96) 10 on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting
Declaration on the protection of journalists in situations of conflict and tension (3 May 1996)
Recommendation No. R (96) 4 on the protection of journalists in situations of conflict and tension
Recommendation No. R (95) 13 concerning problems of criminal procedural law connected with information technology
Recommendation No. R (95) 1 on measures against sound and audio-visual piracy
Recommendation No. R (94) 13 on measures to promote media transparency
Declaration on neighbouring rights (7 February 1994)
Recommendation No. R (94) 3 on the promotion of education and awareness in the area of copyright and neighbouring rights concerning creativity
Recommendation No. R (93) 5 containing principles aimed at promoting the distribution and broadcasting of audio-visual works originated in countries or regions with a low audio-visual output or a limited geographic or linguistic coverage on the European television markets
Resolution (92) 70 on establishing a European Audiovisual Observatory
Recommendation No. R (92) 19 on video games with a racist content
Recommendation No. R (92) 15 concerning teaching, research and training in the field of law and information technology
Recommendation No. R (91) 14 on the legal protection of encrypted television services
Recommendation No. R (91) 5 on the right to short reporting on major events where exclusive rights for their television broadcast have been acquired in a transfrontier context
Recommendation No. R (90) 11 on principles relating to copyright law questions in the field of reprography
Recommendation No. R (90) 10 on cinema for children and adolescents
Recommendation No. R (89) 7 concerning principles on the distribution of videograms having a violent, brutal or pornographic content
Resolution (88) 15 setting up a European support fund for the co-production and distribution of creative cinematographic and audiovisual works (“Eurimages”)
Recommendation No. R (88) 2 on measures to combat piracy in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights
Recommendation No. R (88) 1 on sound and audiovisual private copying
Recommendation No. R (87) 7 on film distribution in Europe
Recommendation No. R (86) 14 on the drawing up of strategies to combat smoking, alcohol and drug dependence in co-operation with opinion-makers and the media
Recommendation No. R (86) 3 on the promotion of audio-visual production in Europe
Recommendation No. R (86) 2 on principles relating to copyright law questions in the field of television by satellite and cable
Recommendation No. R (86) 9 on copyright and cultural policy
Recommendation No. R (85) 8 on the conservation of the European film heritage
Recommendation n° R (85) 6 on aid for artistic creation
Recommendation No. R (84) 22 on the use of satellite capacity for television and sound radio
Recommendation No. R (84) 17 on equality between women and men in the media
Recommendation No. R (84) 3 on principles on television advertising
Declaration on freedom of expression and information (29 April 1982)
Recommendation No. R (81) 19 on the access to information held by public authorities
Recommendation No. R (80) 1 on sport and television
Recommendation No. R (79) 1 concerning consumer education of adults and consumer information
Resolution (74) 43 on press concentrations
Resolution (74) 26 on the right of reply - position of the individual in relation to the press
Resolution (70) 19 on educational and cultural uses of radio and television in Europe and the relations in this respect between public authorities and broadcasting organisations
Resolution (67) 13 on the press and the protection of youth
Resolution (61) 23 on the exchange of television programmes
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Recommendation 1950 (2011) The protection of journalists’ sources
Recommendation 1897 (2010) Respect for media freedom
Recommendation 1882 (2009) The promotion of Internet and online media services appropriate for minors
Recommendation 1878 (2009) The funding of public service broadcasting
Recommendation 1855 (2009) The regulation of audiovisual media services
Recommendation 1848 (2008) Indicators for media in a democracy
Resolution 1636 (2008) Indicators for media in democracy
Recommendation 1836 (2008) Realising the full potential of e-learning for education and training
Recommendation 1814 (2007) Towards decriminalisation of defamation
Resolution 1577 (2007) Towards decriminalisation of defamation
Recommendation 1805 (2007) on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion
Resolution 1557 and Recommendation 1799 (2007) on the image of women in advertising
Recommendation 1789 (2007) on professional education and training of journalists
Resolution 1535 and Recommendation 1783 (2007) on threats to the lives and freedom of expression of journalists
Recommendation 1773 (2006) The 2003 guidelines on the use of minority languages in the broadcast media and the Council of Europe standards: need to enhance co-operation and synergy with the OSCE
Recommendation 1768 (2006) on the image of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in the media
Resolution 1510 (2006) on freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs
Recommendation 1706 (2005) on media and terrorism
Resolution 1438 and Recommendation 1702 (2005) on freedom of the press and the working conditions of journalists in conflict zones
Resolution 1387 (2004) on monopolisation of the electronic media and possible abuse of power in Italy
Recommendation 1641 (2004) on public service broadcasting
Recommendation 1589 (2003) on freedom of expression in the media in Europe
Resolution 1313 (2003) on cultural co-operation between Europe and the south Mediterranean countries
Recommendation 1555 (2002) on the image of women in the media
Recommendation 1586 (2002) on the digital divide and education
Recommendation 1506 (2001) on freedom of expression and information in the media in Europe
Recommendation 1543 (2001) on racism and xenophobia in cyberspace
Recommendation 1466 (2000) on media education
Recommendation 1407 (1999) on media and democratic culture
Resolution 1191 (1999) on the information society and a digital world
Resolution 1165 (1998) on the right to privacy
Resolution 1142 (1997) on parliaments and the media
Recommendation 1332 (1997) on the scientific and technical aspects of the new information and communications technologies
