Strasbourg, 21 April 2005

T-TT(2005)002

 

PDF

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON TRANSFRONTIER TELEVISION

_______

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSFRONTIER TELEVISION

(T-TT)

______

38th meeting

31 March and 1 April 2005

Human Rights Building, Strasbourg

Room of the Directorate General

______

Report

_____

Items 1 and 2 of the agenda: Opening of the meeting and adoption of the agenda

1. The Chairperson of the Standing Committee, Mr Boris BERGANT (Slovenia), opened the meeting and welcomed all those Delegates and Observer Delegates. The list of participants is set out in Appendix I.

2. The Standing Committee adopted the agenda set out in document T-TT (2005) OJ1. The agenda as adopted is set out in Appendix II.

Item 3 of the agenda: Signatures and ratifications of the revised Convention

3. The Committee was informed that Bosnia and Herzegovina had ratified the Convention on 5 January 2005, bringing the number of States parties to thirty. The Convention would come into force in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 1 May 2005.

Item 4 of the agenda: The impact of technological and market changes in the broadcasting sector on the European Convention on Transfrontier Television

(i) Continuation of the review of the provisions of the Convention

a. Questions concerning advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping

4. The Delegate of Austria briefly summarised the external contributions received as a result of the public consultation on his discussion document on the Media Division’s website. The content of the contributions was very general and added nothing to the ideas expressed in his document. In particular, none of the contributions added anything new on questions left open in the document (restrictions on advertising time, sponsorship rules and product placement).

5. Another Delegate pointed out that product placement had been discussed by Focus Group 2 on the revision of the Television without Frontiers (TWF) Directive. He pointed out that authorisation to use this method could pose a threat to small private channels, which were not well represented in Europe. Large companies had every prospect of profiting from any deregulation of product placement to the detriment of smaller companies because the traditional advertising market was already saturated. He added that product placement encouraged the production of reality shows.

6. The Delegate of Austria concluded that no changes should be made to his document. He proposed that a select working group be appointed and assigned with the task of drafting the actual proposals for amendments to the Convention.

b. Questions concerning the scope of the Convention, jurisdiction, freedom of reception and retransmission, the duties of the Parties of the Convention, advertising directed at a single Party and the abuse of rights granted by the Convention

7. The Delegate of Poland presented the revised version of his document (see document T-TT (2005) 3). He began by stressing that the traditional distinction between the mass media and information society services was no longer very useful as the definition of the term “medium” had changed so much. This was reflected among other things by the definition adopted in Recommendation (2004) 16 of the Committee of Ministers on the right of reply in the new media environment. He then turned to the criteria he had used to help to determine “regulatable content”, a neologism he had invented himself to make it possible to establish the scope of any new regulations. He also talked about the preliminary proposals for amendments to the Convention which were appended to his document.

8. Following this presentation, several Delegates pointed out that one of the criteria adopted by the Delegate of Poland for his definition of “regulatable content”, namely “public relevance”, was not very clear. The observer from the European Commission said that most of the experts in Focus Group 1 had rejected this criterion as being too vague. One Delegate drew attention to the distinction that had been made between “television broadcasting” services (point-to-multipoint transmission) and “information society services” (point-to-point transmission) in the opinion delivered on 10 March 2005 by the Advocate-General in the case of Mediakabel B.V. against Commissariaat voor de Media pending before the EC Court of Justice. Several Delegates asked for the concept of information society services to be made clearer, along with co-regulation and self-regulation. The meaning of these terms varied greatly from one country to another. The observer from the European Commission informed the Committee that a study on co-regulation was currently being conducted as part of the review of the TWF Directive.

9. The Delegate of Poland pointed out that the Standing Committee’s review of the Convention was a key contribution to discussion in Europe on the future regulation of the audiovisual services. He asked the Delegates to consider three options which he believed to be emerging: (a) a revision that would align the Convention with the TWF Directive once the directive itself had been amended; (b) a totally new convention; or (c) a convention which would take in new issues but continue to apply existing regulations on all other matters.

10. Following this discussion, the Committee decided that the discussion document of the Delegate of Poland would be published on the Media Division website for consultation and comment by all interested parties. As with the Delegate of Austria document, contributions should not exceed four pages and should reach the Secretariat by 15 May 2005. Delegations were also asked to submit any further comments on the document by 15 May 2005. Contributions would be analysed by the Polish Delegate, who, if need be, would amend the document accordingly in time for the next Committee meeting.

c. Questions concerning the protection of minors and respect for human dignity

11. The Delegate of Germany presented her discussion document (document T-TT (2005) 6) and went over the main issues discussed in it.

