Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies

NOTE
Policy Department
Structural and Cohesion Policies
BRIEFING PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF ARTICLE 151.4 OF THE EC TREATY
CULTURE AND EDUCATION
June 2007
EN
Directorate General Internal Policies of the Union
Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies
CULTURE AND EDUCATION
BRIEFING PAPER ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
ARTICLE 151.4 OF THE EC TREATY
NOTE
Content:
This note provides some reflections on the implementation of Treaty Article 151.4 and
the need to take account of the specificities of the cultural and creative sectors in other
EU areas. It points out that Treaty 151.4 is an obligation, not an option, and calls for a
systematic scrutiny for potential cultural impacts.
IP/B/CULT/FWC/2006_169
PE 389.585
18/06/2007
EN
This note was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education.
This paper is published in the following language:
- Original: EN.
- Translation: FR.
Author:
Rod Fisher, Director,
International Intelligence on Culture, London 1
Responsible Official:
Constanze Itzel
Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies
European Parliament
B-1047 Brussels
E-mail: [email protected]
Manuscript completed in June 2007.
This note is available on:
- the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert/eStudies.do?language=EN
- the Intranet at: http://www.ipolnet.ep.parl.union.eu/ipolnet/cms/lang/fr/pid/456
Brussels, European Parliament, 2007.
The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily
represent the official position of the European Parliament.
Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is
acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.
1
With additional input from Dragan Klaic (international adviser, writer, consultant and educator, Netherlands)
and Pyrrhus Mercouris (independent EU affairs adviser, Belgium).
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Executive Summary
1.
This briefing paper provides some reflections on the implementation of Treaty Article 151.4
and the need to take account of the specificities of the cultural and creative sectors in other
EU areas.
2.
It points out that Treaty 151.4 is an obligation, not an option. What should have been a
systematic internal task of scrutiny for potential cultural impacts has been neglected. This
represents a failure to ensure co-ordination across Commission Directorates, as well as a
failure of resolve. Despite the rhetoric at European level about the importance of culture and
the strong evidence that the cultural and creative industries are contributing significantly to
the Lisbon agenda, culture remains relatively low in the hierarchy of Commission concerns.
3.
The first detailed assessment of what was, originally, Maastricht Treaty Article 128.4, was
made by the Commission in 1996. This inventory of the nature and scope of the cultural
aspects of actions implemented by the Community, acknowledged the "compulsory and
systematic" requirement for the cultural dimension to be taken account in legislative texts
and policies. However, the report failed to suggest procedures for ensuring this happened.
Various resolutions subsequently from the Council of Ministers have stressed the need for
synergies between culture and other Community actions and sought to give effect to the
implementation Clause 4 of the Article, but seemingly without much success.
4.
European legislation, policies and programmes in a wide range of areas, as indicated in this
paper, have potential impacts for culture. While, of course, there is a necessity for a balance
to be struck between competing policy ambitions and Treaty objectives, the cultural sector
is often disadvantaged in the negotiating process because it does no carry sufficient political
clout. The failure to observe 151.4 has proved especially problematic in relation to
regulatory actions to achieve laudable objectives in areas such as employment conditions.
The problems are exacerbated by the fact that such issues never appear on the Culture
Council agendas.
5.
There is a need for ‘joined up’ thinking at Commission level to ensure horizontal coordination procedures or inter-service working groups are in place for the automatic cultural
impact assessment of all prospective EU actions. The notion of a Creative Task Force, as
suggested in The Economy of Culture in Europe study, could provide a platform and higher
profile for the consideration of cultural and creative sector interests, as long as it does not
add to the bureaucracy.
6.
Unless 151.4 is properly implemented and monitored it is difficult to see how the
Commission aspiration for culture to be mainstreamed in all relevant policies, as outlined in
its recent Communication on a European agenda for culture in a globalized world, can be
realised.
iii
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
iv
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Table of contents
Page
Executive Summary
iii
1. Introduction
1
2. An obligation not honoured
1
3. Attempts to give effect to clause 4
2
4. Examples of the cultural impacts of EU legislation
3
5. A desperate need for “joined-up” thinking
4
6. Conclusion
6
Bibliography
7
Annex 1 - Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community
v
11
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
vi
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
1.