Resolution 1120 (1997) on the impact of the new communication and information technologies on democracy
Recommendation 1314 (1997) on the new technologies and employment
Recommendation 1277 (1995) on migrants, ethnic minorities and media
Recommendation 1276 (1995) on the power of the visual image
Recommendation 1265 (1995) on enlargement and European cultural co-operation
Recommendation 1228 (1994) on cable networks and local television stations: their importance for Greater Europe
Recommendation 1216 (1993) on European cultural co-operation
Recommendation 1215 (1993) on the ethics of journalism
Resolution 1003 (1993) on the ethics of journalism
Recommendation 1147 (1991) on parliamentary responsibility for the democratic reform of broadcasting
Resolution 957 (1991) on the situation of local radio in Europe
Resolution 956 (1991) on transfer of technology to countries of Central and Eastern Europe
Recommendation 1136 (1990) on a European policy on alcohol
Recommendation 1122 (1990) on the revival of the countryside by means of information technology
Resolution 937 (1990) on telecommunications: the implications for Europe
Recommendation 1110 (1989) on distance teaching
Recommendation 1098 (1989) on East-West audiovisual co-operation
Recommendation 1096 (1989) on the European Convention on Transfrontier Television
Recommendation 1077 (1988) on access to transfrontier audiovisual media during election campaigns
Recommendation 1067 (1987) on the cultural dimension of broadcasting in Europe
Recommendation 1059 (1987) on the economics of culture
Recommendation 1047 (1986) on the dangers of boxing
Recommendation 1043 (1986) on Europe's linguistic and literary heritage
Recommendation 1037 (1986) on data protection and freedom of information
Resolution 848 (1985) on privacy of sound and individual freedom of musical choice
Recommendation 1011 (1985) on the situation of professional dance in Europe
Recommendation 996 (1984) on Council of Europe work relating to the media
Resolution 820 (1984) on relations of national Parliaments with the media
Recommendation 963 (1983) on cultural and educational means of reducing violence
Recommendation 952 (1982) on international means to protect freedom of expression by regulating commercial advertising
Recommendation 926 (1981) on questions raised by cable and television and by direct satellite broadcasts
Recommendation 862 (1979) on cinema and the state
Recommendation 834 (1978) on threats to the freedom of the press and television
Recommendation 815 (1977) on freedom of expression and the role of the writer in Europe
Recommendation 749 (1975) on European broadcasting
Recommendation 748 (1975) on the role and management of national broadcasting
Recommendation 747 (1975) on press concentrations
Recommendation 582 (1970) on mass communication media and human rights
Resolution 428 (1970) containing a declaration on mass communication media and human rights
Council of Europe specialised Conference of Ministers
1st Council of Europe Conference of Ministers
responsible for Media and New Communication Services
A new notion of media?
(28 and 29 May 2009, Reykjavik, Iceland)
7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Kyiv, 10 and 11 March 2005)
Integration and diversity: the new frontiers of European media and
6th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Cracow, 15 and 16 June 2000)
A media policy for tomorrow
5th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Thessaloniki, 11 and 12 December 1997)
The Information Society: a challenge for Europe
4th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Prague, 7 and 8 December 1994)
The media in a democratic society
3rd European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Nicosia, 9 and 10 October 1991)
Which way forward for Europe’s media in the 1990s?
2nd European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Stockholm, 23 and 24 November 1988)
European Mass Media Policy in an international context
1st European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
(Vienna, 9 and 10 December 1986)
The future of television in Europe
Draft Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles
1. The Internet is the aggregate of a vast range of ideas, technology, resources and policies developed on the assertion of freedom and through the collective endeavours in the common interest. The states, private sector, civil society and people have all contributed to build the dynamic, inclusive and successful Internet that we know today. The Internet provides a space of freedom, facilitating the exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights, participatory and democratic processes and commercial and social activities.
2. This has inspired a shared vision of Internet governance to-date which was put on record in the Declaration of Principles enunciated in the Geneva phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in December 2003. The Tunis Agenda adopted at the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society in November 2005 defined Internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
3. Internet governance discussions that are taking place in different national and international fora are a tangible result of this vision. They has fostered dialogue among state, private sector and civil society actors and contributed to shape common views on Internet policies and, more broadly, Internet governance. Seeking to preserve and consolidate this approach, Internet communities, international organisations and other actors have engaged in efforts to pronounce the core values of the Internet and have developed guidelines on various aspects of Internet governance.
4. The Council of Europe has participated in these processes and its 47 member states have agreed, in numerous instruments, to the consequences of ensuring a maximum of rights on the Internet, subject to a minimum of restrictions while offering the level of security that people are entitled to expect. This stems from the Council of Europe member states’ undertaking to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
5. In order to ensure a sustainable, people-centred and rights-based approach to the Internet, it is necessary to affirm the principles of Internet governance which acknowledge human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and rule of law, as well as the basic tenets of the Internet communities as they have been developed in the processes mentioned above.
