Burcu SÜMER

6623

Avrupa Birliği’nde Kamu Hizmeti Yayıncılığının Finansmanına İlişkin Politika Gündemi: Amsterdam Protokolü ve Etkileri

Avrupa’da kamu tekellerinin kırıldığı 1980’lerden bu yana özel yayıncılar ile kamu hizmeti yayıncıları arasında bir mücadele yaşanmaktadır. Kamu kaynaklarıyla finanse edilen kamu hizmeti yayıncılarını haksız rekabet yaratmakla suçlayan özel yayıncılar, 1990’lardan itibaren şikâyetlerini Avrupa Birliği’nin gündemine taşımışlardır. Avrupa Birliği, bu şikâyetlere cevaben 1997 yılında Amsterdam Antlaşması’nın görüşmeleri kapsamında ek bir protokol imzalayarak kamu hizmeti yayıncılığını destekleme kararını üye ülkelere bırakmıştır. Amsterdam Protokolü olarak bilinen bu protokolün nasıl uygulanacağıyla ilgili olarak 2001 ve 2009 yıllarında iki tebliğ yayınlayan Avrupa Komisyonu, kamu hizmeti yayıncılarının faaliyetlerinin kapsamına ve bu faaliyetlerin finansmanına yönelik olarak tüm üye ülkeler açısından bağlayıcı bir mevzuat oluşturmuştur. Çalışmada bu mevzuat, Avrupa rekabet hukukuyla ilişkisi bağlamında değerlendirilecek ve mevzuatın öngördüğü uygulamaların kamu hizmeti yayıncılığı üzerindeki etkisi tartışılmıştır
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kamu hizmeti yayıncılığı, Amsterdam Protokolü, Avrupa rekabet hukuku, kamu finansmanı, düzenleme

The EU Policy Agenda on the Financing of Public Service Broadcasting: Amsterdam Protocol and Its Implications

Since the breakdown of the monopoly of public service broadcasting in the 1980s, there is an ongoing battle between the public service and private/commercial broadcasters in Europe. Private broadcasters have been accusing public broadcasters funded by the state sources with the claim that they cause unfair competition and they have started bringing their complaints in front of the European Commission from the 1990s onwards. As a response to the increasing complaints, the European Union drafted an additional protocol to be annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty signed in 1997 and confirmed that member states are free to support their public service broadcasters by various financial means they see as appropriate. The European Commission further released two communications one being in 2001 and the latter in 2009 on how to implement this so-called “Amsterdam Protocol” in accordance with the state aid rules of the Union. This research looks into the scope of the Amsterdam Protocol and its relevant communications and discusses their impact on the public service broadcasting in Europe
Keywords:

Public service broadcasting, Amsterdam Protocol, European competition law, public financing, regulation,