Introduction
7.
The intention of this short briefing note is to provide some reflections on the
implementation of Treaty Article 151.4 and the need to take account of the specificities of
the cultural and creative sectors in relation to the implementation of EU policies in other
areas such as the internal market, competition and trade, and other relevant EU policies. It
seeks to complement the elaborated briefing note which we have produced assessing the
European Commission Study on The Economy of culture in Europe.
8.
Article 151, clause 4, of the Treaty of Nice (formerly Amsterdam) states:
“The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its action under other
provisions of this Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of
its cultures” 2 .
2.
An obligation not honoured
9.
When the predecessor of Article 151 (Maastricht Treaty Article 128) was adopted, thereby
legitimising complementary Community action on culture, a number of policy researchers
and analysts (including the author of this briefing note) expected that the requirement in
Clause 4 for the Community to consider the cultural aspects of its actions could be treated
in much the same way as environmental issues had been. Prospective European legislation
and policies are automatically scrutinised for their potential environmental impacts 3 . This
view was echoed by senior Commission officials at the time. In the event, what should
have been a systematic internal task has been neglected as Smiers (2002), Kaufmann and
Raunig (2002) among others have noted 4 . This is surprising because Treaty Article 151.4
is explicit. It says “The Community shall take cultural aspects into account…”5 . This is an
obligation, not an option.
10.
This is a failure on two counts. First a failure to ensure co-ordination across Commission
Directorates. No matter how dedicated staff may be, inevitably they focus on their own
agendas; they rarely think laterally. This is a common problem in large organisations
structured in hierarchical departments, but the ‘silo’ mentality that results impedes
horizontal connections being made 6 . Secondly, it represents a failure of resolve.
Notwithstanding the rhetoric at European level about the importance of culture and the
strong evidence that the field of culture, and especially the creative industries, are making
a significant contribution to the Lisbon agenda on growth and employment (which the new
study on The Economics of Culture in Europe confirms), culture remains relatively low in
the hierarchy of Commission concerns. As a consequence, it is generally not regarded
seriously at Commission staff level outside DG Education and Culture. Moreover,
2
3
4
5
6
Article 151 is given in full in Annex 2.
See for example Fisher, R. (1993), 1993: The Challenge for the Arts. Reflections on British culture in Europe,
London, Arts Council of Great Britain, p. 65.
Smiers, J. (2002), The Role of the European Community concerning the Cultural Article 151 in the Treaty of
Amsterdam, Utrecht, Centre for Research, Utrecht School of Arts, 4; Kaufmann, T. and Raunig, G. (2002),
Anticipating European Cultural Policies , European Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies position paper
commissioned by the European Forum for the Arts and Heritage and IG Kultur Österreich, http://www.eipcp.net
Our emphasis.
Gordon, C. and Adams, T. (2007), The European Union and Cultural Policy – Chimera, Camel or Chrysalis?,
consultative draft paper prepared for the European Cultural Foundation, 10; www.eurocult.org
1
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Member States governments are sensitive to preserve culture as their exclusive policy
domain and often quick to invoke subsidiarity as a brake on EU action.
3.
Attempts to give effect to clause 4
11.
The first assessment of the implication of what was, at the time, Maastricht Treaty Article
128.4, was issued by the Commission in 1996 7 .This acknowledged the “compulsory and
systematic” requirement for the Community to take account of the cultural dimension of
its actions in respect of legislative texts and common policies 8 . The report sought to
identify those Community texts and policies that have taken cultural matters into account,
and examine how the objectives pursued and those of a cultural nature have been
reconciled. It also sought to establish whether decisions taken at Community level have
consolidated, adversely affected or weakened cultural decisions taken at regional and
national level.
12.
Although described as a “partial account” of the cultural aspects of actions or policies
implemented by the Community, the report provides a useful inventory of their nature and
scope. It sets out to examine and respond to the tasks assigned to the Community by the
Treaty Article. However, contrary to the statement made in the introduction to the report,
it does not suggest mechanisms for ensuring cultural aspects are considered when drawing
up texts and defining and implementing policies that may impact on the cultural field.
