REPORT

on the draft Joint Action, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to combat child pornography on the Internet (10850/5/98

- C4-0674/98 - 98/0917(CNS))

Rapporteur: Gerhard Schmid

C O N T E N T S

1. A. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
2. DRAFT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION
3. B. EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
4. Annex I: Motion for a Resolution B4-0881/98
5. Annex II: Motion for a Resolution B4-0882/98
6. Opinion of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media
7. Opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

           By letter of 24 November 1998 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article K.6(2) of the EU Treaty, on the draft Joint Action, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to combat child pornography on the Internet (10850/5/98 - C4-0674/98 - 98/0917(CNS)).

           At the sitting of 18 December 1998 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred this proposal to the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs as the committee responsible and the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights for their opinions.

           At its meeting of 1 December 1998 the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs had appointed Mr Gerhard Schmid rapporteur.

           At its meeting of 16 March it decided, pursuant to Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to include the following motions for resolutions in its report:

           It considered the draft Joint Measure and the draft report at its meetings of 26 January, 16 February and 16 March 1999.

           At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution by 18 votes to 2.

           The following took part in the vote: d'Ancona, chairman; Schmid, rapporteur; Andersson (for Schulz), Baron Crespo (for Elliott pursuant to Rule 138(2)), Bontempi, Caccavale (for Schaffner), Cederschiöld, Ceyhun, Colombo Svevo, Deprez, Lindeperg, Nassauer, Perez Royo (for Candal pursuant to Rule 138(2)), Pirker, Pradier, Stewart-Clark, Terrón i Cusí, Van Lancker (for Crawley), Voggenhuber (for Orlando), and Zimmerman.

           The opinions of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media and the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights are attached.

           The report was tabled on 19 March 1999.

           The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.

Draft Joint Action, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to combat child pornography on the Internet (10850/5/98 - C4-0674/98 - 98/0917(CNS))

The proposal is approved with the following amendments:

Ninth citation

Tenth citation

Fourth recital

Eighth recital

Article -1(1) (new)

Article -1(2) (new)

Article -1(3) (new)

Article 1(1)

Article 1(2)

Article 1(3)

Article 2(1)

Article 2(2)

Article 2 (3)

Article 2 (5)(a)(new)

Article 3, introductory paragraph

Article 3 (-1)(new)

Article 3(3)

Article 4

Article 5

Article 6(1)

Article 6(2), introductory paragraph

Legislative resolution, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, embodying Parliament's opinion on the draft Joint Action to combat child pornography on the Internet (10850/5/98 - C4-0674/98 - 98/0917(CNS))

(Consultation procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament ,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (10850/5/98 - 98/0917(CNS)),

- having been consulted by the Council Presidency pursuant to Article K.6(2) of the Treaty on European Union (C4-0674/98),

- having regard to the motions for resolutions by:

a. Mrs Muscardini and Mr Pasty, on behalf of the UPE Group, on combatting paedophilia (B4-0881/98),

b. Mrs Muscardini and Mr Pasty, on behalf of the UPE Group, on the use of the Internet for criminal purposes (B4-0882/98),

- having regard to Rule 58 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media and of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights (A4-0141/96),

1. Approves the Commission proposal, subject to Parliament's amendments;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Instructs its President to forward this opinion to the Council and Commission.

The Joint Action to combat child pornography on the Internet which is under discussion in the Council is intended to step up the measures to prevent and combat the production, processing, distribution and possession of child pornography and to encourage the detection and prosecution of offences in this area.

This objective is one which the European Parliament, which has on a number of occasions recently adopted resolutions on this subject, can broadly support. An opinion on the part of Parliament can therefore only assess whether the measures proposed will actually achieve the desired objectives, or will at least represent significant progress in that direction.

Description of the Joint Action

The main aims of the Joint Action are as follows:

(a) Users of the Internet are to be obliged to inform the authorities if they encounter child pornography material, and users are to be informed of how to do this.

(b) If necessary special units may be set up in the law enforcement authorities.

(c) Member States shall ensure that the law enforcement authorities act swiftly and, where possible, cooperate closely.

