The Council of Europe and the Venice Commission have issued legal opinions on a package of media legislation, including the draft law that introduces a series of amendments and additions to audiovisual legislation and has generated much debate and criticism in the public sphere. Both entities welcome the authorities’ efforts to bring the Audiovisual Media Services Code into line with European standards, but draw attention to some persistent shortcomings.
The Council of Europe and the Venice Commission have issued legal opinions on three draft laws recently drafted by members of the ruling party: a new media law, a draft amendment to the Audiovisual Media Services Code and a draft amendment to the Advertising Law.
WHAT THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE SAYS
In its opinion dated 2 April 2025, the CoE welcomes the fact that the authors of the amendments to the Audiovisual Media Services Code have taken into account several recommendations previously issued by the institution in order to bring the legal provisions into line with EU and Council legislation. On the other hand, additional comments remain valid regarding a number of definitions and the harmonization of several terms. It is also recommended that more specific criteria for the designation of trusted notifiers, who would report illegal content, be included in the Audiovisual Media Services Code. “In addition, the new proposals extend restrictions on disinformation, hate speech and content deemed harmful to public safety, giving the Broadcasting Council broader powers, but without sufficient clarity and procedural safeguards,” according to the document.
With regard to video-sharing platform services, the CoE draws attention to the requirement that, when notified by the BC of illegal content, platforms must respond within 24 hours. Various actions are mentioned: removing content, blocking access, placing a warning on the content or disabling the user’s account. However, “the proposed paragraph lacks clarity on what is illegal and what is harmful and what actions are required in relation to each. In addition, the notification and removal procedures must comply with the provisions of the Digital Services Act.”
The amendments also change the governance of the national public provider, transferring some powers from Parliament to the Supervisory Board: “This change aims to depoliticise the selection process for the director, but concerns remain about the independence of the Supervisory Board itself, which depends on the independence of the Broadcasting Council and the Press Council, which, according to the latest proposed amendments, would share responsibility for its composition. At the same time, the latest proposed amendments introduce provisions aimed at strengthening the institutional autonomy of national public media services.”
Furthermore, although the draft amendment to the Audiovisual Media Services Code proposes substantial changes to Article 13 of the Code, which refers to the principles of accurate information, the CoE considers that requiring media service providers to distinguish between facts and opinions and granting the BC the power to develop content rules in its regulations, particularly with regard to election campaigns and referendums, are also problematic and may affect self-regulatory mechanisms. It is therefore concluded that Article 13 is redundant and should be deleted in its entirety and replaced by a new Article 13 recognising and including co-regulatory and self-regulatory reference systems.
WHAT THE VENICE COMMISSION SAYS
The Venice Commission, in its opinion published on 16 June, notes that the amendments to the Audiovisual Media Services Code aim to ensure a level playing field for media service providers, including video-sharing platforms, as well as stricter oversight of disinformation and hate speech, and welcomes the fact that its previous recommendations have been partially implemented by removing vague and general terms.
The Commission also welcomes the objective of ensuring the independence of the BC and the TRM and considers that the proposed amendments to the composition and appointment of independent bodies have the potential to strengthen the role of the regulatory authorities. On the other hand, “despite these improvements, additional legal provisions should be introduced to ensure the transparency of public selection processes, reduce the risk of political interference and incorporate essential procedural safeguards”. The law should specify in more detail the criteria and procedures for appointing members of the BC proposed by civil society organisations, the Supervisory and Development Council of the public broadcaster, and the Director General of TRM, with a view to reducing discretionary power and establishing procedural safeguards.
The Commission also believes that media service providers affected by serious sanctions, in particular in the event of suspension or termination of broadcasting, should be given sufficient time to initiate judicial proceedings, and sanctions should be suspended until a court has decided whether they should remain in force.
Similarly, the authors insist on the implementation of a previous recommendation: the amendment of Article 5(2) of the Code and further clarification of the applicable quality standards for determining from which countries audiovisual programmes may be acquired. “In addition to the key recommendations mentioned above, the Venice Commission also recommends the full harmonisation of the provisions of the legislative package on the obligations of media service providers, audiovisual media service providers, video-sharing platforms and press publications, with regard to transparency of ownership, registration and assessment of media concentration, including the obligation to notify the intention to participate in a possible concentration,” according to the document.
CONTEXT
The draft amendment to the Code was developed by the Working Group on Improving Media Legislation, which includes representatives of several non-governmental organisations in the field and members of the relevant parliamentary committee. The document was registered with Parliament on 29 May. According to the explanatory note, the Media Services Code needs to be amended to bring audiovisual legislation into line with EU standards in the context of the European integration process. This mainly concerns the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the European Act on Media Freedom and the Digital Services Act (DSA).
At the same time, the amendments are intended to respond to new challenges in the field, including: the ambiguous definition of certain terms; the growing influence of video-sharing platforms, which are not adequately regulated and can facilitate the dissemination of illegal or harmful content; the lack of strict transparency mechanisms regarding the ownership and financing of media service providers, and others.
The first debates on the proposals were held in Parliament on 9 June, and several provisions of the draft law sparked discontent and criticism, including accusations of attempts at “censorship” by the ruling party. The main issues discussed were trusted flaggers, regulation of illegal content and video-sharing platforms, and the definition of disinformation. The chair of the parliament’s media committee, Liliana Nicolaescu-Onofrei, suggested a ten-day deadline for all interested parties to submit their proposals.
Earlier, Media Azi explained the provisions of the draft law aimed at removing TRM from parliamentary control and changing the mechanisms for appointing members of the BC and CSD, as well as those concerning video-sharing platforms, the definition of disinformation and increased penalties for media service providers.