Brussels, 17 February 2023
WK 2185/2023 ADD 1
LIMITE
AUDIO
COMPET
CODEC
EDPS
DIGIT
DATAPROTECT
MI
JAI
DISINFO
SERVICES
FREMP
POLGEN
This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and
further distribution are under the sole responsibility of community members.
CONTRIBUTION
From:
General Secretariat of the Council
To:
Audiovisual and Media Working Party (Attachés)
Audiovisual and Media Working Party
N° Cion doc.:
COM (2022) 457 final
Subject:
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market
(European Media Freedom Act) Interinstitutional File 2022/0277 (COD) - COM
(2022) 457 final
- EMFA Regulation – Articles 17 to 19
- Comments from AT, FR, and IT delegations.
Delegations will find attached comments on the subject mentioned above (Interinstitutional File
2022/0277 (COD) - COM (2022) 457 final) from the following delegations: Austria, France, and Italy.
WK 2185/2023 ADD 1
TREE.1.B ATR/fco
LIMITE
EN

1 von 2
AT-PROPOSAL for amendments1 to the

Proposal for a
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framewirk for
media services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act) and amending Directive
2010/13/EU

(1) In Article 2 the  following definition is inserted between the definition of ‚programme‘ and the
definition of ‚press publication‘:

“4a.  current  affairs  content‘:  strictly  news-related  content  such  as  commentaries  on  news,
analysis of news developments and political positions on events in news.‘

(2) Article 11 paragraph 3 is amended (to read) as follows:

“3.  The  secretariat  shall  provide  administrative  and  organisational  support  to  the  activities  of  the
Board.  The  secretariat  shall  also  assist  the  Board  in  carrying  out  its  tasks.  In  fulfillment  of  its  tasks
according to paragraph 2 and to this paragraph the secretariat shall act only upon the instruction of
the Board or its Chair.“

(3) In Article 27 the following point 0 is inserted:

“0. Article 29 paragraph 2 letters (a), (b), (d), (e) and (f) of Directive 2010/13/EU are amended (to
read) as follows:
‚(a) to facilitate effective implementation of this Directive and promote the effective and consistent
application of the European Media Freedom Act through regular consultation on any practical problems
arising from their application, and particularly from the application of Article 2 of this Directive, as well
as on any other matters on which exchanges of views are deemed useful;‘
‚(b) to deliver own-initiative opinions or opinions requested by the Commission on the application by
the Member States of this Directive or of the European Media Freedom Act;‘
(c) [remains unchanged]2
‚(d) to discuss the outcome of regular consultations which the Commission holds with representatives
of media service providers, producers, consumers, manufacturers, service providers and trade unions and
the creative community;‘
‚(e) to facilitate the exchange of information between the Member States and the Commission on the
situation and the development of regulatory activities regarding audiovisual media services, taking account
of the Union’s audiovisual media policy, as well as relevant developments in the technical field;‘
‚(f) to examine any development arising in the media sector on which an exchange of views appears
useful.‘“

Rationale:
1. As Article 3 and 6 create rights and obligations also related to „current affairs content“, it needs a
clear and common understanding of the term. As the term (used in Directive 2010/13/EU and now also

1 [changes to the current text: bold and unterlined]
2 current text. „(c) to be the forum for an exchange of views on what matters should be dealt with in the
reports which Member States must submit pursuant to Article 16(3) and on their methodology;“

2 von 2
integrated in the Regulation) originates from the  European Convention on Transfrontier Television it is
obvious to use the same explanation as in Point 243 of the Explanatory Report to this Convention.
2. To secure the independance of the Board it is necessary to include the secretariat (in the guarantee
of  independence)  by  clearly  stating  that  -  whenever  the  secretariat  acts  in  fulfillment  of  its  duties  to
contribute  to the  execution of the  tasks  of the  Board (paragraph 2) and to support and assist the  Board
(paragraph 3) – it can only be bound by instructions of the Board and/or its Chair. For all other aspects –
such as questions relating to employment law, disciplinary law etc the employees fully remain within the
supervision and control of the Commission, who is responsible for the provision of the staff.
3.  According  to  Recital  (52)  of  DIRECTIVE  (EU)  2018/1808  the  Contact  Committee  „aims  at
facilitating an effective implementation of Directive 2010/13/EU and should be regularly consulted on any
practical  problems  arising  from  its  application.“  The  recital  also  statest  that  „the  work  of  the  Contact
Committee should not be limited to the existing audiovisual policy issues, but should also cover the relevant
developments arising in this sector.“
Following this fundamental idea of the co-legislators of establishing a forum of exchange  between
Member States and the  Commission  with regard to „policy issues“,  it is  only  consequent and  therefore
indispensable to amend also the tasks of this Comittee especially when it comes to media policy issues.

Written comments of the French delegation
following the meeting of the audiovisual group on February 8th, 2023

a) Article 15
The possibility granted to the European Commission to issue guidelines and opinions on the application of
the entire regulation and on all the national rules implementing the AVMS Directive seems to go beyond the
initial objectives of the proposal.
Currently, the AVMS Directive allows the Commission to issue guidelines on two fields only (media literacy
on the one hand, and calculation of the share of European works, the definition of low audience and low
turnover on the other). Without prejudice to the Commission's powers as guardian of the Treaties, article 15
should  emphasize  the  need  for  guidelines  on  article  17  (according  to  paragraph  6)  and  article  23  of  the
regulation. The French authorities have a reservation regarding the issuance of guidelines for article 21 and
would like to wait for the discussions on February 21 before taking a further stand.
Accordingly, this possibility should also be limited to article 7a and article 5 paragraph 2 of the AVMSD, which
purpose is directly related to this regulation.
Moreover, the AVMSD establishes a contact committee whose consultation appears to be useful in drawing
up the guidelines on article 7a and article 5(2) of AVMSD or on Chapter III of the EMFA.
Lastly, the French authorities propose to adjust recital 28 accordingly and to specify that national measures
taken under article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services
of  general  interest  shall  not  be  affected  by  article  3  of  Directive  2000/31/EC  in  order  to  guarantee  their
effectiveness.

