INDIREG FINAL REPORT Indicators for independence and efficient functioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies for the purpose of enforcing the rules in the AVMS Directive” (SMART 2009/0001) by Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research – lead partner Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS), Central European University Cullen International Perspective Associates – sub-contractor February 2011 Institutions & Researchers Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research Researchers: Dr. Wolfgang Schulz (Project Leader), Jannes Beeskow, Stephan Dreyer; Regine Sprenger Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Researchers: Prof. Dr. Peggy Valcke, Dr. David Stevens, Dr. Eva Lievens (researcher at ICRI) Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS), Central European Uni- versity Researchers: Prof. Dr. Kristina Irion, Dr. Szabolcs Koppanyi, Sara Svensson Cullen International Researchers: Philippe Defraigne, Michèle Ledger, Valerie Willems, Nathalie Ve- reecke Perspective Associates Researcher: Tim Suter Homepage: http://www.indireg.eu Citation Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research/Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven/Center for Media and Communication Studies (CMCS), Central European University/Cullen Internation- al/Perspective Associates (eds., 2011): INDIREG. Indicators for independence and efficient functioning of audio- visual media services regulatory bodies for the purpose of enforcing the rules in the AVMS Directive. Study con- ducted on behalf of the European Commission. Final Report. February 2011. Disclaimer Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the European Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in the following report. The views expressed are those of the authors. The report does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission, nor does the European Commission accept responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained herein. © Copyright European Communities, 2011. Reproduction is authorised except for commercial purposes provided that the source is acknowledged TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 0. Introduction & aim of the study........................................................................................................................ 9 1. Theoretical Framework: Characteristics, Measurements and Definitions of independence and efficient functioning ................................................................................................... 11 1.1 General characteristics of independence and efficient functioning ................................. 12 1.2 Measuring independence and efficient functioning ........................................................................ 35 1.3 Working definition of “independence” and identification of indicators for the study ................................................................................................................................................................... 45 2. Analysis of institutional, regulatory and legal frameworks of regulatory bodies in the media sector in 43 countries ............................................................. 75 2.1 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................... 75 2.2 Development of institutional audiovisual media regulation – a historical overview ............................................................................................................................................... 76 2.3 Country summaries ................................................................................................................................................... 95 2.4 Issue Summaries ..................................................................................................................................................... 207 2.5 Categories of institutional, regulatory and legal frameworks ........................................... 243 3. Analysis of practical implementation and effectiveness of institutional, regulatory and legal conditions regarding regulatory bodies ........................................... 257 3.1 Theoretical background: De facto implementation and effectiveness ......................... 257 3.2 Status quo: Transformation of AVMS Directive in national law ........................................ 258 3.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 260 3.4 Stakeholder survey results ............................................................................................................................. 269 3.5 In-depth country analysis ................................................................................................................................ 277 4. Key characteristics of independent regulatory bodies under the AVMS Directive ................................................................................................................................ 303 4.1 Aims & methodology............................................................................................................................... .............. 303 4.2 Sector-specific requirements of independence and efficient functioning ................ 304 4.3 Essential characteristics and best practices of independent regulatory bodies ....... 356 5. Ranking tool for self-assessment of Independence and efficient functioning .... 367 5.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................. 367 5.2 Usage, interpretation and significance of the tool ...................................................................... 368 5.3 Weighting and ranking of the formal and de facto indicators ......................................... 370 References .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 409 Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 416 Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 417 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 418 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. This is the final report of the study entitled “Indicators for independence and efficient func- tioning of audiovisual media services regulatory bodies for the purpose of enforcing the rules in the AVMS Directive” (SMART 2009/0001), which has been conducted on behalf of the European Commission, following the Commission’s Invitation to Tender dated May 16, 2009, published in the Official Journal 2009/S 94-134142. The study has three general objectives: (1) A detailed legal description and analysis of the audiovisual media services regulatory bodies in the Member States, in candidate and potential candidate countries of the European Union and the EFTA countries, as well as four non-European countries; (2) an analysis of the effective implementation of the legal framework in these countries; and (3) the identification of key characteristics constituting an independent regulatory body in light of the AVMS Directive. 2. Various theoretical approaches on independent regulatory bodies and reasons for their es- tablishment are unfolded in the study. It can be concluded that there have been and are a number of arguments for separating the regulatory task from traditional public authorities (e.g. governments) and market players. However, the independence and autonomy of these regulatory bodies is seen to be associated with risks, which are usually minimalised by number of counterbalancing measures, such as appropriate accountability mechanisms. 3. Regulatory theory already provides tools to frame independence and introduce helpful dis- tinctions, such as the differentiation between formal and de facto (often also referred to as “operational”, “informal” or “real”) independence. Moreover, it also contains references to the fact that the notion of independence is linked to the efficient functioning of regulatory bodies. All these different dimensions are taken into account in the functional working def- inition of “independence” we use throughout this study: A regulator is independent if its governance structure ensures that its decision-making processes meet the normative requirements for which the independence of the regulator is necessary. 4. To map the regulator in a governance structure means to measure whether it is at arm’s length from all relevant actors, especially in the political sphere (government, parliament, other political forces),