To the members of the EP Committee for Legal Affairs
Subject: Rome II - Vote of the JURI Committee on the Report of Diana Wallis on the draft Regulation on applicable law to non-contractual obligations ( Rome II) on 20 June 2005.
European print and online media and journalists represented by ENPA, EPC, FAEP, FEP and EFJ call on MEPs to support the amendments to Article 6 of: Diana WALLIS, Klaus-Heine LEHNE, Jean-Paul GAUZES or Adeline HAZAN, in order to ensure freedom of expression and legal certainty for journalists and the media generally across the European Union.
The undersigned organisations would like to draw your attention to the vote that will take place on Monday 20 June in the JURI Committee on Rome II, the draft Regulation on applicable law to non-contractual obligations.
Article 6 of Rome II provides for a special rule to regulate which law would apply in cross border cases of defamation, violations of privacy and the right of reply. These are matters of high importance for printed and electronic newspapers, magazines and books and for the freedom of expression and of the press in general.
The Commission’s original proposal creates legal uncertainty for journalists and publishers and is therefore in need of amendment.
For over two years, the European media has been discussing with the Commission and Council and relevant Parliament deputies in order to arrive at a situation which does not prejudice the freedom of expression, but at the same time does not prejudice the rights of the individual.
In this respect, the draft Report of Mrs. Wallis contains an approach acceptable to the media and a number of amendments tabled reflect this approach. We therefore strongly urge you to support the following amendments when voting:
SUPPORT for Article 6:
<form name="form1" action="" method="post">
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 28, Alternative 2 of Diana Wallis
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox2" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 82 of Adeline Hazan
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox3" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 83 of Klaus-Heiner Lehne
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox4" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 84 of Jean- Paul Gauzès
At the same time, we would urge you to reject the following amendments concerning defamation, which would lead to uncertainty for the European press and journalists:
REJECT for Article 6:
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox5" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 27, Alternative 1 of Diana Wallis
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox6" value="checkbox"/> Amendment of the LIBE Committee
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox7" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 85 of Rainer Wieland and Klaus-Heiner Lehne
<input type="checkbox" checked="checked" name="checkbox8" value="checkbox"/> Amendment 86 of Manuel Medina Ortega
Background and Justification
ENPA, EPC, FAEP, FEP and EFJ have raised concerns about the dangers that the Commission’s original proposal on Art. 6 would create for the free flow of information across the EU and for the freedom of the press as guaranteed in each Member States and by the European Convention of Fundamental Rights.
Under the Commission’s proposal, publishers and journalists would be under constant threat of being sued worldwide under a myriad of different laws. Also it would enable the claimant to go “shopping” for the law (and jurisdiction) of his/her choice. Such an approach would without doubt create a climate of great legal uncertainty for the publisher and journalists and also risk severe limitations on the freedom of expression in the different Member States. In practice, it would be impossible for a publishing house or a journalist to check compliance with many different foreign laws before publication. Such an approach is particularly problematic when you consider the international character of online publication.
Unless this Article is amended, publications could be gagged by court order and editors prevented from publishing articles, even though the publication would have complied with their national laws on defamation and privacy. Journalists would be required to analyze the press laws of the country or countries where the media is accessible to decide whether their work could prejudice foreign legislation on privacy and defamation. This would inevitably increase self censorship while legal foreseeability is necessary for journalists to conduct their duties in the most fair and equitable manner.
This would adversely affect the free flow of information across the EU and limit the access by EU citizens to information from a diverse range of sources.
Although we have expressed these views already to Members of the European Parliament, and in particular to the Rapporteur Ms. Diana Wallis, and the draftsman in LIBE, we regret to see that a number of amendments proposed do not remove the risks mentioned above and, on the contrary, will open the door to forum and law shopping, thereby increasing legal uncertainty and preventing newspapers, magazines and journalists from carrying out their functions of informing the public.
We therefore call on the members of the JURI Committee to vote against Amendment 27 of Mrs. Wallis (Alternative 1), Amendment of the LIBE Committee, Amendment 85 or Mr. Wieland and Mr. Lehne and Amendment 86 of Mr. Medina Ortega.
Instead we recommend the amendments placed by Mrs. Wallis (Alternative 2), Mrs. Hazan, Mr. Lehne and Mr. Gauzes be accepted by the Committee. These provide for solutions ensuring legal certainty whilst respecting the freedom of expression across the European Union.
As indicated in the justifications for these amendments, any specific rule for the media for claims of defamation and violations of privacy must have regard to the fundamental principle of freedom of the press. The amendments establish that the country for which the publication (or broadcasting service) is mainly intended should form the basis of the rule, which can be determined by factors such as the language of publication or broadcast, the volume of sales or the audience size. In cases where it is not possible to determine which country the publication or broadcasting service is mainly intended, because of its international character, the law of the country in which editorial control is exercised would apply in order to provide legal certainty for international publications (and broadcasting services).
The undersigned European publishers’ and journalists organisations:
Aidan White - European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
Valtteri Niiranen - European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA)
Angela Mills Wade - European Publishers’ Council (EPC)
David Mahon - European Federation of Magazine Publishers (FAEP)
Anne Bergman-Tahon - Federation of European Publishers (FEP)
For any information, please contact:
EFJ - Pamela Morinière
European Federation of Journalists
Rue de la loi 155
Phone : 00 32 2 235 22 16
Email : Pamela.firstname.lastname@example.org
ENPA - Sophie Scrive
European Newspaper Publishers’ Association
Rue des Pierres 29 bte 8
Phone : 32 2 551 01 90
Fax : 32 2 551 01 99
e-mail : email@example.com
EPC - Angela Mills Wade
European Publishers Council
26 Avenue Livingstone
Phone: 32 2 231 1299
Fax: 32 2 230 7658
FAEP - David Mahon
European Federation of Magazine Publishers
Rue d’Arlon 15
Phone: 32 2 286 80 94
Fax: 32 2 2286 80 95
FEP- Anne Bergman-Tahon
Féderation des Editeurs Européens / Federation of European Publishers
204, Avenue de Tervuren
Phone: 32 2 770.11.10
Fax: 2 2 771.20.71