6. As a contribution to this ongoing, inclusive, collaborative and open process, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe:
- welcomes the Internet governance principles progressively developed by stakeholders and Internet communities in various processes and building on them affirms the principles set out below;
- declares its firm commitment to these principles and underlines that they should be upheld by all member states in the context of developing national and international Internet-related policies;
- encourages other stakeholders to embrace them in the exercise of their own responsibilities.
INTERNET GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES
1. Human rights, democracy and rule of law
Internet governance arrangements must ensure the protection of all fundamental rights and freedoms and affirm their universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation in accordance with international human rights law. They must also ensure full respect for democracy, rule of law and sustainable development. All public and private actors must recognise and uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms in their operations and activities as well as in the design of new technologies, services and applications. They should be aware of developments leading to enhancement of, as well as threats to, fundamental rights and freedoms, and fully participate in efforts aimed at recognising newly- emerging rights.
2. Multi-stakeholder governance
The development and implementation of Internet governance arrangements should ensure, in an open, transparent and accountable manner, the full participation of governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and users, taking into account their specific roles and responsibilities. The development of international Internet-related public policies and Internet governance arrangements should enable full and equal participation of all stakeholders from all countries.
3. Responsibilities of states
States have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues. In the exercise of their sovereignty rights, states should refrain from any action that would directly or indirectly harm persons or entities outside of their territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, any national decision or action amounting to a restriction to fundamental rights should comply with international obligations and in particular be based on law, necessary in a democratic society, and fully respect the principles of proportionality and right of independent appeal surrounded by appropriate legal and due process safeguards.
4. Empowerment of Internet users
Users should be fully empowered to exercise their fundamental rights and freedoms, make informed decisions and participate in Internet governance arrangements, in particular in governance mechanisms and in the development of Internet-related public policy, in full confidence and freedom.
5. Universality of the Internet
Internet-related policies should recognise the global nature of the Internet and the objective of universal access. They should not adversely affect the unimpeded flow of transboundary Internet traffic.
6. Integrity of the Internet
Internet’s security, stability, robustness, resilience and ability to evolve should be the key objectives of Internet governance. In order to preserve the integrity and ongoing functioning of the Internet’s infrastructure as well as users’ trust and reliance on the Internet, it is necessary to promote national and international multi-stakeholder cooperation.
7. Decentralised management
The decentralised nature of the responsibility for the day-to-day management of the Internet should be preserved. The Internet technical and management organisations and the private sector should retain their leading role in the technical and operational matters while ensuring transparency and being accountable to the global community for those actions which impact on public policy.
8. Architectural principles
Internet’s open standards, interoperability and the end-to-end nature should be preserved. These principles should guide all stakeholders in their decisions related to Internet governance. There should be no barriers to entry for new users and uses of the Internet or unnecessary burdens which could affect the potential for innovation in respect of technologies and services.
9. Open network
Users should have the greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services of their choice, whether or not they are offered free of charge, using suitable devices of their choice. Traffic management measures which have an impact on the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular the right to freedom of expression and to impart and receive information regardless of frontiers as well as the right to respect for private life, must meet the requirements of international law on the protection for freedom of expression and access to information and the right to respect for private life.
10. Cultural and linguistic diversity
Preserving cultural and linguistic diversity and fostering the development of local content, regardless of language or script, should be key objectives of Internet-related policy, international cooperation as well as in the development of new technologies.
Draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection and promotion of Internet’s universality, integrity and openness
1. The member states of the Council of Europe, state Parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights – ETS No. 5) have undertaken in article 1 to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the human rights and fundamental freedoms defined in this Convention. They have particular roles and responsibilities to secure the protection and promotion of these rights and freedoms and can be held to account for the rights involved before the European Court of Human Rights.
2. The right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference, is essential for citizens’ participation in democratic processes. The right to freedom of expression applies to both online and offline activities and regardless of frontiers. In a Council of Europe context, its protection should be ensured in accordance with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The Internet enables people to have access to information and services, to connect, and to communicate as well as share ideas and knowledge globally. It provides essential tools for participation and deliberation in political and other activities of public interest.
4. The individual’s freedom to have access to information and to form and express opinions, and the ability of groups to communicate and share views on the Internet depend on actions related to the Internet’s infrastructure and critical resources, and decisions on information technology design and deployment. Governmental action may also have a bearing on the exercise of these freedoms.
5. In particular, access and use of the Internet is exposed to risks of disruption of the stable and ongoing functioning of the network due to technical failures and is vulnerable to other acts of interference with the infrastructure of the Internet. The question of the Internet’s stability and resilience is intrinsically related to the cross-border interconnectedness and interdependencies of its infrastructure as well as its decentralised and distributed nature. Actions that take place in one jurisdiction may affect the ability of users to have access to information on the Internet in another.
6. Moreover, decisions taken in the context of the technical coordination and management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet, notably domain names and Internet protocol addresses, may have a direct bearing on users’ access to information and protection of personal data. These resources are distributed in different jurisdictions and are managed by various non-governmental entities with a regional or global remit.
7. Against this background, the protection of freedom of expression and access to information on the Internet as well as the promotion of the public service value of the Internet are part of a larger set of concerns about how to ensure Internet’s universality, integrity and openness.
