Irini Katsirea

Free movement of law students and lawyers in the EU: a comparison of English, German and Greek legislation

This article focuses on the linked themes of mobility within the European Union for law students and for lawyers. It highlights obstacles to cross-border legal education and legal practice across three Member States: England and Wales, Germany, and Greece. The European legal framework is outlined. The implications of recent case law of the European Court of Justice, on the conditions of access to higher education and financial support, are considered. Three main areas of concern are identified: admission arrangements; student finance; and the professional recognition of qualifications. The article compares the approach of the three Member States in each of these areas and explores conflicts between their domestic law provisions and European Union law. The article concludes by identifying ways in which ‘Europeanisation’ of legal education and the legal profession could be encouraged by facilitating law student mobility and by modernising the law curriculum.

Electronic press: ‘Press-like’ or ‘television-like’?

A notable development of recent times has been the exponential increase of video content available on newspaper websites. The technological convergence between press and broadcasting throws into sharp relief the historically disparate regulation of the two sectors. As long as no political consensus on regulatory convergence can be reached, the question of how to distinguish between text-based and video-based media in the online domain will remain relevant. In recent times, this question has surfaced in the context of the classification of newspaper publishers’ video sites as on-demand audiovisual media services (AVMS). This article examines the contrasting positions of the UK and Austrian regulatory authorities concerning the regulation of video material on the websites of print publications. The author argues that Ofcom’s approach makes it hard to predict the mixture that would bring a hybrid service within the scope of regulation. By contrast, the Austrian approach offers a pragmatic solution to a problem that is only beginning to emerge.

Digital terrestrial television licensing in Greece: curiouser and curiouser

Since their launching 25 years ago, private television stations in Greece operated under ‘temporary’ licences on the basis of legal provisions that had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece. A law, which was passed by the Greek Parliament on 24 October 2015, promised to put an end to this state of disorder by finally regulating the licencing of digital terrestrial television (DTT) providers. However, the new legislation proved extremely controversial, dividing government and opposition parties. The general outcry against the new licensing framework did not deter the government from granting only four ten-year licences through an auction procedure held by the Secretariat General of Information and Communication. The main criticisms voiced against this arrangement were the following: first, that it bypassed the independent regulatory authority Ethniko Symvoulio Radiotileorasis (ESR), and second, that the arbitrary limitation of the number of licenses placed commercial television under the tutelage of the state and reduced pluralism. The Greek government, on the other hand, contended that it was solely competent to regulate DTT licensing, that the Greek audio-visual market could not sustain more channels, and that the new regime would put an end to corruption in the sector. This article proposes to examine the validity of these arguments, and to discuss the impact of the new legislation on media freedom in Greece.

Press regulation in an era of convergence: An introduction

While the transition of traditional newspapers and magazines to the online space is gathering pace, and the literature on multimedia journalism is proliferating, little attention has been paid to date to the implications of convergence for the press in regulatory terms. One such regulatory dilemma arises from the proliferation of video content on newspaper websites. It is this question and others at the conjuncture of press freedom and the dynamics unleashed by convergence that the papers in this special section seek to shed light upon.

The Television Without Frontiers Directive

The TWF Directive, the forerunner to the AVMS Directive, is the main regulatory instrument for the audiovisual sector in Europe (Council of the EU, 1989). It was adopted in 1989 as a single-market initiative to establish a legal framework for the cross-border transmission of television programs. The directive was punctually amended in 1997 (European Parliament and Council of the EU, 1997), and more radically overhauled in 2007 (European Parliament and Council of the EU, 2007). It followed the paradigm of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television (ECTT), but had an altogether different motivation (Council of Europe, 1989). While the ECTT was embedded in the cultural policy tradition of the Council of Europe and sought to encour-age the free flow of information, the TWF Directive was inspired by the EU’s free-market orientation. It harmonized key areas that were particularly likely to hinder the free movement of television broadcasts across borders: the pro-motion of European works and works by independent producers; advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping; the protection of minors and public order; the right of reply; and, in its 1997 amended version, events of major importance to society. The coordination of national broadcasting laws was partial in that it did not cover all areas, and minimum, in that member states were free to impose higher standards on their broadcasting industry if they so wished (European Court of Justice, 2007).

Commercial Influences on Programme Content: The German and UK Approaches to Transposing EU Rules on Product Placement

Product placement has now been accepted as a permissible feature of contemporary television programming, as a result of changes introduced by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2007. But the process of reform and its implementation has manifested a high degree of uncertainty and concern regarding the advisability of such a transformation and its implications. This article discusses the solutions adopted in two countries, Germany and the United Kingdom. It is suggested that neither country has established a regime which enables viewers to have a clear understanding of the relationship between the producers or broadcasters and commercial funding. The replacement of the principle of separation with the principle of identification has exposed programmes to the vagaries of the marketplace even further without increasing transparency for the viewer. With the prospect of increased presence of product placement in the next few years, as production cycles come to reflect the new provisions, it is a matter of concern that better provision has not been made to protect editorial judgment.

How Far are National Broadcasting Orders Converging as a Consequence of European Media Law and Policy

[Summary of the book containing this chapter:] Harmonised and uniform international laws are now being spread across different jurisdictions and fields of law, bringing with them an increasing body of scholarship on practical problems and theoretical dimensions. This comprehensive and insightful book focuses on the contributions to the development and understanding of the critical theory of harmonisation.

Judicial review of party broadcasts in Germany and the United Kingdom.

This article examines the possibilities for editorial control of the content of party broadcasts by the broadcasting authorities in Germany and the United Kingdom and focuses, in particular, on the judicial review of this politically sensitive issue. First, it gives a brief overview of the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and media freedom in these two countries. Next, it examines in how far political parties have a right of access to television during and outside of election periods. Finally, the article discusses the limitations to which political speech is subject in Germany and the United Kingdom as these have been interpreted by the courts.