Article 15
Article 15
Guidance on media regulation matters
Guidance on media regulation matters

1. The Board shall foster the exchange of best  1. The Board shall foster the exchange of best practices
practices  among  the  national  regulatory  among  the  national  regulatory  authorities  or  bodies,
authorities or bodies, consulting stakeholders,  consulting stakeholders, where appropriate, and in close
where  appropriate,  and  in  close  cooperation  cooperation  with  the  Commission,  on  regulatory,
with the Commission, on regulatory, technical  technical or practical aspects pertinent to the consistent
or practical aspects pertinent to the consistent  and  effective  application  of  this  Regulation  and  of  the
and effective application of this Regulation and  national rules implementing Directive 2010/13/EU.
of  the  national  rules  implementing  Directive
2010/13/EU.
2. Where the Commission issues guidelines related to the

application of articles 17 paragraphe 6, [21] and 23 of
2.  Where  the  Commission  issues  guidelines  this  Regulation  or  undermentioned  articles  of  the
related to the application of this Regulation or  national  rules  implementing  Directive  2010/13/EU,  the
the  national  rules  implementing  Directive  Board  shall  assist  provide  it  by  providing  expertise  on
2010/13/EU,  the  Board  shall  assist  it  by  regulatory,  technical  or  practical  aspects,  as  regards  in
providing expertise on regulatory, technical or  particular:
practical aspects, as regards in particular:
(a)  the  appropriate  prominence  of  audiovisual  media

services of general interest under Article 7a of Directive
(a) the appropriate prominence of audiovisual  2010/13/EU;
media services of general interest under Article   (b)  making  information  accessible  on  the  ownership
7a of Directive 2010/13/EU;
structure of media service providers, as provided under
Article 5(2) of Directive 2010/13/EU.

The  Commission  shall  also  consult  the  Contact
(b)  making  information  accessible  on  the  Comitee  established  by  article  29  of  Directive
ownership  structure  of  media  service  2010/13/EU  when  issuing  the  abovementioned

1/10

providers,  as  provided  under  Article  5(2)  of  guidelines  related  to  articles  7a  and  5(2)  of
Directive 2010/13/EU.
Directive2010/13/EU  and  articles  17,  [21]  and  23  of
this Regulation.

3. The Commission may issue an opinion on any matter
3.  The Commission may  issue  an  opinion  on  related to the application of Chapter III of this Regulation
any  matter  related  to  the  application  of  this  and under Articles 7a and 5(2) of of the national rules
Regulation  and  of  the  national  rules  implementing  Directive  2010/13/EU.  The  Board  shall
implementing  Directive  2010/13/EU.  The  provide its expertise to assist the Commission in this
Board  shal   assist  the  Commission  in  this  regard, where requested.
regard, where requested.
4.  The  Board  shall  foster  cooperation  between  media

service  providers,  standardisation  bodies  or  any  other
4. The Board shall foster cooperation between  relevant  stakeholders  in  order  to  facilitate  the
media  service  providers,  standardisation  development  of  technical  standards  related  to  digital
bodies  or  any  other  relevant  stakeholders  in  signals or design of devices or user interfaces controlling
order to facilitate the development of technical  or  managing  access  to  and  use  of  audiovisual  media
standards related to digital signals or design of  services.
devices  or  user  interfaces  controlling  or
managing  access  to  and  use  of  audiovisual
media services.

Recital 28
Recital 28

(28) Ensuring a consistent regulatory practice  (28)  Ensuring a consistent regulatory practice regarding
regarding  this  Regulation  and  Directive  this Regulation and Directive 2010/13/EU is essential. For
2010/13/EU is essential. For this purpose, and  this purpose, and to contribute to ensuring a convergent
to  contribute  to  ensuring  a  convergent  implementation  of  EU  media  law,  the  Commission  may
implementation  of  EU  media  law,  the  issue guidelines on matters covered by both articles 17,
Commission may issue guidelines on matters
[21] and 23 of this Regulation and articles 7a and 5(2)
of Directive 2010/13/EU when needed. When deciding to
covered by both this Regulation and Directive  issue  guidelines,  the  Commission  should  consider  in
2010/13/EU  when  needed. When  deciding  to  particular regulatory issues affecting a significant number
issue  guidelines,  the  Commission  should  of Member States or those with a cross-border element.
consider  in  particular  regulatory  issues  This is the case in particular for national measures taken
affecting  a  significant  number  of  Member  under  Article  7a  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  on  the
States  or  those  with  a  cross-border  element.  appropriate prominence of audiovisual media services of
This  is  the  case  in  particular  for  national  general interest. In view of the abundance of information
measures  taken  under  Article  7a  of  Directive  and  the  increasing  use  of  digital  means  to  access  the
2010/13/EU on the appropriate prominence of  media, it is important to ensure prominence for content of
audiovisual media services of general interest.  general interest, in order to help achieving a level playing
In view of the abundance of information and the  field  in  the  internal  market  and  compliance  with  the
increasing use of digital means to access the  fundamental right to receive information under Article 11
media, it is important to ensure prominence for  of  the Charter  of  Fundamental Rights of  the Union.  In
content  of  general  interest,  in  order  to  help  order  to  guarantee  their  effectiveness,  national
achieving  a  level  playing  field  in  the  internal  measures taken under Article 7a of Directive 2010/13/EU
market  and  compliance  with  the  fundamental  on  the  appropriate  prominence  of  audiovisual  media
right to receive information under Article 11 of
services  of  general  interest  shall  not  be  affected  by
the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  article  3  of  Directive  2000/31/EC  Given  the  possible
Union.  Given  the  possible  impact  of  the  impact of the national measures taken under Article 7a on
national  measures  taken  under  Article  7a  on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  media  market,  and
the  functioning  of  the  internal  media  market,  guidelines  by  the  Commission  would  be  important  to
guidelines  by  the  Commission  would  be  achieve legal certainty in this field. It would also be useful
important to achieve legal certainty in this field.  to  provide  guidance  on  national  measures  taken  under
It would also be useful to provide guidance on  Article  5(2)  of  Directive  2010/13/EU  with  a  view  to