12. She began by describing the legislation on the protection of minors which had been introduced in Germany in 2003. The new legislation took a horizontal approach to the regulation of audiovisual content, which ignored technical transmission methods. There were two levels of restriction on content – either completely inadmissible content or restricted-access content with access controlled by encryption or time limits. The emphasis under the new system was on co-regulation and, from an initial appraisal, it appeared to be working well.

13. With regard to the protection of minors in the Convention, the Delegate of Germany suggested that the Convention’s aims should be extended to cover all content transmitted by broadcasters irrespective of the technical means used. In order to protect minors, technical restrictions on access must be considered as an alternative to time limits. Introducing co-regulation into the protection of minors could be a very effective way of preventing abuses.

14. After this presentation, the Committee thanked the Delegate of Germany for her work and discussed the issues raised in her document in detail. One Delegate pointed out that technical restrictions were not just an alternative to time limits but could be combined with them. Other methods could also be used, such as pictograms indicating recommended viewing ages. Several Delegates emphasised the need for variable regulations taking account both of content and of the means of access to content. One Delegate pointed out that there was no reference in the document of the Delegate of Germany to the need to protect human dignity in the context of TV reality shows.

15. Following the discussion, it was decided that the Delegate of Germany would revise the document in the light of the Committee’s comments. It was also decided that all the Delegations could send any comments they wished to make on the issues dealt with in the document, regarding protection of minors and human dignity, to the Secretariat by 30 May 2005. The Committee would examine the revised document at its next meeting to take the discussion further.

d. New issues to be incorporated in the Convention

16. The Secretariat presented a note on any new issues to be dealt with in the Convention (document T-TT (2005) 7). The note had been revised in the light of the discussions at the 37th Standing Committee meeting and the two contributions which Delegations had sent the Secretariat.

17. The Secretariat gave a brief outline of the historical background to the Convention and the Standing Committee’s work, together with a description of the current geographical scope of the Convention. With regard to the future of the Convention, the Secretariat examined the European Commission proposals on broadening the scope of the Convention to cover three subjects – the role of public service broadcasting in a democratic society, media pluralism as well as "TV" and the role of independent regulatory bodies. The Secretariat said it was difficult to see how the matters the Commission was suggesting could be incorporated in the Convention without radically altering it. The Commission’s proposals on the work of the CDMM sub-committees set up as part of the action plan adopted at the Ministerial Conference could be discussed by the CDMM at its next meeting.

18. In the light of recent developments in the Al Manar case, the Secretariat raised the possibility of opening the Convention to countries not members of the Council of Europe.

19. The Secretariat made proposals for the Standing Committee to be more involved in the Media Division’s technical co-operation activities, particularly in countries which had ratified the Convention recently, and for it to be more open to external bodies.

20. Lastly, the Secretariat invited the Standing Committee to examine Latvia’s proposal for an amendment to Article 19 of the Convention.

21. Following this presentation, the Committee discussed in detail the issues raised by the Secretariat. Several Delegates said they agreed with the Secretariat about the Commission’s proposals. They felt that the CDMM should examine the proposals as part of the work of its sub-committees. Some Delegates considered that opening the Convention to non-member States should be looked at more carefully in view of the political and practical difficulties it could raise. They asked the Secretariat to collect more information on the present state of non-member ratifications of Council of Europe conventions, the types of convention involved and the extent of their implementation. One Delegate emphasised how important it was to open up the work of the Standing Committee to NGOs.

22. One Delegate pointed out that the Standing Committee was required to serve the countries that had ratified the Convention. Consequently, it was for the representatives of those countries to be more active and submit issues to the Committee. Moreover, the question has been asked as to how useful the Standing Committee’s work was under current operating methods. It would be preferable for the Committee to be playing its full role before there was any geographical extension of the Convention’s scope. An interpretation of the Convention which set more store by, for example, human rights could give it a higher profile.

23. The Chair drew a first set of conclusions from the discussion: he invites the Standing Committee’s members to make a more frequent use of the mechanisms at their disposal in the Convention; he asked the Secretariat to produce a study on the legal and practical implications of a ratification of the Convention by other non members states of the Council of Europe1 ; lastly, he invited the Standing Committee to open up to NGO participation.