PDF

___

  • Armstrong, Mark ve Helen Weeds (2007). “Public Service Broadcasting in the Digital World”. The Economic Regulation of Broadcasting Markets: Evolving Technology and Challenges for Policy. Paul Seabright ve Jürgen von Hagen (der.) içinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 81–149.
  • Avrupa Adalet Divanı (2003). “Altmark Trans GmbH ve Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH and Oberbundesanwalt beim BverWG Case”, 24 Temmuz 2003, European Court Reports, 1-7747, C-280/00.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (1997). Üye Ülkelerde Kamu Hizmeti Yayıncılığı Hakkında Protokol, Resmi Gazete C340/109, 2 Ekim 1997, Brüksel: Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2001). Kamu Hizmeti Yayıncılığında Devlet Yardımı Kurallarının Uygulanması HakkındaTebliğ, Resmi Gazete C320, 15 Kasım 2001, Brüksel: Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu.
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2005). “Public service broadcasting and state aid – frequently asked questions” MEMO/05/73, 03/03/2005 http://europa. eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-05-73_en.htm Erişim tarihi: 10.12.2013
  • Avrupa Komisyonu (2009). Kamu Hizmeti Yayıncılığında Devlet Yardımı Kurallarının Uygulanması Hakkında Tebliğ, Resmi Gazete C257/1, 27 Ekim 2009, Brüksel: Avrupa Birliği Komisyonu.
  • Bardoel, Johannes ve Gregory Ferrell Lowe (2007). “From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media. The core challenge.” From Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media. Gregory Ferrell Lowe ve Johannes Bardoel (der.) içinde. Göteborg: Nordicom. 9-28.
  • Bardoel, Johannes ve Lee d’Haenens (2008).”Reinventing public service broadcasting in Europe: Prospects, promises and problems.” Media, Culture & Society 30(3): 337–355.
  • Collins, Richard (1994). Broadcasting and Audio-visual Policy in the European Single Market. Londra: John Libbey.
  • Collins, Richard (2007). “The BBC and public value.” Medien und Kommunikationswissenschaft 65(2): 164–184.
  • Donders, Karen (2009). “State Aid and Public Service Broadcasting: How Futureproof is the Remit of Public Broadcasting Organisations?” IES Working Paper1, Brussels: Institute for European Studies, VUB. www. ies.be Erişim tarihi: 20.11.2013.
  • Donders, Karen (2010). “The benefits of introducing European competition principles into national public broadcasting policy.” Info - The journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications 12(6): 56-68.
  • Donders, Karen ve Caroline Pauwels (2010). “The introduction of an ex ante evaluation for new media services: ‘Europe’ asks it or public broadcasters need it?” International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 6(2) 133-148.
  • Donders, Karen ve Tim Raats (2012). “Analysing national practices after European state aid control: are multi-stakeholder negotiations beneficial for public service broadcasting?” Media, Culture & Society 34(2): 162-180.
  • Freedman, Des (2008).The Politics of Media Policy. Cambridge: Polity.
  • Geilmann, Maria ve Marta Ottanelli (2012). “The fourth Altmark criterion - Ensuring competition and transparency through Public Procurement procedures in SGEIs.” www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/Institutes/ MCEL/Publications1/StudentPapers20112012.htm. Erişim tarihi: 25.08.2013.
  • Harcourt, Alison (2005). The European Union and the Regulation of Media Markets, Manchester. MUP.
  • Humphreys, Peter (1996). Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • Humphreys, Peter (2005). “The EU: An Agency for De-Regulation or Re-Regulation? A Case Study of Audiovisual Regulation.” 3rd General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) 08 September 2005 - 10 September 2005. Budapest: Hungary.
  • Humphreys, Peter (2009a) “EU Audio-visual Policy, Cultural Diversity and the Future of Public Service Broadcasting.”’, Mediating Europe: New Media, Mass Communications and the European Public Sphere. Jackie Harrison ve Bridgette Wessels (der.) içinde. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books. 183–212.
  • Humphreys, Peter (2009b). “EU State Aid Rules, Public Service Broadcasters’ Online Media Engagement and Public Value Tests: the German and UK Cases Compared.” Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture 1(2): 171–184.