(d) Existing contact points operating on a 24-hour basis for the exchange of information for an efficient response to crimes are to be used.

(e) Member States shall be obliged to inform Europol.

(f) Member States shall engage in a constructive dialogue with the industry and shall examine the appropriate voluntary or compulsory means of preventing child pornography on the Internet.

(g) Member States shall examine whether to oblige Internet providers to:

- inform the authorities if they encounter child pornography material,

- withdraw such material from circulation,

- keep communications data for the purpose of criminal prosecution.

(h) Member States are to cooperate in producing filters to stem the distribution of child pornography.

(i) The Council shall etamine the extent to which the Member States have complied with their obligations under the Joint Action to combat trafficking in humans and sexual exploitation of children.

Evaluation of the measures proposed

The list of measures proposed is a step in the right direction. However, it fails to respond to key demands for a central approach to combatting child pornography on the Internet as called for by experienced police officers. Hence, the point that needs to be made, as far as Parliament is concerned, is that some Member States are more interested in clinging to national sovereignty than in effectively combatting the distribution of child pornography on the Internet.

The following points need to be made in particular:

- The text of the Joint Action takes no account of the multiannual action plan of the Community on the safe use of the Internet - as if the latter had been concluded by other Member States. However, the action plan automatically supersedes some of these proposals.

- The text of the Joint Action is full of phrases laying down the need to examine things or referring to possible courses of action. But there is no need for a Joint Action to do this.

The amendments seek the following:

1-. Non-binding phrases have been changed to binding phrases.

2. Member States agree that:

(a) the production, processing, supply, distribution and possession of child pornography are criminal offences, and a uniform protective age is introduced;

(b) the possession of child pornography for the purpose of securing evidence is not a criminal offence;

(c) special units of the law enforcement authorities will systematically scan the Internet for child pornography;

(d) contact points operated on a 24-hour basis will be set up and they will be able to cooperate directly;

(e) Europol is to be informed immediately of cases of child pornography;

(f) Internet providers undertake to retain for at least three months traffic-related data;

(g) the sending of anonymous e-mail is prohibited.

The proposals listed under (a) and (g) are of considerable importance. In practice the fight against criminal material on the Internet is seriously impeded by the fact that not even within the European Union are there equal, or at least comparable, legal standards on major issues. Prosecuting child pornography is difficult because 'child' is defined to cover different age groups. It is also difficult if a link (the term employed by the World Wide Web) used to pass on an offer with criminal contents is not in itself criminal in nature. Prosecution is impossible if electronic mail can be sent anonymously.

Motion for a resolution, tabled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure, by Mrs Muscardini and Mr Pasty on behalf of the UPE Group, on combatting paedophilia

B4-0881/98

Resolution on combatting paedophilia

The European Parliament ,

A. having regard to its resolution of 19 September 1996,

B. having regard to the many questions already tabled by its Members on specific cases as well as the phenomenon of paedophilia in general,

C. having regard to a campaign recently waged by the police in various Member States against paedophiles who use the Internet for their abhorrent dealings,

D. having regard to the difficulty experienced by governments in combatting by means of the law and technology a scourge which comes from outside or crosses borders either in the form of sex tourism or via the telecommunications networks,

E. having regard to the need to put a stop to this phenomenon, which is spreading in a worrying fashion and propagating itself in parallel with the increasing use of computer network technologies,

Calls on the Commission and Council:

1. to accelerate the implementation of the 'third pillar' with a view to jointly developing measures to prevent and curb crime;

2. to set up an ad hoc intergovernmental working party in order to submit to it joint legislative proposals directed against paedophiles and their reprehensible activities, which would be applicable in all the Member States;

3. to study measures and initiatives to safeguard minors against the atrocities and violence practised against them.