2/10

national measures taken under Article 5(2) of  ensuring  the  public  availability  of  accessible,  accurate
Directive 2010/13/EU with a view to ensuring  and up-to-date information related to media ownership. In
the  public  availability  of  accessible,  accurate  the process of preparing its guidelines, the Commission
and  up-to-date  information  related  to  media  should  be  assisted  by  consult  the  Board.  The  Board
ownership.  In  the  process  of  preparing  its  should  in  particular  share  with  the  Commission  its
guidelines, the Commission should be assisted  regulatory, technical and practical expertise regarding the
by  the  Board.  The  Board  should  in  particular  areas and topics covered by the respective guidelines.
share  with  the  Commission  its  regulatory,
technical and practical expertise regarding the
areas  and  topics  covered  by  the  respective
guidelines.

b) Article 17:
The French authorities welcome this provision, which acknowledges the particular role that very large online
platforms  play  in  providing  access  to  media  services  and  content.  They  suggest  amending  article  17  to
improve its effectiveness and clarity. They consider that it should be clearly stated that "restriction" of content
based on the platform’s terms and conditions are covered by the mechanism, in addition to “suspension” of
the provision of the online intermediation service.
Further, the French authorities insist on the need to provide, without any uncertainty, that the statement of
reasons shal  be communicated to the media service provider and that the media service provider may be
heard by the platform within a proper timeframe, before the restriction is effective.
They also agree with the suggestion from several other Member States during the latest group that media
service providers should be entitled to challenge the decision of a very large online platform not to accept a
self-declaration.  They  therefore  suggest  referring  this  dispute  to  a  certified  out  of  court  settlement  body,
inspired by article 21 of the DSA. The French authorities recognise that directly referring to article 21 of the
DSA in article 17 of the EMFA would be a concise drafting solution, however after further analysis, they
consider that article 21 of the DSA includes some elements which are specific to the DSA and would require
adapting the mechanism to the EMFA regulation (mention of “individuals”, “notices” and of the certification
by Digital Services Coordinators, fee-charging system depending on the outcome of the dispute, etc.). The
French authorities submit a proposal for a new article 17a which essentially copies article 21 of the DSA and
adapts its DSA-specific elements to the EMFA regulation (deletion of the paragraph on notices, certification
by the Board rather than the DSC, amendment of the fee charging system).
The French authorities understand the Commission’s explanations regarding the supervision of Section 4.
However,  to  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  the  mechanism,  they  suggest  that  the  Board  may  issue  an
opinion and recommend actions to be taken when no amicable solution is found pursuant to paragraph 4 of
Article  17.  If  a  very  large  online  platform  does  not  follow  the  Board’s  opinions  or  recommendations,  the
Commission should also consider this when evaluating the service’s compliance with the DSA.
Regarding recital 31, the French authorities suggest simplifying it so as to recall the idea that online platforms
shall implement Article 17 of the EMFA proposal, without prejudice to other existing instruments for combating
the dissemination of illegal content, in particular the Copyright Directive.
Proposals for amendments:

Article 17
Article 17
Content of media service providers on very
Content of media service providers on very large online
large online platforms
platforms

1. Providers of very large online platforms shall  1. Providers of very large online platforms shall provide a
provide  a  functionality  allowing  recipients  of  functionality  allowing  recipients  of  their  services  to
their services to declare that:
declare that:
(a)  it  is  a  media  service  provider  within  the  (a)  it  is  a  media  service provider  within  the  meaning  of
meaning of Article 2(2);
Article 2(2);
(b)  it  is  editorially  independent  from  Member  (b) it is editorially independent from Member States and

3/10

States and third countries; and
third countries; and
(c) it is subject to regulatory requirements for  (c) it is subject to regulatory requirements for the exercise
the exercise of editorial responsibility in one or  of editorial responsibility in one or more Member States,
more  Member  States,  or  adheres  to  a  co- or  adheres  to  a  co-regulatory  or  self-regulatory
regulatory  or  self-regulatory  mechanism  mechanism  governing  editorial  standards,  widely
governing
editorial
standards,
widely  recognised and accepted in the relevant media sector in
recognised and accepted in the relevant media  one or more Member States.
sector in one or more Member States.
1a. A media service provider whose declaration to a

provider  of  a  very  large  online  platform  has  been
rejected  shall  be  entitled  to  select  any  out-of-court

dispute  settlement  body  that  has  been  certified  in

accordance  with  Article  17a  in  order  to  resolve
disputes  relating  to  those  decisions.  The  first

subparagraph is without prejudice to the right of the

media  service  provider  concerned  to  initiate

proceedings  to  contest  those  decisions  by  the
providers  of  online  platforms  before  a  court  in

accordance with the applicable law.