24. The Standing Committee discussed the proposal of the Delegation of Latvia for an amendment to Article 19 of the Convention. The proposal was that a new paragraph be added to Article 19, requiring that authorities designated by Parties to the Convention consult and co-operate with authorities designated by other Parties before issuing licences to broadcasters under their jurisdiction who were able to broadcast to specific audiences living on the territory of other Parties.

25. Several Delegates supported Latvia’s proposal and said that it should be taken into account when the Convention was revised. The Chair asked the Secretariat to prepare a note giving a detailed analysis of Latvia’s proposal in the light of the current wording of the Convention.

(ii) Information by the Observer Delegate of the European Commission on progress of work concerning the review of the “Television Without Frontiers” Directive

26. The observer from the European Commission described the general background to the review of the TWF Directive, which had begun in 2003. Following a public consultation that year, three focus groups had been appointed and had met in 2004. The Commission had also commissioned two studies by external consultants, one on the impact of commercial messages and the other on co-regulation and self-regulation in the member States. In 2004, the Commission had adopted an interpretative communication on advertising and it was currently conducting a monitoring survey of implementation of advertising rules in the member States. At the end of May 2005, under the Luxembourg presidency, the conclusions of the various activities being conducted would be presented to government representatives. By the end of June 2005, the Commission would produce the thematic documents covering the various issues discussed during the review. In September 2005, under the United Kingdom presidency, a conference would be held in Liverpool, at which the thematic documents would be discussed. The Commission intended to present its first draft of the new regulations by the end of 2005. For the time being, it had not decided on future orientations. One option was a two-tier set of rules laying down general principles to be applied to “audiovisual-content services” and more detailed rules for “linear services”. Lastly, a basic legal framework could be established for all audiovisual commercial messages, which would be simpler than the rules applicable to traditional television.

5. Information by the Delegate of France on the case “Al Manar”

27. The Delegate of France was asked to talk about the Al Manar case. She explained that Al Manar was a Lebanese channel broadcast by the satellite operator, Eutelsat, which had televised an overtly anti-Semitic programme entitled “Diaspora”. As Eutelsat was a company incorporated under French law, France had jurisdiction to deal with any legal dispute relating to the company. Initially, the French audiovisual regulatory body, the CSA, had required Al Manar to enter into a legal agreement. Later, in the light of shortcomings highlighted by the Al Manar case, new legislation had increased some of the CSA’s powers. The regulatory body was now entitled to collect information enabling it to identify channels broadcast by satellite operators. The operators could be issued with compliance notices and punished, whereas under the old system, only the individual channels could be punished. The CSA could also apply to the administrative courts for suspension of the broadcasting rights of channels which broke rules intended to protect human dignity. Drawing on these new powers, the CSA had been able to take the Al Manar case to the relevant courts and punish Eutelsat.

28. However, the Delegate of France emphasised that, while France had been able to establish appropriate legal rules, the technical issues were more complicated as a channel that was part of a package could not be blocked separately from the other channels in the package. In the Al Manar case, the channel itself had withdrawn from the package.

29. Following the statement of the Delegate of France, several other Delegates pointed to the difficulty of regulating channels outside Europe because the licensing system varied from one country to another. One Delegate said that at the previous meeting of the heads of EU regulatory bodies, it had been agreed to set up a system for these bodies to exchange information on the channels retransmitted in each country.

Item 6 of the agenda: Access by the public to events of major importance

Information on the state of progress of the work carried out by the Group of Specialists on the democratic and social implications of digital broadcasting (MM-S-DB) on a draft Recommendation on the right to short reporting on major events where exclusive rights have been acquired

30. The Secretariat asked the Standing Committee to note the decision taken at the 62nd CDMM meeting to set up an ad hoc working group to finalise the Recommendation on the right to short reporting on major events. The group would be meeting in Strasbourg on 19 and 20 April 2005.

Item 7 of the agenda: Information on the results of the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, 10-11 March 2005) and their impact on the future work of the CDMM

31. The Chair asked the Secretariat and the Delegates who had attended the Ministerial Conference in Kyiv to give a brief outline of the outcome of the conference. The Secretariat gave a summary focusing on three aspects – the contribution of the NGO Forum, whose proposals had been partly adopted and incorporated into the final texts of the Conference, the message in the Final Declaration regarding the key role that the Council of Europe could play outside Europe and the adoption of a Resolution on the media situation in Ukraine. In connection with this, the question of Ukraine’s ratifying the ECTT had also been mentioned.