Motion for a resolution, tabled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure, by Mrs Muscardini and Mr Pasty on behalf of the UPE Group, on the use of the Internet for criminal purposes

B4-0882/98

Resolution on the use of the Internet for criminal purposes

The European Parliament ,

A. having regard to the gravity of recent press reports of images and activities relating to paedophilia being transmitted via the Internet,

B. whereas no limit has so far been placed on access and use of the network,

C. whereas the intervention of an individual government would not be sufficient to prevent the dissemination of criminal information on the Internet,

Calls on the Commission and Council:

1. to take all possible steps, even in the United Nations, to correct this misinterpretation of the concept of freedom of expression and to deny Internet access to activities which are in reality a front for crimes against minors;

2. to set up, with the backing of the Member State Governments, a surveillance and monitoring committee to identify the presence on the Internet, and the source, of criminal material involving minors;

3. to propose practical initiatives in all the international fora in which the European Union is represented, with a view to presenting a common front against the misuse for criminal purposes of this information network, the worldwide diffusion of which should enable it to serve a completely beneficial purpose.

(Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure)

for the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs

on the draft joint action, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to combat child pornography on the Internet (10850/5/98 - C4-0674/98 - 98/0917(CNS)) (report by Mr Schmid)

Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media

Letter from the committee chairman to Mrs d'Ancona, chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs

Brussels, 23 February 1999

Dear Mrs d'Ancona,

The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media considered the above subject at its meeting of 23 February 1999.

At that meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously ¹ :

1. BACKGROUND

The World Congress on the commercial sexual exploitation of children held in Stockholm from 27 to 31 August 1996 and the recent UNESCO Conference, which took place in Paris on 18 and 19 January 1999, denounced the proliferation of images and text involving child pornography on the Internet.

The network has become the new rendezvous of paedophiles, a place where they can obtain addresses, arrange meetings and watch porn films in which the 'actors' - and victims - are children.

Access to illegal material of this kind was initially mainly via 'newsgroups', informal discussion groups bringing together personal contributions (in the form of text, pictures, etc), which could be read by anyone. Some Internet resources can also be used by paedophiles in order to make contact with minors and arrange meetings. The first control measures taken led to a reduction in the number of such newsgroups. However, pornographic images of children continue to be circulated on the network, particularly via email and with the use of passwords, which makes effective monitoring impossible.

Some of these pornographic images are even animated or generated by synthesis (virtual pornography). While the former deal with living beings, the latter ultimately encourage child prostitution.

The Internet is a medium the structure of which makes it difficult to control. It is highly fluid, knows no frontiers and involves complete freedom of expression.

In this context, several questions arise:

- how can we ensure that existing bans on the production, processing, distribution and possession of child pornography transmitted via the Internet are enforced?

- how, in particular, is the liability of the various operators and parties involved (issuers, users and Internet access providers) to be determined and how are offenders to be identified and prosecuted?

- how are minors to be protected against obtaining access via this network to illegal material which could have a seriously harmful effect on their physical and psychological development?

- how can other forms of abuse, such as the harassment or seduction of minors, via these networks and services be prevented?

2. THE RESPONSE OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS

a) The Commission

In its aide-memoire of 25 September 1996 on the European Union's contribution to reinforcing the prevention of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, the Commission announced four initiatives, in the light of the decisions taken in Stockholm:

- Green Paper on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services ² ,

- Communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet ³ ,

- Communication on trafficking in women for the purpose of sexual exploitation ⁴ ,

- Communication on combatting child sex tourism ⁵ .

These initiatives, which were favourably received, were followed by a proposal for a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safe use of the Internet. This action plan, on which Parliament gave a favourable opinion on 17 November 1998, was adopted by the Council on 25 January 1999 ⁶ .

b) The Council

In response to an initiative from Belgium, the Council adopted two joint actions on 29 November 1996 on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union:

- Joint Action establishing an incentive and exchange programme for persons responsible for combatting trade in human beings and the sexual exploitation of children ⁷ ,

- Joint Action concerning the creation and maintenance of a directory of specialised competences, skills and expertise in the fight against international organised crime ⁸ ,

In response to an initiative from Ireland, another joint action was adopted by the Council on 16 December 1996, extending the mandate given to the Europol Drugs Unit to include trafficking in human beings ⁹ .

