Independence and effectiveness of the media authority Media authorities are key actors in regulating media in Europe and are increasingly be-

As for the transposition of Directive 2016/680, 7 countries score as being at medium risk (Austria, Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and 3 at high risk (Croatia, Ireland and Turkey). Although Ireland, has informed the European Commission that it has transposed Directive (EU) 2016/680 into national law via the Data Protection Act 2018, which was signed into law on May 24, 2018, given the continued operation of the 2011 Data Retention Act, with its generalised surveillance of all users of electronic communications (including journalists), it is hard to see how this is compatible with any legal prohibitions on the monitoring of journalists by law enforcement authorities (MPM2020 data collection, Ireland).

3.1.4. Independence and effectiveness of the media authority

Figure 3.1.4.a. Indicator on Independence and effectiveness of the media authority - Map of risks per country

Media authorities are increasingly becoming key actors in media regulation in Europe and, along with them, competition and data protection authorities. They can play a role in defining the standards for media policies in a media environment that is dramatically and constantly altered by new digital markets and services.

The 2018 revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) has intro- duced specific provisions defining the criteria guaranteeing the independence of media authorities within the scope of the AVMSD, geared at reinforcing their independence from political and commercial interests. In particular, the reform includes a require- ment for Member States to have independent regulatory authorities for audiovisual me- dia services, authorities that should be legally distinct from the executive power, and also functionally independent of their respective governments and of any other public or private body. The independent audiovisual media authorities should not be instruct- ed by any other body in relation to the exercise of their tasks and they should exercise their powers impartially and transparently. The AVMSD lays down that such national regulatory authorities or bodies must exercise their powers in accordance with the ob- jectives of the Directive, in particular media pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity, consumer protection, accessibility, non-discrimination, the internal market, and the promotion of fair competition. The tasks of the audiovisual media authorities should be

clearly defined in law, and authorities should have adequate resources and enforcement powers in order to carry out their functions effectively. Member States shall lay down in law transparent procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the head of a national regulatory authority, or of the members of the collegiate body. An appeal mechanism against the decision of a regulator at the national level shall also be provided.

The criteria listed in the Directive were previously used by the MPM to assess the inde- pendence and effectiveness of the media authorities.

Under the Independence and effectiveness of the media authority indicator, Turkey is the only country scoring high risk. RTUK, the Turkish authority, is reported to:

“fine dissident channels very often on very ambiguous grounds, like ‘contrary to the national and moral values of society, general morality and the principle of family protection” (Inceoglu et al., 2020). 8 countries register medium risk (Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland and Slovenia) while the vast majority (21 countries) register within the low risk range (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In MPM2020, the average score for the indicator on the Independence and effectiveness of the media authority is 24%, and although this remains well within the low risk range, the overall risk level has increased in comparison to MPM2017 (21%).

Figure 3.1.4.b. Indicator on Independence and effectiveness of the media authority - Averages per sub-indicator

The sub-indicators registering the highest risk under this indicator are those relating to appointment procedures and the effective Independence of the media authority. As identified in previous rounds of the MPM (2016 and 2017), this is due to the weakness of mechanisms that could push back against political and commercial influences and ensure the independence of the authorities through appropriate appointment procedures. Political appointment does not automatically mean that the authority will act in line with political pressure, but it clearly poses the risk of interference.

The sub-indicator on the independence of the media authority scores at a medium risk (38%), a significant increase of 9% in comparison to MPM2017 (29%), due to cases in which the authority has come under political or other pressures. Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain score medium risk for this sub-indicator. Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Turkey score a high risk. Fewer than half of the countries monitored have scored low risk for this sub-indicator (namely Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom).

Across the 30 countries under consideration, the assessment of the competencies/pow- ers of the authorities scores an overall low risk level (11%), though this represents an increase of 4% in comparison to MPM2017, the risk arising from a few cases in which government overruled the decisions of the media authority or where the authority was de facto prevented from exercising its scrutiny. The CMPF ad hoc report on Hungary (CMPF 2019) analysed the creation of the Central European Press and Media Foundation (KESMA) and its impact on media pluralism, including the fact that, by decree, the competition and media authorities were excluded from scrutinizing the merger. This can be viewed as a de facto limitation of their ability to exercise their competencies and ultimately impinges on their independence.

The sub-indicator on Budgetary independence scores overall a low risk, showing that, on average, regulatory safeguards for their funding allow the authorities to carry out their functions fully and independently and usually their budget is adequate for the media authorities to perform their functions. It must be stressed, nonetheless, that 8 countries score medium risk for this sub-indicator (Albania, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain) and 3 high (Luxembourg, Malta and Turkey).

Authorities are generally assessed as transparent about their activities and accountable to the public. Being transparent about their activities may include the publication of regular or ad hoc reports relevant to their work or the exercise of their missions. Almost all the countries are assessed as low risk for the sub-indicator on Accountability, except Cyprus, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Turkey.

3.1.5. Universal reach of traditional media and access to the