32. The Delegate of Poland, currently Chair of the CDMM, listed the three themes of the ministerial conference, which had been freedom of information and expression in times of crisis, cultural diversity and media pluralism in times of globalisation and human rights and regulation of the media and new communication services in the information society. The third theme was particularly important for the future work of the Standing Committee. One Delegate emphasised that the conference had been a success as the three themes had been particularly relevant. It had also been very appropriate for it to be held in Ukraine. It was a pity that there had not been enough time to look into the NGOs’ proposals in more detail.

Item 8 of the agenda: Other business

(i) Dates of forthcoming meetings

33. The Committee agreed to hold its next meeting in Strasbourg, on 3 and 4 October 2005.

(ii) Planning of future work

34. It was pointed out that at the next meeting, the French Delegation would present its discussion document on questions concerning the right to information and cultural objectives: access to major events, short reports, cultural objectives, media pluralism, right of reply (Articles 8, 9, 9a, 10 and 10a).

35. The Secretariat also pointed out that a report on any measures implementing the Recommendation on the protection of minors from pornographic programmes was to be submitted by the Parties to the Convention within a year of adoption of the Recommendation. Consequently, the Delegations were asked to send their report to the Secretariat by 1 September 2005.

36. The Chair asked the Delegations to send in any items for the next meeting agenda by 31 May 2005.

* * *

APPENDIX I

List of participants

CONTRACTING PARTIES / PARTIES CONTRACTANTES

Austria/Autriche

Mr Michael KOGLER, Federal Chancellery, Media Department, Coordination Information Society, WIEN

Bulgaria/Bulgarie

Mme Juliana TONCHEVA, Councillor, Council for Electronic Media, 69, Shipchensvi prohod blvd., SOFIA

Croatia/Croatie
[Apologised/excusée]
Ms Marina NEMČIĆ, Head of the International Relations Department, Croatian Radio and Television, ZAGREB

Cyprus/Chypre

Mr Andreas CHRISTODOULOU, Head of Media Section, Ministry of Interior, NICOSIA

Czech Republic/République Tchèque

Mr Artus REJENT, Lawyer, Media Section, Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic, PRAGUE

Estonia/Estonie

Mr Peeter SOOKRUUS, Head of Media and Copyright Department, Ministry of Culture, TALLINN

Finland/Finlande

Mrs Kristina HAUTALA-KAJOS, Senior Adviser, Ministry of Education and Culture, HELSINKI

France

Mme Anne PREDOUR, Chargée de mission à la Direction de l'Audiovisuel extérieur et des techniques de communication, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, PARIS

Mme Séverine FAUTRELLE, Chargée de mission au bureau des affaires européennes et internationales, Direction du Développement des Médias, PARIS

Germany/Allemagne

Ms Stephanie SCHMIEDING, Bavarian State Chancellery, Department Media and Film, MUNICH

Dr. Kathrin HAHNE, Principal Officer, Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, BONN

Hungary/Hongrie

Ms Viktória PÁLÓCZI-HORVÁTH, Counsellor, Ministry of Cultural Heritage, BUDAPEST

Dr György OCSKÓ, Head of Department, Presidential Secretariat, National Radio and Television Commission (ORTT), BUDAPEST

Italy/Italie

D.ssa Marina VERNA, Responsabile Divisione relativa alla radiofiffusione nell'ambito, Ministero delle Comunicazioni, Direzione Generale Concessioni e Autorizzazioni, ROMA

Ms Ivana NASTI, Funzionario del Servizio giuridico, Autorità per le garantie nelle communicazioni, Centro Direzionale, NAPOLI

Ms Daniela ESPOSITO VEZZOLER, Autorità per le garantie nelle communicazioni, European and International Affairs Office, NAPOLI

Ms Poala ALLEGRINI

Latvia/Lettonie

Ms Dace BUCENIECE, Legal counsellor, National Broadcasting Council, RIGA

Liechtenstein
[Apologised/excusé]
Mme Yvonne DIETRICH, Collaboratrice du Gouvernement de la Principauté de Liechtenstein, Regierungsgebäude, VADUZ

Lithuania/Lituanie

Mr Donatas KATKUS, Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania, VILNIUS

Malta/Malte

Mr Frank ATTARD, Assistant Director Broadcasting, Office of the Prime Minister, VALLETTA

Moldova

Ms Vera GALCOVSKI, Head of International Relations and European Integration Department, Coordinating Council of Audiovisual (CCA), CHISINAU

Norway/Norvège

Mr Olav GUNTVEDT, Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs, OSLO

Mr Øyvind CHRISTENSEN, Deputy Director General, Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs, OSLO