On 24 January 1997 the Council adopted another joint action on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children ¹⁰ .

c) The European Parliament

In its resolution of 19 September 1996 on minors who are victims of violence ¹¹ , Parliament called on the European Union to review the effectiveness of its action to protect children and to implement, at Union level, the action programme agreed at the Stockholm Congress.

On 12 December 1996 Parliament adopted two other resolutions concerning the protection of minors ¹² and the adoption of minors ¹³ .

Furthermore, Parliament has supported all of the above-mentioned Commission initiatives, in the following resolutions of:

- 24 April 1997 on the Commission communication on illegal and harmful content on the Internet ¹⁴ ,

- 6 November 1997 on the Commission communication on combatting child sex tourism and the aide-memoire on the European Union's contribution to reinforcing the prevention of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children ¹⁵ ,

- 13 May 1998 on the proposal for a Council Recommendation concerning the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services ¹⁶ ,

- 2 July 1998 and 17 November 1998 on the Commission proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multiannual Community action plan on promoting safe use of the Internet ¹⁷ .

The latter proposal was adopted in Decision No 276/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 January 1999 ¹⁸ .

III. DRAFT JOINT ACTION

The draft joint action to combat child pornography on the Internet is in line with the other joint actions adopted by the Council, referred to above, to combat the sexual exploitation of children. Regrettably, this joint action does not encourage the Member States to harmonise certain concepts

in their criminal legislation (in particular, the age up to which an individual may be deemed to be a child with regard to sexual exploitation) and to define as criminal offences:

a) paedophile acts,

b) child pornography,

c) the commercial sexual exploitation of children,

d) failure to inform the judicial authorities of paedophile acts or child abuse, or serious indications of such acts or abuse, of which a person may have become aware, as failure to assist a person in danger,

or to provide for comparable penalties in their respective criminal legislation.

Furthermore, the Member States should, under their respective legislation, prohibit incitement to paedophile acts and child pornography whatever the means of communication used. Any offence committed on their territory by the issuer, the user or the provider, whether via electronic mail, newsgroups or web sites, would this be subject to criminal proceedings.

A joint action to strengthen judicial cooperation in the face of crimes committed against children would be welcome.

In order to combat child pornography on the Internet, it will also be necessary for:

- the network's professionals to adopt a code of good conduct;

- effective filtering systems, such as PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection) to be implemented;

- special telephone hotlines to be set up to for reporting any messages of an illegal nature encountered on the Internet.

Given that the Internet is a world-wide phenomenon, the Member States should strengthen cooperation to combat child pornography with third countries, in particular applicants for accession (which, in some cases, are existing or potential sources of the commercial sexual exploitation of children), as well as with international organisations, including the Council of Europe and the United Nations, and specialist NGOs.

It may be noted that the European Union has at its disposal both Community instruments and instruments under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (Justice and Home Affairs) for combatting child pornography on the Internet. We regret that, at the same time as measures are being taken at Community level, there are intergovernmental measures (in particular, joint actions) where the opinion of the European Parliament is often ignored.

To conclude, we would stress the fact that the existence of child pornography on the Internet is not merely the result of perversion on the part of certain individuals but above all the consequence of the extreme poverty suffered by large numbers of children. The widening of economic disparities, excessive urbanisation, the breakdown of families and community structures and the loss of the protection which they provide, the rapid growth of mass tourism, breakthroughs in new technologies, the increasingly pervasive influence of the market and the temptations which it presents to everyone, including the very poorest in society, favour the development of the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

With regard to child pornography on the Internet, we have already discussed ways of remedying the problem. However, it should not be forgotten that, in addition to taking technical, legal, penal and police measures, there is a need to combat poverty, ignorance and prejudice, improving the image which some societies have of their children as well as the self-image of children in those societies. Victims must be helped and reintegrated into society, as no modern society will preserve its dignity if it is incapable of protecting its children against these extremely serious crimes.