8. People increasingly rely on the Internet for their everyday activities and to ensure their rights as citizens. They have a legitimate expectation that Internet services will be accessible and affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing. The Internet is, similarly, a critical resource for numerous sectors of the economy and public administrations.
9. These expectations of society give rise to state responsibility to carefully preserve the general public interest in Internet-related policy making. Indeed, many countries have recognised the public service value of the Internet, whether in their national policies or legislation or in the form of political declarations, including in international fora.
10. As bearers of the duty to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens and primary respondents to their legitimate expectations regarding the criticality of the Internet, states should ensure the protection of the public interest in international Internet-related public policy.
11. In addition, states have a mutual expectation towards each other that they will make their best efforts to preserve and promote the public service value of the Internet. In that context, they should acknowledge their shared and mutual responsibilities to take reasonable measures to protect and promote the universality, integrity and openness of the Internet as a means of safeguarding freedom of expression and access to information regardless of frontiers.
12. Therefore, the Committee of Ministers recommends to member states to:
- be guided by the principles contained in the Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on Internet governance principles, both in the context of developing national Internet-related policies and when participating in such endeavours within the international community;
- to protect and promote Internet’s universality, integrity and openness having regard to the principles and in accordance with the commitment set out in this recommendation and ensure that they are reflected in practice and law;
- ensure the broad dissemination of the attached commitment to all public authorities, private entities, in particular those dealing with the management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet as well as civil society organisations;
- encourage these actors to support and promote the implementation of the principles included therein.
Commitment to protect and promote
Internet’s universality, integrity and openness
1.1.1 States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law and with the principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet.
1.1.2 This includes in particular the responsibility to ensure that their actions within their jurisdictions do not interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic.
States should co-operate in good faith between themselves and with relevant stakeholders at all stages of developing and implementing Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact on access to, and use of, the Internet.
1.3. Due diligence
Within the limits of non-involvement in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, states should, in co-operation with each other and with all relevant stakeholders, take all necessary measures to prevent, manage and respond to significant transboundary disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet, or at any event minimise the risk and consequences arising from such events.
2.1.1 States should jointly and in consultation with relevant stakeholders develop and implement emergency plans for managing and responding to disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet.
2.1.2 In particular, states should co-operate with a view to support the development and implementation of common standards, rules and practices aimed at preserving and strengthening the stability, robustness and resilience of the Internet.
2.1.3. States should create an environment that facilitates information sharing and response coordination among stakeholders, notably through the creation of public-private partnerships, in respect of activities involving risk of causing significant transboundary disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet.
States should, without delay, provide notification of a risk of significant transboundary disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet to potentially affected states.
2.2.2 Information sharing
States should, in a timely manner, provide to potentially-affected states all available information relevant to responding to transboundary disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet.
States should enter into consultations with each other without delay with a view to achieving mutually acceptable solutions regarding measures to be adopted to respond to significant transboundary disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet.
2.2.4 Mutual assistance
As appropriate, and with due regard to their capabilities, states should, in good faith, offer their assistance to other affected states with a view to mitigating the adverse effects of disruptions to, and interferences with, the infrastructure of the Internet.
States should, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, within the limits of non-involvement in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, develop reasonable legislative, administrative or other measures as appropriate to implement their due diligence commitments regarding the integrity of the Internet.
States should engage in dialogue and co-operation for the further development of international standards relating to the responsibility and liability as well as the settlement of related disputes.
States should take all reasonable measures to ensure that the development and application of standards, policies, procedures or practices in connection with the management of resources that are critical for the functioning of the Internet incorporate protections for human rights and fundamental freedoms of Internet users in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law.
Draft Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on the Protection of freedom of expression and information and freedom of assembly and association with regard to Internet domain names and name strings
1. Freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information, and its corollary freedom of the media, and freedom of assembly and association are indispensable for genuine democracy and democratic processes. All Council of Europe member states have undertaken to secure these freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights respectively.
2. The Internet offers significant opportunities to enhance the exercise and full enjoyment of human rights and freedoms. The Committee of Ministers has affirmed the public service value of the Internet in Recommendation CM/Rec (2007)16 and provided guidelines to member states on necessary measures that should be taken to promote such value. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has recently rightly stated that “by acting as a catalyst for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Internet also facilitates the realization of a range of other human rights.”
3. Citizens’ communication and interactions in online environments and their participation in activities that involve matters of public interest can bring positive real-life social change. When freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and freedom of assembly are not upheld online, their protection offline is likely to be undermined and democracy and the rule of law can also be compromised.
4. Action by a state that limits or forbids access to specific Internet content constitutes a restriction on freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information. In Europe, such a restriction can only be justified if it fulfils the conditions of Article 10, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
5. In particular, as specified in principle 3 of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on freedom of communication on the Internet of 28 May 2003, there should not be prior state control of content that is made available on the Internet through general blocking or filtering unless such measures are taken on the basis of a provisional or final decision on its illegality by the competent national authorities and in full respect for the strict conditions of Article 10, paragraph 2, of the European Convention on Human Rights. These measures should concern clearly identifiable content and should be proportionate. This does not prevent the installation of filters for the protection of minors, in particular in places accessible to them, such as schools or libraries.