2.  Where  a  provider  of  very  large  online  2. Where a provider of very large online platform decides
platform decides to suspend the provision of its  to  suspend  the  provision  of  its  online  intermediation
online  intermediation  services  in  relation  to  services in relation to content provided by a media service
content provided by a media service provider  provider  that  submitted  a  declaration  pursuant  to
that  submitted  a  declaration  pursuant  to  paragraph 1 of this Article or to restrict the visibility of
paragraph 1 of this Article, on the grounds that  such  content,  on  the  grounds  that  such  content  is
such content is incompatible with its terms and  incompatible  with  its  terms  and  conditions,  without  that
conditions, without that content contributing to  content contributing to a systemic risk referred to in Article
a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of the  26  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [Digital  Services
Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [Digital  Services  Act],  it  shall  take  all  possible  measures,  to  the  extent
Act], it shall take all possible measures, to the  consistent  with  their  obligations  under  Union  law,
extent  consistent  with  their  obligations  under  including  Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [Digital  Services
Union  law,  including  Regulation  (EU)  Act],  to  communicate  to  the  media  service  provider
2022/XXX
[Digital
Services
Act],
to  concerned the statement of reasons accompanying that
communicate  to  the  media  service  provider  decision,  as  required  by  Article  4(1)  of  Regulation  (EU)
concerned
the
statement
of
reasons  2019/1150, and to provide the media service provider
accompanying  that  decision,  as  required  by  with  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  the  statement  of
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150, prior  reasons, within 24 hours, prior to the suspension or the
to the suspension taking effect.
restriction taking effect.
3. Providers of very large online platforms shall  3. Providers of very large online platforms shall take all
take  all  the  necessary  technical  and  the necessary technical and organisational measures to
organisational  measures  to  ensure  that  ensure  that  complaints  under  Article  11  of  Regulation
complaints under Article 11 of Regulation (EU)  (EU)  2019/1150  by  media  service  providers  that
2019/1150  by  media  service  providers  that  submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph 1 of this
submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph  Article are processed and decided upon with priority and
1  of  this  Article  are  processed  and  decided  without undue delay.
upon with priority and without undue delay.

4.  Where  a  media  service  provider  that
submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph  4.  Where  a  media  service  provider  that  submitted  a
1 considers that a provider of very large online  declaration  pursuant  to  paragraph  1  considers  that  a
platform  frequently  restricts  or  suspends  the  provider of very large online platform frequently restricts
provision  of  its  services  in  relation  to  content  or  suspends  the  provision  of  its  services  in  relation  to
provided by the media service provider without  content  provided  by  the  media  service  provider  without
sufficient  grounds,  the  provider  of  very  large  sufficient  grounds,  the  provider  of  very  large  online
online  platform  shall  engage  in  a  meaningful  platform  shall  engage  in  a  meaningful  and  effective
and effective dialogue with the media service  dialogue  with  the  media  service  provider,  upon  its
provider, upon its request, in good faith with a  request, in good faith with a view to finding an amicable
view  to  finding  an  amicable  solution  for  solution  for  terminating  unjustified  restrictions  or
terminating
unjustified
restrictions
or  suspensions and avoiding them in the future. The media

4/10

suspensions and avoiding them in the future.  service  provider  may  notify  the  outcome  of  such
The  media  service  provider  may  notify  the  exchanges to the Board.
outcome of such exchanges to the Board.
4a.  In  case  an  amicable  solution  is  not  found,  the

matter may be referred to the Board, which may issue
an opinion and recommend measures to be taken.

4b.  In  cases,  where  a  very  large  online  platform

repeatedly  does  not  take  into  account  opinions  or

recommended  measures  issued  by  the  Board,  the
Commission shall consider this in its assessment of

the  compliance  of  the  very  large  online  platform  or

search  engine  with  its  obligations  relating  to

systemic  risks  mitigation  measures  pursuant  to
Regulation 2022/2065.
5. Providers of very large online platforms shall
make  publicly  available  on  an  annual  basis  5.  Providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  shall  make
information on:
publicly available on an annual basis information on:
(a)  the  number  of  instances  where  they  (a)  the  number  of  instances  where  they  imposed  any
imposed any restriction or suspension on the  restriction or suspension on the grounds that the content
grounds that the content provided by a media  provided  by  a  media  service  provider  that  submitted  a
service provider that submitted a declaration in  declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article
accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article is  is incompatible with their terms and conditions; and
incompatible  with  their  terms  and  conditions;  (b) the grounds for imposing such restrictions.
and

(b) the grounds for imposing such restrictions.

6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and  6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and effective
effective  implementation  of  this  Article,  the
Commission may issue guidelines to establish  implementation of this Article, the Commission may issue
guidelines  to  establish  the  form  and  details  of  the
the form and details of the declaration set out  declaration set out in paragraph 1, including modalities
in paragraph 1.
of involvement of relevant civil society organisations
and,  where  relevant,  of  independent  authorities  or
bodies in the review of the declarations, and address
any potential abuse of the functionality.