Instead, it merely makes some general observations 9 . Rather optimistically, the text
suggests that the report will enable institutions of the EU to appreciate the extent of the
obligations imposed on them by the Article.
13.
Following the appearance of the report, the Council of Ministers adopted a Resolution to
give effect to the implementation of Article 128.4 10 . The Resolution welcomed the
Commission’s intention to establish effective procedures to ensure better co-ordination of
its actions in accordance with cultural objectives. It affirmed that culture is an integral part
of Community action and must be accorded recognition in its own right, in line with other
activities requiring horizontal co-ordination in the decision-making process. It also
requested the Commission to submit an annual report on how cultural aspects have been
taken into account under other provisions of the Treaty. This request does not appear to
have been honoured.
14.
Subsequently, a follow up report was drafted within the Commission, but for various
reasons was not released (though a much shortened paper was to have been presented to
the Cultural Council in December 2002). This may account for the fact that, in 2003, the
Council adopted another Resolution on the horizontal aspects of culture, stressing the need
for synergies and complementarity between culture and various other Community actions
7
8
9
10
European Commission (1996), First report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community
action, COM (96) 160 final, 17/04/96.
Ibid, 2.
A fact noted in a European Parliament Motion for a Resolution on the first report by the Commission on the
consideration of cultural aspects in European Community actions (rapporteur, Escudero, J.A) A4 0410/96/Part
A 11/12/96.
Council of Ministers (1997), Resolution on the integration of cultural aspects into Community actions, 97/C,
36/04, 20/01/1997.
2
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
from the earliest stage of their preparation11 . The Council agreed to review the follow-up
to the Resolution.
4.
Examples of the cultural impacts of EU legislation
15.
European legislation, policies and programmes in a wide range of areas can impact
directly or indirectly on the cultural and creative sector. Areas of impact include, but are
not confined to: competition; trade; copyright; value added tax; double taxation;
employment conditions; occupational and public safety; SMEs; training; mobility of
creators; movement of cultural assets, goods, and services; regional development and
economic cohesion; research and development; innovation and information
communication technologies; and the EU’s external policies. There is an understandable
obligation on the part of the European institutions to strike a balance between competing
policy ambitions and to reconcile different Treaty objectives. Unfortunately, as cultural
considerations do not yet carry sufficient weight in the Community institutions, the
cultural sector is often disadvantaged in the negotiating process.
16.
In some areas the issues are clear if not always welcome from the perspective of the
cultural sector. State aid is one such area. The Commission possesses exclusive
competence regarding the granting of state aid to national film industries. In 2001 the
Commission published a Communication setting out conditions for the provision of state
aid for the production of cinematographic and audiovisual works 12 . Aid is permitted
provided it does not affect trade and competition in the single market. This provision is
reviewed, and hitherto renewed, every three years. More generally, the European
Parliament has urged the Commission and Member States in the past to take account of
the specificities of the creative industries in relation to compliance of national or European
support measures with internal market rules 13 .
17.
The issue of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality is another illustration of where
national support measures for culture have been interpreted in the past as being in
contravention of the fundamental principles of the internal market 14 . It has imposed
constraints on some aspects of Member States’ programmes of subsidy, when they have
attempted to discriminate in favour of their citizens.
18.
Copyright is another area where the different interests of the cultural and creative sectors
need to be taken into consideration and the Copyright Directive of 2001 specifically refers
to Article 151.4 15 . There will often be conflicting interests within the cultural sector
11
12
13
14
15
Council of Ministers (2003), Resolution on the horizontal aspects of culture in increasing synergies with other
sectors and Community actions and exchanging of good practices in relation to social and economic
dimensions of culture, 2003/C, 136/01, 26/05/03.
European Commission (2001), Certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and other audiovisual works,
COM (2001) 534 final 26/09/01.
See for example the report of Zorba, M (rapporteur) on the Cultural Industries, A5-0276/2003 (Final).