Poland/Pologne

Mr Karol JAKUBOWICZ, Director of the Strategy and Analysis Department, National Broadcasting Council, WARSAW

Portugal

M. Carlos LANDIM, Consultant juridique, Institut des médias, Presidencia do Conselho de Ministros, LISBONNE

Romania/Roumanie

Ms Delia MUCICĂ, Secretary General, Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs, BUCAREST

M. Petre DINCĂ, Expert, Conseil Audiovisuel de Roumanie, BUCAREST

Ms Cristina TREPCEA, Conseil Audiovisuel de Roumanie, BUCAREST

San Marino/Saint-Marin

Dott. Giuseppe CESETTI, Head Radio and Commercial Division, San Marino RTV, Repubblica San Marino

Slovak Republic/République Slovaque

Mr Luboś KUKLIŚ, Legal expert, Office of the Council for Broadcasting and Retransmission of the Slovak Republic, BRATISLAVA

Slovenia/Slovénie

Mr Boris BERGANT, Deputy Director General, RTV Slovenija, LJUBLJANA

Spain/Espagne

Mr Francisco Javier BARTOLOMÉ ZOFÍO, Head of Section, Telecommunications and Information Society's Secretary of State, Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce, Subdirección General de Medios Audiovisuales, MADRID

Switzerland/Suisse

Mr Daniel KOEHLER, Media expert, Office of Communication, BIENNE

"The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"/"L'ex-République Yougoslave de Macédoine"
[Apologised/excusée]

Turkey/Turquie

Mr Nihat CAYLAK, Expert, Turkish Radio and Television Supreme Council, ANKARA

United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni

Mrs Kate JONES, Deputy Head of International Broadcasting Policy Branch, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, LONDON

Holy See/Saint-Siège
[Apologised/excusé]
M. Régis DE KALBERMATTEN, Délégué du Saint-Siège au Comité Permanent sur la Télévision Transfrontière, SION

OBSERVER DELEGATES / DELEGUES OBSERVATEURS

Albania/Albanie
[Apologised/excusée]
Mrs Lidra ZEGALI, Director of the Press and Information Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TIRANA

Andorra/Andorre
[Apologised/excusé]

Armenia/Arménie
[Apologised/excusé]
Mr Hamlet GASPARIAN, Director of Information and Public Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, YEREVAN

Azerbaijan/Azerbaidjan
[Apologised/excusé]
Mr Gabil KOTCHARLY, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BAKU

Belarus
[Apologised/excusé]
Mr André GRINKIEVICH, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, MINSK

Belgium/Belgique
[Apologised/excusée]
Ms Alexandra KRICK, Ministère de la Communauté française de Belgique, BRUXELLES

Bosnia-Herzegovina/Bosnie-Herzégovine

Ms Helena MANDIĆ, Lawyer for Broadcasting issues, Broadcasting Issues, Communications Regulatory Agency, SARAJEVO

Denmark/Danemark
[Apologised/excusé]
Ms Vibeke PETERSEN, Special Adviser, Ministry of Culture, COPENHAGEN

Georgia/Géorgie
[Apologised/excusée]
Mrs Nato CHIKOVANI, Head of Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, TBILISI

Greece/Grèce

M. Yannis MANTZOURANIS, Conseiller de presse, Représentation Permanente de la Grèce auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, STRASBOURG

Mme Maria LOUCA, Attachée de Presse, Bureau de Presse de la Représentation Permanente de la Grèce auprès du Conseil de l’Europe, STRASBOURG

Iceland/Islande
[Apologised/excusé]
Ms Áslaug Dóra EYJÓLFSDÓTTIR, Adviser, Office of cultural affairs, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, REYKJAVIK

Ireland/Irlande
[Apologised/excusé]
Mr Joe MELEADY, Higher Executive Officer, Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, DUBLIN

Luxembourg
[Apologised/excusé]
Mme Isabelle Marinov, Ministère d'Etat, LUXEMBOURG

Monaco

M. Rémi MORTIER, Représentant Permanent Adjoint de Monaco auprès du Conseil de l'Europe, Résidence de l'Aar, STRASBOURG

Netherlands/Pays-Bas

Mr Maurice HERMANS, Senior Policy Adviser, Department for Media, Literature and Libraries (MLB)
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, DEN HAAG

Russian Federation/Fédération de Russie
[Apologised/excusé]
Mr Iouri AKINCHINE, Deputy Head of Information Analysis Department, Ministry of Press, Broadcasting and Mass Communications, MOSCOW