Article 17a
Out-of-court dispute settlement

1.  Where  a  media  service  provider  has  selected  an
out-of-court  dispute  settlement  body  pursuant  to
paragraph 1a of Article 17, both parties shall engage,
in good faith, with the selected certified out-of-court
dispute settlement body with a view to resolving the
dispute.
The  certified  out-of-court  dispute  settlement  body
shall  not  have  the  power  to  impose  a  binding
settlement of the dispute on the parties.
2.  The  Board  shall,  for  a  maximum  period  of  five
years, which may be renewed, certify the body, at its
request,  where  the  body  has  demonstrated  that  it
meets all of the following conditions:

5/10

(a)  it  is  impartial  and  independent,  including
financially  independent,  of  providers  of  online
platforms and of media service providers ;
(b)  it  has  the  necessary  expertise  in  relation  to  the
issues arising in the protection of freedom of speech,
of  media  freedom  and  media  diversity  online,
allowing  the  body  to  contribute  effectively  to  the
settlement of a dispute;
(c) its members are remunerated in a way that is not
linked to the outcome of the procedure;
(d) the out-of-court dispute settlement that it offers is
easily
accessible,
through
electronic
communications  technology  and  provides  for  the
possibility  to  initiate  the  dispute  settlement  and  to
submit the requisite supporting documents online;
(e) it is capable of settling disputes in a swift, efficient
and cost-effective manner and in at least one of the
official languages of the institutions of the Union;
(f)  the  out-of-court  dispute  settlement  that  it  offers
takes place in accordance with clear and fair rules of
procedure that are easily and publicly accessible, and
that  comply  with  applicable  law,  including  this
Article.
3.  Certified  out-of-court  dispute  settlement  bodies
shall report to the Board, on an annual basis, on their
functioning,  specifying  at  least  the  number  of
disputes  they  received,  the  information  about  the
outcomes of those disputes, the average time taken
to resolve them and any shortcomings or difficulties
encountered.
They
shall
provide
additional
information at the request of the Board.
The Board shall, every two years, draw up a report on
the functioning of the out-of-court dispute settlement
bodies  that  they  certified.  That  report  shall  in
particular:
(a) list the number of disputes that each certified out-
of-court  dispute  settlement  body  has  received
annually;
(b) indicate the outcomes of the procedures brought
before  those  bodies  and  the  average  time  taken  to
resolve the disputes;
(c)  identify  and  explain  any  systematic  or  sectoral
shortcomings  or  difficulties  encountered  in  relation
to the functioning of those bodies;
(d)  identify  best  practices  concerning  that
functioning;
(e) make recommendations as to how to improve that
functioning, where appropriate.
Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall
make their decisions available to the parties within a
reasonable  period  of  time  after  the  receipt  of  the
complaint.

6/10

4.  The  fees  charged  by  the  out-of-court  dispute
settlement body shall be reasonable and shall in any
event not exceed the costs incurred by the body.
Certified out-of-court dispute settlement bodies shall
make the fees, or the mechanisms used to determine
the fees, known to the media service providers and to
the provider of the online platform concerned, before
engaging in the dispute settlement.
5. The Board shall revoke the certification it has given
an  out-of-court  dispute  settlement  body  if  it
determines,  following  an  investigation  either  on  its
own  initiative  or  on  the  basis  of  the  information
received by third parties, that the out-of-court dispute
settlement body no longer meets the conditions set
out in paragraph 2. Before revoking that certification,
the  Digital  Services  Coordinator  shall  afford  that
body  an  opportunity  to  react  to  the  findings  of  its
investigation  and  its  intention  to  revoke  the  out-of-
court dispute settlement body’s certification.
6.  The  Board  shall  publish  a  list  of  the  out-of-court
dispute settlement bodies that they have certified in
accordance  with  paragraph  3,  including  where
applicable the specifications referred to in the second
subparagraph of that paragraph, as well as the out-
of-court dispute settlement bodies the certification of
which they have revoked, on a dedicated website that
is easily accessible, and keep it up to date.
7.  This  Article  is  without  prejudice  to  Directive
2013/11/EU  and  alternative  dispute  resolution
procedures  and  entities  for  consumers  established
under that Directive.

(31)
Very  large  online  platforms  act  for  (31)
Very large online platforms act for many users as
many users as a gateway for access to media  a  gateway  for  access  to  media  services.  Media  service
services.  Media  service  providers  who  providers who exercise editorial responsibility over their
exercise  editorial  responsibility  over  their   content  play  an  important  role  in  the  distribution  of
content play an important role in the distribution  information and in the exercise of freedom of information
of information and in the exercise of freedom of  online. When exercising such editorial responsibility, they
information  online.  When  exercising  such  are expected to act diligently and provide information that
editorial responsibility, they are expected to act  is trustworthy and respectful of fundamental rights, in line
diligently  and  provide  information  that  is  with  the  regulatory  or  self-regulatory  requirements  they
trustworthy  and  respectful  of  fundamental  are subject to in the Member States. Therefore, also in
rights,  in  line  with  the  regulatory  or  self- view of users’ freedom of information, where providers of
regulatory requirements they are subject to in  very large online platforms consider that content provided
the Member States. Therefore, also in view of  by such media service providers is incompatible with their
users’ freedom of information, where providers  terms  and  conditions,  while  it  is  not  contributing  to  a
of  very  large  online  platforms  consider  that  systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU)
content  provided  by  such  media  service  2022/XXX  [the  Digital  Services  Act],  they  should  duly
providers is incompatible with their terms and  consider freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance
conditions,  while  it  is  not  contributing  to  a  with Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act]
systemic  risk  referred  to  in  Article  26  of  and  provide,  as  early  as  possible,  the  necessary
Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [the  Digital  explanations to media service providers as their business
Services  Act],  they  should  duly  consider  users in the statement of reasons under Regulation (EU)
freedom and pluralism of media, in accordance  2019/1150  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the
with  Regulation  (EU)  2022/XXX  [the  Digital  Council. To minimise the impact of any restriction to that
Services Act] and provide, as early as possible,  content  on  users’  freedom  of  information,  very  large