For description of the issues see Mulder, P. (1993), “The European Community and national cultural subsidy
measures”, and Rawlinson, F. (1993), “Constraints on the funding of the arts and culture imposed by EC law”,
in Bodo, C. and Fisher, R. (eds.), (1995), Harmony or Confusion for Culture in Europe. The impact of the single
market and of the Maastricht Treaty, Rome, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Dipartimento per
l’Informazione e l’Editoria, in association with CIRCLE, Fondazione Cini, ISPE and Associazione per
l’Economia della Cultura.
Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society,
2001/29/EC, 22/05/01.
3
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
between creators, interpreters, producers and end users in the harmonisation of copyright
law, as intellectual property protection can have disadvantages as well as benefits for
cultural diversity. Nevertheless, the cultural dimension is self-evident.
19.
Where failure to fully implement 151.4 has proved especially problematic is in those
instances where regulatory actions designed to achieve laudable objectives in areas such
as employment have had adverse and costly repercussions, or placed unrealistic demands
on the cultural sector. The Working Time Directive and its disregard for the reality of
performing arts practice, and the protection of hearing in the workplace with its initially
unforeseen consequences for orchestral concerts, are two among many examples that
could be cited 16 .
20.
The shortcomings revealed by the lack of observance of 151.4 are exacerbated by the fact
that European legislation such as this never appears on Culture Council agendas; it is
considered by other Council configurations. The problems have been expressed succinctly
in a paper prepared by the Dutch presidency for an informal meeting of Ministers three
years ago:
“Despite the European Union’s limited cultural competencies, it has a tangible
convergence influence on the cultural policies of the Member States. However, that is
something over which European culture ministers have no direct control. This explains
why the Culture Council has repeatedly drawn attention to the importance of paragraph 4
of the culture article…” 17 .
5.
A desperate need for “joined-up” thinking
21.
Is there a need for an “entity” within the Commission to facilitate “the co-ordination of
activities and policies impacting on the cultural and creative sector”, as recommended by
The Economy of Culture in Europe study? 18 . Could not the issue of horizontal coordination be addressed by ensuring inter-service procedures are in place for the automatic
examination of the implications for the creative and cultural sector of all prospective EU
policies and legislation? At its simplest this could take the form of requiring a ‘cultural
impact’ assessment to be made by DG Education & Culture (with external advice when
necessary).
22.
Alternatively, in recognition of the fact that the cultural implications can be complex in
some areas, inter-service working groups could be instituted to examine specific issues.
There are precedents for this. For example, an inter-service working group on the
evolution of a strategy for culture in development has been led by DG Development and
includes the DG’s for External Relations, Education and Culture, Trade and the
Information Society as well as Europe Aid. An inter-service group has also been set up to
co-ordinate Commission actions for the Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008, this time led
16
17
18
Directive concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, 2003/88/EC, 4/11/03; Directive on the
minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical
agents (noise), 2003/10/ EC, 06/02/2003.
Call for Culture (2004), paper for informal meeting of culture ministers, Rotterdam, 13-14 July 2004, The
Hague, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, (OCW/113/2004/45968).
KEA European Affairs (2006), The Economy of Culture in Europe, European Commission, p. 218.
4
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
by DG Education and Culture and involving the DG’s for External Relations,
Development, Justice and Law, etc 19 .
23.
The idea of a Creativity Task Force, as suggested by The Economy of Culture on Europe
report, could provide a platform as well as a higher profile for the consolidation of cultural
and creative sector interests providing it does not add to the bureaucracy 20 . There are
models for similar cross-departmental task forces for the creative industries in
governance 21 . The announcement in the recent Commission Communication that the
Commission will “strengthen its internal inter-service co-ordination and deepen its
analysis of the interface between cultural diversity and other Community policies… when
making decisions or proposals of a regulatory or financial nature” appears to be a
welcome move in this direction 22 . We must await more details of the brief of this new
inter-service group that the Communication says has been established to see if it really
does obviate the need for a separate Task Force on Creativity. It would probably need to
call on external expert advice. Crucially, there will still be a need for a mechanism to
ensure that this or any other inter-service co-ordination is monitored for its effectiveness.
6.
Conclusion
24.
EU regulations that would impact negatively on culture would in practice mean:
25.
19
20
21
22
23
ƒ
measures that are difficult, expensive or impossible for the cultural
organisations, their modus operandi and their creative processes;
ƒ
measures curbing the mobility of cultural operators and artists and of their
goods and services;
ƒ
measures that are negatively affecting cultural diversity;
ƒ
measures that are negatively affecting access to cultural goods.
