Search results (1064 cards)

Advanced search

On 20 July 2016, the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA- French "Independant Authority to Protect Audiovisual Communications Freedom") issued a press release in which it directly addresses to its Turkish counterpart. 

Read the 20 July 2016 press release from the CSA. 

The press release is short. Here is what it says: "Le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel exprime sa vive inquiétude à la suite de la décision du Conseil suprême de la radio et de la télévision (RTÜK), le régulateur des médias en Turquie, de retirer leurs droits d'émission à de nombreuses radios et télévisions. Le Conseil appelle son partenaire de longue date au sein de la Plateforme européenne des instances de régulation (EPRA) et du Réseau des institutions de régulation méditerranéennes (RIRM) à ne pas mettre en cause la liberté de communication et le pluralisme des médias, garanties fondamentales d'une société démocratique." (courtesy translation: "The Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisual expresses its deep concerns following the decision of the Supreme Council for Radio and Television (RTÜK), the Turkish Media Regulator, to withdraw the broadcasting rights of numerous radios and televisions. The Conseil calls upon its long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM) not to jeopardize the freedom of communication and media pluralism, which are fundamental guarantees in a democratic society").

The press release is entitled  "Le CSA s'inquiète du retrait par le régulateur turc des droits d'émission de radios et de télévision" (courtesy translation: "The CSA worries about the decision of the Turkish Regulator to withdraw broadcasting rights to radios and televisions"). 

____

Isn't this surprising? 

One would understand that the members of a Regulatory Authority, just as many people, would worry about what has been happening lately in Turkey. One can also share the view that these events might cause them to fear for the sake of public liberties and democracy in the country. 

Should a Regulatory Authority express its "worry" though?

Shouldn't it be the Government's role instead, within the framework of its 'diplomatic relations' with the state and with the use of an appropriate vocabulary, to express any 'worry'?

First of all, this is a salient example of the ambiguity of the Audiovisual Regulator. Indeed, while it itself insists on the fact that it acts as an economic regulator of a sector whose development and innovation falls under its watch and monitoring (which namely justifies the fact that he reviews candidacies to the presidency of public televisions channels), the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel had initially been created to preserve public liberties.

As such, people who still embrace the distinction that was previously assumed between public liberties regulation and economic regulation still consider the CSA - along with the CNIL - as the prototype of the former type of regulatory body. 

Here the CSA expresses its "deep concern" and sends a request not to "jeopardize liberties", which is the polite version of an injunction, to a foreign regulatory authority upon which it has no authority whatsoever. 

One can understand that the Regulator develops soft law about operators on which he has actual authority. But what about here? Shouldn't the adage Nemo plus juris apply? 

How is the Regulator competent to issue 'releases' in which he formulates desiderata towards a foreign body whose behavior is unappealing to him? Shouldn't the Quai d'Orsay (French Ministry for Foreign Affairs) be in charge? 

The Regulator took a political stance here, while it is known that a Regulatory Authority can only be legitimate when it stands as a technical authority; emphasizing on the political features of its job actually jeopardizes this legitimacy, all the more when international politics are involved (which is the case here).

However, the Regulator does preempt criticism in its press release: 

It starts indeed by stating that it only expresses this sort of 'feeling' because of the old ties that exists between the French and the Turkish Regulators: it essentially considers that friends can be true to one another, express a few criticism and expect changes. Friendship in the digital media and in politics would allow for many things. 

Besides, the CSA recalls the solidarity that prevails between the two regulators. Because they are "long-time partner within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and the Mediterranean Regulation Authorities Network (RIRM)", the French Regulator is enabled to express the Turkish Regulators its view on how it is jeopardizing democracy and how it should consequently stop.

Maybe the many ties that exists between the Regulators now enable them to give more or less stringent advice to one another, whereas diplomatic embassies now play an increasing economic role: how blur do the lines get!  

The Olympic Committee has just taken a stand: "sports competition" video games are contrary to the "Olympic values", because of their violence.

Can we do anything else? More or something else?

The case is a gap. Indeed, sports activities are regulated in the most traditional way, by administrative texts, administrative supervision, delegations, judicial control. There are rules, both legal and ethical. The most sophisticated rules have been developed, notably on "permissible violence" and that which is not, for example in the field of boxing or rugby, through the notion of "rules of the game".

Video games are at first sight quite different.

They are regulated by other bodies of rules and other regulators, such as the Regulatory Authority for Online Games, when they are played in the digital space.

But the Regulator of online games does not at first sight have competence to apply the "rules of the game" in the perspective of what sport is and the particular integration of the distinction between permissible violence and inadmissible violence.

Assuming that it extends its competence to that dimension, the fact that the blows carried are only "virtually" should necessarily modify the contour and the application of the rules, transforming this regulator of games into a regulator of sports.

Conversely, assuming that the sports regulators are concerned, it is necessary that the analogy between "game" and "sport" should be strong enough for the extension to take place legitimately.

The criterion that poses the problem is precisely le notion of "violence".

Read more below.

Website.

The European Commission adopted the Decision setting up a Financial Services User Group on 20 July 2010 (2010/C 199/02) to ensure proportionate user representation and expertise at all stages of the development of its policy on financial services.

FRENCH

Fiche thématique (finance) : La Commission européenne établit un groupe des utilisateurs des services financiers afin de faire une plus grande place aux opinions des utilisateurs dans le processus décisionnel européen

La Commission européenne a adopté la décision établissant un groupe des utilisateurs des services financiers le 20 juillet 2010 (2010/C 199/02) afin d'assurer une représentation proportionnelle des usagers et de profiter de leur point de vue à chaque stade du développement de sa politique envers les services financiers. 

GERMAN

Thematischer Bericht (Finanz): Die Europäische Kommission hat eine neue Gruppe für Nutzer von Finanzdienstleistungen (FSUG) eingesetzt, um die Vertretung der Nutzer im EU politischen Entscheidungsführungsprozess sicherzustellen.

Die Europäische Kommission hat in einer Beschluss vom 20. Juli 2010 (2010/C199/02) die Einsetzeung einer Nutzergruppe "Finanzdienstleistungen" angenommen. Diese Gruppe soll einer angemessenen Ver­tretung der Nutzer in allen Phasen der Ausarbeitung der Politik der Kommission im Bereich Finanzdienstleistungen gewährleisten.

ITALIAN

Finanza: La Commissione europea ha approvato un Gruppo per gli utenti dei servizi finanziari per rafforzare la loro voce in capitolo nel processo decisionale dell’Unione europea.

Il 20 luglio 2010 la Commissione europea ha adottato la decisione (2010/C 199/02) che prevede un Gruppo per gli utenti dei servizi finanziari al fine di assicurare una rappresentazione degli stessi e considerazione della loro competenza in ogni stadio dello sviluppo della sua politica in materia di servizi finanziari.

CHINESE

主题性报告 (金融)：欧盟委员会建立金融服务行业用户团体,强化金融服务使用者在欧盟决策程序中的意见地位

欧盟委员会于2010年7月20日通过了建立一个金融服务业用户团体的决定(2010/C 199/02)，以便在金融服务行业相关政策制订的每一阶段确保使用者的代表比例以及维护其意见建议。