Zvezna vlada kot zastopnica interesov dežel v ES in vprašanje televizijske direktive

Résumé Sl En

Zaradi potrebe po poenotenju področja radia in televizije je Komisija aprila leta 1986 predložila predlog t. i. televizijske direktive. Med drugim je predlog vseboval tudi določbe o minimalnih zahtevanih deležih (kvotah) »evropskih del« v skupnem oddajnem času televizijskih oz. radijskih hiš. Dežele ZRN so nasprotovale predlagani direktivi, saj so bile mnenja, da Evropska skupnost sploh nima pristojnosti urejati tega področja. Zavzele so trdno stališče, da radio in televizija spadata v področje kulture, ki pa je v njihovi izključni pristojnosti. Kljub začetnemu soglašanju Zvezne vlade s stališči dežel, se je le-ta kasneje od tega odmaknila. Pripoznala je pristojnost Skupnosti, da uredi področje radia in televizije, saj je to v skladu s pravni prakso sodišča ES, vendar pa je zanikala kvotno ureditev, saj bi šlo pri njej za poseg v vsebino kulturnega izražanja. Ker pa je kasneje ugotovila, da med preostalimi članicami ni zadostne politične volje, da bi zagotovile črtanje kvotne ureditve iz direktive, je od te zahteve odstopila in se zadovoljila s protokolarno izjavo Komisije in Sveta, da gre pri kvotni ureditvi zgolj za politično obvezo. Vendar je ocena Zvezne vlade, da zaradi sprejetja protokolarne izjave določba o kvotni ureditvi ne pomeni pravne obveze, dvomljiva. Iz določb same Pogodbe o ustanovitvi EGS-a kot tudi iz izjave Komisije je razvidno, da direktiva zavezuje v celoti. Zaradi tega je s soglasjem, ki ga je podala k direktivi, kršila pravice dežel, saj bi o njunih razlogih, ki so jo prisilili, da je opustila skupno stališče z deželami v škodo le-teh, morala pravočasno obvestiti Zvezni svet ter se z njim posvetovati.

In the early eighties it became necessary to harmonize the field of radio and television in the European Community. Therefore, in April 1986 the Commission submitted a proposal entitled the “television” directive. Among other things, it aimed to prescribe minimum quotas regarding the broadcasting of “European works” which had to be achieved by each radio or television station. The federal states of Germany opposed the proposal, since they were of the opinion that the Community had no competence to regulate this field. Their standpoint was that radio and television belong to the sphere of culture, the regulation of which remains in their sole competence. Although the Federal Government shared the same view as the federal states in the beginning, it later departed from it. The Federal Government acknowledged to the Community the competence to regulate the field of radio and television, since such a view was in conformity with the ruling of the ECJ. Nevertheless, the Federal Government denied the possibility of introducing quota-regulation, since it would represent an intervention in the area of cultural expression. However, it later realized that it would be impossible to achieve the abolition of the quota-regulation. Thus it retracted from its position and satisfied itself with a protocol of the Commission and the Council which stated that the quota-regulation represents only a political obligation. Yet the view of the Federal Government that the protocol deprives the quota-regulation of any binding force is questionable. As it can be inferred from the Treaty itself and also from the statement of the Commission, the directive is binding in all its parts. It follows that the consensus of the Federal Government for the adoption of the directive represents a breach of the federal states’ rights, since in cases when it must withdraw from the common standpoint reached with the federal states and when the withdrawal is to the federal states’ detriment, it must consult the Federal Council.