Print
See related documents
Resolution 2065 (2015)
Increasing transparency of media ownership
1. The Parliamentary Assembly, emphasising
the fundamental importance of freedom of information through the
media in a democracy, recalls that media ownership transparency
is necessary to enable members of the public to form an opinion
on the value of the information, ideas and opinions disseminated
by the media.
2. In this respect, the jurisprudence of the European Court of
Human Rights requires pluralism and hence transparency of media
outlets and obliges the Parties to the European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5) to take positive measures to this end.
3. The Assembly recalls Article 6.2 of the European Convention
on Transfrontier Television (ETS No. 132), which requires that the
Parties to this convention ensure that information about the broadcaster
is made available, upon request, by the competent authority of the
transmitting Party, including the composition of the capital and
the nature, purpose and mode of financing of the programme service
the broadcaster provides or intends to provide.
4. In addition, Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)2 of the Committee
of Ministers on media pluralism and diversity of media content requires
that member States ensure that the public have access to specific information
about the ownership, management and editorial structures of media,
as well as their financing.
5. However, the Assembly notes with concern that media outlets
are frequently owned and controlled in a non-transparent manner,
either because of a lack of transparency obligations under domestic
law in member States or through non-transparent legal constructions
of indirect or hidden ownership, which is often linked to political
affiliations or economic or religious interests, or to the foreign
political propaganda interests of the true owner of a media outlet.
6. Moreover, because of the increased economic pressure and competition
through digital media, pluralism of media outlets is particularly
challenged. Media outlets have been taken over by larger media companies
or wealthy individuals, whose interests are less focused on independent
journalism or profitability, but rather on the possibility of leading
the opinion of a sector of the public at large. Through media concentration,
such opinion-leadership may have become dominant in some regional
or national markets.
7. While some member States have legislation which ensures transparency
of media ownership in compliance with the above standards, such
legislation is lacking in a large number of member States and the laws
of a few member States permit hidden or indirect media ownership,
thus attracting a delocalisation of media companies into their national
territory.
8. The Assembly therefore recommends that parliaments of the
member States review their legislation to ensure adequate transparency
of the ownership of, and influence over, media outlets (print media,
film, radio, television and Internet-based media), including the
disclosure of hidden ownership. In accordance with Article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights, such reporting obligations
should not be used to discriminate against foreign ownership of
media or to restrict the international dissemination of media products
and services. The recent challenges posed in several Council of
Europe member States, by media which are owned by the Government
of the Russian Federation and which are being used for foreign political
propaganda purposes, are a separate political issue which necessitates
further reflection by the relevant bodies of the Council of Europe.
9. The information to be disclosed about media outlets should
include the following:
9.1. their
legal names, legal seats and contact details, as well as the profit
or non-profit purpose or State ownership;
9.2. the names of the persons holding editorial responsibility
or the authors of the editorial content;
9.3. the names of the authors of third-party content, unless
the protection of journalistic sources requires that it be kept
secret or the right to freedom of expression of the author is likely
to be threatened beyond the limits of Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights;
9.4. the names and legal seats of their owners; where these
are third companies or other legal entities, their legal names and
legal seats, as well as the size of shareholding, unless such ownership concerns
an insignificant part of the media outlet;
9.5. the existence of co-operation contracts with other companies
or co-operation predominantly with a single advertising company;
9.6. information about the placement of advertisements or any
other contracts with State and local government institutions, as
well as with companies owned by them.
10. The above information and any relevant subsequent change in
its respect should be submitted by the media outlets concerned to
an independent national media authority. The public should have
free access to this information, presented in a meaningful way,
in electronic format, through the media’s websites and/or a centralised
online database published by the national media authority. The national
media authority (or other relevant public body) should be entitled
to monitor the respect of reporting obligations and failure to comply with
these obligations should be effectively ascertained and sanctioned.
11. In view of the complexity of media landscapes in Europe and
the complexity of the ownership structures of many media outlets,
member States should ensure compliance with transparency standards
through their regulatory authorities or other competent authorities.
It should be possible to bring complaints of non-compliance with
transparency standards before the competent authorities.