Conflit entre la présidence et les consommateurs sur les règles relatives à la publicité[en] 

The 'Television without Frontiers' Directive is currently under review, which, the Commission claims, is necessary because of the new digital environment. The emergence of broadband and wireless internet, 3G mobile telephony and a large range of hybrid end-user devices allow for the emergence of 'television-like services', which, the Commission argues, compete with traditional TV and should therefore be regulated the same way. This may result in the directive being renamed into 'Audiovisual without Frontiers'. 

At the same time, end-user devices such as digital video recorders allow users to time-shift TV broadcasts and to skip over advertisement breaks. In order to make up for the loss in advertising potential, TV operators ask not only for longer advertising breaks to be allowed and limits to be lifted on the kinds of broadcasts within which these breaks can be placed, but also for forms of advertising to be authorised which can't easily be skipped. This refers especially to the disputed practice of product placement, where advertisers pay for items and brand names to be featured in TV productions.

Disputes on these issues involve member states, Parliament groups, industries and consumer advocates. 

Four weeks prior to the vote in Parliament on the former Television without Frontiers Directive, the Education, Youth and Culture Council, which meets in Brussels on 13 and 14 November 2006, discusses a proposal by the Finnish Presidency . The paper deals with the main controversial aspects of the Directive: scope, product placement, qualitative and quantitative advertising rules.

• Scope:    
  • The current directive concerns television only.
  • The Commission proposes to extend the scope to so-called linear multimedia broadcasts on the internet, which, together with TV broadcasts would be named 'audiovisual media services' (AMS). AMS would be defined as "a service as defined by Articles 49 and 50 of the Treaty the principal purpose of which is the provision of moving images with or without sound, in order to inform, entertain or educate, to the general public by electronic communications networks".
  • The rapporteur, Ruth Hieronymi (EPP-ED, Germany) and other parliamentarians propose to add the principle of "editorial responsiblity" to those criteria.
• Product placement:  
  • Currently, product placement is illegal in most EU member states.
  • In its proposal, the Commission wants to leave the choice to member states whether to authorise product placement.
  • Germany is opposed to product placement and would like to see it outlawed throughout the EU.
  • The rapporteur proposed for product placement to be allowed, subject to certain conditions. The product placement would have to be made clear, it could only take place in fictional programmes directed at adults and in sports broadcasts.
• Quantitative advertising rules: 
  • The present directive foresees a maximum advertising time of 12 minutes per hour. No breaks are allowed in broadcasts of less than 35 minutes. 
  • The Commission proposes to keep the 12-minute limit, but to allow advertising in all broadcasts. 
  • Germany and the UK propose to scrap all quantitative limitations to advertising. 
  • France would like to keep the present rules.  
• Qualitative advertising rules:
  • The present directive already allows for a number of limitations, concerning for example advertising for tobacco and alcohol and advertising to kids. 
  • The Commission's proposal did not foresee any major changes to those rules. 
  • Amendments in the Parliament aim at outlawing advertising of unhealthy food, which contains high amounts of fat, sugar or salt, to children
  • The Finnish proposal would scrap these additional limitations proposed by the Parliament. 

BEUC, the European Consumers' Association, said: "According to the co-decision procedure, the Parliament must vote first on this proposal before the Council decides on a common position. The Council is about to short-circuit this procedure by seeking to impose a scandalous compromise behind closed doors. BEUC Director Jim Murray added: "We firmly condemn this opaque and anti-democratic approach. The Parliament would just be pretending to discuss issues that have already been decided… Our children deserve better than to have their lives saturated by advertising."