7/10

the  necessary  explanations  to  media  service  online platforms should endeavour to submit, within 24
providers  as  their  business  users  in  the  hours,  the  statement  of  reasons  prior  to  the  restriction
statement  of  reasons  under  Regulation  (EU)  taking effect without prejudice to their obligations under
2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of  Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act]. In
the  Council.  To  minimise  the  impact  of  any  particular, this Regulation should not prevent a provider
restriction to that content on users’ freedom of  of  a  very  large  online  platform  to  take  expeditious
information, very large online platforms should  measures  either  against  illegal  content  disseminated
endeavour to submit the statement of reasons  through  its  service,  including  measures  taken  in
prior  to  the  restriction  taking  effect  without  compliance with EU legislation such as Directive (EU)
prejudice to their obligations under Regulation  2019/790, or in order to mitigate systemic risks posed by
(EU)  2022/XXX  [the  Digital  Services  Act].  In  dissemination  of  certain  content  through  its  service,  in
particular, this Regulation should not prevent a  compliance  with  Union  law,  in  particular  pursuant  to
provider of a very large online platform to take  Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act].
expeditious  measures  either  against  il egal  (…)
content disseminated through its service, or in
order  to  mitigate  systemic  risks  posed  by
dissemination  of  certain  content  through  its
service,  in  compliance  with  Union  law,  in
particular  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EU)
2022/XXX [the Digital Services Act].

(…)

(33)
To  this  end,  providers  of  very  large  (33)  To  this  end,  providers  of  very  large  online
online platforms should provide a functionality  platforms  should  provide  a  functionality  on  their  online
on  their  online  interface  to  enable  media  interface to enable media service providers to declare that
service  providers  to  declare  that  they  meet  they meet certain requirements, while at the same time
certain  requirements,  while  at  the  same  time  retaining the possibility not to accept such self-declaration
retaining the possibility not to accept such self- where they consider that these conditions are not met.
declaration  where  they  consider  that  these  Where providers of very large online platforms do not
conditions are not met. Providers of very large  accept  such  self-declarations,  the  media  service
online  platforms  may  rely  on  information  provider  should  be  entitled  to  appeal  this  decision
regarding  adherence  to  these  requirements,  before out-of-court settlement bodies certified by the
such as the machine-readable standard of the  Board. Providers of very large online platforms may rely
Journalism  Trust  Initiative  or  other  relevant  on  information  regarding  adherence  to  these
codes  of  conduct.  Guidelines  by  the  requirements, such as the machine-readable standard of
Commission  may  be  useful  to  facilitate  an  the Journalism Trust Initiative or other relevant codes of
effective implementation of such functionality,  conduct. Guidelines by the Commission may be useful to
including  on  modalities  of  involvement  of  facilitate an effective implementation of such functionality,
relevant  civil  society  organisations  in  the  including  on  modalities  of  involvement  of  relevant  civil
review  of  the  declarations,  on  consultation  of  society organisations and, where relevant, of relevant
the  regulator  of  the  country  of  establishment,  independent authorities or bodies in the review of the
where  relevant,  and  address  any  potential  declarations, on consultation of the regulator of the
abuse of the functionality.
country of establishment, where relevant, and address
(…)
any potential abuse of the functionality.

(…)
(35)
Providers of very large online platforms  (35)
Providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  should
should  engage  with  media  service  providers  engage  with  media  service  providers  that  respect
that  respect  standards  of  credibility  and  standards  of  credibility  and  transparency  and  that
transparency and that consider that restrictions  consider that restrictions on their content are frequently
on  their  content  are  frequently  imposed  by  imposed  by  providers  of  very  large  online  platforms
providers of very large online platforms without  without  sufficient  grounds,  in  order  to  find  an  amicable
sufficient grounds, in order to find an amicable  solution  for  terminating  any  unjustified  restrictions  and
solution  for  terminating  any  unjustified  avoiding them in the future. Providers of very large online
restrictions  and  avoiding  them  in  the  future.  platforms should engage in such exchanges in good faith,
Providers of very large online platforms should  paying particular attention to safeguarding media freedom
engage  in  such  exchanges  in  good  faith,  and  freedom  of  information.  In  case  an  amicable
paying  particular  attention  to  safeguarding  solution is not found, the matter may be refered to the
Board, which could issue an opinion and recommend

8/10

media freedom and freedom of information.
measures  to  be  taken.  However,  when  a  very  large
online platform repeatedly fails to take into account
opinions  [and  recommended  measures]  issued  by
the  Board,  the  Commission  should  take  it  into
account in its assessment of the compliance of the
very large online platform with its obligations relating
to  systemic  risks  mitigation  measures  pursuant  to
the Digital Services Act.

c) Article 18:
As they had indicated in previous working groups, the French authorities welcome the structured dialogue.
In the field of news media, the promotion and recommendation of content often aims to retain users’ attention,
and therefore exposes them to content that is relevant to their interests and opinions. This practice does not
always take into account, on the one hand, the reliability of the content in question, nor on the other hand the
need to present diverse and pluralistic information. This leads both to the promotion of sometimes unreliable
content and to the locking up of users in information bubbles, which is detrimental to the quality of public
debate and the proper functioning of democratic institutions.
To address these issues, the French authorities wish to reiterate their proposal to ask the Board and the
Commission to encourage the drafting of a voluntary code of conduct at EU level by those concerned by
Article 18. This Code would aim to ensure the best visibility of content of services of general interest to the
public  on  very  large  online  platforms,  as  well  as  promote  a  pluralistic  representation  of  such  services.
Similarly to the Code of Practice on Disinformation, the Code could include precise objectives and indicators
which would be evaluated by the Board and the Commission and would address promotion of content on a
wide range of interfaces. The Code could become binding for a given very large online platform pursuant to
Article 45 of the DSA, as a systemic risk mitigation measure.
Proposals for amendments:

Article 18
Article 18
Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue and Code of conduct

1.  The  Board  shall  regularly  organise  a  1.  The  Board  shall  regularly  organise  a  structured
structured dialogue between providers of very  dialogue between providers of very large online platforms,
large  online  platforms,  representatives  of  representatives  of  media  service  providers  and
media service providers and representatives of  representatives of civil society to discuss experience and
civil  society  to  discuss  experience  and  best  best  practices  in  the  application  of  Article  17  of  this
practices in the application of Article 17 of this  Regulation,  to  foster  access  to  diverse  offers  of
Regulation, to foster access to diverse offers of  independent media on very large online platforms and to
independent  media  on  very  large  online  monitor adherence to self-regulatory initiatives aimed at
platforms  and  to  monitor  adherence  to  self- protecting  society  from  harmful  content,  including
regulatory  initiatives  aimed  at  protecting  disinformation and foreign information manipulation and
society  from  harmful  content,  including  interference.
disinformation
and
foreign
information
manipulation and interference.
2. The Board shall report on the results of the dialogue to
2. The Board shall report on the results of the  the Commission.
dialogue to the Commission.
3.  The  Commission  and  the  Board  shall  encourage

and  facilitate  the  drawing  up  of  voluntary  codes  of

conduct  at  Union  level  by  providers  of  very  large
online  platforms,  representatives  of  media  service
providers  and  representatives  of  civil  society  to
promote  visibility  and  pluralism  of  media  service
providers which meet the criteria set out in paragraph
1 of Article 17 on very large online platforms.

9/10

4.  Providers  of  very  large  online  platforms  shall
provide the Board with all the necessary information,
when requested, for the purpose of the involvement
of the Board pursuant to articles 17(4), (4a), (4b) and
18(1) and (2) of this regulation.

(36a) The Board should also encourage and facilitate
the  drawing  up  of  voluntary  codes  of  conduct  at

Union  level  by  providers  of  very  large  online
platforms, representatives of media service providers
and  representatives  of  civil  society  to  promote
visibility and pluralism of media service providers.

10/10

IT COMMENTS
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common framework for media
services in the internal market (European Media Freedom Act)
Interinstitutional File 2022/0277 (COD) - COM (2022) 457 final
Italian amendments to Art. 17-18 EMFA

General Remark: Italy welcomes Article 17, but it considers that it is necessary to introduce additional measures in addition to the obligation of
negotiation in good faith between the parties. Main Italian remarks on article 17 are here summarized:
Paragraph 1: we think that the self-declarations must be easily verifiable in an independent way by anyone who may be concerned. Furthermore, in
order to prevent unjustified decisions to be taken by Vlops, there must be and independent complaint and redress mechanism.
Paragraph 2: the wording must be consistent with paragraph 4, where it is written “restricts or suspends”. Furthermore, assessment compatibility
criteria with Vlops’ terms and conditions are to be made explicit by the Act, in order to guide evaluations in a an appropriate and transparent way
and therefore make any decisions consistent and predictable.
Paragraph 4: the expression “frequently” is too vague. On the other side, is preferable avoiding any exact definitions (e.g. “more than three times in
a quarter”) and, in any case, the media service provider must always has the right to request a dialogue, even after a single decision that might be
considered unjustified.
End of paragraph 4: there must be a reinforcement beyond the expression “may notify”. Furthermore, should the dialogue fail, the media service
provider has the right to appeal to the court or to the same complaint mechanism provided for in paragraph 2.
As far as article 18 is concerned, Italy doesn’t have amendments to be proposed.

IT COMMENTS
Original text
Proposed amendments
Explanation
Section 4

Provision of media services in a digital
environment
Article 17
Article 17

Content of media service providers on very
Content of media service providers on very
large online platforms
large online platforms
1. Providers of very large online platforms
1. Providers of very large online platforms
La verifica del rispetto dei requisiti previsti
shall provide a functionality allowing
shall provide a functionality allowing
dall’autodichiarazione è fondamentale, perché
recipients of their services to declare that:
recipients of their services to declare that:
dal possesso di tali requisiti discendono le
(a) it is a media service provider within the
(a) it is a media service provider within the
restanti disposizioni dell’articolo 17. E’ quindi
meaning of Article 2(2);
meaning of Article 2(2);
indispensabile che sia prevista una modalità
(b) it is editorially independent from Member
(b) it is editorially independent from Member
indipendente per verificare il rispetto dei
States and third countries;
States and third countries;
requisiti dichiarati dai fornitori dei servizi di
and (c) it is subject to regulatory requirements
and (c) it is subject to regulatory requirements
media. E’ inoltre necessaria la previsione di
for the exercise of editorial responsibility in
for the exercise of editorial responsibility in
affidare a un soggetto terzo la vigilanza e la
one or more Member States, or adheres to a
one or more Member States, or adheres to a
competenza di ricevere i reclami dei fornitori