6. The Committee of Ministers has stated in its Declaration on human rights and the rule of law in the information society of 13 May 2005 that member states should maintain and enhance legal and practical measures to prevent state and private censorship. In addition, the Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information with regard to Internet filters includes guidelines for using and controlling Internet filters in general and more specifically in relation the protection of children and young people.
7. Expressions contained in the names of Internet websites such as domain names and name strings are not excluded from the scope of application of legal standards on freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and should, therefore, benefit from a presumption in their favour. The addressing function of domain names and name strings and the forms of expressions that they comprise, as well as the content that they relate to, are inextricably intertwined. More specifically, individuals or operators of websites may chose to use a particular domain name or name string to identify and describe content hosted in their websites, to disseminate a particular point of view or to create spaces for communication, interaction, assembly and association for various societal groups or communities.
8. The need to provide safeguards for freedom of expression in legal frameworks related to the management of domain names which identify a country in the Internet addressing system has been affirmed by constitutional oversight bodies of specific Council of Europe member states.
9. On the other hand, instances of measures proposed in other Council of Europe member states to prohibit the use of certain words or characters in domain names and name strings are a source of concern. They may raise issues under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights within their own jurisdiction. In a cross border context they may have an impact on content accessible in other states’ territories. They may also set negative precedents which if replicated and generalised could thwart the vitality of Internet expression and have devastating effects on Internet freedom.
10. The protection of freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and freedom of assembly and association is relevant to policy development processes which are taking place in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to expand the domain name space so as to include new top level domain extensions that contain generic expressions. In this context, state and non-state stakeholders should be attentive to and uphold the guarantees in international law on freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and on freedom of assembly and association to the extent that they apply to certain generic expressions that may be proposed in the future as top level domain names. These considerations should inform relevant policy development and implementation processes.
11. Against this background, the Committee of Ministers:
- declares its support for the recognition by member states of the need to apply fundamental rights safeguards to the management of domain names;
- alerts to the risk which over regulation of the domain name space and name strings entails for the exercise of freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information and of freedom of assembly and association – as a form of interference any regulation should meet the conditions of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the related case law of the European Court of Human Rights;
- undertakes to pursue further standard setting work with a view to providing guidance to member states on this subject; and
- recalls the Resolution on Internet governance and critical Internet resources adopted by the ministers of states participating in the 1st Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and New Communication Services held in Reykjavik on 28 and 29 May 2009 and invites the competent Council of Europe bodies to work with relevant corporations, agencies and other entities that manage or contribute to the management of the domain name space in order for decisions to take full account of international law including international human rights law.
CDMC comments on the Recommendation 1950(2011) on protection of journalists’ sources
1. The CDMC welcomes Recommendation 1950 (2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the protection of journalists’ sources. The recommendation is timely because of the large number of cases in which public authorities in Europe have obliged, or attempted to oblige, journalists to disclose their sources, despite the clear standards set by the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers. Furthermore, national laws on surveillance, anti-terrorism and data retention can compromise journalism and thus have a serious ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of the media. The CDMC shares the opinion that free, independent and pluralistic media are a necessary condition of any true democratic society.
2. The media plays a crucial role in our society as its mission is to seek, analyse and disseminate information of general interest. The right for journalists not to disclose information identifying a source is not only necessary but indispensable in order for them to gain, and retain, the confidence of their sources and thus guarantee freedom of information.
3. The CDMC shares the opinion that the disclosure of information identifying a source should be limited to exceptional circumstances where it can be convincingly established that vital public or individual interests are at stake. Seeking disclosure of sources should not be seen as an alternative to poor investigation by law enforcement agencies and authorities. The CDMC stresses the importance of having competent authorities request the disclosure of a source. In the CDMC’s view, the decision should lie with a court of law given that vital interests must outweigh the right not to disclose sources. Disclosure should only be sought when alternative measures have proved inadequate or been exhausted. Consequently, disclosure of journalists’ sources must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
4. With regard to the protection of the right of the public to be informed on matters of public concern, it should be possible for anyone who has knowledge or information about such matters to be able to either post it confidentially on third-party media, including Internet networks, or submit it confidentially to journalists. The CDMC would emphasise that states cannot ensure that information is delivered in a secret way, but can encourage the creation of systems that protect sources.
5. The protection of “whistle-blowers” is closely linked to the right of every person to disclose to the media, confidentially or otherwise, information about unlawful acts and other wrongdoings which may be of public concern. The CDMC therefore shares the opinion that member states should review legislation in this respect in order to ensure consistency of domestic rules with European standards.
6. The CDMC wishes to stress the importance of journalists’ sources not being compromised by the increasing technological possibilities for public authorities to exert control over journalists’ use of mobile telecommunication and the Internet. Moreover, interception of correspondence, surveillance of journalists, or search and seizure of information, must not impede the protection of journalists’ sources. Thus, Internet service providers and telecommunication companies should not be obliged to disclose information which may lead to the identification of journalists’ sources without a court order, issued subject to suitable procedural safeguards.
