IRIS 2015-8 INTERNATIONAL GB-United Kingdom COUNCIL OF EUROPE Legislation to introduce copyright exception law with no European Court of Human Rights: Satakunnan Markki- accompanying levy scheme deemed unlawful ......... ..14 napörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland .............. ...3 HR-Croatia Council of Europe: Declaration on gender equality in the European film industry....................................4 Rules on ceding unutilised exclusive rights............. ..15 EUROPEAN UNION IE-Ireland Court of Justice of the European Union: Advocate Gen- Investigative reporters purchasing drugs online in pub- eral considers newspaper website containing video not lic interest ...............................................16 covered by AVMS Directive ............................ ...5 New media merger guidelines ......................... ..16 European Commission: Public consultation on the re- IT-Italy view of the Satellite and Cable Directive ............... ...6 AGCOM reviews the national frequency allocation plan for local television ..................................... ..17 NATIONAL AGCOM Public consultation on identification of emerg- BG-Bulgaria ing platforms for the purpose of marketing audiovisual Opinion of the Media Authority on direct and naturalistic sports rights .............................................18 Court of Rome rules Wikimedia Foundation not liable for suggestions in TV advertising .......................... ...6 Bulgarian media authority rules against distribution of content posted by users ............................... ..18 private channels via public service platforms .......... ...7 LU-Luxembourg CH-Switzerland Regulator imposes warning on RTL for breach of com- No recount in referendum on Radio and Television Act mercial communication rules .......................... ..19 amendment ........................................... ...7 NL-Netherlands Swisscom threatened with sanction for breaching cartel law with exclusive sports broadcasts......................8 New copyright contract law comes into Effect.......... ..20 Higher international profile for Swiss cinema..............8 RO-Romania DE-Germany Modification of the Public Audiovisual Services Law .... ..20 Federal Supreme Court quashes lower-instance rulings Modifications of the Audiovisual Law .....................21 in dispute over feed-in fees ............................ ...9 Legal provisions on the statute of orphan works ....... ..21 Repeated appearance of logo constitutes surreptitious Modification of the conditions for issuing and amending advertising ............................................ ..10 the retransmission notification...........................22 ES-Spain RS-Serbia New qualification criteria for audiovisual content ...... ..10 Privatization of remained publicly owned media ....... ..22 CNMC extends conditions for Antena 3 and La Sexta merger ................................................ ..11 RU-Russian Federation FI-Finland Supreme Court on Public Figures and Right to Image... ..23 Amended provisions on confidentiality of sources ...... ..12 SE-Sweden FR-France Broadcaster ordered to stop broadcasting violence .... ..24 Under urgent procedure, administrative court suspends UA-Ukraine classification licence for the film ‘Love’ ................ ..13 SACD calls for films to be shown on catch-up TV on Ban on Communist and Nazi Propaganda .............. ..24 France Télévisions ..................................... ..13 Protection of journalists enhanced ..................... ..25 Editorial Informations Documentation/Press Contact: Alison Hindhaugh Tel.: +33 (0)3 90 21 60 10; Publisher: E-mail: [email protected] European Audiovisual Observatory 76, allée de la Robertsau Translations: F-67000 STRASBOURG Olivier Mabilat, European Audiovisual Observatory (co- Tél. : +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 00 Fax : +33 (0) 3 90 21 60 19 ordination) Paul Green Katherine Parsons Marco Polo E-mail: [email protected] www.obs.coe.int Sarl Roland Schmid Nathalie Sturlèse Martine Müller- Comments and Contributions to: Lombard France Courrèges Katharina Burger Sonja [email protected] Schmidt Brigitte Auel Executive Director: Corrections: Susanne Nikoltchev Olivier Mabilat, European Audiovisual Observatory (co- Editorial Board: ordination) Sophie Valais et Francisco Javier Cabrera Maja Cappello, Editor Francisco Javier Cabrera Blázquez, Blázquez Barbara Grokenberger Julie Mamou Lucy Sophie Valais, Deputy Editors (European Audiovisual Turner Ronan Fahy Observatory) Ronan Fahy Michael Botein, The Media Center at the New York Law School Distribution: (USA) Media Division of the Directorate of Human Rights of Markus Booms, European Audiovisual Observatory the Council of Europe, Strasbourg (France) Andrei Richter, Tel.: Faculty of Journalism, Moscow State University (Russian +33 (0)3 90 21 60 06; Federation) Peter Matzneller, Institute of European Media E-mail: [email protected] Law (EMR), Saarbrücken (Germany) Bernhard Hofstötter, Web Design: Directorate General EAC-C-1 (Audiovisual Policy Unit) of Coordination: Cyril Chaboisseau, European Audiovisual the European Commission, Brussels (Belgium) Tarlach Observatory Development and Integration: www.logidee.com McGonagle, Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the Layout: www.acom-europe.com and www.logidee.com University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) ISSN 2078-6158 Council to the Editorial Board: 2015 European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg Amélie Blocman, Victoires Éditions (France) had published in 2002 taxation data on 1.2 million INTERNATIONAL persons. According to the domestic authorities, the publishing of taxation information to such an extent could not be considered journalism, but the process- ing of personal data which Satamedia had no right to COUNCIL OF EUROPE do. The Court’s judgment also contains a reference to the preliminary ruling of the CJUE of 16 December 2008, which found that the activities of Satamedia re- European Court of Human Rights: Satakun- lated to data from documents which were in the public nan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. domain under Finnish legislation, and could be classi- Finland fied as “journalistic activities” if their object was to disclose to the public information, opinions or ideas, irrespective of the medium which was used to trans- mit it. After proceedings at national level over eight years, and after a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice Leaving a broad margin of appreciation, the Euro- of the European Union (CJUE) on 16 December 2008 pean Court of Human Rights accepts the finding by (Case C-73/07), the European Court of Human Rights the Finnish authorities that the publication of personal (ECtHR) has delivered a judgment in a highly inter- data by Satamedia could not be regarded as jour- esting case of conflicting rights between the right of nalistic activity, in particular because the derogation privacy and the right to freedom of expression, in for journalistic purpose in the Personal Data Act (see the domain of protection of personal data and data also Article 9 of Protection of Personal Data Direc- journalism. The Court has come to the conclusion tive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995) was to be inter- that a prohibition issued by the Finnish Data Protec- preted strictly. The European Court is of the opinion tion Board that prohibited two media companies (Sa- that the Finnish judicial authorities have attached suf- takunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy) from ficient importance to Satamedia’s right to freedom of publishing personal data in the manner and to the expression, while also taking into consideration the extent Satamedia had published this data before, is right to respect for private life of those taxpayers to be considered a legitimate interference in the ap- whose taxation information had been published. The plicants’ right to freedom of expression and informa- Court finds that the restrictions on the exercise of tion. More precisely, the Finnish authorities forbade Satamedia’s freedom of expression were established Satamedia from collecting, saving and processing to convincingly by the Supreme Administrative Court, in a large extent taxation data, with the result that an line with the Court’s case law. In such circumstances essential part of the information published in the ap- the Court would require strong reasons to substitute plicant’s magazine Veropörssi could no longer be pub- its own view for that of the domestic courts. lished and an SMS-service was discontinued. The EC- tHR agrees with the Finnish authorities that the ap- The Court finally notes that Satamedia was not pro- plicants could not rely on the exception of journalis- hibited generally from publishing the taxation infor- tic activities, as the publication of the large amount mation about private persons, but only to a certain of taxation data by Satamedia was not justified by a extent. The fact that the prohibition issued lead to public interest. The Court accepts the approach of the the discontinuation of Veropörssi magazine and Sa- Finnish Supreme Administrative Court that it was nec- tamedia’s SMS-service was, according to the Court, essary to interpret Satamedia’s freedom of expres- not a direct consequence of the interference by the sion strictly, in order to protect the right of privacy Finnish authorities, but of an economic decision made of Finnish citizens. by Satamedia itself. The Court also takes into account that the prohibition laid down by the domestic author- The European Court recognises, however, the general ities was not a criminal