Serbia and Montenegro/Serbie Monténégro

Mr Djordje VUJNOVIĆ, International Relations Adviser, Broadcasting Agency of Montenegro, PODGORICA

Sweden/Suède

Mr Magnus LARSSON, Deputy Director, Legal Division, Ministry of Education and Culture, STOCKHOLM

Ukraine
[Apologised/excusée]
Ms Oksana DIAKUN, Third Secretary of the Information Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, KYIV

European Community/Communauté Européenne

M. Emmanuel JOLY, Administrateur, Commission europeénne - Direction Générale de la Société de l'Information et des Médias, BRUXELLES

SECRETARIAT

Mr Jan MALINOWSKI, Head of Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights - DG II / Chef de la Division Media, Direction Générale des Droits de l'Homme - DG II

Ms Alessia SONAGLIONI, Administrator, Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights - DG II / Administrateur, Division Media, Direction Générale des Droits de l'Homme - DG II

INTERPRETERS/INTERPRETES

Mr Philippe QUAINE
Mme Sally BAILEY
Mr Robert SZYMANSKI

* * *

APPENDIX II

Agenda

1. Opening of the meeting

2. Adoption of the agenda

    Working documents

    - Draft agenda
    (Document T-TT (2005) OJ1)

    - Annotations on the draft agenda
    (Document T-TT (2005) 4)

3. Signatures and ratifications of the revised Convention

    Information document

    - Secretariat Memorandum
    (Document T-TT (2005) 5)

4. The impact of technological and market changes in the broadcasting sector on the European Convention on Transfrontier Television

    (i) Continuation of the review of the provisions of the Convention

    a. Questions concerning advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping

    Working documents

    - Report of the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee
    (Document T-TT (2004) 11, item 4, paragraph 9)

    - Final version of the discussion document prepared by the Delegate of Austria on Questions concerning advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping
    (Document T-TT (2004) 13)

    - External contributions on questions concerning advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping
    (Document T-TT (2005) 8)

    b. Questions concerning the scope of the Convention, jurisdiction, freedom of reception and retransmission, the duties of the Parties to the Convention, advertising directed at a single Party and the abuse of rights granted by the Convention

    Working documents

    - Report of the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee
    (Document T-TT (2004) 11, item 4, paragraphs 10-16)

    - Final version of the discussion document prepared by the Delegate of Poland on questions concerning the scope of the Convention, jurisdiction, freedom of reception and retransmission, the duties of the Parties to the Convention, advertising directed at a single Party and the abuse of rights granted by the Convention
    (Document T-TT (2005) 3)

    c. Questions concerning the protection of minors and respect for human dignity

    Working documents

    - Report of the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee
    (Document T-TT (2004) 11, item 8, paragraph 28)

    - Background document on questions concerning the protection of minors and respect for human dignity prepared by the Secretariat
    (Document T-TT (2005) 1)

    - Discussion document on questions concerning the protection of minors and respect for human dignity prepared by the Delegate of Germany
    (Document T-TT (2005) 6)

    d. New issues to be incorporated to the Convention

    Working documents

    - Report of the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee
    (Document T-TT (2004) 11, item 4, paragraphs 17-18)

    - Secretariat memorandum
    (Document T-TT (2005) 7)

    - Contributions on new issues to be incorporated to the Conventions transmitted by the Delegations
    (Document T-TT (2005) 9)

    (ii) Information by the Observer Delegate of the European Commission on progress of work concerning the review of the “Television without frontiers” Directive

5. Information by the Delegate of France on the case “Al Manar”

6. Access by the public to events of major importance

    Information on the state of progress of the work carried out by the Group of Specialists on the democratic and social implications of digital broadcasting (MM-S-DB) on a draft Recommendation on the right to short reporting on major events where exclusive rights have been acquired

    Information documents

    - Report of the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee
    (Document T-TT (2004) 11, item 7, paragraph 24)

    - Report of the 62nd meeting of the CDMM
    (Document CDMM (2004) 23 addendum, item 10, paragraphs 47-55)

7. Information on the results of the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy (Kyiv, 10-11 March 2005) and their impact on the future work of the CDMM

    Information document

    - Texts adopted at the 7th European Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy
    (Document MCM (2005) 5)

8. Other business

    (i) Dates of forthcoming meetings

    (ii) Planning of future work


1 The Holy See, which is not a member of the Council of Europe, ratified the Convention on 7 January 1993.