7. The CDMC shares the opinion of the Parliamentary Assembly that, when transposing the European Union’s Directive 206/24/EC of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly-available electronic communications services or of public communications networks, steps must be taken to ensure that legal provisions enacted by member states are consistent with the right of journalists not to disclose their sources under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and with the right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Applicable standards should be recalled, in particular the principle that personal data cannot be preserved for longer than what is deemed necessary in view of the purpose for which it was originally stored (Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data – CETS 108). Furthermore, data should only be retained subject to conditions on derogations provided for in Article 8.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of Convention 108 (i.e. in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society). The principles set out in Council of Europe Recommendation No. R(87) 15 regulating the use of personal data in the police sector are fully relevant and should therefore also be recalled.
8. With reference to the issues raised in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Recommendation, the CDMC believes that it is indeed important to reconcile the protection of journalists’ sources with the use of new technologies. Indeed, in the case of crimes, investigators should be allowed to use efficient tracking tools in order to identify the perpetrators. However, there must be a clear legal framework for such activities and robust and hefty safeguards which are commensurate to the technological means employed.
9. The CDMC is of the opinion that the fight against cybercrime is not a sufficient reason to justify systematic impingement of protection of journalists’ sources. The proportionality of any measures taken is essential and the decision on their adoption should be made by a court of law on a case-by-case basis
10. With reference to the issue raised in paragraph 15 of the Recommendation, the CDMC wishes to underline that the definition of media is changing. It believes that, in certain circumstances, the protection of sources may have to be extended to new media actors. The Parliamentary Assembly may wish to note that some member States have already adopted a broader approach in line with CM Rec(2000)7 or even extended the protection of sources to non-professional media actors.
11. As regards requests to competent steering committees to draw up guidelines on the subject, in co-operation with journalists and media freedom organisations, the CDMC would refer to the ongoing reform and prioritisation process in the Council of Europe during which the terms of reference and mandate of a new intergovernmental body will be finalised. It would strongly encourage the new steering committee to implement the work suggested by the Parliamentary Assembly and hopes that media will be a priority in its work.
CDMC comments on the Recommendation 1962(2011) Religious dimension of intercultural dialogue
1. The CDMC welcomes the Recommendation 1962 (2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. The recommendation considers an issue which is highly topical in pluralist Europe and in the globalised world today – the effective dialogue between various individuals, groups, communities and faiths. Interreligious dialogue represents an important dimension of intercultural dialogue as conscience and religion are components of culture and constitute the basis of spiritual life in society.
2. The CDMC shares the opinion that Europe is multicultural and multi-religious but that common values such as human rights, respect for human dignity, tolerance and the acceptance that differences are normal, and the vision of a common future, need to be further strengthened. Respect for, and promotion of, cultural diversity are essential conditions for the development of societies based on solidarity. Intercultural dialogue allows the prevention of ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural divides and enables people to move forward together, and to deal with their different identities constructively and democratically, on the basis of shared universal values.
3. The CDMC wishes to stress the importance of the respect of freedom of expression for a fruitful exchange on religious aspects in intercultural dialogue. Successful intercultural dialogue requires many of the attitudes fostered by a democratic culture – such as open-mindedness, willingness to engage in dialogue and allow others to express their point, a capacity to resolve conflicts by peaceful means and recognition of the well-founded arguments of others. Many of these attitudes depend on the freedom of expression. The CDMC underlines that respect for freedom of expression guarantees non-domination and is essential to ensure that dialogue is governed by the force of argument rather than the argument of force.
4. The Assembly rightly insists on the need for everyone to learn to share their differences positively. The CDMC would emphasise that this highly desirable goal can be supported by the active involvement of the media as a core partner in a complex process.
5. The positive contribution of the media to the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue has already been confirmed during the Council of Europe conference on ''Media, beliefs and religion'', considering the role of the media in fostering intercultural dialogue, tolerance and mutual understanding, freedom of expression of the media and respect towards cultural and religious diversity, held in Ohrid on 13-14 September 2010. The CDMC recalls that the forum in Ohrid reiterated the crucial and multifarious role the media plays in enhancing intercultural and interreligious dialogue in democratic societies and strengthening social cohesion. This dialogue expands between various churches, believers and non-believers and between religious communities and civil society including humanist projects and movements.
6. Media can support new educational systems aiming at building knowledge and understanding of the various cultures and religions in society.
7. Though all the media exercise a public function, public service media (PSM) have a particular obligation to encourage intercultural and interreligious dialogue and foster social cohesion as a component of their public service remit. The CDMC underlines the essential role of PSMs in integrating all communities, social groups and generations and promoting better understanding and trust among peoples in an era of globalisation, migration and integration, as expressed in the CM Recommendation CM/Rec (2007) 3 on the remit of public service media in the information society.
8. Community media can play an important role in expanding the intercultural dialogue at local and regional level. Community media allow for democratic participation of various groups and minorities, including religious groups.
9. The CDMC wishes to stress the public service value of the Internet and its tremendous contribution to diversity and dialogue through the new information and communication technologies. New media and Internet in particular offer unprecedented opportunities for intensifying communication and exchange among cultures, for active creation and participation and can serve as an effective tool for achieving understanding and tolerance in the religious sphere as well.