The Committee on Culture, Youth, Education and the Media calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Third citation

Fifth citation

Sixth citation

Citation 6a (new)

Citation 6b (new)

Tenth citation

Fourteenth citation

Third recital

Recital 3a (new)

Article 1(2)

Article 3(4)

Article 5

Yours sincerely,

Peter Pex

15 March 1999

(Rule 147 of the Rules of Procedure)

for the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs

on the Draft joint action, adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, to combat child pornography on the Internet (10850/5/98 - C4-0674/98 - 98/0917(CNS)) (Rapport Schmid)

Draftsman: Mr Brian Crowley

Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights

PROCEDURE

At its meeting of 21 January 1999 the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights appointed Mr Crowley draftsman.

It considered the draft opinion at its meeting of 15 March 1999.

At the latter meeting it adopted the following conclusions unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: De Clercq, chairman; Zimmermann, draftsman; Anastassopoulos, Barzanti, Cassidy, Gebhardt, Medina Ortega and Verde I Aldea.

1. Aims of the Joint Action

By the present draft Joint Action of 20 November 1998 the Council intends to adopt measures aimed at combatting child pornography on the Internet by

- proposing the setting up of specialised units in the Member States

- facilitating cooperation between Member States´ authorities as well as between Internet users and law enforcement authorities

- prompting Internet providers to take certain voluntary measures

- encouraging the production of filters and other technical means to prevent and detect the distribution of child pornography material

- evaluating the effectiveness of certain measures.

2. Context

To judge from the media coverage, child pornography on the Internet is a problem of growing dimensions. Indeed the most repugnant aspect of child pornography is the damage caused to the mental and physical health of the children abused, and the appalling intrusion into their privacy.

Several international meetings have been dedicated to the fight against the sexual exploitation of children, such as the Stockholm Congress (27 - 31 August 1996) and its follow-up in Strasbourg (1998).

Most recently, on 18 - 19 January 1999, the UNESCO convened a conference of some 300 specialists in child care and child protection, Internet specialists and service providers, media practitioners, law enforcement agencies and government representatives on "Sexual Abuse of Children, Child Pornography and Paedophilia on the Internet". ¹⁹

The conference affirmed in its declaration that "we need to know more about what is available, its accessibility, the content, how many and which people consume it", thus admitting that the real dimensions of child pornography are still in the dark. In the view of the draftsman, the cases known might just be the tip of the iceberg.

3. Activities of the EP

Protection of children has always been a matter of primary interest to the European Parliament in general and to the Legal Affairs Committee in particular. Suffice it to recall the resolution on a European Charter of Children´s Rights of 21 September 1992, the resolution on minors who are victims of violence of 19 September 1996, the resolution on measures to protect minors in the European Union of 12 December 1996 ²⁰ , as well as its resolutions of 24 October 1997, 13 May 1998, 2 July 1998, and 17 November 1998. ²¹

4. The basic problem

The Internet is a potent tool for obtaining and spreading information and an increasingly important instrument for commercial activities. The 'commercial' aspects (in the widest meaning of the term) will be determined by forthcoming Community legislation including directives on copyright in the information society (COM(97)0628), on electronic commerce (COM(98)0586), on electronic money (COM(98)461), on electronic signatures (COM(98)0297) and on distance marketing of financial services (COM(98)0468). The economic potential of the Internet and of associated activities is beyond any doubt enormous.

However, the Internet can be used for criminal activities of all kinds: Money laundering, copyright infringements, child pornography etc.

Draconian measures could certainly put an end to illegal activities, but they would almost certainly hamper legitimate Internet-related economic activities to the same extent, or even suffocate them.

Besides, any kind of measure would be faced with the following geographical dilemma:

The sexual abuse of children (e.g. shooting of photographs) may take place in country A, the product of the abuse (i.e.: the photo) may be sold to an intermediary in country B, then be placed on the Net with the help of a service provider in country C and used (e.g. downloaded) by a paedophile in country D, after having been 'transported' electronically via countries E, F and G.

As there is no uniform, world-wide or even Europe-wide criminal law and as we lack a central enforcement body, the question of 'who prosecutes what by which means' arises.

In theory, various options (or indeed a combination of them) can be envisaged:

a) Technical solutions whereby the accessibility and spreading of unwanted material is prevented.

b) Civil law solutions where Internet providers are held liable for illegal contents spread by means of their installations even in cases where they were not aware of such activities.

c) An improved penal law approach whereby more emphasis is placed on the quick identification and swift prosecution of relevant actors who are then punished according to traditional principles of penal law (illegality of the action and guilt of the offender).

d) Self regulation by economic actors.