IT COMMENTS
co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanism
co-regulatory or self-regulatory mechanism
di servizi di media nel caso in cui le
governing editorial standards, widely
governing editorial standards, widely
piattaforme ritengano non valide le
recognised and accepted in the relevant media
recognised and accepted in the relevant media
autodichiarazioni.
sector in one or more Member States.
sector in one or more Member States.
Member States shall ensure that media
service providers self-declarations can be
easily verified.
Member States shall also provide an
effective and expeditious complaint and
redress independent mechanism.
2. Where a provider of very large online
2. Where a provider of very large online
Il testo del comma 2 non è coerente con il
platform decides to suspend the provision of
platform decides to restrict and or to
comma 4, perché nel comma 2 si parla di
its online intermediation services in relation to  suspend the provision of its online
“sospensione” mentre nel comma 4 di
content provided by a media service provider
intermediation services in relation to content
“restrizione e sospensione”. E’ quindi
that submitted a declaration pursuant to
provided by a media service provider that
necessario integrare il comma 2 per prevedere
paragraph 1 of this Article, on the grounds that  submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph
il più ampio spettro di situazioni.
such content is incompatible with its terms and  1 of this Article, on the grounds that such
Inoltre, è necessario esplicitare i criteri e le
conditions, without that content contributing to  content is incompatible with its terms and
modalità con le quali le grandi piattaforme
a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of the
conditions, without that content contributing to  sono legittimate ad effettuare la valutazione di
Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services
a systemic risk referred to in Article 26 of the
compatibilità con i propri termini e condizioni.

IT COMMENTS
Act], it shall take all possible measures, to the
Regulation (EU) 2022/XXX [Digital Services
extent consistent with their obligations under
Act], it shall take all possible measures, to the
Union law, including Regulation (EU)
extent consistent with their obligations under
2022/XXX [Digital Services Act], to
Union law, including Regulation (EU)
communicate to the media service provider
2022/XXX [Digital Services Act], to
concerned the statement of reasons
communicate to the media service provider
accompanying that decision, as required by
concerned the statement of reasons
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150,
accompanying that decision, as required by
prior to the suspension taking effect.
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1150,
prior to the suspension taking effect.
In order to assess the content compatibility
with their terms and conditions, Very large
online platforms refer to the following
criteria: …

3. Providers of very large online platforms

shall take all the necessary technical and
organisational measures to ensure that
complaints under Article 11 of Regulation

IT COMMENTS
(EU) 2019/1150 by media service providers
that submitted a declaration pursuant to
paragraph 1 of this Article are processed and
decided upon with priority and without undue
delay.
4. Where a media service provider that
4. Where a media service provider that
Il termine "frequentemente" appare troppo
submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph
submitted a declaration pursuant to paragraph
vago e comunque anche un’unica rimozione
1 considers that a provider of very large online  1 considers that a provider of very large online  deve poter essere oggetto di reclamo.
platform frequently restricts or suspends the
platform frequently restricts or suspends the
La procedura di reclamo prevista non è
provision of its services in relation to content
provision of its services in relation to content
efficace ai fini della tutela dei fornitori di
provided by the media service provider
provided by the media service provider
servizi di media; è necessario introdurre
without sufficient grounds, the provider of
without sufficient grounds, the provider of
misure ulteriori oltre all’obbligo di
very large online platform shall engage in a
very large online platform shall engage in a
negoziazione in buona fede tra le parti, come
meaningful and effective dialogue with the
meaningful and effective dialogue with the
ad esempio la previsione del ricorso a
media service provider, upon its request, in
media service provider, upon its request, in
un’Autorità terza indipendente o il
good faith with a view to finding an amicable
good faith with a view to finding an amicable
riconoscimento di un diritto di ricorso al
solution for terminating unjustified restrictions  solution for terminating unjustified restrictions  giudice o all’Autorità nazionale competente.
or suspensions and avoiding them in the
or suspensions and avoiding them in the
Inoltre, la norma non dice quali sono le
future. The media service provider may notify
future.
conseguenze nel caso in cui la soluzione
the outcome of such exchanges to the Board.
The media service providers have always
amichevole in seguito al dialogo significativo
the right to appeal to the court or to the
non venga trovata; se la possibilità di

IT COMMENTS
competent National Authority, through the
introdurre sanzioni per il mancato rispetto
effective and expeditious complaint and
delle previsioni da parte delle piattaforme può
redress independent mechanism provided
risultare eccessivo, si dovrebbe almeno
for in paragraph 2.
rafforzare l'obbligazione prevedendo che le
The media service provider may notify the
piattaforme debbano in ogni caso informare il
outcome of such exchanges to the Board.
Comitato/la Commissione dell'esito del
dialogo anziché, com'è nella proposta attuale,
Very large online platform shall notify to
la semplice comunicazione facoltativa
the Board the outcome of such dialogue
dell'esito degli scambi da parte del fornitore di
and/or the outcome of such complaint and
servizi di media
redress independent mechanism.

5. Providers of very large online platforms

shall make publicly available on an annual
basis information on:
(a) the number of instances where they
imposed any restriction or suspension on the
grounds that the content provided by a media
service provider that submitted a declaration in
accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article is

IT COMMENTS
incompatible with their terms and conditions;
and
(b) the grounds for imposing such restrictions.
6. With a view to facilitating the consistent and

effective implementation of this Article, the
Commission may issue guidelines to establish
the form and details of the declaration set out
in paragraph 1.

Article 18
Article 18

Structured dialogue
Structured dialogue
1. The Board shall regularly organise a

structured dialogue between providers of very
large online platforms, representatives of
media service providers and representatives of
civil society to discuss experience and best
practices in the application of Article 17 of this
Regulation, to foster access to diverse offers of
independent media on very large online
platforms and to monitor adherence to self-
regulatory initiatives aimed at protecting

IT COMMENTS
society from harmful content, including
disinformation and foreign information
manipulation and interference.
2. The Board shall report on the results of the

dialogue to the Commission.

Document Outline