1) Opening of the meeting
2) Adoption of the agenda
3) Decisions of the Committee of Ministers of interest to the work of the CDMC
Standing Committee on Transfrontier Television (T-TT)
Texts adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
4) Draft instruments or texts for consideration by the CDMC
5) Work between meetings
6) Work of CDMC subordinate bodies
Committee of Experts on New Media – ( MC-NM)
Ad hoc Advisory Group on Public Service Media Governance (MC-S-PG)
Ad hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet (MC-S-CI)
Ad hoc Advisory Group on the Protection of Neighbouring Rights of Broadcasting Organisations (MC-S-NR)
7) Work programme for the CDMC in 2011 and 2012
Gender mainstreaming and gender proofing
8) Implementation of Council of Europe standards on media and freedom of expression prepared under the authority of the CDMC
Roles and responsibilities of the European ISPs
Follow-up on the Resolution on developments in anti-terrorism legislation in Council of Europe member states and their impact on freedom of expression and information
Egypt / possible consequences of shut down of internet connections
9) Working methods
Restricted web sites
10) Next Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Media and New Communication Services
11) Internet Governance and implementation of WSIS action lines
EuroDIG, Belgrade 30-31 May 2011
IGF, Nairobi, 27-30 September 2011
12) Information on the work of, and co-operation with, other Council of Europe bodies, of interest to the CDMC
13) Other information of interest to the work of the CDMC
Presidency of the European Union: on-going and future activities related to Media and Information Society
E-G8 Forum (Paris,23-25 May 2011)
14) Administrative and budgetary matters
15) Items to be included on the agenda of the 15th meeting of the CDMC
16) Dates of next meetings
17) Other business
18) Abridged report
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
MEMBER STATES / ETATS MEMBRES
Mr Ralf GJONI, Director General of Communications/ Spokesperson, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Albania
Mr Garegin CHUGASZYAN, Executive Director, IT Foundation
Mr Matthias TRAIMER, Federal Chancellery
Ms Daniela SABETZER, Federal Chancellery
Ms Jeyran AMIRASLANOVA, Senior Consultant for Public and Political Issues, Office of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Mr Araz ALIYEV (observer), Chief Consultant of "AzelIsh" Ltd
Mr. Johan BOUCIQUE, Adviseur Media, Department Cultuur, Jeugd, Sport en Media
Bosnia and Herzegovina / Bosnie-Herzégovine
Mr Emir POVLAKIC, Head of Division for Licencing, Digitalization and Coordiation, Broadcasting Communications Regulatory Agency
Ms Lea TAJIĆ, Head of Department for International Cooperation in Broadcasting, Broadcasting Communications Regulatory Agency
Ms Bissera ZANKOVA, Media Consultant, Ministry of Transport and Communications, Directorate on Information Technology
Mr Miroslav PAPA, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration
Apologised / Excusé
Czech Republic/République Tchèque
Mr Artus REJENT, Ministry of Culture
Ms Katja JUST MAARBJERG, Head of Section, Danish Ministry of Culture
Mr Peeter SOOKRUUS, Ministry of Culture
Mme Sophie VERRIER, Bureau des affaires européennes et internationales, Direction Générale des Médias et des Industries Culturelles, Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
Mme Catherine SOUYRI
Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes, Sous-direction de l’audiovisuel extérieur et des technologies de communication,
Ms Tamar KINTSURASHVILI, Administration of the President of Georgia, Advisor
Ms Els HENDRIX, Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media
Ms Amélie SAHIN - 14-15 June
Ms Annick KUHL – 16-17 June
Mr Christophoros A GEORGHADJIS, Secretariat General of Information, Secretariat of Communication, Media Expert, Media department
Ms. dr. Dóra NAGY, Legal Adviser at the National Media and Infocommunications Authority
Mr Márk LENGYEL, Expert of the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice
Mr Eanna O’CONGHAILE, Broadcasting Policy Division, Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
Italy / Italie
Mr Pierluigi MAZZELLA, Professor of Information and Communication Law, University of Rome
Mr Andris MELLAKAULS, Adviser, Minister of Culture
Mrs Dace BUCENIECE, Vice-chair of the Natinal Electronic Mass Media Council of Latvia
Ms Rodica PETROV, Director of Council of Europe and Human Rights Directorate, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration
Mr Ranko VUJOVIC, Executive Director UNEM
Mr Olav GUNTVEDT, Assistant Director General, Ministry of Culture, Department of Media Policy and Copyright
Mr Wojciech KOLODZIEJCZYK, Lawyer, Legal Department, National Broacsting Council, National Broadcasting of Poland
Ms Maria Margarida RIBES, GMCS – Gabinete para os Meios de Comunicação Social
Ms Delia MUCICĂ, Senior Advisor to the Minister of Culture
Russian Federation/Fédération de Russie
Mr Igor EVDOKIMOV, Deputy Director, Information and Press Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ms Maja RAKOVIC, Cabinet of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Slovak Republic/République Slovaque
Ms Natasa SLAVIKOVA, Ministry for Culture of the Slovak Republic
Mr Skender ADEM, Undersecretary, Ministry of Culture of Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana
Ms Mª Concepción SOTO CALVO, Adviser of Audiovisual Services, State Secretariat for Telecommunications and the Information Society, Madrid
Sweden / Suede
Mr Jerker STATTIN, Deputy Director, Swedish Ministry of Culture
Mr Frédéric RIEHL, Service des Affaires internationales, Office fédéral de la communication, Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication, rue de Bienne
