An Assessment of the Consistency of Hungary's Media Laws with ...

6 • Hungarian Media Laws in Europe
1/Media authority: independence
the body’s members; the autonomy of members in carrying out regulatory actions; and the general
level of protection from political interference. 41
Hence, in three of the nine examples (Austria, Italy, UK), the Government correctly cites that
the members or chairperson of these media authorities are appointed by the government and/
or ministries. However in all of these three cases, the expert reports indicate that the Hungarian
Government’s examples exclude key elements of the appointment processes and/or of the
regulatory scope and powers of the media authority referenced. For instance, in the Austrian
example the Government accurately states that the members of the Austrian Communications
Authority (KommAustria) are appointed by the head of state, however the statement omits that
all appointments are also preceded by a public tender and that KommAustria is not the sole
or most powerful regulatory body in Austria. The Federal Communications Board (BKS), a
majority of whose members are nominated by judicial authorities, oversees all of KommAustria’s
decisions and is the highest authority for audiovisual media in Austria. In the Italian example,
the Hungarian Government accurately describes the appointment process for the chairperson
of Italy’s Communication Regulatory Authority (AGCOM) but omits to mention that the
remaining members of the AGCOM Board are elected by Parliament. In addition, the Hungarian
Government accurately states that the members of the UK’s Ofcom are appointed by the
governmental ministries, but the example does not mention that these appointments are made
following an open hearing which are designed to serve as a “check” against direct governmental
influence. As the expert notes, the Ofcom Board, to which the Hungarian Government’s example
refers, also has no power to directly sanction media but rather this is managed by the Content
Board, a separate unit within Ofcom.
In six of the nine examples, the experts report that the Hungarian Government cites an incorrect
or former regulatory body and/or an inaccurate or outdated appointment procedure or law. When
assessing the current and/or correct regulatory bodies and appointment procedures, these experts
also conclude that the Government’s example inaccurately describes the level of governmental
influence over these bodies by excluding one or more formal or informal elements of the respective
appointment processes. Examples of these inaccuracies include:
• Belgium: The Hungarian Government’s example mixes the appointment procedures
for two different bodies within the CSA and omits the role of the French Community
Parliament in electing some of these members;
• Denmark:
The Hungarian Government’s example refers to the “Medie- og
tilskudssekretariatet” (MTS) which has not operated under that name since 2003.
The media regulator in Denmark is the Radio and Television Board (RTB); members
are appointed by the Minister of Culture and (one) by a civic group. However
according to the expert, the criteria for membership serve as an effective check against
governmental influence over this body.
• Ireland:
The Hungarian Government’s example refers to the Broadcasting Commission
of Ireland, which was replaced by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) in 2009,
and omits to mention the role of Parliament in appointing four of the nine members of
the BAI.
• Netherlands:
The Hungarian Government’s example is based on an outdated provision
in the Media Act, which was amended in 2008. According to the expert, although
members of the Media Authority are appointed by the Dutch Government, the
41 “Indicators for independence and efficient functioning of audiovisual media regulatory bodies for the purpose of
enforcing the rules in the AVMS Directive.” INDIREG: Preliminary Final Report. Hans Bredow Institute for Media Research
the Interdisciplinary Centre for Law & ICT (ICRI), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Center for Media and Communication
Studies (CMCS), Cullen International. January 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/docs/library/studies/regulators/
preliminary_final_report.pdf; pp 37-38.