The failure to properly implement 151.4 and its predecessor almost 15 years after the
introduction of the culture Article is inexcusable. Unless this is addressed it is difficult to
see how the Commission aspiration for culture to be mainstreamed in all relevant policies
can be realised 23 .
See Fisher, R. (ed), (2007), A Cultural Dimension to the EU’s External Policies: From Policy Statements to
Practice and Potential, Amsterdam, Boekmanstichting, and LAB for Culture, p. 28.
The Economy of Culture in Europe, op cit, p. 218.
A Creative Industries Action Committee (CIAC) has been established in Singapore that brings together the
Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts, Ministry of Trade and Industry, and Ministry of
Manpower. The CIAC provides a mechanism to facilitate inter-departmental and inter-agency collaboration
with implementing agencies such as Design Singapore, the Media Development Authority and National Arts
Council. This is described in Murthy, A. (2004), “Arts as Investment: the Singapore Experience”, in Fisher, R.
(ed), (2005), Developing New Instruments to Meet Cultural Policy Challenges, Bangkok, Centre for European
Studies, Chulalongkorn University, in association with the Asia-Europe Foundation and Ministry of Culture,
Thailand.
European Commission (2007), Communication on a European agenda for culture in a globalising world, SEC
(2007) 570, COM (2007) 0242 final.
Ibid, p. 13.
5
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
6
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Bibliography
Bodo, C. and Fisher, R. (eds), (1993), Harmony or Confusion for Culture in Europe. The impact
of the single market and of the Maastricht Treaty, Rome, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri,
Dipartimento per l’Informazione e l’Editoria, in association with CIRCLE, Fondazione Cini,
ISPE and Associazione per l’Economia della Cultura, 1995.
CIRCLE (2006), European art and culture between fair trade and cultural diversity. A delicate
dialogue?, proceedings of a Round Table, Helsinki, December 2006; to be published.
Culturelink (2003), eCulture: the European perspective cultural policy, creative industries,
information lag, proceedings from a Culturelink and CIRCLE Round Table, Zagreb, April 2003,
Zagreb, Culturelink, 2003.
Forrest, A. (1994), “A New Start for Cultural Action in the European Community: Genesis and
Implications of Article 128 of the Treaty of European Union”, in European Journal of Cultural
Policy, Vol 1, No 1, pp11-20, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishing, 1994.
Fisher, R. (1993), 1993: The Challenges for the Arts, Reflections on British culture in Europe,
London: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1993.
Fisher, R. (ed), (2007), A Cultural Dimension to the EU’s External policies: From Policy
Statements to Practice and Potential, Amsterdam: Boekmanstichting, in association with the
LAB for Culture, 2007.
Fisher, R. (2001), “EU support for culture: separating rhetoric from reality” in Insight Europe,
Vol 1, No2, pp 24-25, London, Hugo Publications, April 2001.
Gordon, C. and Adams, T. (2007), The European Union and Cultural Policy – Chimera, Camel
or Chrysalis?, draft consultation paper prepared for the European Cultural Foundation,
Amsterdam, http://www.eurocult.org
Kaufmann, T. and Raunig, G. (2002), Anticipating European Cultural Policies, European
Institute for Progressive Cultural Policies position paper for the European Forum for Arts and
Heritage and IG Kultur Österreich, 2002, http://www.eipcp.net
Mundy, S. (1997), Making it Home. Europe and the Politics of Culture, Amsterdam: European
Cultural Foundation, 1997.
Murthy, A. (2004), “Arts as Investment: the Singapore Experience”, in Fisher, Rod (ed), (2005),
Developing New Instruments to Meet Cultural Policy Challenges, Bangkok, Chulalongkorn
University, Centre for European Studies, in association with the Asia-Europe Foundation and
Ministry of Culture, Thailand, 2005, pp 67-75
Smiers, J. (2002), The Role of The European Community Concerning the Culture Article 151 in
the Treaty of Amsterdam, Utrecht, Utrecht School of the Arts, Centre for Research, Utrecht,
2002.