Mr Thomas SCHNEIDER, Service des Affaires internationales, Office fédéral de la communication, Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication, rue de Bienne
Mr Pierre SMOLIK, Service des Affaires internationales, Office fédéral de la communication, Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports, de l’énergie et de la communication, rue de Bienne
"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"/"L'ex-République Yougoslave de Macédoine"
Ms Vesna POPOSKA, Head of International PR Department, Government of the Republic of Macedonia
Mr Bora SÖNMEZ, Radio and Television Supreme Council, Ankara
Dr Hamit ERSOY,
Prof Korkmaz ALEMDAR, Radio and Television Supreme Council, Ankara
Mr Oleg VOLOSHYN, Director of Deparment of Information Policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Mr Chris DAWES, Department of Culture, Media and Sport
* * *
PARTICIPANTS / PARTICIPANTS
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe/Assemblée Parliamentaire du Conseil de l’Europe (PACE/APCE)
Mr Rüdiger DOSSOW, Sub-Committee on the Media, Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations of the Council of Europe / Conférence des organisations internationales non gouvernementales du Conseil de l'Europe
Mr Gabriel NISSIM, Conférence des OING du Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg
* * *
European Commission/Commission européenne
Mr Oliver FÜG, DG Information Society and Media, European Commission
Dr Philipp RUNGE, Policdy Adviser, Audiovisual and Media Policies Unit, European Commission, Directorate General for Information Society and Media, Brussels
Holy See / Saint Siège
Dr Michael LUKAS, Bischöfliche Pressestelle, Germany
United States of America
Ms Sarah LABOWITZ
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ms Katitza RODRIGUEZ, International Rights Director
Bureau of the T-PD
Chair of Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Public Service Media
Mr Tim SUTER, Managing Director, Perspectives, London
Chair of Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Cross-border Internet
Mr Wolfgang KLEINWAECHTER, International Association for Media and Communication Research
* * *
Mr Sergei SKVORCOV, Counsellor of the Department of Information of the Minsitry of Foreign Affairs
Association of Commercial Television in Europe, Association des Télévisions Commerciales européennes (ACT)
Mr Maxim HAUK LL.M., Legal Adviser, Association of Commercial Television in Europe, Association des Télévisions Commerciales européennes
Association of European Journalists (AEJ) / Media Freedom Representative
Mr William HORSLEY, London
Community Media for Europe (CFME)
Mr Helmut PEISSL
Mr Nadia BELLARDI
European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA)
Mr Holger ROSENDAL, Chefjurist/Head of Legal Department, Danske Dagblades Forening/Danish Newspaper Publishers' Association
European Broadcasting Union / Union Européenne de Radio-Télévision (EBU)
Mr Michael WAGNER, Deputy Director, Legal and Public Affairs
Mr Ignasi GUARDANS, Director, Public Affairs and Member Relations
Permament Conference of the Mediterranean Audiovisual Operators / Conférence Permanente de l’audiovisuel méditerranéen (COPEAM
Ms Alessandra PARADISI, Secretary General
Ms Micol PANCALDI, Training Division
* * *
INTERPRETERES / INTEPRETES
Ms Sarah ADLINGTON
Ms Anne FORDER
Ms Alison SMITH
Ms Shéhérazade HOEYR
Ms Sylvie STELLMACHER
Mr Jean-Louis WUNSCH
Mr Jan KLEIJSSEN, Directeur, Direction des Activités Normatives, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques / Director, Directorate of Standard-Setting, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs
Mr Jörg POLAKIEWICZ, Chef du Service du développement des droits de l'Homme, Direction des Activités Normatives, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques / Head of Human Rights Development Department, Directorate of Standard-Setting, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs
Mr Jan MALINOWSKI, Head of Media and Information Society Division, Secretary of the CDMC, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Chef de la Division Médias et Société de l’Information, Secrétaire du CDMC, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Ms Anne BOYER-DONNARD, Principal Administrative Assistant, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Assistante d’Administration, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Ms Elvana THAÇI, Administrator, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Administrateur, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Ms Natalia VOUTOVA, Administrator, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Administrateur, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Ms Marise BOYLAN, Assistant, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Assistante d’Administration, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Ms Corinne GAVRILOVIC, Assistant, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Assistante d’Administration, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
Ms Julia WHITHAM, , Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs / Assistante d’Administration, Direction Générale des Droits de l’Homme et des Affaires Juridiques
1 In the Resolution adopted in Reykjavik in May 2009, Ministers resolved to “review (…) national legislation and/or practice on a regular basis to ensure that any impact of anti-terrorism measures on the right to freedom of expression and information is consistent with Council of Europe standards, with a particular emphasis on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights”. The Russian Federation made a reservation in respect of this commitment and, consistent thereto, also made a reservation in respect of this related CDMC decision.