5. Comments on the draft Joint Action

5.1 The draft taken by itself seems to be a fairly reasonable paper even if, as it must be said, the wording is not particularly binding ("where necessary, measures... in this area could be..." (Art. 1 (2)); "The Member States undertake to ensure the widest possible cooperation" (Art. 2 (1)); "The Member States... shall examine the possibility of organising regular meetings..." (Art. 2 (4); "...Member States shall examine appropriate measures..." "They may... examine one or several of the following measures" (Art. 3); etc.).

a) Any measures to encourage Internet users to inform law enforcement authorities wherever they come across child pornography material have to be welcomed.

b) The setting up of specialised units within law enforcement has to be welcomed.

c) The intention to act swiftly and to cooperate in the widest possible way is self-evident and a common place.

d) The intention to inform Europol, within the limits of its mandate, of cases of child pornography is problematic because Europol is not fully competent for cases of child pornography, as can be seen from Article 2 (2) of the Europol Convention ²² and the Annex to it, as well as from the Joint Actions on the mandate of the Europol Drugs Unit ²³ . One present competence of the EDU is fighting traffic in human beings, future competences of Europol will be kidnapping, illegal restraint and computer criminality against property (cf. Annex to the Convention).

If Europol is to be fully involved in the fight against child pornography, as would be desirable, the Convention needs to be amended.

e) The promise to organise regular meetings of competent specialised authorities does not appear to be particularly ambitious.

f) The constructive dialogue with industry mentioned in Article 3 is most helpful. However, it should be born in mind that measures of legally binding and not just voluntary nature are clearly to be preferred.

g) Action aimed at encouraging the production of filters and other technical means to prevent and detect the distribution of child pornography material (Art. 5) has to be supported.

5.2 When placing the draft into the pre-existing legal context, numerous redundancies can be detected.

The following measures have been adopted:

a) Joint Action of 24 February 1997 concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children, ²⁴ provides an exhaustive set of rules as to how sexual exploitation of children ought to be fought. Unfortunately, it is not worded in very binding terms.

Had it been enacted correctly by the Member States, the Council could have renounced on some of the subsequent legislation.

b) Joint Action of 5 December 1997 establishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organised crime. ²⁵

c) Resolution of 17 January 1995 on the lawful interception of telecommunications. ²⁶

d) Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998 on the development of the competitiveness of the European audiovisual and information services industry by promoting national frameworks aimed at achieving a comparable and effective level of protection of minors and human dignity. ²⁷

It recommends 'voluntary national frameworks', 'self-regulation', promotion of 'technological developments', 'codes of conduct', etc.

The European Parliament and Council Decision adopting a multi-annual Community action plan on promoting safer use of the Internet by combatting illegal and harmful content on global networks was adopted on 25 January 1999 ²⁸ .

This multi-annual action plan provides EUR 25 million over four years for the following objectives:

- promotion of industry self-regulation

- encouraging filtering tools and rating systems

- increasing awareness among users

- assessment of legal implications

- international cooperation

In conclusion, it would appear that a substantive lack of political will is being substituted by a sprouting multitude of paperwork.

6. Conclusions

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens´ Rights asks the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs to take account of the following conclusions:

1. The wording of the draft Joint Action is not sufficiently binding.

2. Some features of the draft Joint Action appear to be redundant in the light of earlier and forthcoming legislation.

3. The mandate of Europol should be expanded in accordance with the appropriate procedures in order to enable Europol to cover the issue of child pornography.

4. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens´ Rights asks the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs to include the following amendments in its report:

Citation 6a (new)

Recital 9

Article 1(1)

Article 1(2)

Article 1(3)

Article 2 (4)

Article 2 (6) (new)

Article 2 (7) (new)

Article 3, first phrase

Article 3 (2)

Article 5

Article 6a (new)

Go back to the start of this document.

Go back to the Policy Archives.

Go to FIPR home page.