European Commission documents
First report on the consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action, 17 April
1996, COM (96) 160 final.
Wulf-Mathies, Mrs. (1996), Culture and Structural Policies. A contribution to employment,
paper for Meeting of Ministers responsible for Regional Policy and Spatial Planning, Venice,
May 1996.
7
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Culture, the Cultural Industries and Employment, European Commission staff, working paper,
14 May 1998, SEC (1998) 837.
Communication of 26 September 2001 on Certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and
other audiovisual works, COM (2001) 534 final.
Zapatero, A (2001), Ten Years on: reflections on Article 151 of the EC Treaty: expectations and
outcomes, 12 December 2001 (not seen).
Communication of May 2007 on a European agenda for culture in a globalizing world, SEC
(2007) 570, COM (2007) 0242.
Proposed Directive on Audiovisual Media Services, awaiting to be adopted 2007, 89/552/EC.
Council of the EU documents
Resolution of 20 January 1997 on the integration of cultural aspects into Community action,
97/C. 36/04.
Directive concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, 2003/88/EC, adopted 4
November 2003.
Directive of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights
in the information society, 2001/29/EAC, adopted 21 May 2001.
Resolution of 25 June 2002 on a workplan for European co-operation in the field of culture,
2002/c, 162/03/2002.
Resolution of 19 December 2002 implementing the workplan on European co-operation in the
field of culture: European added value and mobility of persons and circulation of works in the
cultural sector, 2003/C 13/03
Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to
the risks arising from physical agents (noise) 2003.10/EC, adopted 6 February 2003.
Resolution of 26 May 2003 on the horizontal aspects of culture in increasing synergies with
other sectors and Community actions and exchanging of good practices in relation to social and
economic dimensions of culture, 2003/c, 136/01, 2003.
Call for Culture, paper prepared by Dutch EU presidency for informal meeting of culture
ministers, Rotterdam, 13-14 July 2004, The Hague, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science,
OCW/ 113/2004/45968.
Directive on services in the internal market, 2006/123/EC, adopted 12 December 2006
European Parliament documents
Escudero, J.A. (rapporteur), (1996), Report on the first report by the Commission on the
consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action, Motion for a Resolution, A40410/96 PART A.
Ruffolo, G. (rapporteur), Resolution of 5 September 2001 on Cultural Co-operation in Europe,
2000/2323 (INI)
Zorba, M. (rapporteur), Report on the Cultural Industries, A5 – 0276 / 2003
Echerer, M. (rapporteur), Resolution of 15 January 2004 on a Community framework for
collective management societies in the field of copyright and neighbouring rights (OJ C92E, 16
April 2004, p425)
8
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Hieronymi, R. (rapporteur), (2005), Report on the proposal for a decision concerning the
implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007),
PE 355.814 v02-00 – A6–0278/2005, 28 September 2005
Hieronymi, R. (rapporteur), Report on the proposal for a Directive amending Council Directive
89/552/EC (TV Without Frontiers), A6-0399/06, 13 December 2006
Levai, K. (rapporteur), Report on the Commission Recommendation of 18 October 2005 on
collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music
services, 2005/737/EC, 2006/2008 (INI), 5 March 2007, A6-0053 (2007)
9
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
10
PE 389.585
The implementation of art. 151.4 EC Treaty
Annex 1
Article 151 of the Treaty establishing the European Community
1. The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States
while respecting their national and regional diversity and, at the same time, bringing the
common cultural heritage to the fore.
2. Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging co-operation between Member
States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in the following
areas:
-
improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of
European peoples;
-
conservation and safeguarding of the cultural heritage of European significance;
-
non-commercial cultural exchanges;
-
artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector.
3. The Community and the Member States shall foster cooperation with third countries and
the competent international organisations in the sphere of culture, in particular the
Council of Europe.
4. The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its actions under other
provisions of the Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the
diversity of its cultures
5. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article, the
Council:
-
acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after
consulting the Committee of the regions, shall adopt incentive measures,
excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the member States.
The Council shall act unanimously throughout the procedures referred to in
Article 251;
-
acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt
recommendations.
11
PE 389.585