  • John Lee, David, vd. (2011). “The Public Gets What the Public Wants? The Uses and Abuses of ‘Public Value’ in Contemporary British Cultural Policy”, International Journal of Cultural Policy 17(3): 289-300.
  • Klass, Max (2013). “The Impact of Altmark: The European Commission Case Law Responses.” Financing Services of General Economic Interest, Legal Issues of Services of General Interest. Erika Szyszczak ve Johan Willem (der.) içinde. Hague: Asser Press. 33-51.
  • Levy, David A. L. (1999). Europe’s Digital Revolution: Broadcasting Regulation, the EU and the Nation States. Londra: Routledge.
  • Lewis, David (2012). “The Situation of Public Brodcasting in Europe” Conference: Future LRT Today: Public Broadcasting in the Changing Society, VILNIUS, 20 Ocak 2012. http://www3.ebu.ch/files/live/ sites/ebu/files/Knowledge/Publication%20Library/ Speeches/2012.01.20-DL-Vilnius.pdf Erişim tarihi: 25.012.2013.
  • Michalis, Maria (2010). “Is the public interest under threat? Public service broadcasting, market failure and new technologies: the view from the European Union”, Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture 1(2): 185-202.
  • Michalis, Maria (2012). “Balancing public and private interests in online media: the case of BBC Digital Curriculum.” Media Culture and Society 34(8): 944– 960.
  • Murdock, Graham ve Peter Golding (1999). “Common Markets: Corporate Ambitions and Communication Trends in the UK and Europe.” Journal of Media Economics 12: 117–32.
  • Picard, Robert G. (2002). “Research Note: Assessing Audience Performance of Public Service Broadcasters.” European Journal of Communication 17(2): 227–235.
  • Picard, Robet G. (2003). “Assesment of Public Service Broadcasting: Economic and Managerial Performance Criteria.” Javnost 10(3): 29-44.
  • Radaelli, Claudio M. (2000). “Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy.” Governance 13 (1): 25-43.
  • Ross, Malcolm (2000). “State Aids and National Courts: Definitions and Other Problems – A Case of Premature Emancipation.” Common Market Law Review 37: 401-423.
  • Scharpf, Fritz W. (1996). “Negative and Positive Integration in the Political Economy of European Welfare States.” Governance in the European Union. Garry Marks, Fritz W. Scharpf, Philippe C. Schmitter ve Wolfgang Streeck (der.) içinde. London: Sage. 15-39.
  • Scharpf, Fritz W. (1997). “Introduction: the problem-solving capacity of multi-level governance.” Journal of European Public Policy 4 (4): 520- 538.
  • Sjursen, Helene (2004). “Towards a Post-national Foreign and Security Policy?” ARENA Working Papers 04 (12) www.arena.uio.no/ publications/wp04_12.htm. Erişim tarihi: 10.12.2013.
  • Steemers, Janette (2003). “Public Service Broadcasting is not Dead Yet: Survival Strategies in the 21st Century” Broadcasting and Convergence. Gregory Ferrel Lowe ve Taisto Hujanen (der.) içinde. Gteborg: Nordicom. 123-136.
  • Sümer, Burcu (2010). “Avrupa Birliği İle Uyum Süreci Bağlamında Türkiye’de Yeni Yayıncılık Yasası”, Mülkiye Dergisi 269: 199-223.
  • Taş, Oğuzhan (2006). “İletişim Alanında Yöndeşme Eğilimleri: Teknoloji, Pazar ve Düzenleme.” Kültür ve İletişim 9(2): 33-62.
  • Coppens, Tomas ve Frieda Saeys (2006). “Enforcing Performance: New Approaches to Govern Public Service Broadcasting.” Media, Culture & Society 28(2): 261–284.
  • Van Dijk, Machiel, vd. (2006). “Does Public Service Serve the Public? The Future of Television in the Changing Media Landscape.” De Economist 154: 251–276.
  • Ward, David (2002). The European Union Democratic Deficit and the Public Sphere: An Evaluation of EU Media Policy, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Ward, David (2003). “State Aid or Band Aid? An Evaluation of the European Commission’s Approach to Public Service Broadcasting.” Media, Culture and Society 25(2): 233–50.
  • Wheeler, Mark (2004). “Supranational Regulation Television and the European Union.” European Journal of Communication 19(3): 349–369.
Kültür ve İletişim-Cover
  • ISSN: 1301-7241
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 2 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1998
  • Yayıncı: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Muhafazakâr Basında Esnaf Fetişizmi

Mesut YÜCEBAŞ

Avrupa Birliği’nde Kamu Hizmeti Yayıncılığının Finansmanına İlişkin Politika Gündemi: Amsterdam Protokolü ve Etkileri

Burcu SÜMER

Özgünlük ve Direniş Hikâyeleri: Popüler Müzikte Protesto Potansiyeli

C. S. Lyndon Way, Cansu SÜER